Submit Your Candidates for January 2006 Screwballs of the Month [Archive]

{Tim}

January 1st 2006, 05:30 AM

This actually happened late december, but it missed the december screwball thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1314109&postcount=28

Minnesota is taking issue with something Sheepdog wrote about inerrancy. He gets into a debate with Darth Executor, and starts complaining about the definition of "inerrancy", and what it really means. Darth proceeds to refer him to the chicago Statement. Minn's response? "I wasn't talking about that definition."

So evidently you're saying that when someone says the Bible is inerrant they DO NOT mean the "text is considered accurate, truthful, totally free of error, and without mistake," but something quite different. Interesting! Care to tell us what YOU think the term "inerrant" means? Or is it simply a matter of not having anything of value to add to the OP issue so you're reduced to disparaging a source regardless of whether or not it is correct. My, my, what a sorry life you lead, DE.Ever heard of the Chicago Statement you moron? No, that's not what inerracny means when it comes to the bible. Please educate yourself before you go off spewing nonsense.Knock, Knock anyone home in that rather empty brain of yours, or have all the little synapses and neurons gone on vacation? No one, most of all Master Sheepdog, ever qualified the term inerrancy to indicate it conformed to the Chicago Statement. That you do is fine, but so what? No one is talking about your definition of inerrancy.
:huh: :lolo: :lmbo:

There is also what is apparently a fairly screwy Christian, quoted in a thread by Minn: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68248. It seems this person wrote to a newspaper claiming that the "mark" that God placed on Cain was a sloped forehead, and that this was so that he would "fit in with the Neanderthal people".

Darth Executor

January 1st 2006, 05:35 PM

DJ feeds his ego in his new book:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1321703#post1321703

I was a Christian apologist with several master's degrees set for the express purpose of defending Christianity from intellectual attacks. . . . Now I turn that same intellectual muscle into questioning the things I formerly defended.

. . . I took the Graduate Record Exam (G.R.E.) that all college graduate take upon applying for higher-level master's degree programs. I scored close to a 90 percentile ranking when it came to "Analytical Skills". This guages your ability to analyze and think . . . . I have taught high school teachers how to think. I have taught detectives and aspiring lawyers all how to think.

I guess you'd have to agree that I am at least above average when it comes to thinking skills among present day Americans who are entertained by junk on TV, and cannot comprehend a mildly complex argument. Therefore, most Christian people in America who read my book, will not know what to do with my arguments.One major reason why I have become an atheist,(sic) is because even though I am above average as a thinker I could not answer the questions that I was encountering myself, so I became a doubter precisely because that's where the unanswerable questions led me. I couldn't answer them, and I'm above average, so those who are below average should be warned.

{Tim}

January 2nd 2006, 03:46 AM

Have we had that "$10,000 if you can disprove my ultimate proof for God (but I'll ban you from my site if it looks even remotely like you disagree with me)" guy?

I can find the thread, if we haven't... (he actually started three of them, identical, but we matrixed him and merged them into one :hehe:)

Darth Executor

January 2nd 2006, 07:28 PM

dlw, for thinking the Holy Spirit moderates his posts:

I don't remember it, but I'm sure glad I got convicted by the Spirit and decided to delete it

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1322950

jpholding

January 3rd 2006, 09:50 AM

Award to http://www.jdstone.org who sent me the following as the sort of comments that he felt "refuted" http://www.tektonics.org/af/eunicize.html (my commentary which he commented on in italics as needed to contextualize):

Holding -- the idiot - refuses to read what is red lettered -- jezuz's words in their inerrant holey babble!

Whoa! Who need an "opinion" when you have jezuz' own words -- words that have stood for 394 years in the KJV.

However, looking more deeply into the context, we see that this refers not exclusively to castration, but to celibacy as well.

Bull Hockey JP! Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt. Even your own Strong's shows that "castration is castration is castration" throughout your xian bible -- not celibacy, never celibacy. But, when one cuts his **ts off, he will probably be celibate. Good idea for catholic priests. JO, did you ever hear of the castrati?

The catholics took old Jezuz' words to heart and castrated young boys for "the sake of heaven."

JP, you remind me of that great xian apologist -- George Castanza who -- like you -- said ""Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you really believe it's true."

We know that the Jews were horrified by castration (cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.270-1; though eunuchs were well-respected, and trusted, in some Ancient Near Eastern societies). Indeed, how could someone have been "castrated" from their mother's womb?

**mn JP, I though the holey trinity could do anything -- like a virgin birth -- guess the holey ghast could deform a fetus...

JP, you should quit while you are ahead. The new testament and jezuz is fiction -- no more real than "The Memoirs of the Tooth Fairy." That is why you are employed full time in futile attempts to cover this crap up! Your premise of a jezuz is rejected in its entirety.

Blah, blah, blah -- yada, yada, yada! And you have said absolutely nothing! Really you are really rather pathetic in your feeble attempts to force lies on the public. They have been screwed for 2,000 years by the best -- the catholic theocracy, the protestant clergy, theologians and missionaries. And when literacy finally came to the people, xianity spawned a generation of leeches (apologists) trying to repackage the lies and force feed them to a gullible audience.

Sorry Jack (JP) , the game is over. People no longer have to remain ignorant with blind faith -- jezuz intoxicated. People are using their heads for something besides a hat rack; they are beginning to think on their own for once. Your cover-ups (excuses) and lies no longer work. You are irrelevant! You are history! You are a loser!

***

Based on this, he says he "won" a debate with me. :twitch:

He uses JM Robertson as a source to declare that Josephus' passage on Jesus is a total forgery.

He also declined an invitation to come here and get laughed at. :lol:

{Tim}

January 3rd 2006, 10:27 AM

:lol:

Zipperhead is being, well, a Zipperhead, again. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1323351&postcount=23)
Nonsense. The words translated "hate" denote the same state of mind that our "modern" definitions for "hate" do. What you just said amounts to nothing more than a flat out denial of what Scripture says in many places.

Darth Executor

January 3rd 2006, 12:31 PM

LakeGeorgeMan came back and it looks like he's going for the gold:

The Jews...the people who knew Paul best, the people who trained him in the teachings of the Jewish scriptures, didn't believe he spoke for their god. They rejected him and his exegesis and his authority.

Which jews would that be? The apostles? For such a "learned" man he sure doesn't know much... like the fact that early Christians were Jews and were considered Jews by everyone else.

Darth Executor

January 3rd 2006, 03:00 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World

Not sure who to give the nomination to: the atheist or the Italian courts?

Cynic Sage

January 3rd 2006, 05:33 PM

Award to http://www.jdstone.org (http://www.jdstone.org/) who sent me the following as the sort of comments that he felt "refuted" http://www.tektonics.org/af/eunicize.html

What is it about nutjob websites and background music?

BronzeArcher

January 4th 2006, 01:41 AM

This is whacked. It was posted at my university forum

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.

I entirely disagree with the first claim. I believe I know more intelligent and sharper atheists. The kind that actually defend their assumptions. You should see how he starts off. It's the PoE, but based on the rhetoric it's the emotional version. He should have said the girl likes flowers.

Also, refusing to deny the obvious is a philosophy. It's an epistemological rule that says (however the formulation is) you should not deny what you have overwhelming evidence for. I think 'atheism is not a philosophy' is coherent on certain definitions of philosophy, but statistically, those are far less used...

Apolocaust

January 4th 2006, 02:22 PM

Christian Forums is game for the Screwballs, right? If so, here's my nomination! From vincejohn in this thread about what Jesus looked like (http://www.christianforums.com/t2478325-was-jesus-handsome.html):

No he didnt look like a middle eastern dark Jew because God the Father was His actual Father. Mary was just the mother. So no DNA of an earthly man was ever passed through. I have seen Jesus on His throne. He has a strong chiseled face like a young Marlon Brando. Fair colored hair up to his colar and no beard. His eyes are endless and terrifying to behold. I was brought to my knees and totally speechless. This was a true vision while in a lot of trouble and meditating in prayer when I was brought before His throne. I have seen God the Son face to face Jan 1999.

jpholding

January 4th 2006, 02:23 PM

What is it about nutjob websites and background music?

I wouldn't know, I never turn on my speakers. :lol:

Johnny, when you gonna weigh in on Shrike Team #1, eh? :wink:

Mail too good to keep here:

Sorry my friend your prose on Tom Harpers Pagan Christ did nothing for me. I'm certainly no authority concerning historical theology, but I have read many books regarding the Gnostic gospels and some of Carl Jungs writings. Prove to me that Jesus was a historical person? Prove to me that he died on the cross and came to life the next day? Don't tell me its faith. Really though thats all you have is faith that it is true.

I was raised evangelical. I hated every minute I was associated with this cult of Christianity. I find evangelicals imperialists trying to take over the world, nothing different than Nazi Germany. Haper is right that the world will never have peace until we unite are religous differences.

The bottom line is that Haper called Christianity from under the carpet. He is right on the money. I personaly believe everything he said and so should you.

Yeah, my article really did do nothing for him. It didn't even teach him to spell Harpur's name correctly. :rofl:

jpholding

January 5th 2006, 10:34 AM

I'm working on the parody of Marshall Brain's "Why Does God Hate Amputees" and the man sometimes is a parody of himself. In one chapter he whines about the "arrogance of the faithful" and in the next chpater he makes this statement:

You already know that God is imaginary. You see it every day. All that I am asking you to do is acknowledge the truth at a conscious level so that you can become a normal human being.

The man really does have some serious psychological issues. Maybe we'd better pray for him. :lolo:

Cynic Sage

January 5th 2006, 04:08 PM

EDIT: Strike the Taoist nomination, turns out he is asking real questions in that thread.

jpholding

January 5th 2006, 04:12 PM

I'm finding something odd about Mushfer Brains' articles. He has little "extras" hidden in the text that you can't see with a browser, but can read in an HTML editor. (For HTML junkies, this is done by using a pointed bracket, then an exclamation point, then dashes...) For example, in his article on slavery, this is a "hidden" piece:

If you are a Christian, you now have a major problem: We have just proven that God did not write the Bible. You have to solve this problem -- if men wrote the Bible rather than God, Christianity is dead. So you do one of two things with these passages:
*You simply ignore the fact that God condones slavery in the Bible. You continue to believe in God and the Bible anyway. If someone asks you about all of the pro-slavery passages in the Bible, you change the subject. Or you accuse the person of blasphemy.
*You try to come up with incredibly convoluted explanations for the pro-slavery passages in the Bible. You try to find some sort of bizarre rationalization to explain away an all-loving God who openly advocates slavery in both the Old and New Testaments.

Oops. How about #3 -- a trip behind the woodshed to Glenn's ThinkTank article... :lol:

Cynic Sage

January 6th 2006, 12:45 AM

The ironically titled "Wiseman", in response to Mentalist posing the question of salvic states of people pre-dating Christ:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68453

I would think that god would have judged people individually based on how they lived their lives and then decide upon that. If god truly is wise then he would do as I do.

:lmbo:

Cynic Sage

January 6th 2006, 12:49 AM

Raptor

January 6th 2006, 12:50 AM

The ironically titled "Wiseman", in response to Mentalist posing the question of salvic states of people pre-dating Christ:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68453

:lmbo:
So far, wiseman has a tendency to refer to himself in the 3rd person.

jpholding

January 6th 2006, 11:42 AM

Odd. I didn't expect that. Why would he do that? No-one can read it. :hrm:

I think he's wary about putting up certain things but wants to keep them in the text. He doesn't seem to have any conception of keeping second copies of files.

jpholding

January 6th 2006, 01:32 PM

Uggggggh. Mr. Brain is definitely getting a lifetime achievement award. This is his "reply" to someone who offered an answer on 1 Cor. 14's "women, shut up" verse -- it wasn't the same as the one Glenn and I use (Paul is quoting opponents) but it doesn't change the depths of Mr. Brain's idiocy:

A religious person might try to justify these sexist portions of the Bible by saying, "well, if you look at the original Greek verb that Paul used, you can see that it is written in the present infinitive. If Paul had meant for this passage to apply to us today, he would have used the aorist infinitive." [<a href="http://www.kencollins.com/question-32.htm">ref</a>] What does your common sense tell you about this sort of explanation? It probably tells you that, regardless of verb tense, the Bible's intent is obvious. It probably also tells you that an all-knowing God, if he was going to write a book, would understand that when you say, "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission," people are going to pick up on the general gist of what you are saying, rather than nit-picking the verb tense.

:lolo: "Common sense". Riiiight. Let's just throw out our Greek grammars and GR rhetorical handbooks and use "common sense" then.

Update -- and now, I just found him seriously suggesting that God could have told the ancient Israelites how to build a "Star Trek tricorder".

Darth Executor

January 6th 2006, 03:23 PM

Tricorder? I'm more modest than that. I just wish God would give me a couple thousand bucks and some pizza and beer.

jpholding

January 6th 2006, 03:29 PM

Uh oh, Mr. Brain's starting to foam at the mouth now...

Now it is easy to see that the Book of Revelation is a work of pure fiction, possibly drug-induced.

If a presidential candidate were to stand up and say, "the alignment of the planets indicates that in foreign policy, we should follow a path that…," or if he/she were to end a speech with "Jupiter bless America," we would not vote for this candidate...People who believe in the Bible are in the same boat. Why would we listen to anyone who believes in slavery, hates women and supports a God who is a flagrant baby-killer? Do we want people like that holding public office, sitting on our courts, running our corporations or teaching our children?

The Bible is clearly the work of primitive men, many of whom were insane. Anyone with common sense can see that. Exodus 21:20-21 alone is enough to prove it. When people insist that the Bible is the word of God, we should ignore them and exclude them from public discourse. It's a free country, and people have a right to their superstitions in the privacy of their own homes. But no one is required to take them seriously in a public forum.

I think I'd better get a mop and bucket to take care of all that spittle on the floor at his feet. :lmbo:

Darth Executor

January 6th 2006, 04:40 PM

Uh oh, Mr. Brain's starting to foam at the mouth now...

I think I'd better get a mop and bucket to take care of all that spittle on the floor at his feet. :lmbo:

:lmbo:

Darth Executor

January 6th 2006, 04:56 PM

I had to go back to gamefaqs for a minute...

Again, you need a 2+ days old account to see this:

I assume you mean we wouldn't be here because god created us, correct? Then who created god?

I don't think a god exists. And if it exists, we should destroy it.

We must put an end to that mental slavery known as religion.

Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If god has no free will god is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If god stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if god stands above all dimensions god is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void!

...

Besides there can exist no free wills at all if god is almighty. If you had a free will, god wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent.

...

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?

My thesis is that people who claim to believe in god do not really do so. They just wish to believe in god. They somehow feel that their lives are meaningless without god, so they choose to close their eyes to evidence against the existence of god.
/\
|
Johnny's signature goes well here.

It's as clear as it can be! For a christian you accept the "truth" according to your moral, and then have to be strong in your faith to keep your believes. You decide a priori what to believe and then try to convince yourself and others that it is true. But theists don't really believe, because to believe something is to take it for true, and just like in Nazareth's song Sold my soul there is no sign of god in the world. When you have the evidence for and against something your sub-conscious works on it and makes a conclusion. The process can't be affected by your will, only delayed or suppressed, which will lead to psychoses, and those are far more common among (catholic) priests than any other group..

I have personal experience of this believing what you want to believe. When I was a child I believed in a lot of crazy things. I thought my stuffed animals were intelligent. I believed in Santa Claus. I thought there were monsters under my bed at night. I even believed in god after I heard some of the tales from the old testament. Then I became older and realized that these things weren't true. When I look back I don't understand how I could believe in them, it must have been that I wanted to do so. (Except for the monsters, which had to do with fear of the dark)

When many religious people are confronted with criticism of their religion they convert to atheism or agnosticism. Examples of people who became critical to the dogmas of christianity are Charles Darwin (Darwin, 1958), Dan Barker (Barker, 19??), Ernest Renan plus many former "Catholic modernists" in the 19th century such as Alfred Loisy and Antonio Fogazzaro (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). The Catholic modernism evolved in the late 19th century and was banned in 1907 by the Vatican (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). These people are to me clear evidence that an enlightened person will after considering the facts, reject christianity and other religions that contain deities.

Note: This is not the "Plead to authority" fallacy. I'm talking people here, who were trying to prove the existence of god and turned atheists. They did not want to do this, but had to after reading a lot of books and doing a lot of thinking on the subject.

Looks like he's been reading too much Doubting John. :lol:

Darth Executor

January 6th 2006, 05:16 PM

By the way, I made an animated DJ head.

[attachment=1]

spl_cadet

January 6th 2006, 05:49 PM

Can I nominate this entire thread?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=83199

Doubting John

January 6th 2006, 06:18 PM

Can I nominate this entire thread?

Since my master DJ has made it once again into this thread, and since spl_cadet had just nominated a whole thread, albeit a different one, let me nominate this whole Screwball Nomination thread. Ye(l)p! This whole thread deserves the screwball award! Every month. All year long! Every year!

Bark! Bark

Cynic Sage

January 6th 2006, 06:22 PM

Since my master DJ has made it once again into this thread, and since spl_cadet had just nominated a whole thread, albeit a different one, let me nominate this whole Screwball Nomination thread. Ye(l)p! This whole thread deserves the screwball award! Every month. All year long! Every year!

Bark! Bark
We finally did it. We drove him crazy. He now thinks he's a dog.

Doubting John

January 6th 2006, 06:22 PM

By the way, I made an animated DJ head.

Darth, my young son, get a job. You have way too much time on your hands. Be productive with that Christian calling of yours, and rather than spend it all day here, do something for your neighbor, or volunteer for your pastor.

Or you could just take me for a walk! I'll try not to pee on you too much. :teeth:

Bark! Bark!

Franky.

Doubting John

January 6th 2006, 06:25 PM

We finally did it. We drove him crazy. He now thinks he's a dog.

:huh:

But I am a dog. My name is Franky. Don't you know anything?

:duh:

Darth Executor

January 6th 2006, 06:27 PM

love-warrior:

All property ulitmately belongs to God. Private property is something that is justified by virtue of human sinfulness and to facilitate the decentralization of decision-making/creativity.

TuckEverlasting

January 6th 2006, 06:33 PM

love-warrior:

I'm not sure that's so screwy. I'm still thinking about it.

Darth Executor

January 6th 2006, 07:00 PM

I'm not sure that's so screwy. I'm still thinking about it.

Dude, "private property is sinful" is screwy, trust me.

TuckEverlasting

January 6th 2006, 07:02 PM

Dude, "private property is sinful" is screwy, trust me.

Yeah, but that's not what he said. But I'll go away now. :outtie:

JSDileo

January 6th 2006, 07:12 PM

OH! OH! ME! I got one! Check this out:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0335345/board/inline/32394509?d=32426089#32426089

Re: Jesus = No Proof
by - chickenhawkx3 (Wed Dec 28 2005 08:50:07)

I can help.

One source outside the Bible that “mentions” Jesus is that of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and his “Testamonium Flavianum”

While there are references to Jesus there is doubt on what they say, as passages have been added by later Christian copyists:

The words in ALL CAPS (below) are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as THE CHRIST. We have only three Greek manuscripts of this section of Josephus, all from the 11th century. These phrases, added rather clumsily, appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English…if you are able to read the original Greek, the additions are patently obvious - errors in expression and continuity in the text.

Josephus with the “DOCTORINGS”… in CAPITALS:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century C.E. It has obviously not been doctored in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:

His 1971 translation reads:
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders".

You must be very careful when you use Josephus to "prove" that Yeshua ben Yosef was the CHRIST....Josephus wrote nothing of the sort! He merely makes mention of a 'wise man' who was condemned, crucified and there were 'reports' of his still being alive....no mention of any resurrection, ascent into heaven etc, etc, etc - all these are later abstractions.

Couple that with what SOME scholars claim are mistranslations in Tacitus' 'Annales' - Tacitus NEVER mentions the word 'Christus' (Christ)....he writes 'Christos' - a person know to him, by name.

I teach ancient history. The trouble with it - all history for that matter – as Dr Goebbles, Hitler’s Minister for Propaganda and Enlightenment wrote, if a lie is repeated long enough and frequently enough, it becomes accepted as fact.

None whatsoever in the Roman records (well preserved and extensive) of that time...no mention of Jesus, miracles, his apostles, the crucifixion. Certainly nothing that is not ‘tainted’ (such as the Testamonium Flavianum of Flavius Josephus or Cornelius Tacitus’ supposed reference to ‘Christus’). Nothing from chroniclers. No mention in private papers of prominent individuals of that time.

So the Josephus account is, at best, hearsay. He's simply reporting on what other people told him they believed. He knew full well that this Jesus couldn't possibly be the real Messiah, as he was an observant Jew.

Furthermore, since the passage has obviously been tampered with, and since copies weren't discovered until almost 1,000 years after they were supposedly written, it is a form of evidence that wouldn't even be considered for admission in a court of law or any other. The people who are overly attached to it are the ones who will take anything they see as validation of their religion's figurehead, regardless of whether it's meaningful or not.

And finally, you have great Christian copyists like Eusebius, who proudly boasted of discarding any sources unfavorable to the beliefs of the emerging Christian church, and of embellishing anything favorable to make it more so. Many sources were unknown before the time of Eusebius, and only became known through Eusebius's own writings. Hmmmmm...wonder why.

She actually thinks that the fact that there aren't any obvious Christian interpolations in the Arabic Testimonium is proof of its invalidity!:lol: I've debated this woman before, she's a total nutjob.:yes:

Sparko

January 6th 2006, 08:02 PM

Zarathrusta thinks that God promising death to Adam if he ate from the tree made the tree tempting and therefore God tempted Adam...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1328785&postcount=20

Quote: Originally posted by Sparko

No he said the "reward" would be death.

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

My mistake, yet it does little to change my argument. God set a reward for the consumption; Their death. Hence the fruit became tempting.

JSDileo

January 6th 2006, 08:05 PM

Christy

January 7th 2006, 02:28 AM

Can I nominate myself?

jpholding

January 7th 2006, 11:36 AM

We finally did it. We drove him crazy. He now thinks he's a dog.

Nah. He's just trying to steal the idea of me having Sheila do the talking.

On the other hand, his posts HAVE shown a bit more intelligence since Franky came on board. Hmmm.

jpholding

January 7th 2006, 11:36 AM

Can I nominate myself?

NO. :twitch: What one earth for?????

JSDileo

January 7th 2006, 12:29 PM

NO. :twitch: What one earth for?????

For not having a face I guess.:idea:

Cynic Sage

January 7th 2006, 04:28 PM

For not having a face I guess.:idea:

Facey Facey No-Face has no Face!

[attachment]

Now it's official. I am a cruel person. :teeth:

Christy

January 7th 2006, 04:43 PM

Facey Facey No-Face has no Face!

[attachment]

Now it's official. I am a cruel person. :teeth:
:lol:

Cynic Sage

January 7th 2006, 04:52 PM

Cognos, for his thread titled "Why did Saul's apparition not eat broiled fish?":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68692

Summary:
Luke 24
Jesus appears in the flesh to the Eleven, shows them his hands and his feet, and eats a piece of broiled fish.

John 21
Jesus, standing on the shore, appears to his disciples, and gives them bread and fish.

Acts 1
Jesus is eating with the disciples and later he disappears in a cloud.

Acts 9
Saul sees a light and he falls to the ground and hears Jesus talking to him. ("The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. ")

Acts 26
Saul sees a light, he and his companions fall to the ground, and he hears Jesus talk to him.

Galatians 1
Paul says that he received the Gospel by relevation from Jesus Christ. (No lying!)

1 Corinthians 15
Pauls says that Christ appeared to Peter, the Twelve, five hundred brothers, to James, then to all the apostles, and then to Paul. The passage suggests that Jesus appeared to Paul in a way that was similar (or even the same) as how he appeared to the various disciples. But, according to Luke (in Acts), Jesus had gone up in a cloud before he appeared to Paul.

So, when Jesus appeared/spoke to Saul/Paul, where was his resurrected body?

CoM, Darth, and Jill Pole explain to him that Paul saw a vision on Damascus road. But Cog still thinks this is a good argument against the resurrection.

jpholding

January 7th 2006, 06:07 PM

Facey Facey No-Face has no Face!

Huh? What was the question? :huh:

Cynic Sage

January 7th 2006, 07:21 PM

Huh? What was the question? :huh:
Scroll above my post, JP.

Cynic Sage

January 7th 2006, 07:59 PM

Rationalist, on how God's authority is "illegitimate":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68439

If YHWH did indeed create the heavens and the earth as the Bible claims, then by default, he's got a pretty good claim to legitimate authority. If he did not create the earth, then he has no authority.

Creating something doesn't grant one authority over it. You can create a house, a company, a work of art and not have automatic authority to do whatever you wish to it.
...

Nobody has granted God any such authority, nor is it really provably in our best interests to do so; God's whims being as capricious as they are. The only form of authority God can excercise is through use of force.

Now if he would agree to some form of contract with us, I'm sure we could arrange to grant a being of his power and abilities some sort of useful position based on our common good. Barring that, he has no legitimate authority.

"We could put him in charge of accounting at first. And if he shows us a good performance we'll put him in upper management." :lmbo:

Darth Executor

January 7th 2006, 08:52 PM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=36615&page=2&pp=16

I got one

Zoroastriumism is the best argument for Christianity

apparently... (and quite possibly up to 2000 years before the world was created) someone prophesized Jesus Christ.... His name was Zorothursta

is it the discordianism in me that makes me want to call him Zorothruster?

just a little joke... for all I know I could be wrong here just read in Zoroastriumism (am I even spelling it right) that a man of virgin birth would be born to help contribute to most against an evil god (>.> well... the new testiment did replace the old testiment).

:lolo:

jpholding

January 7th 2006, 10:29 PM

Scroll above my post, JP.

That was a joke on the name of the faceless hero...

Darth Executor

January 8th 2006, 06:36 PM

Oh yeah, I just realised there was no atheist survivor update last month. :whack:

Cynic Sage

January 8th 2006, 07:48 PM

Dienekes, on how the Crusades were originally Constantine vs. the Mongols:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=48327

The first war started with a letter from Constantinople to Rome asking for help from the possibility of a MONGOL invasion above the Islamic Empire. The letter aparently asked for around 200-300 heavy cavalry knights to help patrol the border. The Pope however had a completely different idea and jumped on it (many speculate that one of the cardinals whose name I have completely forgotten was really the mastermind) he went out to the streets of Rome and gave a huge speech to everyone that anyone who fought in a Crusade to fight the Muslims and create a military buffer state that would have a higher chance of stopping the Mongols would immediatly go to Heaven when they die and they would not have to pay for any indulgences against past sins.

Needless to say when an entire army came to Constantinople instead of 300 knights the Emperor went into histerics especially since the leader of this army was Bohemund (I believe it was this guy, I have a tendency to get my Normans confused) a Norman and rival of the Emperor.

Constantine then sent another letter to the Pope discusing these problems and they both came together and the idea of Freeing Jerusalem of the infidel.

After this both the Pope and Constantine started the propaganda of the evil Islams who would eat babies and so forth, however it is not as well known that the Muslim people were not blind to the gathering of the army and were starting relatively the same rumors about the "evil Franks" (there word for Eastern Europeans)

:rofl:

Darth Executor

January 8th 2006, 07:53 PM

Dienekes, on how the Crusades were originally Constantine vs. the Mongols:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=48327

:rofl:

:lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo:

Sparko

January 8th 2006, 08:37 PM

Dienekes, on how the Crusades were originally Constantine vs. the Mongols:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=48327

:rofl:

:shocked:

jpholding

January 9th 2006, 12:16 PM

Oh yeah, I just realised there was no atheist survivor update last month. :whack:

I'm finding Range Patrol #2 far too engaging to break off to draw ugly characters. :hehe: I mean, come on. Would YOU rather draw Sheila, or LGM? Annabelle, or Dan? Heck -- Bimf, or Babinski for that matter....

When I get to it again I'll probably do Ted Bell's entry.

Darth Executor

January 9th 2006, 01:02 PM

I mean, come on. Would YOU rather draw Sheila, or LGM?

Point taken. :tongue:

jpholding

January 9th 2006, 03:15 PM

I thoght Mr. Brain couldn't get any worse. He's getting even closer to rock bottom than I could have believed:

If you are curious, here is why Christianity contains this bizarre ritual. It is not the case that an all-powerful God in heaven demands this behavior. All of the rituals in Christianity are completely man-made. Christianity is a snow ball that rolled over a dozen pagan religions. As the snowball grew, it freely attached pagan rituals in order to be more palatable to converts. The process is described succinctly and accurately in the book "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown.

This deserves this:

Cynic Sage

January 9th 2006, 04:28 PM

Sherry Shriner:

http://www.hiddencodes.com/

The Apostle Paul is the devil because her hebrew word-search puzzle says so.

http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm

Turns out that not only Rock Music is of the Devil, but Country music as well.

http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/control.htm

Aliens or fallen angels refer to this energy as loosh and they operate in the same way as the Luciferians do.

...

To obtain loosh people must be deceived, used, abused, manipulated, and even killed in order to become this energy source which is a food source for Luciferians who feed off of other peoples emotions. It can come from deception or terror and horror or any number of ways and I'm going to try and pinpoint these from what I have learned.

...

Another way to create loosh is through rock, rap, country, or any kind of music and the musicians who create it are rewarded for it. For those who are in the Luciferian system they feed off the emotions their music creates and how it affects those who listen to it. They get their loosh and Satanic rewards in that way.

Wow, who woulda thought that King David and the sons of Korah were secretly Satanists.:ahem:

What a load of BS, everybody knows that only Country Music is of Satan. :lol:

Also a "prophecy" that came to her while she was watching "The Twillight Zone":

http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/to-serve-man.htm

An ironic one where she warns about the "Lunatic Fringe":

http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/lunatic-fringe.htm

And you definately know you're a whackjob conspiracy-theorist when you post this on your site:

http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/chips.htm

Darth Executor

January 9th 2006, 04:41 PM

And you definately know you're a whackjob conspiracy-theorist when you post this on your site:

http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/chips.htm

Look at the bright side: where I come from, we elect these kind of nutjobs to government positions.

Sparko

January 9th 2006, 04:48 PM

Cynic Sage

January 9th 2006, 07:27 PM

Richard Dawkins appears on TV to blame everything bad in the world on religion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1681002,00.html

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/index.html

And does he ever look like he's in a foul mood (probably needs more bran in his diet). [attachment=1]

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/rootofevil.html

In this two-part Channel 4 series, Professor Richard Dawkins challenges what he describes as 'a process of non-thinking called faith'. Dawkins is well known for bringing to a wide audience the complex scientific concepts that underpin evolution. His first book, The Selfish Gene (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/findout/books.html#selfishgene) was an international bestseller.

...

Sigh!

Somebody get the good doctor a Greek Lexicon before he makes a fool of himself by mouthing off on subject matter he knows nothing about.

In addition, though religions preach morality, peace and hope, in fact, says Dawkins, they bring intolerance, violence and destruction. The growth of extreme fundamentalism in so many religions across the world not only endangers humanity but, he argues, is in conflict with the trend over thousands of years of history for humanity to progress – to become more enlightened and more tolerant.

To late...

And pity. If Dawkins has his way, people will have to resort to being intolerant, violent, and destructive for purely secular reasons.:ahem:

He explores the state of the three Abrahamic religions in the world today, from the political influence of rich and powerful Christian fundamentalist institutions in America to the deadly clash of Judaism (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/religion/r-jewish.html), Christianity (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/religion/r-christian.html) and Islam (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/religion/r-muslim.html) in the Middle East. He describes the Holy Land as the least enlightened place in the world, a microcosm of the threat to rational values and civilisation posed by religion, whose irrational roots, he says, are nourishing intolerance and murder.

I really don't understand how he came to this conclusion, considering how Israel was the first nation to be democratic in the middle-east. Still he wins the "Middle Eastern Savages are so barbaric and stupid. I'm going to apply lead-based powder to my face to make me look pretty for the ball" Enlightened person awardTM.

[attachment=2]

There are plenty of characters to illustrate his thesis. There are fanatics, like the former West Bank settler who has taken the small step of converting from Jewish fundamentalist to Muslim fundamentalist, transferring his hatred from one side of the looking glass to the other. And the frighteningly charismatic leader of America's National Association of Evangelicals, who believes he has been chosen by God to convert Americans through religious gatherings that resemble rock concerts – though to Dawkins they feel more reminiscent of Nuremberg rallies.

"And the former fundamentalist YEC who has taken the small step of converting from Christian Fundamentalist to Athiest Fundamentalist, transferring his hatred from one side of the looking glass to the other as he speaks outside his field of expertise and sets up people he disagree's with as scapegoats for all the world's problems."

Seriously. "There are Fanatics"? I guess the athiest conspiracy whackjob who owns the website that says that the pope is a Space Lizard now counts as proof against athiesm.

Then there are the desperate, like those carrying burdens of disability or disease, who are among the 80,000 people a year who make the pilgrimage to Lourdes. Dawkins does the maths: out of the millions who, over a century, have placed their faith in a miracle restoring them to good health, there have been only 66 authenticated cures. This is hardly a strong record, he says, arguing that it is better for us to embrace truth than false hope.

"Then there are the desperate, like those who fallaciously assume that since Miracle claim "A" is false "B" through "Z" are also false. And those who think it is more productive to ones position to play the "Hitler-blame game" than to discuss things like textual-criticism and social-science factors."

I'm also a wee bit curious about Dawkin's reaction to the 66 authenticated cures? :hrm:

Having a sense of one's place in the world is important to everyone but has particular significance for minorities and peoples under political, economic or military pressure. Individuals may even accept Dawkins' atheistic and scientific deconstruction of the myths they have grown up with but still defend and nurture the matrix of institutions, practices and relationships which make them who they are.

Translation: "There are actual athiests out there who aren't so hung up on their fundy upbringing that they would want to scapegoat everything wrong in the world on institutions or sets of people that they happen to disagree with."

Alright everyone, to the tune of "Blame Canada"

:em7: :mm: :whistle:
Blame Christianity
Blame Christianity

Darth Executor

January 9th 2006, 08:03 PM

You should see the part in The Blind Watchmaker where he thinks Ezekiel is a necromancer...

TuckEverlasting

January 9th 2006, 08:12 PM

I found Dawkins' long-lost twin brother:

Cynic Sage

January 10th 2006, 04:23 PM

I found Dawkins' long-lost twin brother:

Is that the good one? :hehe:

Cynic Sage

January 10th 2006, 05:30 PM

I pity this guy's kids:

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=55&tx_ttnews[swords]=To%20Train%20Up%20a%20Child&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=208&tx_ttnews=118&tx_ttnews[sViewPointer]=1&cHash=8f9d75cd69

Two things. First, please DO regulate their environment and associations. Over the years as our children were growing up, Deb and I offended about every family member and some of our friends by being “overprotective” of the innocent charges God sent into our care. We guarded them from any suspect company and thoughtfully planned their associations. We have not trusted, “good Christian families.” We have not participated in churches where the children were separated from us. After church, we watched them and their associations. When kids stop running around in circles, screaming, and start talking, or drawing aside, you’ve likely got the beginning of troubles brewing. Keep the little ones standing right beside you after church. They should always sit with you, never with their friends. If they go out to the bathroom, go with them. Never allow them to spend the night with friends or cousins. Slumber parties are sin parties. Never allow them to listen to music through headphones. Three-minute phone conversations, no chat rooms, no surfing the web for any reason. Parents should make it physically impossible for them to even access the web. We didn’t allow our children to spend time in their bedrooms unless they were working on a project or reading. Bedroom doors were always kept open, except for two minutes while dressing.

And the sick thing is that they run a parenting magazine and have authored a book called "To Train up a Child (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1892112000/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-7349613-3342229?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER)", fortunately, I have found a review of it here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15478&page=1&pp=15

NOTE: The following people quoted are not screwballs.

Yesterday while visiting another forum, the topic of discipline came up. Someone posted this link (http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=11) and recommended the book it describes titled [b]"To Train Up a Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl. I had heard of this book before, and this link allows you to read chapter one.

All I can say is, one chapter of this nonsense was enough!

These people advocated having training sessions by putting desirable objects in the child's reach for the purpose of using a switch on the baby's hand (if they don't respond to no) to try and teach it not to touch desirable objects.

They also talked about having training sessions in order to train a baby to come when called, which would end up in swatting the baby with a switch if the baby didn't listen. This would be done by putting a child alone in a room with a desirable toy - again - another cruel method for the sole purpose of setting the child up to fail to administer training. The first few times, if the baby didn't come on demand, the father would go over and give the 10 or 12 month old an "explanation" of what is expected of him. HA - I can just imagine someone being dumb enough to try this and then have the baby look at you as if it's thinking "What are you talking about?" Many babies aren't even walking yet at that age. The book called this "booty camp" - although the example they gave was for 10 - 12 month olds. ("Toddlers" the book called them)

I'm not saying I'm against discipline, but a baby who doesn't understand, and an older toddler or child who is trying to manipulate their parents and misbehave are very different situations. A young baby just wants it's needs met and is not capable of trying to manipulate anyone.

Newborn training

OK this is the year 2004 for crying out loud. Surely by the time the 90's came around, the "spoil that baby" myth was debunked. I thought almost everyone knew by now that you can't spoil a baby by meeting it's needs and loving it! A newborn's wants are it's needs, yet this book warns against the mother picking up the crying child from the crib and encourages letting the newborn cry.

Children are precious gifts from the Lord and should not be treated like animals, or worse. A mother has to go against her motherly instinct to and harden her heart to ignore a crying baby.

I visit alot of forums that have to do with parenting. A while back, a new mother was bragging how she was "sleep training" her new baby boy. She apparently thought that parenting is a day job, and would confine her baby all alone to the crib from 6 PM to 6 AM. The poor child must have been scared to death. She did mention that she goes in there once during the 12 hour period to change his diaper. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

That is one example of many cruel parenting blunders I have read about by visiting forums. The way some people treat their children makes me sick.

Studies have debunked the "spoiling" myth and proven that babies whose needs are met and who are held alot and loved, grow to be independant, happy and secure. (I just love when it takes a study to prove what should be common sense)

Another thing is, a newborn's stomach is the size of a cherry. They need to be fed every 2 or 3 hours. Some people don't want to have to deal with their children and don't feed them on demand. That is so cruel. And the sad thing is, there are books out there encouraging people to treat their children this way. Some of the authors claim to be Christians - yet I know God doesn't want us to neglect our children. It's so sad to read the stories of babies getting dehydrated, and failing to thrive and gain weight, because the parent's read some bogus book by someone claiming to be an expert and a Christian. Do a search for Ezzo's babywise if you aren't familiar and you will see what I mean.

From reading many, many reviews by people who have read the entire book, the Perls reportedly describe in their book some very disgusting forms of abuse. Here are just a few examples, that people who read the whole thing said were included:

-Mrs Perl whipping a 15 month old 10 times for not obeying her command to play with a toy

-recommends a swift forceful spanking for a toddler having a tantrum until they stop screaming from the torture and it turns into a wounded, submissive wimper.....also reportedly says not to hesitate to sit on the child if you need to in order to spank

-recommends tripping a non swimming toddler into deep water

-recommends hitting an infant for screaming, for not being able to sleep, and for crying for it's mother

-says ALL babies should be whipped into complete submission for every transgression

Wow http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/smilies/crying.gif I thought the first chapter was bad. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/smilies/reallymad.gif This is child abuse. These kind of books shouldn't even be in print. Shame on them for trying to use the Bible as endorsement for abuse.

A couple more things I noticed from reading the first chapter:

1. The Perls described how they used a 12 inch long, 1/8 inch diameter switch on their 5 month old daughter's bare legs to try to stop her from climbing stairs. They even admitted that her young brain didn't seem to understand the association.

2. The story about the Amish guy with the 12 month old. The baby wanted to get down from his lap and he spanked it 15 times in 45 minutes for trying to get down or for turning toward it's mother. The Perls said he had realized the importance of this from training horses and mules. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Anyone with a clue would know that the baby obviously didn't understand why it was being spanked. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/smilies/kookoo.gif

JSDileo

January 10th 2006, 05:41 PM

I pity this guy's kids:

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=55&tx_ttnews[swords]=To%20Train%20Up%20a%20Child&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=208&tx_ttnews[backPid]=118&tx_ttnews[sViewPointer]=1&cHash=8f9d75cd69

Two things. First, please DO regulate their environment and associations. Over the years as our children were growing up, Deb and I offended about every family member and some of our friends by being “overprotective” of the innocent charges God sent into our care. We guarded them from any suspect company and thoughtfully planned their associations. We have not trusted, “good Christian families.” We have not participated in churches where the children were separated from us. After church, we watched them and their associations. When kids stop running around in circles, screaming, and start talking, or drawing aside, you’ve likely got the beginning of troubles brewing. Keep the little ones standing right beside you after church. They should always sit with you, never with their friends. If they go out to the bathroom, go with them. Never allow them to spend the night with friends or cousins. Slumber parties are sin parties. Never allow them to listen to music through headphones. Three-minute phone conversations, no chat rooms, no surfing the web for any reason. Parents should make it physically impossible for them to even access the web. We didn’t allow our children to spend time in their bedrooms unless they were working on a project or reading. Bedroom doors were always kept open, except for two minutes while dressing.

And the sick thing is that they run a parenting magazine and have authored a book called "To Train up a Child (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1892112000/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-7349613-3342229?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER)", fortunately, I have found a review of it here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15478&page=1&pp=15

NOTE: The following people quoted are not screwballs.

Holey-moley.:twitch: Glad my parents aren't like that.:yes:

Cynic Sage

January 10th 2006, 07:08 PM

I pity this guy's kids:

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=55&tx_ttnews[swords]=To%20Train%20Up%20a%20Child&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=208&tx_ttnews[backPid]=118&tx_ttnews[sViewPointer]=1&cHash=8f9d75cd69

Two things. First, please DO regulate their environment and associations. Over the years as our children were growing up, Deb and I offended about every family member and some of our friends by being “overprotective” of the innocent charges God sent into our care. We guarded them from any suspect company and thoughtfully planned their associations. We have not trusted, “good Christian families.” We have not participated in churches where the children were separated from us. After church, we watched them and their associations. When kids stop running around in circles, screaming, and start talking, or drawing aside, you’ve likely got the beginning of troubles brewing. Keep the little ones standing right beside you after church. They should always sit with you, never with their friends. If they go out to the bathroom, go with them. Never allow them to spend the night with friends or cousins. Slumber parties are sin parties. Never allow them to listen to music through headphones. Three-minute phone conversations, no chat rooms, no surfing the web for any reason. Parents should make it physically impossible for them to even access the web. We didn’t allow our children to spend time in their bedrooms unless they were working on a project or reading. Bedroom doors were always kept open, except for two minutes while dressing.

And the sick thing is that they run a parenting magazine and have authored a book called "To Train up a Child (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1892112000/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-7349613-3342229?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER)", fortunately, I have found a review of it here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15478&page=1&pp=15

NOTE: The following people quoted are not screwballs.

Gah, the links aren't working.

It's from page 2 of the article titled "Sanctuary".

Sparko

January 10th 2006, 08:53 PM

Holey-moley.:twitch: Glad my parents aren't like that.:yes:

Where's my switch???!!!

{Tim}

January 11th 2006, 01:49 AM

Holey-moley.:twitch: Glad my parents aren't like that.:yes:
:yeahthat:

:egad:
All I can say is, if they were my parents, I would have either run away or else be arrested for beating them up when I was older. :rant:

Thankfully, I am better at controlling my temper now than I was as a child, though. :ahem:

Cynic Sage

January 11th 2006, 04:12 PM

I pity this guy's kids:

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=55&tx_ttnews[swords]=To%20Train%20Up%20a%20Child&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=208&tx_ttnews[backPid]=118&tx_ttnews[sViewPointer]=1&cHash=8f9d75cd69

Two things. First, please DO regulate their environment and associations. Over the years as our children were growing up, Deb and I offended about every family member and some of our friends by being “overprotective” of the innocent charges God sent into our care. We guarded them from any suspect company and thoughtfully planned their associations. We have not trusted, “good Christian families.” We have not participated in churches where the children were separated from us. After church, we watched them and their associations. When kids stop running around in circles, screaming, and start talking, or drawing aside, you’ve likely got the beginning of troubles brewing. Keep the little ones standing right beside you after church. They should always sit with you, never with their friends. If they go out to the bathroom, go with them. Never allow them to spend the night with friends or cousins. Slumber parties are sin parties. Never allow them to listen to music through headphones. Three-minute phone conversations, no chat rooms, no surfing the web for any reason. Parents should make it physically impossible for them to even access the web. We didn’t allow our children to spend time in their bedrooms unless they were working on a project or reading. Bedroom doors were always kept open, except for two minutes while dressing.

And the sick thing is that they run a parenting magazine and have authored a book called "To Train up a Child (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1892112000/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-7349613-3342229?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER)", fortunately, I have found a review of it here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15478&page=1&pp=15

NOTE: The following people quoted are not screwballs.

BTW: Michael Perl doesn't have any degree in Psychology and/or Child Care.

TuckEverlasting

January 11th 2006, 04:30 PM

Slumber parties are sin parties

:twitch: Wow, someone worse than Gerbz (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59345&).

Cynic Sage

January 11th 2006, 06:31 PM

Turns out you can read the book online here:

http://www.foche.net/TUAC.htm

TuckEverlasting

January 11th 2006, 09:57 PM

Turns out you can read the book online here:

http://www.foche.net/TUAC.htm

With proper training, discipline can be reduced to 5% of what many now practice.

I wonder if that was scientifically determined. :hrm:

Cynic Sage

January 12th 2006, 05:58 PM

Turns out that not only Spidey is a Satanist, but George from Seinfeld is one as well. So sez Texe Marrs:

http://www.texemarrs.com/satans_el_diablo.htm

[attachment]

Watch Those Hands! Actor Jason Alexander ("George" in Seinfeld TV series) performs a cabala ritual in plain sight of a vast audience. To the uninitiated and ignorant millions of people who read TV Guide and see this cover, Jason Alexander appears to be merely hamming it up. Little do they know of the deeper occult meaning. For example, we find Jason’s left and right hands giving the "El Diablo" satanic hand sign. His arms—one pointing up, the other down—indicate the dualistic (marriage of opposites, or reconciliation), cabalistic magical philosophy "As Above, So Below" (The devil goat Baphomet performs the same sign). We also note the three triangles presented by Jason’s legs and arms.

Man, can you picture Jason Alexander staying up all night practicing the day before the TV Guide photo shoot, by jumping in front of a camera and trying to get all those occult symbols just right. :lmbo:

Cynic Sage

January 12th 2006, 06:10 PM

And there's even more from that Texe Marrs page:

Later, in Imperial Rome, Caesar's military legions and millions of common people worshipped the sun god, Mithras. Mithraic initiates were baptized in the blood of a horned bull, slain and sacrificed by temple priests.

Wow, Mithras a "sun god". Someone should set up Texe Marrs on a blind date w/ Achyra S.

The "El Diablo" hand sign often is con-fused with the deaf's signing of the phrase, "I love you." While at first this appears an odd resemblance, we register an "ahh, I get it!" emotion when we discover that the person who invented, or created, the hand sign system for the deaf, Helen Keller, was herself an occultist and Theosophist. Did Keller purposely design the deaf's "I love you" sign to be such a remarkable imitation of the classic sign of Satan? Was Keller saying, basically, "I love you, Devil?"

Of course, because no two simmilar hand gestures have different meanings or can originate apart from each other. :ahem:

Cynic Sage

January 12th 2006, 06:20 PM

Jorgen:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1335964&postcount=10

One problem with the 'copyist error' defence (which the Chicago Statement affirmed, BTW), is that it assumes some "original" manuscript. However, if you have a review of recent Dead Sea Scroll scholarship on the issue, it is a moot point as to whether there is any such thing as an "original" piece of scripture. The current scholarly position tends towards a diversity of scriptural traditions at all stages of the text, making the search for an original Ur-text rather futile!

jpholding

January 13th 2006, 02:10 PM

Texe Marrs INVENTED the Screwball for our side. :doh:

Thanks for nominating Jorgen. He deserved it for that.

JSDileo

January 13th 2006, 06:07 PM

I'm going to nominate the person who wrote this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/board/thread/33604189?d=33606509#33606509

Re: Mistervader:
by - MisterVader 1 day ago (Thu Jan 12 2006 11:47:03)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
UPDATED Thu Jan 12 2006 11:48:13
So?

They still didn't mention him. And they were all that we had.

The contradictory Gospels? Any proof that they existed? Those writers never mentioned them...

"Good enough to warrant the existence of Jesus"

He needs his existence WARRANTED?

:lol:

{Tim}

January 14th 2006, 12:09 AM

Cynic Sage

January 15th 2006, 07:19 PM

Cognos makes note of all the things that JP said to him in an old thread that made him feel bad (note, list of out-of-context quotes used by Cog originally provided by Lazy Agnostic (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1248264&postcount=84)):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69207&page=1&pp=16

Note the second one.

So, you think there is nothing wrong with the following (all in one thread):

fool...post#12
my enormous article...24
flap your gums...24
backwards, low-rent Skeptics...24
knucklehead...27
Are you smoking something...29
you've taken Jim Beam out one or more times in the last ten minutes...32
Secular crap...35
you people...35
Screwball ...35
DUH...37
elephant hurl...37
You must indeed be remarkably stupid ...39
too stupid to reply to...39
you guys sure are brain-dead...48
who whacked you with a brick repeatedly?...48
you're wacko ...48
stupid ...48
beat you with the bloody stump ...48
that crap ...48
You're so dumb ...48
you ARE stupid...48
babbling from your end, and I do mean END...48
Golly, what a maroon...48
You guys really ARE pathetic...48
this guy needs some brain surgery...50
horse manure...50
being too ignorant ...50
seltzer down your pants ...50
your further ignorance. Ptui...50
How about more brains, when do you plan to have those available?...50
Congo Boy...50
you read blinkin' comic books all day...50
couldn't read a commentary to save your life...50
DUH. Yeah!...a dumdum question...50
grease yourself and fly down an aqueduct...50
this man is STUPID...50
bounce off that thick skull...50
you dip!...50
DUH!...50
We know you're lazy; that's not news...50
You need a haircut and a shave and a bath and brain surgery...50
Cognos is such a moron...55
now the moron's turn..55
Figure it out yourself, moron...55
you ask so many dumb questions...55
so you can drool on it...55
you tried to blow your brains out and missed...55
DUH!!!...55
you dork...55
you're stuffed...55
DUH!...55
Human Boy...55
you are stupid...55
the intellectual cajones...59
What a maroon...66
Take your Metamucil and it'll all pass....68
Try some Listerine...81
Wake me when you stop babbling...83

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61538 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61538)

:lmbo:

Cynic Sage

January 16th 2006, 05:50 PM

From AthiestNetwork.com:

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=9932

Just something I noticed the other day.

"But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

(Jesus speaking) Matthew 5:22

"O foolish people" (Moses speaking) Deuteronomy 32:06

"the princes of Zoan are fools" (Isaiah speaking) Isaiah 19:11

"ye fools" (David singing) Psalms 94:08

"O foolish people" (Jeremiah speaking) Jeremiah 5:21

"And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man"(Jesus speaking) Matthew 7:26

"You fools!" (Jesus speaking) Luke 11:40

"But God said to him, 'You fool!' " (Jesus quoting god) Luke 12:20

"How foolish you are" (Jesus) Luke 24:25

"You blind fools!" (Jesus) Matthew 23:17

"You blind fools!" (Jesus) Matthew 23:19

"We are fools for Christ's sake" (Paul writing) 1 Corinthians 4:10

"Thou fool" (Paul) 1 Corinthians 15:36

"O foolish Galatians" (Paul) Galatians 3:1

source: www.bible.com (http://www.bible.com/)

"Must... ignore... linguistic data... and... context!"

Cynic Sage

January 16th 2006, 06:07 PM

Pen and Teller, wow, if anyone is qualified to comment on the Bible, forget the Context Group, people from the entertainment industry are the way to go :ahem: :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3593866248238036452&q=a+hepful+hand

Penn Gillette:
"Hearing that so many other Messiahs were walking around is weird, huh. It was a plaugue of Messiahs. Monty Python's 'The Life of Brian' was more historically accurate than Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ'."

I like how they give the editor of a skeptical magazine the same or more respect as the guy who actually happens to be an actual Bible scholar.

Rayado

January 16th 2006, 06:22 PM

Cynic Sage

January 17th 2006, 01:59 AM

Johnny Skeptic, while trying to sneak back onto Tweb, is foiled once again by his own incompetance:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69340

Paul basically said that athletes play for a wreath that quickly withers. If no one had ever sinned, would sports have been invented, and if so, would participants and fans have showed favoritism? Is athletic competition (trying to win at the expense of others) something Christ would condone?

He was found out when Salvationfound brought up these two threads:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=150839

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=29094

:lol:

jpholding

January 17th 2006, 12:20 PM

Pen and Teller, wow, if anyone is qualified to comment on the Bible, forget the Context Group, people from the entertainment industry are the way to go :ahem:

I've actually been asked to do a refutation of that. :rant:

If I do one, it'll be in comic book form on tektoonics.

How about, "Hen and Smeller"?

Wow. It's bad to suggest someone needs Listerine?

Does Cognos object to Penn and Teller?

Sparko

January 17th 2006, 12:57 PM

I've actually been asked to do a refutation of that. :rant:

If I do one, it'll be in comic book form on tektoonics.

How about, "Hen and Smeller"?

Wow. It's bad to suggest someone needs Listerine?

Does Cognos object to Penn and Teller?

I watched their show on showtime when they were dissing the bible with their dripping sarcasm. It was in very bad taste and they sounded like some of the trolls on tweb, tossing out ignorant comments and mischaracterizations of Christianity that an 8-year-old sunday school kid could answer.

actually the link given above seems to be to the whole video. Better watch it quick, cuz I just reported the guy (who is hosting the video on his site) for copyright violation.

Cynic Sage

January 17th 2006, 02:53 PM

I watched their show on showtime when they were dissing the bible with their dripping sarcasm. It was in very bad taste and they sounded like some of the trolls on tweb, tossing out ignorant comments and mischaracterizations of Christianity that an 8-year-old sunday school kid could answer.

actually the link given above seems to be to the whole video. Better watch it quick, cuz I just reported the guy (who is hosting the video on his site) for copyright violation.
Wow, thanks Sparko. :glare:

Sparko

January 17th 2006, 03:35 PM

Wow, thanks Sparko. :glare:

I reported the guy who was posting it on Google, not you. unless it WAS you who put the video up and then you should know better.

Cynic Sage

January 17th 2006, 03:51 PM

I reported the guy who was posting it on Google, not you. unless it WAS you who put the video up and then you should know better.
Naw, it's just that JP would have to act quickly to review the vid. (Is there a way to save the file from google video?).

Cynic Sage

January 17th 2006, 04:14 PM

Happypants again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1343201&postcount=127

So in essence, he has to agree the case is way beyond coincidence and has no coherent answer, aside from some imaginative gibbering. From the looks of it Carrota has responded to his objections in German. I'll translate in a mo but the main objection seems to be that the Jews must have known a real Jesus to get all excited an stuff.

OK, have read the German response, seems the objection even takes the form of suggesting Julius copied Jesus and makes the usual error of "But the Jews hated the Romans!?". Sure but many worshipped Julius Caesar as a god and considered him the Messiah upon his death.

So, in total we can continue to include him, not so much as someone agreeing but someone who acknowledges the argument is strong, someone qualified enough to recognise that, yet who, like religion in general, abandons rationality when attempting a response. His qualification merely allows him to state the stories match but he's no language expert or even much of an historian by the look of it.

I haven't pursued the thread here for 2 main reasons. The 2nd reason being that the Christians here truly have lived up to their reputation for being close-minded and "believing instead of thinking". However the case has already been made, for even if one doubts the origins of the Jeesus story, the fact remains Jesus did nothing that Julius had not already done a century earlier.

This raises the valid question of why worship one and not the other? Jesus has nothing going for him that Julius didn't have and Julius did it while possessing extreme earthly power. If you have no property it is easy to spout "property is theft" and if you're a humble carpenter it is easy to favor peace. That the most powerful man on the planet valued peace, loving one's enemies, forgiveness and so on, is a proven historical "miracle". Frankly he makes Jesus and his feeding of friends with a fish or whatever, look pathetic.

Julius has a greater claim to greatness AND he came first. I get the fun of saying "My god is better than your god" while not believing in gods!

Some oink on a donkey in the desert 100 years later? Yeah? So what? If he even existed he was no match for the greatest god-man of all, Julius.

Darth Executor

January 17th 2006, 04:23 PM

Naw, it's just that JP would have to act quickly to review the vid. (Is there a way to save the file from google video?).

There's a big, shiny "Download" button in the column on the right.

jpholding

January 17th 2006, 04:29 PM

I can rent the video/DVD if need be. If it's REALLY that urgent. :ahem:

Darth Executor

January 17th 2006, 04:48 PM

I can rent the video/DVD if need be. If it's REALLY that urgent. :ahem:

I think it would be a waste of time. Those guys are worthless unless you're looking for comic relief of the "Laurel and Hardy" type. The only difference is that these guys aren't acting, they really are incompetent. :lol:

Cynic Sage

January 18th 2006, 03:24 PM

Sonam does a very good job impersonating a broken record:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=43463&page=4

Can God make something that he cannot pick up? If he can, then he cannot do all things because he cannot pick up the rock? If he cannot then he cannot do all things because he cannot make a rock so big that he cannot pick up!
urgent please reply

I would actually like to address three important issues here; 1) Is God good, 2) is he perfect, and 3) what gives him the right to rule?

Before beginning these discussions in detail, it is first necessary to adequately define what we are talking about. Regarding item 1, I ask readers to offer their definitions of the word "good" as it pertains to a divine creator. Regarding item 2, I ask readers to offer their definition of the word "perfect" as it pertain to a divine creator. Regarding item 3, no definitions are necessary.

I had a long debate in another thread with Scjc regarding whether or not God is good. To the best of my recollection, he left the debate without making any parting comments.

Initially, rather than presenting my own arguments, I ask readers on both sides to present their arguments.

Can God make something that he cannot pick up? If he can, then he cannot do all things because he cannot pick up the rock? If he cannot then he cannot do all things because he cannot make a rock so big that he cannot pick up!
urgent please reply

Can God make somthing that he cannot pick up? If he can then he cannot do all things because he could not pick up the rock! If he cannot, then he cannot do all things because he cannot make a rock so big that he cannot pick up?

Can God make something that he cannot pick up? If he can, then he cannot do all things because he cannot pick up the rock? If he cannot then he cannot do all things because he cannot make a rock so big that he cannot pick up!
urgent please reply

I would actually like to address three important issues here; 1) Is God good, 2) is he perfect, and 3) what gives him the right to rule?

Before beginning these discussions in detail, it is first necessary to adequately define what we are talking about. Regarding item 1, I ask readers to offer their definitions of the word "good" as it pertains to a divine creator. Regarding item 2, I ask readers to offer their definition of the word "perfect" as it pertain to a divine creator. Regarding item 3, no definitions are necessary.

I had a long debate in another thread with Scjc regarding whether or not God is good. To the best of my recollection, he left the debate without making any parting comments.

Initially, rather than presenting my own arguments, I ask readers on both sides to present their arguments.

jpholding

January 20th 2006, 10:00 AM

Guess what I found!

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=632.0

It's the forum for Mr. Brains. Some of his fans found my parody and this is a virtual screwball mine!

Some of my faves:

Somehow we have to find the correct Christian scholar, approved of by Tektoonics, and only listen to him. We cannot simply read what God said in the Bible and interpret it as normal English, like we would any other book. When God says something, there is no way for a normal person to actually know what it means. Only the "scholars" know.

. By the time I had skimmed the 4th page and saw more mention of the 'linguistic context' and 'scholarly study' of the Bible, I just thought: wow...so according to this, only scholars should really be believing in God, because of course only scholars really know the Word of God. We all know Jesus meant his words for scholars. God talks to scholars. Regular people, especially 'fundy atheists', are just too dumb to understand God. How perfect is God that his words are clear only to the most scholarly of us.

The whole thing reeks of arguing from authority -- "Believe it, cuz scholars say so; if you don't yer IGNORANT!!"

The thing is, if humans are supposed to be the ones who solve poverty, who needs God? And why would Jesus specifically promise in the Bible that God solves poverty? See Matthew 6:25-30.

Well, it is God's word after all. Why would an all-knowing being say it if he didn't mean it? But even if you ignore the "moving the mountain" part, there is still the "nothing will be impossible for you" part. There is no ambiguity or literary license in "nothing will be impossible for you", and strangely they ignore that point. From there it goes on into rationalization after rationalization.

Second, look at all the different translations of the Bible. In all of them they seem to use the word "slavery" instead of "indentured servitude." Why wouldn't the translators use the correct word if that is what God meant?

Again, the rationalizations are piled on top of one another to try to explain the beating of slaves, the sexism, the murder, etc. But they never actually answer the questions.

And in that second link, it just seems Holding is bitter because Dan Barker destroys him in every debate.

Why can't we all just leave all this goobly goop behind and just focusing on trying to be kind to each other? If someone puts up a debate about something, we should nod our heads, say, "If that works for you, then that's fine." And walk on.

He also tries to make Mr. Brian look like an idiot who says things like "Huh?" and "Wha?". He's resorted to the same tactics that Mr. Brian uses, and now makes himself look not-too-intelligent either. Besides, trying to make people look like mindless idiots is a waste of time, no matter how it's done.

It's interesting to note that Mr brains detractors cannot refute his book without attempting to ridicule and belittle his work. This should make him very happy as it gfraphically illustrates to any intellectual individual who has read both pieces that the people of faith have only that to stand on. Faith. "To believe in something for which there is no proof". And this of course is ignorant.

Wow, that all made me feel a lot better this morning! :thumb:

jpholding

January 20th 2006, 10:03 AM

Oh yeah.

And a special award for two of (apparently) Nadir Ahmed's fans, who searched the tektoonics site using the combination phrase:

"britney spears fully naked" :lmbo:

LilPunkishOfTerror

January 20th 2006, 10:08 AM

There's a search feature on tektoonics? :huh:

jpholding

January 20th 2006, 10:38 AM

There's a search feature on tektoonics? :huh:

There must be, because people use it and I get a report on terms searched for. But I have no idea where it is. :huh: is right.

jpholding

January 20th 2006, 01:29 PM

Email too good to keep...

You are a typical Christian web site you argue with the "skeptics annotated bible" and can't really use the bible to do so, if you notice to SAB uses the Bible it self and draws from what is written in the bible, you try to explain it without linking it to the bible, just your interpretation.
If you could find some thing in the bible to prove your point that goes against a Verse in the bible the SAB site had found, then that is a contradiction And you can't even admit that there is any contradiction???????

You must go past Sunday school and read the verses you don't hear in Sunday school, let me give you an example:

Exodus 22:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

And another pearl of wisdom:

Exodus 22:17 And he that curseth his father, or mother, shall surely be put to death.

Explain that away, and please don't give me that cultural difference jive, no matter how you cut it, you treat your children better than that.

If the bible is the true word of god then we are all in a lot of trouble, Because this one hates all of us so much that he leaves the bible for us, a ridicules nonsensical book about murder, genocide, rape and eternal suffering. And we are supposed to figure out what god ment, why would he even write a book that so many people can't even agree on, that seems very irresponsible.
If you leave a baby sitter with your children, you love you children right? enough to atlas leave instructions for you baby sitter that are CLEAR and UNDERSTOOD and certainly not open to interpretation.
Sound smart or what???? Is your god so irresponsible he couldn't care less about the bible????????????????
Hey I know I am god I will leave this book of nonsense to the sheeple If they figure me out they come to heaven if not eternal damnation.
I think I will stick to a simple earth religion one that is much older and certainly much wiser.

:lmbo: :rofl:

Cynic Sage

January 20th 2006, 03:21 PM

Oh yeah.

And a special award for two of (apparently) Nadir Ahmed's fans, who searched the tektoonics site using the combination phrase:

"britney spears fully naked" :lmbo:
Dude, how'd you figure that out? Does it show you what people put in your site's search engine or something?

Cynic Sage

January 20th 2006, 03:39 PM

Monk, for his "It's God's fault I'm a jerk" argument:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69475&page=1

Why should I thank Jesus for being crusified?

I didn't do anything. What's the big deal over his death? What did he really sacrifice?

Bar Jonah then asks him if he REALLY didn't do anything.

bar jomah,

The Father is the one who sacrificed, Monk. The Son was the sacrifice, itself. The Father sacrificed His own Son in order to reconcile us to Him, to redeem us by paying the cost of sin -- the sin committed by every human being since Adam. Including you.

But I did not choose to be born. So even if I violate his precepts, it isn't my fault. If it is my fault, just provide a clear connection to this fault moment. Just demonstrate where this fault actually took place. And if you say that my choices are faults or “bad”, how can I be blamed when it is by external inputs that I abstract these values and choose according to them. And of course I don’t initiate this process, nor do I cause these events that I observe. I simply watch, abstract and learn.

You haven't done anything?

I have many things. So what about them? Did they hurt my omniscient gods feelings or did I some how surprise him? He knows everything I will do. So, why should I pray or thank him for an unnecessary pseudo sacrifice?

When you sacrifice something it's something you will be separated from. Something that means a lot to you. Something dear. But God sacrificing his son would be like dropping your own son off to camp for a week, to then have him return safe and sound. And again, God is omniscient so he already had cognition of his plan, and the consequent reactions. So what is he really needing from me? He's God, he doesn't need anything, does he?

...

Never hurt another living soul? Really? :rihrm:

I have hurt people. But I was seeking a pleasurable end in the process. So hurting someone is just part of my pleasure pursuit. Plus hurt is a very subjective term, don't ya think?

And “soul”???…do you mean the mind? Or wind? Like spirit?

Thanks

"Hurting someone was just part of my pleasure pursuit." Oh, he's gonna be popular in the courts, that one. :rofl:

jpholding

January 20th 2006, 03:46 PM

Dude, how'd you figure that out? Does it show you what people put in your site's search engine or something?

Yep. For example, it also tells me that the leading requests on Tekton proper lately have been:

"the fable of christ" (apparently, the Pope Leo thing -- almost 1000 searches for that one alone)
"book of daniel"
"tektonics" (don't ask me why)
"l ray smith" (ugh)
"apologetics"

but no "britney spears fully nekkid" as far as I can tell. :eww:

In all seriousness, my webhost has a lot of good stuff and I'm happy with them.

Sparko

January 20th 2006, 03:51 PM

Yep. For example, it also tells me that the leading requests on Tekton proper lately have been:

"the fable of christ" (apparently, the Pope Leo thing -- almost 1000 searches for that one alone)
"book of daniel"
"tektonics" (don't ask me why)
"l ray smith" (ugh)
"apologetics"

but no "britney spears fully nekkid" as far as I can tell. :eww:

In all seriousness, my webhost has a lot of good stuff and I'm happy with them.

I think that is your web server telling you what they were searching for on some OTHER search engine when they entered your site.

For example they might have searched, "tektonics" in google, then clicked on the result and when they entered your site, that info got passed onto your web server logs.

I am at a loss how someone could find your site by searching for "britney spears fully nekkid" though. What kind of keywords do you use on your pages anyway??? :hehe:

jpholding

January 20th 2006, 03:56 PM

I think that is your web server telling you what they were searching for on some OTHER search engine when they entered your site.

Nah, that's in a separate section of my online control panel.

I am at a loss how someone could find your site by searching for "britney spears fully nekkid" though. What kind of keywords do you use on your pages anyway??? :hehe:

It's Nadir Ahmed's fans. Remember http://www.tektonics.org/lp/muslyduh.html which I moved to tektoonics (the link now forwards), adding in all the lovely pics of Annabelle in her swimsuit and Britney Spears duds? They prolly figure the can find more where that came from. :hehe:

Sparko

January 20th 2006, 04:00 PM

Nah, that's in a separate section of my online control panel.

It's Nadir Ahmed's fans. Remember http://www.tektonics.org/lp/muslyduh.html which I moved to tektoonics (the link now forwards), adding in all the lovely pics of Annabelle in her swimsuit and Britney Spears duds? They prolly figure the can find more where that came from. :hehe:

Aren't they afraid Allah is watching them and keeping a tally to weigh against them when they die?

jpholding

January 20th 2006, 04:15 PM

Aren't they afraid Allah is watching them and keeping a tally to weigh against them when they die?

Maybe they just made a donation to some Islamic charity and figure they have room to spare. :shrug:

JSDileo

January 20th 2006, 08:15 PM

OMG, infidels.org has is HILARIOUS! You know how on the top part of many of their articles they have three paid advertisements? Well, currently the advertisement on the left is Johnny Skeptic's website. Geezum-Petes. :ahem:

JSDileo

January 20th 2006, 11:53 PM

Oh yeah.

And a special award for two of (apparently) Nadir Ahmed's fans, who searched the tektoonics site using the combination phrase:

"britney spears fully naked" :lmbo:

:lmbo::rofl::lmbo:

Rayado

January 21st 2006, 11:20 PM

Instant comedy gold from the Paltalk room tonight:

On the supposed untruthfulness of the New Testament:

Sevivon1913: i know i'm right.......because i read at the time and concluded it. i didnt deem it necessary to remember it

Sev goes for the gold! :lol:

And another, on the supposed lack of evidence for the Empty Tomb:

"the lack of evidence IS MY PROOF it didnt happen"

(I hope this guy isn't a trial lawyer.)

This guy is the gift that keeps on giving:

"i assure you, nick, i have studied many hours on all points i speak.........i study for days/weeks - then conclude........then i forget what convinced me......but know i was right"

"historical method doesnt apply to christian theology"

BronzeArcher

January 22nd 2006, 12:49 AM

Email too good to keep...

:lmbo: :rofl:

I'm thinking of writing an article that argues that to achieve wider tolerance, people must go through culture shock. The reality of the non-normativity of their morality (that was horrid, I know) can really only be understood by experience. Cultural anthropology helps a lot but nothing is like the real experience. A classics prof I once had said, you will never understand the extent of patronage until you go to a place where, if people want to [eliminate bodily wastes] they ask the patron.

"Explain that away, and please don't give me that cultural difference jive, no matter how you cut it, you treat your children better than that." :sigh: I talked to a foreign student a little while ago and (being interested in what I am) he said it was weird that parents don't have total control over their children. After some more discussion, he agreed that his first reaction was that our parent-child relationships are wrong. Though I discussed a bunch of cultural differences, so he had a more "mature" (according to what we think, currently) outlook on cultural differences.

Sparko

January 22nd 2006, 05:19 PM

jpholding

January 23rd 2006, 12:01 PM

Memo to self: Pitchforkpat wins for all around effort, but particularly for refuting Bart Ehrman by thinking that textual criticism decides matters purely on the readings of the majority of mss.

Cynic Sage

January 23rd 2006, 09:40 PM

Minnesota get's excited:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69891

just what is the Christian god's great preoccupation with sex? Even in matters that have no social ramifications, like masturbation, he gets bent out of shape. And in one case, that of Onan, where there is a social component, god kills Onan because he practiced contraception. Contraception, by the way, that prevented him from impregnating his brothers wife, which was ordered by his father. And, this was an order that was at odds with what god thought about such a thing, which he later expressed in Leviticus 18:16 "Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife." Then there's the matter of consensual homosexual acts. Why should god care where you put what and why? As long as enough people are pumpin' out kids to stay ahead of the mortality rate what difference does it make?

What I also found interesting is god's opinion that only one's marital partner has conjugal rights over one's body. AND more astounding yet, god thinks "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." (It's listed below.)

Sex is a big thing with the Christian god, even private sex. Good thing god isn't around now barking out orders or he would be telling us what to watch on TV and how: Ozzy and Harriet on 12 inch B&W screens, and only between the hours of six and nine PM........IF YOU'VE BEEN GOOD!

Anyway, here are some of the Bible passages I came across that illustrate god's obsession with human sex.

Prostitution

"they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father's house" (Deut.22:21).

Homosexuality

"If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both commit an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood be on their own head" (Lev.20:13).

"God has given them up to shameful passions. among them women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and men too, giving up natural relations with women, burn with their lust for one another, males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion" (Rom.1:26-27).

virginity

"there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can" (Matt.1912).

"the unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. The unmarried woman is concerned with the Lord's business; her aim is to be dedicated to him in body as in spirit. But the married woman is concerned with worldly affairs; her aim is to please her husband… Thus the man who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better" (1Cor.7:32-34).

Marriage and adultry

"I say onto you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Mt.5:32, Mc.10:5-9, Mt.19:4-9).

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
(1Cor.7:1-4).

"You shall not commit adultery", "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Deut.5:18,21, Ex.20).

"If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death" (Lev.20:10, Ezk.16:40, Jn.8:3).

"You have heard that it was said, "you shall not commit adultery". But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt.5:27-28).

Contrception

"what he [Onan] did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life" (Gen.38:10).

Other stuff

masturbation is a dishonor and a perversion of our own body, which is a temple of God ((1Cor.3:6, 6:19).

" 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.(Lev.18:23, 20:15).

"My turn-ons include temporal provincialistic bigotry and 'argument-by outrage.'" :love:

{Tim}

January 23rd 2006, 10:05 PM

Minnesota get's excited:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69891

"My turn-ons include temporal provincialistic bigotry and 'argument-by outrage.'" :love:
Notice he doesn't seem aware that it was actually according to the law for Onan to impregnate his (dead) brother's wife... :doh:

BronzeArcher

January 23rd 2006, 10:10 PM

"matters that have no social ramifications"

Yes, it had nothing, absolutely nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing to do with purity maps. Minn's got a great point here. But at best it's wierd.

Cynic Sage

January 25th 2006, 12:12 AM

The Libertarian Defender:

http://libertariandefender.blogspot.com/2005/09/strong-atheists-case-against-christian.html

B. Crossing the Red Sea.

Stipulating: The sea is roughly 1900km long and at its widest is more than 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m, but it also has extensive shallow shelves, noted for their marine life and corals. The sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 or 450,000km².
1. Stipulating that, how did Moses and the Israelites pass through it? After all, it was substantial enough to deluge Pharaoh's army.
2. If the sea was parted, how precisely was that done?

C. Jesus' resurrection.

1. How did Jesus rise from the dead, and walk around good as new, when after dozens of hours of being dead, he would be brain dead, with decayed muscles, bloated from gasses, with blisters on his skin and with millions of dead and useless cells, including dead and useless heart and kidney cells? It should be noted that brain death is irreversible in every instance. It cannot be turned back. It is permanent.

...

Note: One may not cite "miracles" to explain any of these phenomena until the concept of "miracles" is shown to have a scrap of merit.

...

B. The Bible is Teeming With Errors/Contradictions.

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

Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud.

Leviticus 11:20-23 speaks of four-legged insects, including grasshoppers.

1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 state that the earth is immobile; yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun but is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.

and Contradictions:

In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he appears before animals.

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 differ over Jesus' lineage.

Mark 14:72 differs from Matthew 26:74-75, Luke 22:60-61, and John 18:27 about how many times the cock crowed.

2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 differ over who incited David to take a census.

1 Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 differ over Saul's death.

The four Gospels differ about many details of Christ's death and resurrection. For example, Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 have different inscriptions on the cross.

It's like a condensed list of every poor argument made against xtianity.

And it wouldn't be complete without good ol' "argument-by-outrage" coupled with bible passages taeen outta context:

http://libertariandefender.blogspot.com/2005/09/disconcerting-bible-passages-as-for.html

http://libertariandefender.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-disconcerting-bible-passages-if.html

Sparko

January 25th 2006, 11:00 AM

Darth Executor

January 25th 2006, 11:18 AM

Where do you FIND these turkeys, JohnnyEC? It's like you are Sherlock the screwball detective or something. :lmbo:

:sherlock:

The turkeys find him.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69971

Cynic Sage

January 25th 2006, 02:46 PM

Gnosticmary, on how Jesus was an Errantist:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1351673#post1351673

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

In the Old Testament, in the books of Moses, the stipulations for divorce are laid out. But in the above Jesus clearly states that these rules in the OT are not of God but of Moses, and gives the reason that Moses laid down these laws, in contradiction to the Law of God.

Jesus in many other cases also shows that the laws of the OT and/or the interpretations of them by supposed Godly men are in contradiction to the Laws of God.

So why did men then, and continue to this day, hold these contradictions erroneously up as the infallible Word of God?

I say it is because by doing so, by claiming that these things are of God, they can hide the evil that dwells in their own hearts. As Jesus said, their hearts are hardened to the ways of God.

Jesus said to love your enemies, to turn the other cheek, to not cast a stone against a brother unless you yourself are without sin, to give your cloak to one who steals your shirt, to not worry about those who may do harm to your body.

Yet in most religions men create a 'god' that condones the evilness of men, the hatred and judgment, the wars and killing, that men desire to do. Few in humanity can comprehend a world where men are not evil, where they do not seek for themselves and so they create a god and a Heavenly Kingdom that is just as evil as they are.

I say that not only did Moses adjust the Law of God to accommodate the evilness in man's heart, but so did other keepers of OT scripture. The end result being a OT god created in the image of evil man.

"To give your cloak to one who steals your shirt". :lol: Such poor X-a-Jesus.

Cynic Sage

January 25th 2006, 03:39 PM

JoLonda, the new troll, is suffering from BTCOCD (Bill the Cat Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder:

In this thread she holds Bill accountable for, well, holding Christians accountable:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69737&page=1&pp=16

Bill,

Are you "Properly equipped

I don't think anyone really is fully equipped, but I am headed in the right direction, I believe.

and correctly focused on the right ways to contend for our faith?"

Absolutely. I wrote this article after all...

I am curious about how you have been authorized and placed to criticize the Church for a lack of appologetic performance.

I am authorized by Christ who lives within me to point out error where I see it, and what I see today in my church, and most I have attended in my life, is error.

I'm not sure I understand the nature of your objection. Is there something in the article you don't like? Or perhaps my lack of formal education in apologetics and Biblical studies? Or maybe you want to know if I at least have my ordination certificate?

What's the beef?

Bill,

If nobody is fully equiped, then you are not able to lead or direct by example. Apparently, therefore, you think your mouth will do the job.

Is it happening?

Or, is your mouth the only thing that happens in your aspirations to correct the Church?

Are you a busy church talker? Did you know that Jesus, who lives in your life, demonstrated 100% of His words with observable actions. How about you as a container and ambassador of Jesus? What percentage of your talk is demonstrated in your life?

Jolonda.

Cynic Sage

January 25th 2006, 06:19 PM

Hey JP, did you have your web-sites officially blessed (http://www.digibless.com/)yet? :hehe:

Cynic Sage

January 25th 2006, 07:46 PM

www.just4kidsmagazine.com (http://www.just4kidsmagazine.com) has a "Virtual Hell" page on their website:

http://www.just4kidsmagazine.com/hell/main.html

ENTER PIT OF HELL
By clicking on Gateway to Hell

(Virtual Hell is full of realistic graphics. PLEASE be patient while it loads.)

[attachment]

It seems God punished the rebellious angels not only by sealing them in the pit, but also turning them 8-bit.:lol:

Also, apparently in hell there are chicks that wear leather bikinis with metallic wings on their arms (http://www.just4kidsmagazine.com/hell/room2.html)(scroll down to bottom of page). This site was designed to 8 to 11 year-old boys want to avoid hell, right?

There's also this:

http://www.just4kidsmagazine.com/hell/haunted.html

"Hey Kids! It turns out that if you've been molested or abused, it's not just that the guy who did that to you is an evil jerk. You or your friends' house could be haunted by evil spirits."

Oy!:ahem:

Cynic Sage

January 25th 2006, 11:11 PM

Cynic Sage

January 25th 2006, 11:42 PM

A nomination for Mary and Steve Van Nattan, for an article on their site (aptly titled Balaams-ass.com) titled "C.S. Lewis, the Devil's Wisest Fool":

http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/cslewis.htm

John F. Kennedy, C.S. Lewis, and Aldous Huxley all died on the same day.

They all went to the same place.
Kennedy went to hell because he trusted in the Roman Whore.
Huxley went to hell because he trusted in himself alone and his hybrid Eastern mystic notions.
And, Lewis went to hell because he invented a new god, and he ended his life a Taoist.
We will prove it here.

Clive Staples Lewis has been perhaps the single most useful tool of Satan since his appearance in the Christian community sometime around World War II. With his strong belief in non-denominational Christianity, which he termed "mere Christianity", and his apparent orthodoxy in doctrine, the influence of his pen has reached across many years. When the light of God's Holy Bible is focused upon his writings, however, his heresy and outright love of Satan comes into bold focus.

...

He was considered a medieval literature scholar and was fascinated with mythology and fantasy from an early age, which perhaps explains his tendency toward the occult in his fantasy writings. He was a Fellow of English Language and Literature at Magdalen College, Oxford, until 1954. In 1955 he was elected Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Magdalen College, Cambridge.

...

He was allegedly a bachelor for most of his life, but married Joy Davidman Gresham at age 58. She was supposedly converted partly due to Lewis' books. After meeting him in England, she returned to the U.S. where she was divorced from her husband. According to two of his friends, Gresham's husband divorced her on the grounds of desertion.(1) She returned to England and made herself available to Lewis, who married her shortly thereafter. [Ask any soap opera junky what the previous scenario means. They will tell you.] So, even in his marriage he was in disobedience to the word of God.

...

Page 2 Theological Books (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewisthe.htm)

The worst is yet to come.

Many of us have been exposed to The Chronicles of Narnia at some point in our lives either through the books themselves or through one of the many spin offs from them such as videos, animated and regular movies, games, etc. My own parents read these books to my brother and I when we were young, but over time became less and less pleased with them as the Lord brought various things to their attention. We eventually discarded them, and my dad, having obtained some information on Lewis' heresies and associations, lost respect for him as any kind of a Christian resource. C.S. Lewis has amazing staying power for many, however, and perhaps no-where more than in his "innocent" fantasies for children. The Chronicles of Narnia are one of the most powerful tools of Satan that Lewis ever produced. Worst of all, these books are geared toward children. Please go the next page to read about this indoctrinating tool of witchcraft.

And if you thought that last bit was bad, take a look at this:

The following links are active only on the CD which you may purchase (http://www.balaams-ass.com/ordrform.htm).
If you won't spend $10 for this and 600 Mgb of material on the CD, don't send mail whining please.Page 3 (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/narnia.htm)The Chronicles of Narnia (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/narnia.htm)

Page 4 Liqour, Tobacco and Drugs (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewisale.htm)

Page 5 Sun Worship (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewissun.htm)

Page 6 Further Into the Depths of Satan (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewisdep.htm)[/url]--
Also, Richard Riss on Lewis's Taoist Pagan Lusts

[url="http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewsdion.htm"]Page 7 Dionysus, Bacchus, Silenus and the Maenads (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewisdep.htm)
No one under 18, please.

Page 8 Witchcraft Practices and Characters (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewiswtc.htm)

Page 9 Luciferianism and the Secret Doctrine (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewisluc.htm)

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

Addendum:

The Evil Fruits of C.S. Lewis (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewisfrt.htm)

Friend and Inspiration of Lewis-- J.R.R. Tolkien (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/tolkien.htm)

That's right, this is a rare find on the internet. A website where you actually have to PAY to read the scribblings of an idiot.

jpholding

January 26th 2006, 07:45 AM

Hey JP, did you have your web-sites officially blessed (http://www.digibless.com/)yet? :hehe:

Worse! I had it done by a Catholic priest! :hehe:

JSDileo

January 26th 2006, 12:03 PM

Autoartist, for his insane disproof of God's existence:

Hi Everyone,

Here is an argument I have come up with. Of course I am sure others have said similar things but I am new to arguing the existence of god and such so let me know if there are any fallacies in it

Thanks

a.

---------------------------
God = God of the Bible

The Pen Argument:

God is loving, but of course disciplines, for another thread :)
God wants us to glorify Him
God sent his son to die on the cross for my sins
Jesus rose from the grave so that humans might have everlasting life with
Him in Heaven
God’s desire is that we might come to Him through the belief upon Jesus
dieing on the cross and being raised.
God is the creator of physics

If all this is true, and I humble ask (for Christians sake, I don’t’ want to be arrogant towards God):

Dear God stop this pen from hitting the ground (suspend it in air) and then I will believe.

Would not God do that?

Why doesn’t He?

We read, and of course Christians testify He is a personal God so no the Bible isn’t enough, nor is archeology, nor is testimony of other believers, for me to continue to believe.

So lets grab our pens, or markers, or pencils.

Cynic Sage

January 26th 2006, 02:12 PM

The following links are active only on the CD which you may purchase (http://www.balaams-ass.com/ordrform.htm).

If you won't spend $10 for this and 600 Mgb of material on the CD, don't send mail whining please.

Correction, turns out those links actually work without paying for a cd.

And look what I found here:

http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/narnia.htm

Lewis and Williams are said to have helped to keep the Luciferian concept of the Holy Grail alive. "The symbol of the Grail as a mysterious object of search and as the source of the ultimate mystical, or even physical, experience has persisted into the present century in the novels of Charles Williams, C.S. Lewis..."(4) Lewis and his two writer buddies, Williams and J.R.R Tolkien, of the infamous Inklings, appear to be strongly connected with the Priory of Sion mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau; otherwise know as the so-called "holy bloodline" or "Merovingian" mystery which claims that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were wed, had children and that their descendants became the rightful royalty of Europe, particularly France and Scotland.

http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/lewisdep.htm

Looking again at The Magician's Nephew we find some disturbing things.

In the "creation" of Narnia some very revealing things come up.

On p. 99 , speaking of the "creation" of the stars it says, "One moment there had been nothing but darkness; next moment a thousand, thousand points of light leaped out -- single stars, constellations, and planets, brighter and bigger than any in our world. There were no clouds."

The phrase "a thousand, thousand points of light" leaps out at us! The fact that Lewis would use this expression is bizarre at the very least, but it points to something much more sinister.

Alice Bailey, the Theosophist/Luciferian and co-founder of Lucis Trust and the Arcane School, in her 1957 book The Externaliztion of the Hierarchy tells us exactly what a Point of Light is. "...[T]he men who comprise the occult leadership group known as the New Group of World Servers. These individuals, she remarks are in service to 'the work of the Brotherhood...the Forces of Light.' They are the ones who are to usher all of mankind from the darkness of outmoded Christianity and faded nationalism into the bright and shining 'New World Order.'"(1)

When George Bush used this expression as President of the United States, he meant the spread of the secret doctrine of Freemasonry and the Illuminati. In her book, Discipleship in a New Age, Bailey tells her occult followers to repeat, "I am a point of light within a greater light...I am a spark of sacrificial Fire, focused within the fiery will of (the Sun) God."(1) What these servants of Satan are attempting to do by blending their "points of light" is to usher in the New World Order - the Age of Aquarius.
Was C.S. Lewis a "point of light" in Satan's service? Why would he use such Luciferian terminology if he was not?

Wow, Jesus said he was "the Light of the world" and called his disciple "light of the world" too. I guess since Satanists and Neo-pagans use the term "light" as well, I guess that means Jesus Christ and his followers were Satanists. :ahem:

Cynic Sage

January 26th 2006, 03:11 PM

Autoartist, for his insane disproof of God's existence:
Linky Linky.

JSDileo

January 26th 2006, 03:24 PM

Linky Linky.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69137&highlight=Autoartist

Happy now?:smile:

Calvinist4Him

January 26th 2006, 04:12 PM

Later in January I'll also put up nominations for the 2005 Platinum Screwball Awards in a new thread.

I nominate Monk, for his statements in his debate with Paul Manta. A few of his comments which stood out to me include:

"logic is based on me" - Derek Sansone

"what is logic, why is it such a big deal?" - Derek Sansone

"...it's this human convention" - Derek Sansone

"who cares about a presupposition" - Derek Sansone

"laws of logic, where are they? Write them down, there they are, they're material" - Derek Sansone

The last two statements are especially hilarious to me.

jpholding

January 26th 2006, 05:23 PM

"logic is based on me" - Derek Sansone

"what is logic, why is it such a big deal?" - Derek Sansone

"...it's this human convention" - Derek Sansone

Zeus on a stick.

I saved myself from complete insanity by not debating him. :glare:

Let's lock him in a room with jimbo until one of them blows up.

Calvinist4Him

January 26th 2006, 05:47 PM

Zeus on a stick.

I saved myself from complete insanity by not debating him. :glare:

Let's lock him in a room with jimbo until one of them blows up.

:lmbo:

he appears to be a whipping post...

evidently he get's around:

http://www.christianlogic.com/forums/topic698.html

http://www.rmiweb.org/other/sansone-cheung.htm

Are Christian apologists paying this guy to say the crazy things he does? :lol:

You definitely saved yourself alot of time.

JSDileo

January 27th 2006, 04:34 PM

I'm going to nominate the guy who put this priest on trial:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_eu/did_jesus_exist

This makes me SO ANGRY :flaming: :bonk: :rant: :rant: :rant: :bomb:

Sparko

January 27th 2006, 04:40 PM

sheesh what a publicity stunt! I hope the vatican sics the full force of their lawyers against this turkey. They will probably make him wish he didn't exist.

roboticist

January 27th 2006, 05:53 PM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=70098

I nominate Joe Gofish, who argues that the Roman Catholic Church started in 33 AD by citing a reference which does not say anything of the sort (its argument is that the Catholic Church should have the sole right to the term “Catholic”). He then is apparently fairly confused when asked to interpret a verse of Scripture:

The letter to the Ephesians 1:22-23 refers to the Church as the body of Christ. The link below gives a brief explanation of how the first Church came to be called the Catholic or Roman Catholic Church. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304iron.asp

Ah, please read the following. Also, note that it does not say "they were first called Roman Catholics at Antioch." You know, this vs. gives me the impression that the Eastern Orthodox community has first dibs on any claim to antiquity:

"and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (ASV)" Acts 11:26 [/edit]

I do not know what you are talking about,this is a verse from the Bible.

I also nominate Jude3b, the Protestant version of Joe Gofish, who has a stunning argument to expose Catholicism as un-Christian:

According to the Bible "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." Christians are also called "Children of God" and "Believers" and "church of the first born" and several other names in the Bible. We also see that the church is body of Christ and is called "the church of God" in the New Testament. One things Christians are never called in the Bible is the name Roman Catholic. And there is no mention of any religion called the Roman Catholic religion in the Bible.

And so, apparently, here is a list of the un-Christian Christian denominations: Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, Quaker, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Lutheran, etc., etc.

Cynic Sage

January 27th 2006, 06:18 PM

I'm going to nominate the guy who put this priest on trial:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_eu/did_jesus_exist

This makes me SO ANGRY :flaming: :bonk: :rant: :rant: :rant: :bomb:

Darth X already nominated that guy.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1324046&postcount=9

JSDileo

January 27th 2006, 06:35 PM

Darth X already nominated that guy.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1324046&postcount=9

Well, makes me happy that I'm not the only person who thinks the whole thing is insane.

Darth Executor

January 28th 2006, 01:55 PM

Jesuits are lizards? I was looking for a young picture of my home country's former communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu when I ran into this:

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

Apparently the dude was a vampire, Michael Jackson is a Satanist vampire and there's a conspiracy about Prescott Bush being some sort of shapeshifter in there somewhere.

jpholding

January 28th 2006, 02:01 PM

I have two announcements:

1) Since I will be on the road much of next week, I will be doing the January Screwball feature Monday, a day before the month actually ends.

2) If you have not done so, remember to vote in the Platinum threads (all 5) by early Monday. I know there was at least one tie last I checked.

Cynic Sage

January 28th 2006, 05:08 PM

Shamgar:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=70236&page=1&pp=16

It is time to expose the heresy of "Christian" Zionist who are instigating war in the Middle East. The jews are not "Chosen" but antichrists. They have been a curse and not a blessing to America. End all support for antichrists! Denounce all "Christian" zionist. . .as the false prophets failed to "rapture" in 1988, 1997, and 2000, so their teaching are suspect!

And later in the thread...

By this token, Liberal Israeli's, Democrat's, Republicans, Tories, Labour, every political party in the world is full of criminal participants.

Hey now you got it. .criminal.. . . that must be why Christ said there were only a FEW entering the kingdom of heaven. . .the majority of crimals are excluded. . . . see Luke 13:23-30 (darn I hope God isn't mad at me for using His Chapter and verse indicators without His permisssion). . . .

Yeah that is right every single jews has lived there since Christ was crucified by the jewsand up until today. . .oh yeah that small detail about Jerusalem being destroyed.. . and the jews scattered to the four winds. . . .say when God kicks someone out of the land . . don't they have to havepermission to return from God?. . .a bunch of zionist and cult "Christian" zionist says they have permission doesn't override God's commands does it. . yeah I didn't think so. . .I would have posted the verses but I still don't have God's permission yet. .. .

... The only hope for peace is a seperation. I don't think we are gonna see eye to eye on this one. But I think we can both agree my idea has at least a hope of success, unlike yours.

Yeah separating the jews from the land of palestine. . . . is the only solution. Oh I wish I knew if God would send me a sign that I could post His verses again. . .

"I need God to give me a sign to show me that I have his permission to post Bible-verses to support my argument". :lmbo:

Darth Executor

January 28th 2006, 05:14 PM

Actually it's sarcasm. He's mad because he got modded repeatedly for copyright infringement.

Cynic Sage

January 28th 2006, 05:40 PM

Ugh, another one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=70236&page=4

How far should we go there Ryokan? How long should the fake Christian Corporate Churches hide the truth? Here's some truth for ya:

Most folks seem unaware that the Jewish bible, called the Talmud, has the most repulsive things to say about Jesus of Nazareth, as well as Christians and Gentiles (non-Jews). The Talmud is the “life of Judaism” to this very day. Indeed the most prominent Jewish sources of our day say:

“The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.” Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

Rabbi Dr. Louis Finkelstein, Instructor of Talmud, and later president of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, writes:

“Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered.”

Herman Wouk is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author of 11 novels, three plays and two works of nonfiction. He writes:

“The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart's blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs or ceremonies we observe — whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists — we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.” — Herman Wouk, This is My God; the Jewish Way of Life.“The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders.” — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson“Why also do you transgress the command of God on account of your traditions?”—Jesus of Nazareth to the Pharisees, Matthew 15:3

When reading the Talmud one must know the Yiddish word “Ge’em” (spelled as Goim or Goyim) means literally “Nations”. It is in reference to the ‘people’ of non-Jew Nations, where “Goi” is a ‘single person’. To the Jew, it has the same meaning as the Latin word Gentilis (gentile) and the archaic English word Heathen.

QUOTES FROM THE TALMUD (63% of all 30 volumes of the following Jewish filth can be read at www.come-and-hear.com (http://www.come-and-hear.com/) or 100% can be purchased from www.amazon.com/books (http://www.amazon.com/books) for $ 850.00):

“Jesus seduced, corrupted, and destroyed Israel.” Sanhedrin 107b

In Zohar III:282, the Talmud says that Jesus is buried in that:

“dirt heap ... where they throw the dead bodies of dogs and asses, and where the sons of Esau [Christians] and of Ishmael [Turks], also Jesus and Mohammad, uncircumcised and unclean like dead dogs, are buried.”“Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled in hot semen. Christians are boiled in dung.” Gittin 57a.“Jesus fornicated with his jack ass.” Sanhedrin 105a-b“For murder, whether of a Cuthean (Gentile) by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty” (Sanhedrin 57a). “A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation.” [Sanhedrin 57b]

“Murdering Goim is like killing a wild animal” (Sanhedrin 59a).

Whatever a Jew obtains from robbery of a Gentile, he may keep” (Sanherin 57a)

“A Goi who pries into the Law must be killed ...” (Sanhedrin 59a)

“When a grown man has intercourse with a little girl, it is nothing, for when the girl is less than three years old, it is as if one puts a finger into the eye - tears come to the eye again and again; and so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years” (Kethuboth 11b). “…but when a small boy (less than nine years of age) has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood (masturbating).” (Kethuboth 11b)

“When a grown man has had sexual intercourse with a little girl less than three years old or when a small boy less than nine years of age has intercourse with a grown up woman, or when a girl was accidentally injured by a piece of wood [during masturbation] ... there is in regard to them no charge of non-virginity” (Kethuboth 11a).

The reader should consider that Kethuboth 11a-b are part of the Mishnah or “Core Doctrine” of the Talmud.

“Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that” (Sanhedrin 52b).

“A Jew may sodomize a child as long as the child is less than nine years old” (Sanhedrin 54b).

“MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED BY INTERCOURSE; … IF SHE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH”. (Niddah, 44b)

“GEMARA. … R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.” [Sanhedrin 55b]

If that anti-Christ Jewish filth tickles your fancy, I have copied many more quotes from the uncencored version of the Talmud I could post for you.

Wow, look at that source. A guy who wrote 11 novels, 3 plays, and two non-fiction pieces. Can't get more scholarly than that.:ahem:

BTW: CoM linked to a wikkipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu)showing that the quotes Bull here mentioned are corrupt.

Cynic Sage

January 28th 2006, 05:56 PM

Our buddy Bull-honkey responds to Com:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=70236&page=4

1: The "Jewish Bible" is called the Tanakh. The Talmud is a group of commentaries, legal precedent, and yes, tradition.
2: The quotes you mention are corrupt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu)

They are very accurate. I have spent a good many weeks combing through that filth. There is many books published on it. Wikipedia would be so kind as to publish the uncensored version, I am sure. Why don't you treat yourself and spend 28 dollars on one volume, Sanhedrin (uncensored), then look up the quotes and come back and tell us what they say.

Modern television is indicative of the mind of Judaism, since it is wholly owned (with the exception of Rupert Murdock) by Jews.

Why don't you go to www.USSliberty.org (http://www.ussliberty.org/) and tell us all how good the "chosen" people are?

I'll never watch Spaceballs again. :ahem:

jpholding

January 28th 2006, 06:39 PM

Mail too good to keep:

There's no question that you're an intelligent person, and perhaps
even a genius. I have two certified MENSA geniuses in my family, and
they are as crazy as you are. You make sophistry an art form. Too
bad you can't use your powers for good instead of evil, propagating
nonsense. The good guys could use a few people with your powers. I
just think you're on the wrong side, and if you could look inside and
overcome the obvious brainwashing that's affected your powers to
reason, you could do a lot to dispel the ignorance that's crippling
humanity.

:lmbo:

Darth Executor

January 29th 2006, 11:09 AM

Mail too good to keep:

:lmbo:

:teeth:

Cynic Sage

January 29th 2006, 05:26 PM

Steven Carr get's alot of these nominations, doesn't he?:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=70339

Are we perhaps wrong to show appreciation to those who step in and prevent another from burglaring, murdering, raping, embezzling, etc?

From a Christian point of view, wouldn't it be better to stand back and allow the crime to be carried out against the victim? There can certainly be consequency for commiting the crime, sure...but it's not God's way to go around "saving" people from rape and murder. Aren't we overstepping our bounds by doing so?

Many peole think that because awful crimes fill them with horror, then awful crimes should be prevented.

God says that because awful crimes fill people with horror, then awful crimes should not be prevented, because God wants horror filled people.

Ezekiel 20:26 I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.'

If it is necessary to allow a few children to be sacrificed, so that others may turn to the LORD, who are we to ban this rather unusual method of evangelism?

Cynic Sage

January 29th 2006, 08:56 PM

Someone should really hook JoLonda up with Stuart Dinenno:

It is popular for Christian Youth Leaders to spend their planning and ministry times as an endeavor to cater and sympathize to their youthful charges supposedly having special needs while experiencing this special time in their lives. However, the concept of "Teenage" years is not found in Scripture, as children were put directly into adulthood at puberty by means of a designed schedule.

I agree with her on this, but not to the "teenagers are unbiblical" extreme she carries it to.

Day to day, or rather usually week to week, success today in "Youth Ministry" is measured by the amount of positive feedback from parents, the approval of youth themselves, and by the number of event participants. Of course, anecdotal longetudinal examples of sterling successes from any particular Youth Program are always trotted out to justify that program's methods and content, but so called "successes" can be pointed to in any Youth Program, whether secular or religious. These modern parameters of success are not found in Scripture.

The true way to measure sucess in a youth ministry is to check with JoLanda.

Scripture is at hand regarding the understanding and management of youth, to the point of giving clear distinction between modern popular Church Youth Leadership and what God has in mind.

1.) Lam. 3:27 "It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth."

This identifies the goodness, hence desire by God, that youth be required to perform work, rather than just have what they want or need handed to them. A "yoke" implies hard and toilsome work, not just chatty little conversations, games, or speculative presentations by Youth Leaders.

Notice that a "Man" is identified here, in that he has become so by means of the yoke. Nothing is said of obsequious attention and pandering activities of Youth Leaders, showing the assumption that such is not part of God's plan.

2.) Psalms 119:9 "Wherewithall shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word."

A Youth Leader in his promotions to youth who departs in any way from the exact Word of God is instrumental in causing youth before him to heed something else besides the Word of God. It is vital that Youth Leaders not be caught up into the fantasy world of youth because of their close association. Youth should not be heeding their leaders, but the pure Word.

This verse assumes that youth will need to cleanse their ways. The concept of nurturing what is naturally precious and fresh in youth is not from the Word.

3.) Titus 2:6-7 "Young Men likewise exhort to be sober minded. In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity."

This is a clear direction of reproof to Bouncy Little Youth Leaders. People cannot do good works while bouncing around, and God knows this. "Activities" to occupy and entertain the youth, even to "Inspire" them, is not the pattern here.

Idle hands and idle minds need to be put to work, not accommodated and nurtured to find their special little personal identity as an individual.

4.) I Sam. 2:26 "And the child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the Lord, and also with men."

This shows how a regular kid did the right thing with success. He was described as finding favor with men, not with his little peers, as youth today are allowed to do by their leaders. Peer pressure is a vile and subversive force to be clearly dealt with by Youth Leaders.

[QUOTE=JoLonda]5.) Prov. 30:17 "The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it."

Nothing could be clearer for correction today with mouthy, argumentive youth. Church Youth events should portray graphic pictures of this verse to illiustrate how God sees rebellious youth. It is the job of a Youth Leader to find one of the youth with artistic talent to do the graphics.

6.) Prov.29:15 "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

Prov.22:15 "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

Prov. 23:13-14 "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

This is another lesson to be graphically illustrated by an artistic youth. The Bible makes no appology about the use of the rod on youth. They need to be watched like a hawk. They are continually trying to mess around.

And we do not have to worry about killing the little buggers.

No Church Youth Leader should be placed before he can give a plan for the implementation of all these commands from Scripture. He should then be monitored for carrying out of his plan, possibly availing himself to parts of the plan for his own correction.

Prov. 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

It is a gaurantee that literal adherence with action to the Word of God will produce Godly adults.

JoLonda.

Yup, she thinks the book of Proverbs contains commands and gaurantees. :lol:

She also doesn't realize that some of the men Samuel "found favor with" were his "peers".