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

Cynic Sage

March 2nd 2006, 10:38 PM

Some responses to a Christian blog entry from Slacktivist.com (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/):

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/02/lb_hospitality_.html#comment-14369269

"And the congregation sent 12,000 of the valiant warriors there, and commanded them, saying, "Go and (F)strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the little ones. "This is the thing that you shall do: you (G)shall utterly destroy every man and every woman who has lain with a man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins who had not known a man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan."
--Judges 21:10-12

There's your divinely-sanctioned infanticide AND your divinely-sanctioned rape/sex slavery too.

...

Plus it always seemed like a pretty good moral sop too: A Christian is, say, sexually torturing Iraqi prisoners, and the better angels of his nature whisper in his ear, "This is wrong!" the man can simply deactivate that voice by think, "Wow this does feel really wrong . . . But you know, I bet the fact that lots of sexular people oppose it means that it must secretly be something GOOD!"
And he goes right back to torturing.

:lolo:

I think by "sexular" he means "secular".

And also a nomination for Duane's reply to Robert:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/02/lb_hospitality_.html#comment-14540987

If a certain group wants to legalise prostitution, for example, then surely it's equally valid for another group to lobby for outlawing it??

Sure, but don't claim that is what Christ wants or you are somehow working on the side of God. God has a rich history of consorting with prostitutes. Let's say, hypothetically, that you are successful at outlawing prostitution because you don't like it, and a hopeless young woman is unable to provide for her small child and that child dies. Do you honestly think that God is going to slap you on the back and give you a cigar in Heaven and thank you for making sure that young child suffered the wages of "sin"? Or do you think God will have a little consternation that you assaulted what Jesus referred to as the "least of these"?

Pimp: Fo' Faive-hundred-dollas I hook you up wit' one of ma first-class hos.

Potential john: Five-hundred dollars? Hmm... I don't know.

Pimp: C'mon, man! Think of da children! Think of Jeesuz. You think he want Cheyenne's children to starve. "What would Jeesuz do?" He'd do Cheyeene.

Spheniscine

March 2nd 2006, 11:31 PM

Here's more:
Eight centuries ago, as we reckon them, one of those fellow humans whose memory I most cherish, a saintly monk called Francis of Assisi, preached this love’s gospel to the birds, much as I am now, following his example, preaching it to you, who may, for all that I can tell, resemble birds.
He also loved all that he believed that God, the highest and the greatest object of his love, the Lord of Love, had made. He loved the Sun, the Moon, the stars. He loved water, wind, and fire. In celebration of this all-embracing love, he addressed to the Lord of Love this canticle, which many of us still sing most worshipfully today:

O most High, most powerful, good Lord,
To you belong the praise, the glory, the honor and all blessing.
To you alone, most High, do they belong,
And no man may fitly speak your name.

With all your creatures, Lord, be praised,
Not least for our Brother Sun, who daily brings us light.
Beautiful and radiant in his great splendor,
How well he tells of you, most High.

Be praised, my Lord, for Sister Moon and for the Stars,
Carved by you, clear and rich and fair.

Be praised, my Lord, for Brother Wind . . .

Be praised, my Lord, for Sister Water . . .

Be praised, my Lord, for Brother Fire . . .

Be praised, my Lord, for our Sister, Mother Earth . . .
Sounds like a Native American religion hymnal. Just replace 'Lord' with 'Great Spirit' and you're done.

Oh, I also found another website: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5606/litha.html . Look at the third paragraph.
It is interesting to note here that the Christian religion has also tried to usurp this holiday by decreeing it the birth of John the Baptist, and declaring it his feast day. Now, other Saints in the Church are only remembered for the day they died (usually in martyrdom) so it is very curious that St. John the Baptist should be the only one recognized on his natal day. Also, the original birth of Christ was moved from late Spring when he was actually born, to December 25 to coincide with the birth of all the other "Sun" Gods. So even the Christian religion has rotated to the Pagan cycle of the Earth, with their births lining right up with our Solstices. The natural cycle, what we call the Wheel of the Year, is evidently highly compelling!
:lmbo:

Spheniscine

March 3rd 2006, 01:24 AM

It's priceless. He references Marcus Borg in his footnotes too.
Don't forget Elaine Pagels and... wait for it... John Shelby Spong! :rofl:

Christy

March 3rd 2006, 06:20 AM

Some responses to a Christian blog entry from Slacktivist.com (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/):

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/02/lb_hospitality_.html#comment-14369269

:lolo:

I think by "sexular" he means "secular".

And also a nomination for Duane's reply to Robert:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/02/lb_hospitality_.html#comment-14540987

Pimp: Fo' Faive-hundred-dollas I hook you up wit' one of ma first-class hos.

Potential john: Five-hundred dollars? Hmm... I don't know.

Pimp: C'mon, man! Think of da children! Think of Jeesuz. You think he want Cheyenne's children to starve. "What would Jeesuz do?" He'd do Cheyeene.

I am feeling mean. I don't see how the story in Judges 21:10-12, or the other Old Testament passages that were quoted, prescribe Christians to kill newborn babies :ahem:

Cynic Sage

March 3rd 2006, 03:48 PM

I am feeling mean. I don't see how the story in Judges 21:10-12, or the other Old Testament passages that were quoted, prescribe Christians to kill newborn babies :ahem:
The "OT biblegod is a meanie" is a rather common objection. What weirded me out the most was the "if you don't support prostitution you cause children to starve".

Christy

March 4th 2006, 03:01 AM

The "OT biblegod is a meanie" is a rather common objection. What weirded me out the most was the "if you don't support prostitution you cause children to starve".

Yeah that was weird.

Cynic Sage

March 4th 2006, 03:37 AM

Some responses to a Christian blog entry from Slacktivist.com (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/):

Made a mistake. I meant to say "at Slacktivist.com" not "from Slacktivist.com". My Bad. :blush:

Cynic Sage

March 4th 2006, 03:16 PM

A nomination for Amenlover and his blog (http://amenlover.livejournal.com/):

http://amenlover.livejournal.com/2617.html

I received an e-mail this morning from someone named Katie who asked: "What do you think about Matthew Chapter 7?"
...

For those of you who only keep a Bible around to impress your in-laws when they come over for the big game I would like to remind you that Mathew 7 is that great work which concludes the Sermon on the Mount and includes such well-known passages as:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"...neither cast ye your pearls before swine..."
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
"...wide the gate, and broad the way, that leadeth to destruction..."
"Ye shall know them by their fruits."
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock..."
It is truly a Scriptural gem. Amen!

...

The Gospel according to Matthew although clearly written after the resurrection of Jesus Christ is of course a history of the events before His crucifixion and therefore that book although a member of the New Testament canon is in fact doctrinally a part of the Old Testament Dispensation of Law.
As such the Sermon on the Mount applies not to contemporary Christian Gentiles but to the nation of Israel which was still suffering under the works as well as the rituals and sacrifices of the law. Amen.

...

Therefore it is simply not good Biblical hermeneutics to use this passage to justify sodomy and substance abuse and witchcraft and environmentalism and other such sins of the flesh which is how Matthew 7 is commonly misused. Amen!

And it appears he has woman trouble as well:

http://amenlover.livejournal.com/10479.html

Free of the sticky trap of the harlot
Well my friends and detractors I lack the words to express just how good it is to resume this ministry which is of course God's ministry although unfortunately this time my absence was not due to anything as simple as a jail term for defying a protection order on behalf of an abortion clinic but instead my absence is due to a failed love relationship with a woman who claimed to be a Christian (as if! which means I will not be peeking over the Lord's shoulder at the Final Judgment to see if her name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life as the feigned curiosity would only be an irritation to Him) although her definition of "Christian" turned out to be as loose as her moral integrity but then again it is not my place to judge her or her ornamental window-dressed impression of what she thinks a Christian is supposed to be as the Lord will surely take the time out of His busy schedule while He's judging the quick and the dead at the Great White Throne to explain it to her before he spits her lukewarm carcass in the direction of that massive funnel which empties into the never ending fires of HELL. Amen.

[attachment]

However for you younger and less Biblically literate Christians I would propose three ways in which you can determine whether your girlfriend is a True Christian or a harlot in sheep's clothing:She tells your mother she's excited to be courting you because she will now have a date to the upcoming Creed-impression karaoke night. No amens over this brood of vipers who don attire not unlike the rest of the hedonists and seducers of MTV and VH1 and engage in the vernacular of the same.

She claims that homosexuals are born that way and should be accepted by the Christian community as long as they repent of their wickedness and refrain from engaging in sexual relations with each other.

She reads from one of the new age Bible per-versions like the New American Standard or the New International Version instead of the Authorized 1611 King James translation.

All I can say is: Good for her for leaving this dud. :thumb:

Cynic Sage

March 4th 2006, 03:59 PM

Hey JP, when you gonna post the Febuary Screwballs on your site?

Cynic Sage

March 4th 2006, 04:46 PM

AutoArtist, for his "argument from Christians not having Superpowers":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=72363

I was thinking about what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit living in the believer's body. This is the part of God, also the power that raised Jesus from the dead.
Yet, I have to ask why don't Christians have any power?

They have the same exact struggles as unbelievers, they doubt, they are depressed at times, they have no discipline, ok they might have love but so do unbelievers. You know what I am getting at they have the same exact experiences as unbelievers. Why can't any of you do what Paul and the apostles did in Acts? Hhhm I wonder why?

You know what else I notice they must constantly read Christian self-help books and apologetics books. Why is that? What happened to the power of God, the God that created the universe? Why do you even need such tools, books etc?

Tell you what, turn on the news tonight, and every time you hear someone say the word "you", apply whatever information they are conveying to your own life, automatically assuming that you personally are always the one who is being addressed, ok? The very same set of books that contain the statement you're referencing also contain things like this:

(Mat 15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(Mat 10:5,6) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

You should learn to develop an appreciation for context, and pay attention to whom is specifically being addressed before you jump to conclusions like that. These promises were directly specifically at what Jesus refers to as "the little flock", otherwise known as the believing remnant of Israel that existed at that time. No such promises have been made to the church the Body of Christ. (Edit: some gifts were granted to early members of the body of Christ while it was still being established, but they eventually passed on. Even Paul attests to this fact)

Flamboyant, not even worth me arguing with
All you can say to me is, "who said who said."
I tell you what, Christians' actions say ok. Just look at the sale of all the Christian books, stats on divorce, fat Christians, sick Christians, depressed Christians, etc. I see them all the time in church. What I am saying you have no additional power or capabilities from non-believers don't you ever wonder why? Oh IC you just ignore your doubts and questions because you know you can't handle them. Gee doesn't common logic say that if I had the living God living inside of me I would be able to do something that an unbeliever can't. Think about all those powerful things God did in the Bible and you can't do a single one...hummm wonder why? Sure I might refer to super natural but also even discipline over self. Bottom line you have the living God inside of you right, makes his home in your body, right, yet you can't do didely, you can't even share your faith w/o fear.

Well, I was once bitten by a Holy Spirit-infused Spider. Now my girlfirend gets mad when I arrive at her place too late to take her to the movies. :hehe:

Cynic Sage

March 4th 2006, 04:56 PM

Steamer, on atonement:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1408492&postcount=34

Well, the death of Jesus supposedly for "sin" is just as retarded as god saying "hop on one foot" and I'll forgive you. It is completely arbitrary decision by the authors of the bible on what they would consider adequate for forgiveness for a god. The story lacks a logical reason why this is the case.

JSDileo

March 4th 2006, 05:43 PM

Steamer, on atonement:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1408492&postcount=34

I thought the sentence before the one you highlighted was dumber than what you...er, highlighted.:eh:

jpholding

March 4th 2006, 10:01 PM

I thought the sentence before the one you highlighted was dumber than what you...er, highlighted.:eh:

With steamer, you could just highlight every post to mark "dumb". :thumbd:

Hey JP, when you gonna post the Febuary Screwballs on your site?

Tut tut. :smug: Someone missed the last message on that thread....

I'm going to snazzle this edition up with some toons and such (including your wonderful "Hulk smash Herbert Armstrong" graphic) and release it the same time as Shrike Team #2 -- and as TO that, I'll have a word on the tektoonics.com thread in a moment....

spl_cadet

March 4th 2006, 10:57 PM

O most High, most powerful, good Lord,
To you belong the praise, the glory, the honor and all blessing.
To you alone, most High, do they belong,
And no man may fitly speak your name.

With all your creatures, Lord, be praised,
Not least for our Brother Sun, who daily brings us light.
Beautiful and radiant in his great splendor,
How well he tells of you, most High.

Be praised, my Lord, for Sister Moon and for the Stars,
Carved by you, clear and rich and fair.

Be praised, my Lord, for Brother Wind . . .

Be praised, my Lord, for Sister Water . . .

Be praised, my Lord, for Brother Fire . . .

Be praised, my Lord, for our Sister, Mother Earth . . .

Sounds like a Native American religion hymnal. Just replace 'Lord' with 'Great Spirit' and you're done.

It's actually from the Canticle of the Sun by St. Francis of Assisi (http://conservation.catholic.org/prayers.htm).

Cynic Sage

March 5th 2006, 06:59 PM

Sounds like a Native American religion hymnal. Just replace 'Lord' with 'Great Spirit' and you're done.

It's actually from the Canticle of the Sun by St. Francis of Assisi (http://conservation.catholic.org/prayers.htm).

[attachment]

Cynic Sage

March 5th 2006, 08:04 PM

Turns out Amenbrother has a website as well:

http://777.nventure.com/ (http://777.nventure.com/)

May 9 2001 update. Amen.
While conducting an Internet search for "Whore of Babylon" I found a new direction for this ministry which is something called LiveJournal. Amen.
Having met with dismal results at both the pornographic message board as well as the guestbook this new direction will provide us with the opportunity to wrest the sinning stank-slathered souls who populate the LiveJournal subculture from the grips of Lucifer and his band of fallen angels. Amen.
The masses of LiveJournal users are for the most part clearly obsessed with Wicca and bisexuality and cutting their own flesh (?) as well as Satanic "pop" (pun intended) music and will be frying their politically-correct carcasses off in very short order judging by their use of profanity and intoxicants as well as by the "interests" sections of their user profiles. Amen.

I think he's confusing Livejournal with MySpace. :lol:

And then there's this gem:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ knows no commas. Amen!

:huh:

This is from his page titled "10 Truths Jesus wants you to know":

http://777.nventure.com/thetruth.htm

There are of course several truths within the one TRUE truth so I will get started right away because the sooner you stop sodomizing those of your own gender not to mention children and animals and accept the free gift of Eternal Life through acceptance of Christ's sacrifice on that old rugged cross thereby escaping the sizzling fires of HELL the better. Amen.

Dangit! How did he know!? :stunned:

Truth #2: My Message Is Clear And YOU Know It! Amen!

...

...God is my witness He sent His Son to this depraved earth to be born of a virgin so that His perfect Son could grow up and come to me in a dream and direct me to lead these sinning masses away from the playground of Lucifer and into the Light of His Word which he has given to me to post right here and now so that all who believe and receive this one and only Truth might escape the FIRES OF EVERLASTING HELL and join me in Heaven with God who is clearly a Male along with the ten thousand angels who are all of course females. Amen.

...

Truth #3: This Ungodly World Is Run By Homosexuals Who Will Not STOP Until All Of Us Even Christians Are Writhing Together Irrespective Of Gender Or Race Or Religion Or Creed Or Nationality Or Sexual Orientation Or Political Affiliation In One Big Homosexual Pile Of Sweating Rutting Naked Homosexual Sinners! Amen.

Homosexuality is a sin because God said it and I believe it and that settles it. Amen. These sick perverted people like the Episcopalians who promote homosexual orgies on top of their altars in front of women and children all want to deceive our children...

...

Truth #4: There Is Only One True Church And Almost No One Goes To It. Amen.

...

All churches outside of the 1825 Duck River Association of Baptist Churches are preaching a LIE and will answer for their lies when Jesus Christ sits at the right hand of God the Father and judges the nations but especially the Elk River Association of Baptist Churches which knows the truth but professes to believe a lie. Amen.

...

Truth #7: God Wrote Only One Bible And It Is Of Course The 1611 A.D. Edition Of The King James Version Of The Holy Bible. Amen.
...

God wrote ONLY ONE BIBLE and the only reason the devil would want to write all of these modern per-versions is so that adulterers and sodomites and liberal Democrats can pretend to be Christians while teaching our children it is okay to read Bibles that claim God is a woman and go to churches that teach them that anal sex is okay as long as you wear a condom.

...

Truth #10: This Page Is Still Under Construction As I Have A Lot More To Say And So Does God. Amen.

He also wants to run for President in 2020:

http://777.nventure.com/2020.htm

If elected I will support a ban on interracial marriage. While I am not racist I believe that God intends people to marry within their own race. Any and all interracial marriages currently licensed would immediately be annulled. Any children born to said couple would be allowed only to marry with other children of interracial couples.

...

I believe in a national dress code. If elected the National Dress Code (NDC) will be as follows:

All persons must wear clothing from their neck to three inches below their knees when in public or in the presence of children.
Women MUST wear dresses. Trousers are NOT lady-like and therefore women ought not to wear them.
Jeans are to be banned.
...

I propose prison reform. This will be as follows:

Prison cells will be made smaller. I would set this to approximately one-half of their average current size.
Prisoners will be kept in their cells 24/7 (i.e. NEVER leaving their cells during incarceration).
Prisoners will only be fed bread and butter.
NO contact with ANY other human being during incarceration.
NO TV or medical care or entertainment of any sort.
NO sunlight will penetrate a prison cell.
Disobedient or rebellious prisoners can be beaten by the guards as punishment.
ANY inmate that attempts to escape will be executed on sight.

"Bread and butter"? I wonder if he intentionally left out "water".

And not leaving their cell at all. Man they are gonna stink. :eww:

Also form his site, I present you with the "What if Jack Chick drew Manga"-girl who presents us with some fairly interesting dialougue:

JSDileo

March 5th 2006, 08:30 PM

:twitch:

That reaks of Landover Baptist influence.:eh:

Cynic Sage

March 5th 2006, 09:06 PM

On his website, Amenbrother keeps archives of his "evangelism" done while he was on porno-site's message board (isn't that like sharing the Gospel with a prostitute while you are having sex with her? :huh:):

http://777.nventure.com/pornomessageboard.htm

Hey Moron,
What did everyone do for religion before the origination of the Old Quack River Association of Baptist Church in 1825? I guess before 1825 everyone went to hell when they died. It has always amused me that certain Baptists think it's their way or the highway. You are not SUPREME beings.

When Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven in the year 0 A.D. which means After Death (Acts 1:9) his disciples became apostles and wrote the King James version of the New Testament which was of course because the Old Testament was already written in the King James vernacular and almost all Christians were killed by the Jews then the Romans then the Catholic Church which is why God has judged each of those groups by allowing them to fall into practices which have resulted in AIDS and intravenous drug use.

"Apostles wrote the King James version of the New Testament", "the Old Testament was already written in the King James vernacular". :lmbo:

So far, he has broken Johnny Eccentric's Rules of Evangelism #1("Do NOT be a jerk") and #7 ("Do NOT go onto a porno-site to try to win souls"). Now let's see what happens next.

He then makes an issue over somebody's profile picture showing too much skin (which is to be somewhat expected BECAUSE HE IS ON A PORNO-SITE'S DISCUSSION BOARD!)

...
But, amenlover, if that pic is pornography (as you call it), then why are you looking at it so much? I thought you were agaisnt pornography? Obviously not, if you're looking at the "pornographic" picture in my profile so much.
I guess if we're all going to hell, then we'll see you there.

You apparently are using a different name as the link of the profile with the nude sorceress on it belonged to mistress_raven_skye and your profile features an almost-acceptable painting of an angel holding the earth which is not fully acceptable of course as angels clearly have blonde hair and your impostor angel has black hair like the heathen women of eastern Europe.

As to my "little stiffy" by which I assume you mean an erection I must submit to you the FACT that I have never had an erection as this would clearly constitute lust of the flesh (1 John 2:16) on my part which is a sin I am not about to commit.

Johnny Eccentric rule of Evangelism #17:

:egad:DO NOT TALK ABOUT YOUR GENITALIA!!!:eek:

Darth Executor

March 5th 2006, 09:12 PM

:rofl:

JSDileo

March 5th 2006, 09:29 PM

spl_cadet

March 6th 2006, 01:12 AM

There's no way that is not a parody site.

jpholding

March 6th 2006, 06:21 PM

Email from my favorite sort -- the provincialist too stupid to know they are stupid.

I recall seeing your article on biblical interpretation.

Recently, I've been studying biblical references from what could be
called a critical stance, and I've noticed that one area in which the
Bible is its own worst enemy is in its casual use of non contextual
absolute constructions, such as:

all, every, any, each, none, no, only, anything, never, ever,
nothing, forever, always, eternal, evermore.

These words--taken at face value--don't have anything to do with the
"spirit of the times", the cultural "milieu", traditions, mores,
customs, or any other so-called "contextual" interpretation.

In a certain sense, these words share something in common with the
concept of 'infinity.' The concept of 'infinity', by definition,
has no bounds. Neither do the above absolutist words.

'All' doesn't mean 'almost all.' 'Forever' doesn't mean merely a
very long time.

Interestingly, some people assert that biblical translators are
'inspired.' If that's the case, and if 'inspired' implies some sort
of connection to some superhuman source of enlightenment--even if
these absolutist words are not to be taken literally, then the
'inspired' translators would be well advised to inform their readers
of such 'facts' so that they can take these words figuratively.

It is self-contradictory for a person to subscribe to the concept of
"the priesthood of the believer" and also concurrently assert that
to really properly "interpret" the Bible, you have to know Hebrew,
Greek, Aramaic, and you have to be an expert in the science and/or
art of exegesis and/or hermeneutics, including being an expert in
Ancient Near Eastern history, and everything else. This 2nd
assertion also implies that all of the university/seminary professors
of exegesis and/or hermeneutics agree with each other on everything.
Otherwise, if the "experts" in interpreting the 'true meaning' don't
themselves agree, it makes a mockery of the whole idea there is any
way of really being certain of the 'true meaning.' If the experts
don't agree, how in the hell is an average Joe Blow supposed to
figure out what is correct and what is incorrect???!!!

SELF-CONTRADICTIONS
If a person can accept contradictory statements, their brain is not
functioning rationally. For example, take the following two
statements. All swans are purple. There are yellow swans in Africa.
If a person can accept both of those statements as being true, their
brain is not functioning rationally. Unfortunately for 'true
believer' Christians, there are numerous self-contradictions in the
books that are included in the Christian canon of scripture. Example:
No person has ever done X. Person A and person B did X. Second
example: All people are X (an attributive). Some people are not X (an
attributive). The textual references for these are readily
available, and I can give them to you if you want.

:lolo:

jpholding

March 7th 2006, 07:49 AM

Boy, the nuts by mail just keep comin' --

Mr. Holding:

Concerning the matter of Mr. L. Ray Smith. Give it up sir. You can't possibly believe reasonably educated and intelligent folks would read your piece and say..."oh!...yeah!...he's certainly disproved Mr. Smith as being way off the mark"....Indeed, you in fact have inadvertantly assisted Mr. Smith in his showing what yourself and others of your ilk are -- unintelligible goobledy-gook that is entirely devoid of grammatical sense and logic. Be a good sportsman and quit before you make yourself look any more foolish.

"It's too hard for me to understand. Stoppit!!"

:lolo: :lmbo:

Sparko

March 7th 2006, 01:35 PM

Yet another mathmatical genius tells us what God is equal to:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68543

Word equals God x God

Letting a=1, b = 2, c = 3, etc, mathematically:

God x God x God .................................. . = 47,900,160
70 seven fold x 99 x love........................ . = 47,900,160
God x 1260 x love ................................... = 47,900,160
10 % of heaven seven fold x God x God = 47,900,160
704 x 54 x 1260 (Rev 12:6.)................. . = 47,900,160
word x (3xGod) ..................................... = 47,900,160
1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x11x12.................. = 47,900,160
Jesus said, " I have chosen you 12."
word x 2112 (u 12) ............................... = 47,900,160
47,900,160 minus (Jesus x Jesus x one) .......= 47,160,900
word = God (54) x G x 0 x d (7 x 15 x 4)
word = First ( i ) x Last (14) x 360 over 2
word = God x God (John 1:1)
word = one (ace) x 1 week (168 hours)
word = 90 % of 70 360's (the remainder is 2 1260's)
word = first x last x it ( i x [a+m] x i x t )
word = 126 (az) x 180 (9 x 20)
word = 22,680
word = 2/3 of iron ( 9 x18 x 15 x14) (Rev. 12:5)

Blessings

jpholding

March 7th 2006, 01:49 PM

More mail from the "It's Not My Fault I'm Lazy and Stupid" Campaign from someone who thought Flemming's "The God Who Wasn't There" film was da bomb....

James:

I too am a former fundamentalist Christian who studied the bible for more than nine years under strict guidance from the Pentecostal church of which I belonged. I didn't need anyone with or without an "agenda" to tell me - be them folklorists or atheists - that the bible, without "faith" makes very little sense to a logical person.

My Christian experience was a mixed bag. Yes, I acquired a strong sense of good and evil, learned the benefits of loving my enemies, and gained a profound sense of tolerance and understanding. On the other hand, my teachers and parents served up a constant platter of hypocrisy, condemnation, threats of abomination, and general fear mongering and tales of bloodshed from the tender age of 6 to 15. At 16, I hesitantly walked away from these beliefs.

I no longer believe in Christianity, nor do I believe in any other religion. I do believe in an omnipotent energy that will make itself known to each one of us in death.

I appreciated reading your take on this film; however, I think in criticizing it, you also exposed your own hypocrisy. You appear to have skirted over one of the film's most powerful ascertains: that moderate Christianity makes no sense. You also didn't back up your claims that resources cited in the film are false; but only referred to your previous arguments. In addition, you neglected to provide any evidence that substantiates the Bible as an infallible historical document. You may reassure the faithful, but for those who truly do seek the high road, or are searching for common sense under a wave of opposing arguments and opinions, you aren't helping. I looked to your site for an honest opinion, and what I got from you only further strengthened my belief in the claims made in this film and in the supporting information. I will continue my research without you.

I dunno why I'm expected to defend "moderate Christianity" when I'm not a promoter of it. :lolo: But anyone who wants to believe Flemming (who used Graves' list of 16 saviors as a resource!) deserves what they get, as far as I'm concerned.

Cynic Sage

March 7th 2006, 02:12 PM

Mr Frank Zito gets his understanding of the Ressurection from watching George Romero films:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1416825#post1416825

The Resurrection is scientifically impossible. When Jesus died on the cross, he suffered brain death. Brain death is defined as, "Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time." The key word in all that is "irreversible." Jesus could not have risen from the dead after dozens of hours, because Jesus could not have recovered from brain death. Certainly, no alleged witnesses attested to a brain-dead zombie roaming the streets.

Besides brain death, dead people suffer from other negative symptoms. After dozens of hours of being dead, Jesus would be a corpse 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. Again, in that state, Jesus certainly would not be in any condition to roam. One of my major objections to Christianity, thus, is that The Resurrection story is scientifically impossible. Brain death, by definition, is irreversible; thus, upon suffering it, Jesus could not recover from it.

...

At this point, many Christians will cite “miracles” to explain The Resurrection. That’s inappropriate. One cannot substantiate Unsubstantiated Assertion A by appealing to Unsubstantiated Phenomenon B. In other words, one cannot cite something that’s doubtful in order to explain something that’s doubtful. My classic analogy is this: One cannot cite “Unicorn Jockeys” in order to prove the legitimacy of “Unicorns.” To use one thing to substantiate another thing, a person first must demonstrate that one of the two entities is indeed legitimate. Certainly, The Resurrection is doubtful. Certainly, the concept of a “Miracle” is doubtful. Thus, one may not be used to substantiate the other.

You'd think he'd be surprised to find out that first century Jews were aware of the fact that corpses rot. :lmbo:

And a nomination for Bigsplit as well (from the same thread):

First, I understand the conclusions you have drawn about Christianity. Believe it or not some Christians do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Some believe he never really died....you cannot kill the Son of God. Some believe that Jesus was just a man and that he died that day and the accounts of resurrection where added to the original accounts to give the Romans a magical competitor with the Pegan Gods.

Cynic Sage

March 7th 2006, 04:49 PM

Bigsplit again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1417262&postcount=22

As I said some people need magic to have faith others do not. Without the magic tricks you all have admitted that you would not be Christians. As if the message of Jesus would be meaningless unless he could transcend the laws of nature. You have admitted you would not have faith in his truth and would not seek the light of his testimony unless he rose from the dead....how little faith is that in the truth. For such do not believe the truth for the truth itself and do not follow the light for the goodness of its glow.....they follow only because of magic tricks. Is that true faith..... Is it true faith to blast an individual who has no faith in the Father and misguidedly professes Atheism....is his unfaithful confession due to the arrogance of some "Christians" need for Jesus to have been a magician? Such do little service to the father as they only seek validation for their beliefs in magic and ignore the need to explain to others the true nature of the truth and the light.

"Your belief that Jesus physically rose from the dead shows that you have a lack of faith in Christ." :ahem:

jpholding

March 7th 2006, 04:56 PM

Johnny, thank you for the nomination of Mr Zito. That kind of stupidity is the reason why today I am clinically insane and seeking toon therapy.

:bonk:

jpholding

March 7th 2006, 05:09 PM

A reader just now sent me a notice about that St. James church featured in the last screwball feature. I noted an apology for a verse quoted that was attributed implicitly to Jesus, but was actually by Satan, though I had no idea what the verse was. Well, this was the banner they were using below. Oh boy.

Sparko

March 7th 2006, 05:13 PM

Cynic Sage

March 8th 2006, 02:12 PM

jpholding

March 8th 2006, 02:49 PM

Dude, does anybody here know what that passage was?

It's in the banner two messages above. It was also so good I put in on What's New today.

Cynic Sage

March 8th 2006, 07:17 PM

It's in the banner two messages above. It was also so good I put in on What's New today.
:lmbo::rofl::lol:
:lmbo::rofl::lol:
:lmbo::rofl::lol:

Rayado

March 8th 2006, 07:29 PM

Even better--it's a UCC church. :hehe:

JSDileo

March 8th 2006, 09:05 PM

Even better--it's a UCC church. :hehe:
Oh...my...gosh.

This is a weird school:

http://www.stmichaelonline.org/General%20rules%20for%20students.htm

#3 Students discovered using impure language or vulgarities or engaging in impure and indecent discussions or activities, listening to rock music, discussing TV shows or movies in school, will be severely warned after the first offense, suspended for 3 days after a second offense and expelled after a third offense...

We greatly discourage students from viewing television other than the few, wholesome, family programs that come from time to time. We ask parents to please cooperate with this, as well as insuring that student do not listen to rock or country music, or read modern secular magazines or books...

#2. No talking in halls or bathrooms
#3.Buddy system is to be used for individual trips to the bathroom...

:hrm:

{Tim}

March 9th 2006, 06:27 AM

:egad:

I suppose it's to protect the poor defenceless kids from the evil jesuit lizards.

jpholding

March 9th 2006, 10:33 AM

Another Gold for Richard "Annabelle Ketterling is an Argument for Atheism" Carrier, for his reply to http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rubicon.html in which, among other idiocies, he rants on about how unreliable oral tradition is compared to written tradition, while from the other side of his mouth ranting about how many interpolations and emendations have been made to the New Testament text because of agendas, carelessness, etc. thus making it unreliable.

HUH? :huh:

(I hope to have my full reply up to him no later than Monday. I can only stand so much of his pompous stupidity before I have to go do something else.)

jpholding

March 9th 2006, 10:35 AM

Oh...my...gosh.

This is a weird school:

You ought to send them a link to my comics and see if you can get them to denounce it or even write a rule about them.

Sparko

March 9th 2006, 10:45 AM

You ought to send them a link to my comics and see if you can get them to denounce it or even write a rule about them.

#11 Thou shall not read comics that contain rabbits with cleavage.

jpholding

March 9th 2006, 11:11 AM

This email just in. I think people like this grow up to be panhandlers.

While the content may make sense, the Screwball in this is, "Why are you sending this to ME?"

Good morning,
In the past, I've failed to mention the fact that there exist deductive disproofs of the concept represented by the word 'god'. These disproofs are broken down into categories. Some of the disproofs (less than 20% of the papers I am aware of) involve the use of symbolic logic, which I know nothing about, just as I don't know some of the symbols that are used in advanced mathematics.

In any event, the majority of the disproof papers do not involve symbolic logic; that is, they are readable by a person who is patient enough to follow the train of thought and who lacks knowledge of symbolic logic.

The categories of the disproofs are as follows: (1) definitional disproofs, (2) deductive evil disproofs, (3) doctrinal disproofs, (4) multiple attributes disproofs, (5) single attribute disproofs.

One of the interesting things about the concept represented by the word 'god' is that those who have originated this concept have provided the rest of humanity with attributes and properties of this concept, strictly through the medium of language (some writers would use the word 'intra-linguistically').

If the sciences consisted of nothing more than language, science would have the very same semantic, communicative and logical problems that the field of theology has. The one exception would seem to be the field of mathematics, and computer programming languages could also be appended to mathematics.

/ wgp / 3/9/06 6:25 AM (PDT)
P.S. As an aside, the Old Testament narrative of Lucifer supposedly seducing a percentage of the angels and leading them into "rebellion"--in its linguistic understructure--is tightly analogous to attempting to verbally describe the spontaneous emergence of matter from a pure, matter-free vacuum.

P.P.S. Outside of its technical use in certain disciplines of mathematics, I would argue that the concept represented by the word 'infinity' is a meaningless concept, with no pragmatic value.

jpholding

March 9th 2006, 12:59 PM

#11 Thou shall not read comics that contain rabbits with cleavage.

Well if that doesn't take care of it the interracial marriage thing will!

Cynic Sage

March 9th 2006, 01:56 PM

Dude, look what else I found on that page:

http://www.stmichaelonline.org/General%20rules%20for%20students.htm

One more thing . . . St. Michael's Academy does not advocate Outcome Based Education (OBE) and does not teach whole language, feminism, self-esteem building courses, drug, suicide, or classroom sex education. The Academy believes the academic coursework and Catholic life and formation, will in themselves induce a well-formed conscience and attitude with regard to these other concerns. Parents are expected to fulfill the Church’s command that they, as first teachers, provide a sound, healthy sexual education for their child.

Now I understand why they don't want to teach self-esteem courses because if they were anything like I remember them from elementary school, It consisted of teacher coming in and singing a song that kissed our butts. But why aren't they educating the kids about drugs and suicide? When a secular school teaches kids about drugs and suicide it's to make the kids not want to do them.

And what exactly is wrong with whole-language anyways? I mean, there shouldn't be a problem if it's taught alongside phonetics anways imo.

jpholding

March 9th 2006, 02:59 PM

And what exactly is wrong with whole-language anyways? I mean, there shouldn't be a problem if it's taught alongside phonetics anways imo.

It usually wasn't, when I was in school, if it was taught at all. Thankfully phonetics was still the rule at that time.

Cynic Sage

March 9th 2006, 04:53 PM

Omega7:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=72390&page=1&pp=16

It is my own personal opinion that God is going to send a Comet to hit
the Earth at around the Time of Armageddon, so that the Comet will
put Moisture and Dust into the Air after it hits the Earth and cause
large Clouds that Blot out the Sun so that, this Scripture may be fulfilled.

Re 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Then Jesus will come and SAVE the World.

Why will the Earth Wail and Mourn ?
Because millions will be killed .

In my opinion, the Comet will cause the Axis to turn and
the Earth to Wobble and the Poles to Melt and in that process it will create
a New Heavenly outlook and a New Transfigured Earth.

WELL , I Warned you.

You have 10 years left.

OMEGA7

:lol:

Cynic Sage

March 9th 2006, 08:34 PM

Champagne:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73246

I'm not even going to say whether it's "morally" wrong or not (although my position is that it is wrong). I am just going to say that slavery is akin to rape or theft. Why?

Now watch as she contradicts her first paragraph.

B/c it is taking labor from someone without paying for it, or without receiving it as a gift. It is the taking by force of something that is not yours (labor). The force doesn't have to be physical beating up or torturing. It can just be the implied threat of force if the slave gets out of line or tries to leave.

Typically, slaveowners would buy the slave, and thus they'd say they were paying for the labor. But the labor itself is done by the slave, and the slave does not get his fair wage for his labor. Only the slavetraders profit. The slave gets no compensation.

The slave is forced to give his labor. The slaveowner uses the slave so he doesn't have to pay an employee. He thus profits off the labor unfairly. He uses the slave as a tool for his own monetary profit.

This is the same thing as stealing a piece of property. Then you are taking the property from someone without paying for it. You are not receiving it as a gift. No, you just steal it.

It's also the same thing as raping. You are taking sex from someone without their consent. They are not agreeing to do it. They are submitting b/c of fear of implied force, or they are physically forced to submit.

How is slavery not the same thing as theft or rape?

How does slavery not encompass greed, avarice and sloth on the part of the slave owner? Greed b/c he'd rather keep the wages for himself than pay the slave a fair wage. Sloth because he is too lazy to do the work himself or to actually go through the trouble of hiring someone.

How is it not using someone for your own benefit with no thought of the other person's welfare?

I agree with her. No, wait, apparently she was talking about Biblical slavery. :ahem:

And Steamer shows us once again how skepticism isn't about examining evidence and context to reach a conclusion, but rather making a knee-jerk emotional response to "bogey-words" like "slavery" and being vague with details:

No the real problem is that Yahweh recognizes that slavery is a bad thing when his people are slaves to Egyptions, but doesn't recognize it as bad when his people take slaves themselves. The problem is that the bible is so contradictory that it forces even decent people like yourself to make idiotic claims that "sometimes slavery is ok".

"Never mind that the Hebrews were free under the Pharoh of the time of Joseph and were forced to be slaves under the reign of a later Pharoh. I also reccomend you forget that the only people who were forced into slavery under Israelite law were POWs and criminals (who would've already had their freedom taken away)".

Of course you then make the same fallacy everyone does, only instead of using 19th century United States slavery, you use Egyptian slavery. Again, Egyptian slavery and Israelite slavery are two wholly separate entities.

They have things in common, among them are the loss of freedom to leave their owners or oppose their owners wishes.

Take a good, hard look at them, and apply some critical thinking skills(I fear I ask too much...), and maybe you'll see the difference. :tongue:

I see many detestable things they have in common, like loss of personal freedom. Of course since you are a slave to an ancient fairy-tale, critical thinking skills are something of a myth to you, while invisible magic men in the sky are real.

"Screw facts and details! You're brainwashed!"

jpholding

March 10th 2006, 07:34 AM

Gahhhhh.....

Email from a fan of L. Ray Smith. I'm including my reply comments too with my usual >>>>> before the other person's comments.

**********

>>>Well, I'm somewhat sad to say, but, this is what always happens. You've appealed to "people" (man) and Mr. Smith cites the Bible as authority.

JP: Mr. Smith went to "men" -- the dictionary -- to learn what words in the Bible meant, at the very least.

So that game is out from the start.

>>>You and I both know that what we think or believe about the trinity isn't worth a hill of beans.

JP: I "know" no such thing. The appeal to mutual ignorance is a dodge, not an argument.

<<<<I must side with Mr. Smith on this matter. Your appeal to folks with your scholarship results in pedantry and can not possibly believe parishioners would even be able to wrap their minds around things such as..."binary modalism"...would you sincerely trust that church-goers could even identify with such things?

JP: Perhaps if they were less concerned with recording the next episode of The Sopranos and more concerned with discipleship, they would be up to it. As it is, it certainly wasn't hard for Jewish fishermen to grasp. So what's the modern man's excuse?

>>>(I've an undergraduate and a Masters degree in Education and was experiencing dizziness just attempting to apprehend what you were even saying)

JP: The sad state of our schools speaks against that meaning very much in itself. We graduate high school students who can't read their diploma but are very adept at putting on a condom.

>>> Please hear me. We know the Scriptures we given to babes.

JP: Who are told not to stay babes, but to eat MEAT.

>>>When we feel a need to engage in this sort of high-flown debate, we can rest assured, we're not defending the Scriptures but man's idea's of what he "thinks" the Scriptures say. What are your thoughts?

JP: I think you are arbitrarily declaring such to be true of "debate" upon no basis at all. Perhaps you are not aware that Jesus' encounters with Pharisees and Saduccees were the public debate of the day.

If you wish to drink milk your entire life, that's your affair. The atheists will keep doing their anti-evangelizing; the Mormons and other cults will keep drawing in your children, and we can stand there with a happy look on our face praising the Lord and going "DUH!" until the end of the age.

JPH

jpholding

March 10th 2006, 07:35 AM

Ugh...today must be National Screwball Day; here's another one:

Hey there,

You guys really have built a monument to your heartfelt terror of
atheism. I marvel at the amount of time and resources that must have
gone into this effort.

It would probably have saved you a lot of time and effort to have
resorted to the time honored technique of putting your fingers in your
ears and shouting
"LALALALALALALALALALALALA!" until the atheists just went away.

May your god bless you for this valiant if pathetic effort. No doubt he
is scribbling my name from the "book of life" at this moment in
response to this email.

Godspeed my deluded friends!

Cynic Sage

March 10th 2006, 02:56 PM

LakeGeorgeMan, on contextual study of the Bible:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1420466&postcount=19

Biblical apologists simply value their literary idolatry more than they do their integrity.

Slavery, genocide, misogyny, bigotry, genital mutilation and child sacrifice all become reasonable things to do within the context of one specific collection of ancient mythology.

It's a perfect display of cult indoctrination and what happens when people worship a book as a god.

Dude, I like how he put "genital mutilation" alongside such things as"genocide" and "child sacrifice" considering the worst that is commanded in the Bible is circumcision of 8-day-old baby boys.

jpholding

March 10th 2006, 04:01 PM

It's definitely either National Screwball Week, or some zoo had a breakout. Look at this:

Attempt to convince J. P. Holding that Rabbi Gamaliel existed
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

I am not attempting a proof, but your challenge is an interesting one and sheds light on some important issues in the Mythicist case. This following are my own thoughts on what I take to be an argument along the lines of “if you don’t believe the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth then you shouldn’t believe that Gamaliel existed either”.

First of all you are being disingenuous in saying that it would be difficult to convince you of the real existence of Gamaliel. You clearly consider the book of Acts to be reliable, therefore Gamaliel existed.

And on it goes in that vein....err, DUDE! Know what "satire" is???? :doh:

jpholding

March 11th 2006, 10:01 AM

Mr. "Huh? That was satire?" wrote back and rather than own up to his mistake, claimed I was being rude because I told him he made one. :lol:

Mr. Short Sentence wrote back with more Screwball material:

When do I get my "screw ball" award? Will it be posted on the site? I
look forward to seeing it. Just please try to quote me correctly.

I really didn't see anything on your site worth "answering" but here's
a few comments since you asked. On the matter of contradictions and
absurdities in the bible your main defense seems to be that unless a
person has demonstrated what you consider to be expert status on
several ancient languages, cultures and histories they are unfit to
make meaningful criticism of the bible. You of course are to be the
judge of these credentials, a sort of argument from authority in
reverse.

Unless a person passes this arbitrary threshold their arguments cannot
be deemed worthwhile. In deed in another place on your site you say,
"Let's face it. Not one person will ever become qualified as an expert
in every field of research relevant to Apologetics. A person can spend
decades studying only one field alone. Most laypeople will have to rely
on experts from time to time to establish a point; even experts in one
field of study will appeal to experts in another field. " You are
laying the groundwork for plausible deniability of any attack no matter
how well researched or reasoned. This is truly inspiring sophistry. It
is also patently dishonest.

This game is played all the time by Christians who attempt to dodge the
actual words of the bible and dance about in a hop scotch of "the
Hebrew word for this means..." and "in ancient Judea this practice was
actually..." It must be exhausting to have to play this illogical shell
game to justify your silly beliefs.

Most annoying in this charade is the idea that the translations of the
bible are so flawed as to render them unworthy as sources since they
must constantly be "amended" by true bible scholars such as yourself to
"clarify" their true message. This makes the bible a constantly moving
target that is whisked out of danger by ersatz sages like you just as
the enemy has it in its sights.

Your review of Dan Bakers "Losing Faith in Faith" is what brought me to
your dreary little corner of the Internet. You dismiss many of his
arguments as being "arguments from outrage". I clicked on the link and
was treated to a truly audacious display of moral relativism. This is a
curious way for Christians who claim to be stewards of Jehovah's
absolute morality to justify infanticide. In deed here were
insinuations of hypothetical scenarios (no actual reasons the lord
would kill innocent babies were posited) that might justify Ol' Yahweh
slaughtering babies at the breast. Shocking to see rigid moral
absolutists that call taking a drug to prevent the implantation of a
fertilized human egg outright "murder" sneering at those that might
find naked infanticide morally objectionable. Kudos for a truly
inspiring leap into the jaws of illogic.

Perhaps most entertaining is that you render these pronouncements with
truly regal flare and haughty disdain. I'll leave you to your little
fiefdom of illogical hubris.

Awaiting my award (and eternal damnation of course from your "loving" god).

That was the longest way I've ever seen of saying "DUH" in a while.

Sparko

March 11th 2006, 01:31 PM

Jim Eisele on "The Jesus Seminar"

Um, not quite. The Seminar's philosophy appears to be that anything that agrees with church tradition must be suspect. Their voting on how the New Testament was compiled has fallen along that line of thinking. Consensus based on preconceived notions...I'm sorry; I'm not too impressed.

Um, wow. It just sounds to me like you can't handle the truth (yet, at least). The scholarship is solid. Very weak supporting evidence for all of the gigantic claims the Bible makes. Events in question occurred 2000 years ago. Increasing embellishments in the writings over time. All the contradictions and strangeness in the writings. But wait, here's DesertBerean, with his MIGHTY SWORD of preconceived denial (er, notions). Da da da, here rides Christianity into battle. Wait, there's scholarship arriving on the battlefield. :eek:

DesertBerean, it ain't gonna happen. The evidence ain't gonna change. My apologies on your current belief system. Really, the pastors ought to be apologizing to you. Oh wait, they're too busy collecting your cash. Too bad for you.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1421955&postcount=325

DesertBerean

March 11th 2006, 03:04 PM

Jim Eisele on "The Jesus Seminar"

Um, wow. It just sounds to me like you can't handle the truth (yet, at least). The scholarship is solid. Very weak supporting evidence for all of the gigantic claims the Bible makes. Events in question occurred 2000 years ago. Increasing embellishments in the writings over time. All the contradictions and strangeness in the writings. But wait, here's DesertBerean, with his MIGHTY SWORD of preconceived denial (er, notions). Da da da, here rides Christianity into battle. Wait, there's scholarship arriving on the battlefield. :eek:

DesertBerean, it ain't gonna happen. The evidence ain't gonna change. My apologies on your current belief system. Really, the pastors ought to be apologizing to you. Oh wait, they're too busy collecting your cash. Too bad for you.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1421955&postcount=325

He even got my sex wrong. :no: :wink:

Sparko

March 12th 2006, 12:33 PM

More Jim Eisele:

The hipocrisy and irony just pour out of this post of his:

Are you suggesting that ALL conservative scholars are blindly prejudiced and not responsible, objective examiners of the Bible? Please explain why liberals are not as likely to be the same way.
Change isn't easy. Rationalizations and hypocrisy are two ways to avoid it. Shifting the focus of attention is another way. Christians frequently question the motives of non-Christians. Or of different flavor Christians. There is an ego rush to it. In this whole process the truth may very well elude them.

Any liberal (or non-Christian) is "going against God." Cowardly conservatives aren't.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1423025&postcount=373

TuckEverlasting

March 12th 2006, 12:34 PM

More Jim Eisele:

The hipocrisy and irony just pour out of this post of his:

Change isn't easy. Rationalizations and hypocrisy are two ways to avoid it. Shifting the focus of attention is another way. Christians frequently question the motives of non-Christians. Or of different flavor Christians. There is an ego rush to it. In this whole process the truth may very well elude them.

Any liberal (or non-Christian) is "going against God." Cowardly conservatives aren't.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1423025&postcount=373
I love Jim Eisele. :b_woot:

Sparko

March 12th 2006, 12:39 PM

I love Jim Eisele. :b_woot:

tuck in your bib. you are drooling.

TuckEverlasting

March 12th 2006, 12:40 PM

tuck in your bib. you are drooling.
:duh:

brother vinny

March 12th 2006, 12:41 PM

:duh:
If he hasn't been submitted already, I nominate Brother Vinny.

Sparko

March 12th 2006, 12:44 PM

who is that old guy with the beard stuck to your head in that avatar vinny?

One Bad Pig

March 13th 2006, 01:47 AM

Mordochai benTziyyon just posted this on Paltalk (and ran away):

when a MARRIED woman has a baby that she ADMITS is not from her husband, normal rational people would call her a slut, or an "adulteress"---but christians call her "mary" and WORSHIP the worthless mamzer she gave birth to, who grew up into a mean, spiteful, hypocritical, vicious, violent and racist PIG of a man (according to the "gospels")! LOL!!!
:irony:

Rayado

March 13th 2006, 01:52 AM

Again? :eh:

jpholding

March 13th 2006, 10:28 AM

Stevie "Sun Dog" Carr just can't seem to stop collecting Gold Screwball awards. This from an OP:

'At this point in the canonical 2 Corinthians, two letter fragments have been inserted: a letter of recommendation for Titus (at 8:1-24) and a letter concerning the collection (at 9:1-15).'

This is on page 150 of Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul
by Bruce J. Malina.

Why does Malina think there have been such large additions to the original text?

The book also says about the Pastoral letters ;.... the letters to Timothy and Titus are fourth-generation Jesus-group documents in the Pauline tradition'

So much for authenticity!

The Context Group also write 'Of these fourteen documents, modern scholars, using philological methods and a critical sense of history, have determined that only seven of these letters are authentic.'

Holding's very favourite scholars totally disagree with his beliefs!

BronzeArcher

March 13th 2006, 10:50 PM

Mr. "Huh? That was satire?" wrote back and rather than own up to his mistake, claimed I was being rude because I told him he made one. :lol:

Mr. Short Sentence wrote back with more Screwball material:

That was the longest way I've ever seen of saying "DUH" in a while.

Lol. "This game is played all the time by Christians who attempt to dodge the
actual words of the bible and dance about in a hop scotch of "the
Hebrew word for this means..." and "in ancient Judea this practice was
actually..."" You can just tell they haven't got a clue about exegesis.

I never quite understood something, though. If you say that someone doesn't know anything about x subject, the frequent response is that you must be an expert on x subject. How does that follow? I mean, I know that it's shifting attention from knowledge/competence/evidence to someone, but I am just stumped when it comes to figuring out the logic behind that.

One Bad Pig

March 13th 2006, 11:55 PM

I recently got this from an organization called "St. Matthew's Churches":

Dear...Someone Connected with This Address,

People just like you are writing to this 55-year-old church, telling us of all types of blessings since this church started praying with them. They are receiving divine help in the form of answered prayer. Some are seeing loved ones saved, and many of them are receiving spiritual, physical and financial blessings of all types - better jobs, raises in salaries, being able to buy and sell homes, buying new cars, and so on. Actually, these dear people are receiving so many blessings that it is impossible to mention them all in a letter. And, as you will read in the enclosed brochure a Sister Garcia used the same type of Bible faith prayer rug that we are sending to you, with this letter, and was blessed with almost $50,000! Now, we must talk to you about something we see, in the Holy Spirit, concerning you and your family's needs.

GOD'S HOLY BLESSING POWER IS IN THE ENCLOSED ANOINTED PRAYER RUG WE ARE LOANING YOU TO USE!!!

WE MUST GIVE YOU THIS OPPORTUNITY FIRST... THEN IT MUST GO TO THE HOME OF ANOTHER DEAR FRIEND WHO NEEDS A BLESSING... You, or someone connected with this address, and another dear family are about to be blessed through this unusual, Bible Faith, Church, Prayer Rug, which we are placing in your care for these next 24 important hours. Because of any needs you are facing, we want you to use this Church Prayer Rug first, then we must pass it on to another dear friend of ours who also needs a blessing. As we pray for you and everyone connected with this address, WE FEEL THAT SOMETHING VERY WONDERFUL IS TRYING TO COME TO YOU.

When you use this Faith Church Prayer Rug, go into a room where you can be alone (just God and you). Turn off the television and radio and try to be by yourself when you kneel on this Holy Ghost, Bible Prayer Rug, or spread it over your knees. We want this Church Ministry, Prayer Rug to be touching both of your knees as you pray for the needs you are facing right now. It is going to be like you are kneeling before God All Mighty at the altar inside a great church of blessings. If you need more joy, peace, health, money, a new car, a new house, healing in family communication, or whatever, we, as a very old (55 years) church, want to know about it. Check your prayer needs on page two of this letter. Talk to us. This power you and this church ministry are about to use works!

These next 24 important hours are crucial to you. Timing is important to God. After you kneel on this Church Prayer Rug, or place it over your knees, place it in a Bible, on Philippians 4:19. (If you don't have a Bible, it's okay - just slide it under your side of your bed, for tonight, if you can. If you can't do this, it is okay.) Leave It There No Longer Than Tonight Only! God sees. Then, in the morning it is a must that you get this unusual blessing Church Prayer Rug out of this house and back to us, here at the church's chapel prayer room, in faith. We must also have this letter back, with whatever you need prayer for, printed on page two. You must get this Bible Prayer Rug back to us so we can rush it onto another family that's in need of a blessing. Do this without fail. Please, do not break this flow of power between us.

Notice the face of Jesus on this Church Prayer Rug. When you first look, you will notice that His eyes are closed.. If you relax and continue looking straight into His eyes, you will see His eyes slowly opening, and He will begin looking back at you. Jesus sees your needs (Philippians 4:19). Use this unusual, important, Church Prayer Rug for tonight only.

Let us ask you: Would you like to have God's blessings upon your home, your family and your finances? Say, "Yes, Lord Jesus, I do need Your financial blessings upon me and my family's finances!" Deuteronomy 28:6. Just put a mark by your needs below, telling us that you want prayer. Also, check any other needs you are facing. Pray about sowing a seed gift to the Lord's work. Give God your best seed and believe Him for His best blessing (St. Luke 6:38). Now, go and use this Church, Faith, Prayer Rug. The Lord is watching and waiting. You are about to enter the Holy Spirit of God right here in your home, through this faith exercise. Then, it is a must that you return it for another to use. [checklist below]
:lolo: the "Prayer Rug" is printed on an 11"X17" piece of paper.

DesertBerean

March 14th 2006, 12:54 AM

Oh, you never saw one before?

One Bad Pig

March 14th 2006, 01:11 AM

Oh, you never saw one before?
Actually, I have. I'm just putting it up for the foreigners to gawk at.

JSDileo

March 14th 2006, 05:54 PM

OMEGA7, for this really, really stupid post. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1394994&postcount=8)

For anyone who has studied the bible for over 35 years like I have

would easily know the HELL - GEHENNA - THE LAKE OF FIRE

is exacltly that , a Physical Lake of Fire fed by OIL and Gas

which is common in the Middle East.

Jesus said that the Pharasees would be Cast on the local Garbage Dump

where the Garbage and dead bodies were burnt.

After Armageddon there will be alot of Dead bodies and Armaments

that will have to be burnt. Those who go to the Lake of Fire will be

working there throwing in the Garbage. That is it .

There will be NO Tormenting of HUMANS just Hot sweaty workers.

:hrm:

Spheniscine

March 15th 2006, 11:51 AM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73545

Jimmy Higgins, on ApologiaNick's post on sex and marriage:
5. The fanfare of Nick's post

Speak about blowhard. The only thing worse than being lectured about the evils of abortion by an abortionist
???!!! What are they, a pro-life abortionist? :lmbo:
is a forced virgin who claims some sort of purity because no one would give them the time of day, and a lot of people seemingly missing that point.
When you're jealous of someone who has a more profound philosophy than yours, unsubstantiated slander always does the job.

The Laughing Man

March 15th 2006, 05:33 PM

I gotta vote for this clown:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

A university professor who proudly displays his hate and intolerance of Christianity and Christians every chance he gets. Here's a recent example:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/left_or_right_religion_and_pol.php

Yes, I'm hostile to evangelical Christianity, and I think it is a blight upon the earth.

Waldman also wants to know the roots of our hostility towards "religion and spirituality". That one is easy: it's because guessing games, revealed knowledge, irrational prejudice, inappropriate traditions, and unthinking obedience to dogma are not sensible ways to run a country, especially not one with a plurality of religious beliefs.

With public statements like these, does anyone really think a religious student (particularly one who's Christian) would get a fair shake in his class?

wfaber

March 15th 2006, 05:48 PM

:lolo: the "Prayer Rug" is printed on an 11"X17" piece of paper.
Hey, if I download it and save in on my C Drive, do you think it will prevent my computer from crashing?

Sparko

March 15th 2006, 06:48 PM

Hey, if I download it and save in on my C Drive, do you think it will prevent my computer from crashing?

only if you use it as a screensaver and lay your monitor on its side and kneel on it and pray.

jpholding

March 16th 2006, 03:31 PM

Award to good old Farrell Till, who shows again why he's now on my Ignore list. This as an example from his reply to my material on the lack of paper in the ancient world:

JPH: Times were easier then; now, decontextualizers like X whose education is limited to courses like Screaming at the Top of Your Lungs at Harlots 201 at Bam Bam Bible College,

Till: There are two points to address here: (1) the claim that I am a "decontextualizer" and (2) the derogatory comment about "Bam Bam Bible college." Anyone who takes the time to compare analytically [Holding]'s articles and mine will surely see that he frequently depends on just citing biblical passages, whereas I usually quote the full contexts of the ones that I use as textual evidence. I quote the full contexts, because I want readers to see that I am not distorting or misapplying any textual evidence I decide to use. On the other hand, he cites--without quoting--mainly because he knows that he is making claims that cannot be supported by whatever he is citing, and he doesn't want his readers to know this. Hence, he tries to hide the broader contextual meanings of his biblical proof by just citing the passages. He wants his readers to think that the Bible must really teach what he is claiming because he periodically cites a scripture or two.

Dum dum still hasn't learned what is meant by "decontextualize". He thinks it means quoting stuff out of context. :lmbo:

Just a reminder of why I ignore him these days. That's all I needed to remind me. :hehe:

jpholding

March 16th 2006, 05:30 PM

Jim Meritt, the first Skeptic I ever replied to online (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html) (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html), wrote me a note to say he was still alive. When I asked if he would be replying to my article he said:

Why waste the time? the blind cannot see no matter how much light you shine on them. And none are so blind as those who refuse to see. You are a waste of time.

I guess I'd run too if I had been so stupid as to cite stuff like Gal. 6:2 vs Gal. 6:5 as a contradiction. :lmbo:

One Bad Pig

March 16th 2006, 05:48 PM

link's broken, jph

JSDileo

March 16th 2006, 07:05 PM

Jim Meritt, the first Skeptic I ever replied to online (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html), wrote me a note to say he was still alive. When I asked if he would be replying to my article he said:

I guess I'd run too if I had been so stupid as to cite stuff like Gal. 6:2 vs Gal. 6:5 as a contradiction. :lmbo:

Holy friggin' crap, I just looked at the alleged contradiction involving Galatians on his webpage, and does he HONESTLY believe that the word 'burden' has the same definition in both passages? YEASH. :ahem:

To OneBadPig:

Take out the ')' in the url.

jpholding

March 17th 2006, 07:54 AM

And now he wins the Excrement Hits the Portable Fan That Gets Turned Around Award for this letter:

You think you are right. You seem to think it is important. You claim to worship a diety that (you heard claimed) said that it was important. If it is so important and true, you have nothing to worry about, and it should be trivial to prove it to others. Unfortunately, you can't and don't because it isn't. But no matter. Your crutch seems to keep you self-satisfied. I don't happen to agree with you, but your mind is closed. Enjoy yourself.

jpholding

March 17th 2006, 01:22 PM

An award goes to Dennis Diehl for his article, "Questions Your Pastor Will Hate" found at http://ezinearticles.com/?Questions-Your-Pastor-Will-Hate&id=103223

This is stupid enough that I'll do a toon parody of it soon.

Dennis is a former pastor who says we should ask pastors his stupid questions, and seems to think that even though he was once a pastor himself he's somehow much smarter these days. :lolo:

JSDileo

March 17th 2006, 01:33 PM

jpholding

March 17th 2006, 01:34 PM

No. This guy is a former pastor. McKinsey is some sort of sociology guy.

But they are both about the same when it comes to knowledge of the Bible.

Sparko

March 17th 2006, 03:57 PM

No. This guy is a former pastor. McKinsey is some sort of sociology guy.

But they are both about the same when it comes to knowledge of the Bible.

He is a former pastor and he is asking such stoooooopid questions? Like why the oceans didn't spill out when God stopped the earth for Joshua? Derrrrrrrr......Gorsh, if God can stop a planet from rotating, he can't do something about the resultant inertia? :duh:

jpholding

March 17th 2006, 04:38 PM

Gorsh, if God can stop a planet from rotating, he can't do something about the resultant inertia? :duh:

I'm using that line. :teeth:

JSDileo

March 17th 2006, 05:00 PM

He is a former pastor and he is asking such stoooooopid questions? Like why the oceans didn't spill out when God stopped the earth for Joshua? Derrrrrrrr......Gorsh, if God can stop a planet from rotating, he can't do something about the resultant inertia? :duh:

Not only that, but the gravity of the Earth is three-hundred times the power of the centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation, so no miracles are need.:duh:

Sparko

March 17th 2006, 05:08 PM

I'm using that line. :teeth:

I have had a lot of experience with sarcasm dealing with Vfarris01, pythagoras, and Steamer.

You have been a good teacher, JP.

Cynic Sage

March 19th 2006, 10:18 PM

Hey Guy's, I'm back from my vacation and I have a link from an nomination for the site titled "Shut up Man Jesus is God" (And maybe even a nomination for you too, JP, since you linked to it on your "What's New" page.:hehe:):

http://www.geocities.com/shutupmanjesusisgod/theology.html

The Dangers of Theology

What is theology?

Is it the study of God or the grieving of the Holy Spirit?

We Christians are supposed to have a relationship with God, not a textbook. Many Americans fall into this trap of excessively reading commentaries, essays, and theoretical books rather than the Bible. Theology is defined as a study of God. But can it build faith?

Dude, if the highlighted were true, I bet JP would find his job alot easier. :lol:

...

Don't trust textbooks. Trust the Holy Spirit. If you have a question, ask the Lord; He will always provide you with the answers you're looking for. Occasionally, check out the apologetic pages on this website to strengthen faith against cunning arguments from unbelievers.

But stay away from theories.

Man, what is it with the "books r bad" Christians anyway.

Theology can come in handy when it comes to important stuff, like the concept of the Trinity. Theology for apologetic-purposes can help defend our beliefs against cults and other religions who question them. John the disciple was a theologian!

But theology for the sake of theology is not only pointless, but is hypnotic and addictive. Trust me, when I used to read essays from theologians, my viewpoint temporarily shifted from God being real to God being an abstract, formularized theory.

So we should avoid books because this guy apparently had a bad trip on something written by the likes of Spong.

Fellow Christians, we must not put God into a box. We must avoid the tree of worldly knowledge and eat of the Spirit!

Who knows? Maybe someday you'll be able to walk on water or raise people from the dead, like Jesus promised we'd do. He wasn't only making a metaphorical statement when He told us that with faith like a mustard seed, we'd be able to move mountains.
Yes, the more faith we gain, the more power we attain!

JP. dude, how could you link to the guy, man? Was he holding Toby for ransom or something? :huh:

Darth Executor

March 19th 2006, 10:25 PM

JP. dude, how could you link to the guy, man? Was he holding Toby for ransom or something? :huh:

"Please note that we do disagree with positions held by certain links there"

{Tim}

March 20th 2006, 12:32 AM

"Please note that we do disagree with positions held by certain links there"
Only certain links? :huh:

One Bad Pig

March 20th 2006, 02:54 AM

A loon on Paltalk was promoting this (http://brotherofyeshua.com/challenge.htm) website:

You have reached the Web Site of Yeshua/Jesus' Brother

Though many of you call me James, my real name is Jacob

In a previous life I lived as Yeshua's Brother

And the first leader of what is now the Christian Church
The Challenge
The 10 Words That Restores the Truth
And Destroys
All Christian Doctrine

There are 10 words that were altered from their original context in the New Testament that have the power to re-establish the essence of the teachings of Yeshua which was known as TheWay. By using the earliest of biblical manuscripts in conjunction with the quotations of the pre-Nicene (prior to the year 325AD) Church Fathers, it can be demonstrated that the very same scriptures that we use today read differently prior to the adoption of Christianity as the state sponsored religion of the Roman government by the Emperor Constantine. These 10 words demonstrate conclusively that the text of the New Testament has been altered in order to make it support the doctrines of the Pagan Roman/Greek world. These 10 words further demonstrate that the essence of the teachings of Yeshua has little in common with the Christian religion today. In fact, these 10 words are to Christianity what the 10 Commandments were to Judaism -- i.e., the foundation from which every other aspect of the religion springs forth!

....

While modern Christians who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity believe that Yeshua/Jesus was God, this doctrine would have to be immediately rejected when the correct ten words are restored to their rightful place in the scriptures. With regard to when these words were spoken, Christian history also tells us that these words were in fact said to Yeshua: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee". The problem is that, with the exception of a footnote at the baptism of Yeshua in the Revised Standard Version, these words are no longer contained in our Bibles today. What the footnote states is that many of the more ancient manuscripts read: "Today I have begotten thee", instead of "In thee I am well pleased" at Luke 3:22.
:duh:

jpholding

March 20th 2006, 07:01 AM

Oh dear....just had to block a lunatic who ended up writing me this:

Don't bother to respond, I'm sending your mail to my junk folder and will not read it anyhow. I'm sure your arrogant response would be of no positive value and in fact quite the opposite.

You know, your arrogance was a bit shocking. I've rubbed shoulders with many accomplished people including some self made millionaires including Bill Gates, and I have to tell you, none of their ego's was a big as yours. Actually Bill Gates was quite down to earth. But hey, he must have nothing on you.....

It was like this all through the correspondence: He'd bleat about pride in me, while "pridefully" announcing stuff like, "Hey, I rubbed shoulders with Bill Gates." :lol:

1BP, that site won a Screwball sometime last year. :smile:

JP. dude, how could you link to the guy, man? Was he holding Toby for ransom or something?

Oh, don't worry about him...there's work being done behind the scenes.

Darth Executor

March 20th 2006, 10:33 AM

Oh, don't worry about him...there's work being done behind the scenes.

The plot thickens. :evil:

Sparko

March 20th 2006, 11:18 AM

I want to nominate an entire thread.

This is the ultimate screwball thread. With the exeption of a couple of posts (like mine I hope) the following thread is chock full of heretics arguing with one another about who is 'right' regarding is theology the antichrist and various sundry other coo-coo topics. It is so bad that I just sit back in awe. You can't even argue with them at this point because it would be like trying to unravel a knot the size of a small asteroid. You wouldn't know where to begin.

It has such luminaries as Provoker, Gnostic Mary, and Smaller.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=72555&page=1&pp=16

Darth Executor

March 20th 2006, 11:59 AM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1431496

XaositectCrayon on the crusades:

B. which time? the time most people identify with is when they were slaughtering people to find some cup.

Yakkity Yak

March 20th 2006, 12:06 PM

jpholding

March 20th 2006, 12:55 PM

Rayado

March 20th 2006, 03:23 PM

The Benny Hinn Exellence in Trinitarian Studies award goes to the author of this site, (http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/theholyspirit2.htm) for this deft (read: daft) refutation of the Trinity:

Now if the Holy Ghost is a distinct person from the Father, here are two spirits. That the pre-existent Word, the Son, is another person, our opponents contend; and that He has a spirit they will not deny. Here, then, are three spirits - - the Son is a spirit, and the Holy Ghost is a spirit, and both equal in substance and power. Well, now the Son has a spirit, "for God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying, Abba, Father." Gal. 4:6. Again, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His." Rom. 8:9 This makes four spirits. God also has a spirit. "The Spirit of God." Gen.1:2 And if the Holy Ghost is equal to the other two persons, then it must have a spirit too. Here are six spirits, and according to our trinitarian brethren, six persons. How absurd!

That's gotta be worth a Bronze, at least. :doh:

Sparko

March 20th 2006, 03:36 PM

The guy needs some elementary school lessons in math. I bet he gets confused counting his own fingers.

"Let's see... I have five fingers on my hand. My thumb is a finger, so that makes 6 fingers, and my pinky is a finger so that makes 7. I have seven fingers on each hand."

Rayado

March 20th 2006, 03:43 PM

I suspect the only spirits he was thinking of when he wrote that were the type that comes from the liquour store... :shifty:

Cynic Sage

March 20th 2006, 03:55 PM

Could someone help me nominate Steamer?

I need stronger reasons then the Private Message of luv he sent me. What about his imagination about the God he did not know, yet the one he KNEW was Just His Imagination runnin' away with him.

Dude, post what he wrote to you here in this thread if you wanna nominate him.

I got a nomination for him too, watch him beg the question while defending Penn and Teller's video on the Bible:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73497&page=1&pp=16

It's like telling someone that we launch people into space on a regular basis and having them come back with "yeah, right!"

Hmm, so you think your belief in invisible magic creatures is on par with the realities of space launches? Now that is funny. :lol:

It would be to someone who refuses to accept that space launches are a reality based on the evidence.

This doesn't appear to make any sense. Your imaginary god is an invisible magical creature. The space shuttles and other rockets are real. How are real things the same as imaginary things?

You're begging the question. First support your definitive assertion that God is an imaginary being and I'll be happy to answer your question.

Well that is pretty simple. I can imagine god. You imagine god. What we know is that god can be imaginary. If you were honest, you could admit that this is all you know.

Even if there is a god, this doesn't change. Your god will die with you. What you imagine god to be is not god. What you pretend to relate to is this imagined being.

Since god is imaginary then it is up to you to demonstrate that he is something more. What we do know is that he is at least imagined. Now then, since I think god lives in your head, I can presume that it "knows your thoughts". You cannot be dishonest with this god unless you can be dishonest with yourself? Can people be dishonest with themselves? Absolutely ask anyone with an addiction. Your addicition just happens to be one of self importance, you think you are so special that even the creator of the universe must want your attention. Har!

Steamer's argument goes like this:

1. X can be theoretically imagined.
2. ???
3. Therefore X does not exist.

And what's with Steamer's "Chewbacca argument" anyway? He seems to pull up the "addiction" thing from out of nowhere.

JSDileo

March 20th 2006, 04:16 PM

Dude, post what he wrote to you here in this thread if you wanna nominate him.

I got a nomination for him too, watch him beg the question while defending Penn and Teller's video on the Bible:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73497&page=1&pp=16

Steamer's argument goes like this:

1. X can be theoretically imagined.
2. ???
3. Therefore X does not exist.

And what's with Steamer's "Chewbacca argument" anyway? He seems to pull up the "addiction" thing from out of nowhere.

Err, using steamer's argument, wouldn't almost everything that exists, err, not exist?:lolo: That's just bizarre.

Sparko

March 20th 2006, 04:30 PM

JSDileo

March 20th 2006, 04:34 PM

You missed Steamer's whole God Addicts thread Johnny. It is what caused him to blow his stack and get banned.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73514

It's a hoot. More straw and red herrings than you have seen in a long time.

gnosticmary, from that thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1425552&postcount=4

Quote: Originally posted by steamer
Is god simply an addiction?

The trouble with addicts in general is they become more rationalizing than rational. This is true for all Christians apologists that have ever tried to "harmonize" a biblical error.

Be that as it may, addictions generally require some actual benefit in the form of emotional or physical feelings. Why do you god addicts do it? What do you get out of it? I suppose it feels good to think that you're going to heaven, but could you explain the depth of your emotions and the range of these feelings?
\

You are touching on a great truth that is hidden from the awareness of most earthly inmates, steamer!

All of the world has been deceived by false gods. This deception is evident in the addiction you are speaking of. In fact it is 'false gods' behind all addictions - drugs, smoking, shopping, anger, sex, fear, and present day religions to name only some.

There is a mutual energetic vamping and feeding shared among the addict and the god causing the addiction, where they become dependent upon one another. This is why some call these false gods vamps, for it is from the energies we produce with our thoughts and feelings that they feed. They then push their victims into activities that will fill them up - an obvious example is what occurs in an arena, whether it be a sports or a religious activity. The crowd is worked up into an emotional frenzy, first feeding itself and then providing ample food for its gods.

:lolo:

Sparko

March 20th 2006, 04:42 PM

Err, using steamer's argument, wouldn't almost everything that exists, err, not exist?:lolo: That's just bizarre.

Yeah I used that argument against him in his God addict thread, and 'poof' now he doesn't exist anymore (at least on tweb).

So I guess he was right. Who'da thunk it?

Cynic Sage

March 20th 2006, 05:18 PM

You missed Steamer's whole God Addicts thread Johnny. It is what caused him to blow his stack and get banned.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73514

It's a hoot. More straw and red herrings than you have seen in a long time.

Aw, you nominated it first. :sad:

I can still post quotes from it though:

Is god simply an addiction?

The trouble with addicts in general is they become more rationalizing than rational. This is true for all Christians apologists that have ever tried to "harmonize" a biblical error.

Be that as it may, addictions generally require some actual benefit in the form of emotional or physical feelings. Why do you god addicts do it? What do you get out of it? I suppose it feels good to think that you're going to heaven, but could you explain the depth of your emotions and the range of these feelings?

You are touching on a great truth that is hidden from the awareness of most earthly inmates, steamer!

All of the world has been deceived by false gods. This deception is evident in the addiction you are speaking of. In fact it is 'false gods' behind all addictions - drugs, smoking, shopping, anger, sex, fear, and present day religions to name only some.

There is a mutual energetic vamping and feeding shared among the addict and the god causing the addiction, where they become dependent upon one another. This is why some call these false gods vamps, for it is from the energies we produce with our thoughts and feelings that they feed. They then push their victims into activities that will fill them up - an obvious example is what occurs in an arena, whether it be a sports or a religious activity. The crowd is worked up into an emotional frenzy, first feeding itself and then providing ample food for its gods.

"You feed Satan when you attend a pep-rally". :lmbo:

Well, I think the word "addict" is poorly used here. As to what is gained, from having faith... is the ideal that there is something in control of it all. And that all of this, every single thing isn't as meaningless as a Pauly Shore movie.

I have heard that many experience great joy here on earth while practicing this addiction. Joy can be addiciting. Many are in love with their gods, deep and emotional love can also be addicting. Really I think they have much to lose by withdrawing, but fear of hell might be one of those withdrawel symptoms that they cannot bare.

"If you are often experience the emotions of happiness and love, you have a serious problem. Fortunately we can put you in a special rehabilitation program were you will be regularly abused by trained professionals until you are ready to be re-released into the community as a unproductive member of society." :lmbo:

Hey Yakity Yak, what was in the screwy PM he sent you, anyways?

One Bad Pig

March 20th 2006, 05:20 PM

I got referred here (http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/before.htm) to support an anti-trin argument against John 8:58:

Why are they trying to stone Jesus? We know it was not because Jesus claimed to have seen Abraham. The answer is found to a great extent in the Greek; the words translated, “was born,” are better translated, “existence” (i.e. – meaning to exist). Also, the word translated as, “before,” is the Greek word, “prín,” from a root word “pros” meaning “superior; first in rank or title.”

Therefore, John 8:58 is more accurately translated as, “Truly, truly I say to you, I exist as superior in rank to Abraham’s existence.” The UBS Greek text reads, “prín Abraám genésthai egoó eimí” In other words, Jesus is telling these Jews that his rank in the kingdom of God is greater than that of their father Abraham. Once he said this, the Jews took up stones to stone him to death.
Yep, they tried to stone Jesus because he claimed to be greater than Abraham. :duh:

Cynic Sage

March 20th 2006, 06:44 PM

Jeannot, on the OT canon:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73787&page=3&pp=16

Jason, you said,

"Umm ... the entire biblical text including the OT. Unless you are a heretic you cannot deny that the OT is every bit as much the word of God as the teachings of Christ."
_____

So who decides who's a heretic? The pope? One man's heretic is another's true believer.

It seems common sense to me that the words of Jesus are more important than a list of kings of the Northern Kingdom around 700 BC.

One Bad Pig

March 20th 2006, 07:05 PM

Jeannot, on the OT canon:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73787&page=3&pp=16
What's screwy about that? Which has more application to our lives, the list of kings or Jesus' teachings?

Cynic Sage

March 21st 2006, 05:24 PM

What's screwy about that? Which has more application to our lives, the list of kings or Jesus' teachings?
No, she was acting as if that was all the OT was IIRC.

Cynic Sage

March 21st 2006, 05:33 PM

Jeannot, on the OT canon:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73787&page=3&pp=16
Strike the nomination. Been reading the rest of her posts. Not a screwball. Just diagreement.

Cynic Sage

March 21st 2006, 07:27 PM

Site nomination for http://www.askrealjesus.com/

The site has a section that "allows you to find questions posted by other visitors and the answers given by Jesus.":

http://www.askrealjesus.com/K_JESUS_ANSWERS/AAanswersmain.html

Where I found such gems like:

http://www.askrealjesus.com/K_JESUS_ANSWERS/D_BY_JESUS/Familreincarn.html

Question: Was Jesus familiar with the concept of reincarnation?

Answer from Jesus:

...

When I walked the earth, there were many groups and sects in Israel that believed in reincarnation. Recent archaeological discoveries have shown that I was affiliated with the Essene community at Quamram. The Essenes believed in reincarnation.

I have told you (see Teachings (http://www.askrealjesus.com/H_UNIVERSALCHRIST/AAUniversalChristMAIN.html) section) that I traveled to the East and studied and practiced the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. These religions teach reincarnation.
Therefore, I think even the most orthodox Christians should be able to accept the idea that Jesus Christ was indeed familiar with the concept of reincarnation.

Apparently Jesus turned over the tables of the moneychangers not because they were exploiting people who needed to make a sacrifice or that he was concerned for the sanctity of God's Holy Temple, he was just having a bad day (same with the fig tree):

http://www.askrealjesus.com/K_JESUS_ANSWERS/F_JESUS%27_LIFE/figtree.html

I can understand why so many people have been confused about the situation with the fig tree, as well as by the overturning of the tables of the money changers, two events that took place very close to each other. The main reason for this confusion is the idolatry of Jesus Christ. However, it does not help that the incident with the fig tree was recorded incompletely by Matthew and Mark.

...

What actually happened to me was that I was going through a very rapid process of personal transformation and acceleration of consciousness. As a result of this process, I manifested successively higher degrees of Christhood, and this happened so quickly that I did not fully have time to adjust to the increase in my powers. At the same time, I was also faced with many outer challenges, and I was burdened by the density and the darkness of the state of consciousness that dominated planet Earth in those dark days.

...

The pressures from the outside made it very difficult for me to keep my harmony in all situations. At the same time, my increasing powers meant that whatever I said would instantly become a physical reality. The positive aspect was that when I commanded someone to be raised from the dead or to be healed, it would instantly be made manifest. The not so positive aspect was that if I said something in anger, then that would also manifest almost instantly.

So here we have a situation where I was under great stress and I was hungry. I was expecting the fig tree to provide me with a morning meal, and when it did not do so, I responded with disappointment and anger. The simple reality of the situation is that I lost my harmony and said something that I should never have said. In short, I made a mistake.

So he just was going through "Christ-Puberty". I guess there must have been alot of Pharisees that got turned into snakes and unwashed tombs in first century AD. But don't worry, He's sorry for hurting that poor, innocent fruit tree. :sad: And he learned a very important lesson:

Because of the high degree of Christhood I had attained, my curse of the fig tree became an instant reality. At the time, I can assure you that this incident was quite an eye opener to me. In fact, I can tell you that it was quite a shock for me. It took me into a phase of realizing that with great spiritual attainment comes great responsibility.

This advice was given to Jesus by his Uncle Ben-Pahkar a few days after Jesus was bitten by a radioactive lion-lamb hybrid.

Not only can you ask Jesus questions, but you can also help Jesus fight the Antichrist by saying magic words as well:

http://www.askrealjesus.com/M_HELPJESUS/callforthjudgment.html (http://www.askrealjesus.com/M_HELPJESUS/callforthjudgment.html)

The short judgment call

The following is a short call that you can give aloud to call forth God’s judgment:

In the name of the I AM THAT I AM and by the authority of the spark a God within my heart and the authority of my Christ self, I now invoke the electronic presence of Jesus Christ to manifest where I am and to bring forth God’s judgment upon the evildoers on this Earth, especially . . .

(Briefly describe the situation and name names of key individuals involved)
...

By the authority of Jesus Christ, I call forth the full physical manifestation of the Will of God for planet Earth. I demand that the electronic matrix of God's kingdom be lowered into full physical manifestation to consume all energies that fall below the vibration of unconditional love.

...

In the name of Jesus Christ, it is done, it is finished, it is sealed in the heart of God and in the heart of matter, now and forever. Amen.

Must.. fight... urge... to make... "Matrix"... related... joke... :nc:

:lmbo:

BronzeArcher

March 21st 2006, 10:40 PM

http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

Some, um, stuff which is kinda hard to take seriously...

‘so what, exactly, makes you god?’

‘I did’

‘Why?’

‘Seemed like a good idea at the time’

And 'god' looks to Asimov:

I define the next level in terms your Sci Fi Author Isaac Asimov has already grasped.

Later, the goal is a super long orgasm. Kinda ethnocentric too.

jpholding

March 22nd 2006, 07:54 AM

Website award for yet another apostate fundy atheist:

http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm

He sent me this email:

Can you reference or link my treatise to your site? It is the most comprehensive debunking article of Christian arguments ever.

Delusions of competence swirling thick here. :glare:

Cynic Sage

March 22nd 2006, 02:58 PM

Website award for yet another apostate fundy atheist:

http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm

He sent me this email:

Delusions of competence swirling thick here. :glare:

Dude :twitch:

Christian Fundamentalist theology and beliefs

Most of you reading this are probably already familiar with the precepts of this faith and belief system that I am critiquing. For those of you who are not so familiar, here are the basic precepts of it. Don't worry, it is an easy to understand religion because it was designed to appeal to the masses and lowest common denominator. After all, what sells well has to be easily understood as well. First, here is their version of life, history, and the world. Keep in mind though, that this does not represent the official or secular view of history, only the Evangelical Christians version.

The Christian view of world history

...

You can read a mini-nutshell version of their view of history at this online picturesque tract:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0005/0005_01.asp (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0005/0005_01.asp)

He uses Jack Chick as a reference on Christian Theology. :twitch:

jpholding

March 22nd 2006, 04:05 PM

He uses Jack Chick as a reference on Christian Theology. :twitch:

Yep. I told him specifically that Chick was not the best source for that, to put it mildly.

Cynic Sage

March 22nd 2006, 04:17 PM

Lazy Agnostic:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73959

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49345 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49345)
The case centers on Abdul Rahman, believed to be 41, who converted from Islam to Christianity some 16 years ago. His relatives reportedly notified authorities about the conversion.

Prosecutor Abdul Wasi says he offered to drop the charges if Rahman made the switch back to Islam, but the defendant is maintaining his Christian beliefs. The judge is expected to rule within two months. The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty.
----------------------------------------

I heard Albert Mohler say today he hopes the man doesn't recant. In other words, he thinks the man has a duty to sacrifice his life to nutjobs.

...

Do you really think G_d rejects those who refuse to be martyred? I think anyone who teaches that is a contemptible terrorist.

Life to a Christian is not breathing in and out. We all eventually die. Life to the Christian is what comes after death. I would happily die for Christianity as I am sure so would this man. If not, then he is not a Christian so if he does return to Islam it is no big deal; he will simply have stopped fooling himself.

And that makes you a contemptible, believe-it-or-ELSE, bOOgeyman terrorist. You shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a classroom.

Wow, :stunned: and here I thought that a terrorist was someone who actually commits acts of terrorism. You know, blowing up buildings, targeting innocent civillians, stuff like that. I had no idea that xtians that believe and teach that they and their brothers should be loyal even unto death to their Lord and Savior who endured the Cross for their sake were the actual terrorists. Silly me. :blush:

jpholding

March 23rd 2006, 12:27 PM

Website awards:

http://www.ard.net/Search_for_Truth/Jesus_Christ/jesus_christ.shtml

just a collection of stupid stuff.

http://www.librarising.com/spirituality/apollo.html

which says

Apollonius of Tyana
The Real Jesus

Apollonius of Tyana
Born February 16, 2 AD in Tyana, Cappadoccia, Greece.

Original founder of true Essene Christianity, whose precepts originate in Buddhist India and China(Himalayas).

Replaced by Yeshai Beth Halachmee(pseudo-crucified Essene of 4 BC), Jehoshua Ben Pandira(the Jesus of 100 BC) and Christna(the avatar of 3000 BC) by the priests of Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

The New Testament is a distorted account of his life and teacings.

The site also has this kind of fun stuff on it:

http://www.librarising.com/hollow/index.html

I think Doubting John should recruit these people for his blog. :hehe:

jpholding

March 23rd 2006, 12:34 PM

One Bad Pig

March 23rd 2006, 03:03 PM

FreezeBee, for his comments here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1435696&postcount=10)

Disinterested witnesses are hardly likely to write something about it, are they? Justin Martyr also grew up a pagan, so he's at least familiar with both sides of the coin. Why would he have converted if the evidence pointed in the other direction?
After Justin Martyr converted, he needed an excuse for his conversion, didn't he? Why did he convert? Well, why did the chicken cross the road?
:bonk:

jpholding

March 23rd 2006, 04:12 PM

Nudda website award --

http://www.egodeath.com/JesusFigureEsotericOrigin.htm#_Toc64390556

Gahhhhh.....that's all that needs to be said.

BronzeArcher

March 23rd 2006, 08:34 PM

From one of JP's dear friends, steve (http://www.christianforums.com/t2821204)

Psalm 104:21 The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God.

Do lions really get their food from God?

The answer is in 2 Kings 17:25-26 When they first lived there, they did not worship the LORD; so he sent lions among them and they killed some of the people. It was reported to the king of Assyria: "The people you deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria do not know what the god of that country requires. He has sent lions among them, which are killing them off, because the people do not know what he requires."

Should God set lions among non-believers?

WWJD?

The really funny thing is that the first two responses were appropriate to his post's intelligence level. "Firetrucks are red." "Lions are pur-dy" :lmbo:

Another person has a pressing question. Almost. (http://www.christianforums.com/t2741429)

How exactly would this event be eyewintessed? It just appears to highlight how the gospels read like pure third person fiction

Appropriately, fellow skeptics chime in with their deep learning

It says it in the bible, so it must be true...duh...come on, don't be so thick headed...*whacks head with board*

matthew made up the virgin birth story after jesus was killed to help elevate the divinity fable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/19/48hours/main1135330.shtml
“It becomes pretty clear, I think, that Matthew is creating a lot of the story,” says White.

Where was Jesus really born? Matthew says in Bethlehem, which is, coincidentally, the home of the great Jewish King David and the place where the Jews had always expected their messiah to come from.

“It is the natural way to link Jesus into the lineage of David,” says White.

Some scholars argue that it all seems to fit too well.

“Born in Bethlehem is a clue that we are making the claim that this child is the Messiah,” says Crossan. “But nobody else seems to know anything about it in the New Testament…. It doesn't seem, for example, that John, in John's gospel, has any idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.”

Don’t forget the greatest user of Hellenistic mystery cults and Gnostic ideas, PAUL! And by the way, you rock Jane

In regards to Isaiah 7:14 lets forget that the Hebrew not only describes an immediate sign, or a “young woman,” (not a virgin) or a female already pregnant. Let’s forget that the context tells us that the ‘sign’ was for King Ahaz, or that this child is later born in Isaiah 8.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Now, can someone give me a single verse (I am only asking for ONE) from the Greek scriptures in which Mary calls Jesus Immanuel?

Another one attempts to explain religious behavior (http://www.christianforums.com/t2830814)

In my country it seems like there is a lot of talk about faith in God but very little actual faith. Attacks on evolution, secularism, struggles to place religious texts and symbols in public places seem to suggest faith is as much a myth as the God we are to have faith in. It seems to me that if I were to place faith in a God I wouldn't be concerned about how other people moved through life. God would, I have always heard, take care of things in his way and time. The very worst that could happen is that God would take his own back to heaven or however that is supposed to work, and that...again, I have always heard...is a good and desirable thing for one of the faithful. So why are so many of the "faithful" intent on trying to mandate God's will? I suggest it's because they have no faith in that will, and feel they must create it and then force it on others.

Clearly this chap had solid sociological training...

Spheniscine

March 24th 2006, 04:17 AM

I've got this from a forum I visit, but I could not link to the source for privacy reasons.

Person A: A new feathered compy dino has been found in Germany. You can read the article here (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20060313/birddino_din.html).
Person B: Let's see those who don't think that birds are related to dinos eat this!

But if you follow the link, you'll find that the dinosaur is definitely not feathered. :lmbo:

Doubting John

March 24th 2006, 06:17 AM

That's it. Lifetime Achievement Award to John Loftus (Doubting John) for the latest person he invited to join his blog....

DUM DEE DUM DUMMMMB....

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/longj01.html

I'm not kidding. :glare:

Come visit my Blog and see for yourselves.

My Blog has ex-christians, ex-ministers, and ex-apologists on it. Jason is an ex-Christian. In his introduction he doesn't tout his credentials, either. But he has arguments that have convinced him, and in the long run that's all anyone can have.

Ya see, Holding, you seem to think that all one needs is a Biblical education (even if only self-taught, like you) and intelligence. When a person has these things, you assume that person will be a Christian. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is just not the case. People believe and people doubt for all kinds of reasons. No one can master all of the facts, not even you, otherwise you would deal with the chapter in my book on "Prophecy and Biblical Authority." But you said this was not in an area of your expertise. That's a very interesting admission, coming from you. Because if I'm right in that chapter alone, then your faith is a sham.

The only reason for submitting a nomination for a screwball award is because of a low I.Q. quotient, and since yours is lower than mine, you are more of a screwball than I am. Otherwise were dealing with control beliefs, presuppositions, and world-views. Since you continue to fail to understand why someone who adheres to a different world-view than you says and does things that seem screwballish to you, then you are the uninformed one, and I really do mean this.

Over on my Blog, we have a link describing Our Policy Here. Read it: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/our-policy-here.html.

There is a world of difference between our Blog and this monthly thread of yours. Our Blog reveals a greater level of understanding. Unlike you, we know why people disagree with each other on these topics, and we aim to be cordial as much as possible:

We think that educated people can disagree agreeably. Only people not fully exposed to alternative ways of thinking will claim their opponents are stupid merely because they disagree.

We're sorry that many Christians may feel personally attacked by virtue of the fact that this Blog even exists, but we know they do. And we know some may think we are of the Devil, while still others may merely hate us like they hate evil itself. But we have no animosity toward Christian believers as people. In fact, we each have close relationships with relatives, friends and neighbors who are Christians.

We will do our best to treat our opponents with some dignity and respect, even if we do not believe what they are claiming. We choose to follow the Golden Rule, for the most part, even though it isn't to be followed unthinkingly. And we ask this from our opponents. We prefer an educated discussion of the ideas.

The only people who would follow such a pied piper like yourself are for the most part young Christian people. Older and wiser people know better.

And guess what, now that I said this, someone is bound to post here and say, "Hey I'm 40 years old and I like what Holding does." Oh, right, that proves I'm wrong. :lol:

jpholding

March 24th 2006, 07:12 AM

Come visit my Blog and see for yourselves.

Especially if you like seeing train wrecks, right, DJ? :lol:

My Blog has ex-christians, ex-ministers, and ex-apologists on it.

So there's no intention to offer quality control, then? Sorry to hear that. Maybe you will end up inviting Acharya S as I suggested after all. She's ex-christian, I believe.

Well, maybe I'm NOT sorry. It'll be all the easier to shame you then. :hehe:

Ya see, Holding, you seem to think that all one needs is a Biblical education (even if only self-taught, like you) and intelligence.

It's all one needs to be an apologist, certainly. And to be a true authority, yes. That's why Matt Green gets my respect and you don't. He has enough of both and is looking for more. You don't have enough of either, but think you do and have stopped looking.

When a person has these things, you assume that person will be a Christian.

No, I don't, actually. Wrong bubble, try the laundry next door. :lol:

No one can master all of the facts, not even you, otherwise you would deal with the chapter in my book on "Prophecy and Biblical Authority." But you said this was not in an area of your expertise. That's a very interesting admission, coming from you. Because if I'm right in that chapter alone, then your faith is a sham.

So waitaminute. Just because YOU offer a few rants and raves, and those that ARE in my subject area I can see could have been better done by Col. Klink, *I* am supposed to worry about something else you wrote that is NOT in my expertise?

I have only one question: Do you check that marijuana for purity before you smoke it?

The only reason for submitting a nomination for a screwball award is because of a low I.Q. quotient,

Where'd you get that criteria from? IQ isn't a measure for an award. Doing something stupid is, regardless of IQ.

Mistake #2 today. Maybe it's carpent cleaning solution you've been smoking.

Since you continue to fail to understand why someone who adheres to a different world-view than you says and does things that seem screwballish to you, then you are the uninformed one, and I really do mean this.

So, you asked an exegetical idiot like Long to join you because of your different world view?

What world view is that? "Give pinheads a chance"?

There is a world of difference between our Blog and this monthly thread of yours.

Yeah, this one is FUNNY and meant to be. Your blog, overall, is funny and NOT meant to be. :hehe:

The only people who would follow such a pied piper like yourself are for the most part young Christian people. Older and wiser people know better.

Shows how ignorant you are of my reader demographics. Mistake #3. DJ Hat Trick! :woohoo:

Oh well. Enjoy the view of the sidewalk. I'll be the gorilla on your back for quite a long time.

"We are the Blog. Resistance is futile. You WILL be assimilated! Snort!"

Doubting John

March 24th 2006, 10:29 AM

Rayado

March 24th 2006, 01:01 PM

The problem is that the very Christian young people who support you and like what you do are probably too dumb to realize that you look down your nose at them too!

Actually, John, he's been anything but what you have described him as here. Every time that I have chatted with him, via PM or email, he has been extremely courteous--more courteous than I even realized at the time.

Just for that comment...I'm going to go make a donation to his ministry. :rasberry:

JSDileo

March 24th 2006, 01:25 PM

Yea, well, well. Why in the world you would claim that this stuff of Jason Long's is worthy of a lifetime screwball award, is simply beyond me:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/03/emotion-vs-logic.html

It's proof of what I have already posted that you are ignorant because you act as if alternative ways of thinking means the person is stupid:

In that post of his, Jason Long already answered you--listen to what he said there...really listen.

You act like the only thing that matters is intelligence and knowledge. That's how you act. I see no relationship with a loving God in much of anything you say or do. It's all about arguments and assessing the level of those arguments. The problem is that the very Christian young people who support you and like what you do are probably too dumb to realize that you look down your nose at them too! :lol: That's the funniest irony of them all!

And now, watch JP deny this! :lol: That'll be even funnier! :lmbo:

Keep up the smoke and the mirrors, that's what you have going for you.

Which shows that you don't have a clue about what JP is like. I'm fourteen years old, and JP and I have had an e-mail correspondence for several months. I NEVER got the feeling that he was being condescending in any way whatsoever. He was extremely polite when I asked him questions, even if the answers might have seemed obvious to him.

He just doesn't like you because you act like you're an expert about the Bible when you're not. JP doesn't dislike every skeptic, just look at Matthew Green, Kyle Gerkin, Peter Kirby, and Charles Salvia. JP respects them, because they actually seek information about the Bible. That's why he respects many who are less in knowledge then him, because he looks at the fact that those many try to actually seek knowledge about the Bible.

You're the one putting up smoke and mirrors, DJ.

Doubting John

March 24th 2006, 02:13 PM

Which shows that you don't have a clue about what JP is like. I'm fourteen years old, and JP and I have had an e-mail correspondence for several months. I NEVER got the feeling that he was being condescending in any way whatsoever. He was extremely polite when I asked him questions, even if the answers might have seemed obvious to him.

Oh, I could've predicted this response, just like the 40 year old response I predicted earlier. I guess you've proved he doesn't look down on you, now haven't you? Sheesh. Do you have a very good Biblical education? Can you teach Holding anything? Can you argue with him? Then trust me, he's only polite to you because you are one of his little hens, and/or because you donate. But inside he's thinking how lame and insipid and ignorant you are. That's his personality type. Deny it all you want to, and I'm sure you will. Because you probably are ignorant--just his type to lead by the nose.

He just doesn't like you because you act like you're an expert about the Bible when you're not.

Who said anything about him not liking me? I'm pretty sure he does. He and I have different areas where we know more than the other one does. I press him on what I know, and he presses me on what he knows. I don't dislike him either. But whether or not he respects me in those areas of knowledge where he has a good grasp doesn't mean much over-all, because he knows I-am/will-be influential.

JP doesn't dislike every skeptic, just look at Matthew Green, Kyle Gerkin, Peter Kirby, and Charles Salvia. JP respects them, because they actually seek information about the Bible.

Well, I know something of Green and he's noncombative and seeks peace before an argument. He's in learning mode. But he disagrees. As far as I can tell Holding maintains a relationship with Green so that he can proclaim he doesn't treat us all the same. Kirby is also non-combative. I don't know much about the others. But non-combative people get along fine with Holding, don't they? Why? Because he cannot tolerate anyone who throws it back in his face.

Are there are much smarter skeptics than I? Sure. So what? The criterion of whether you treat people with respect is then based upon what? Intelligence, education, knowledge, and/or smarts? How about I.Q.? I have my reasons for rejecting Christianity that are good enough for me, and last time I checked I can state them in a book, and they are making a difference with people who are reading it. How about you? Do you have reasons for accepting Christianity that are good enough for you? Should you be belittled whenever you state the reasons why you believe, if they are not up to Holding's criteria (and trust me, if you ever thought they were, then he'd knock you down a peg).

If he blasts people based upon how well they grasp the things he thinks they should grasp, then he looks down his nose at you too, unless you are a Kirby, a Green, or a Gerkin. Get this point numbskull!

I could ridicule him like he does to me in those areas he hasn't a clue, like philosophical questions and arguments of a philosophical nature. Compared to me on such issues he's an idiot and he knows it! I enaged Holding in a debate of whether "Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious," here on TWEB, but you won't find that on his site, nor the debate I had with ApologiaNick here on the "Problem of Evil." Why is that? Ask him for the honest truth. And then read those threads for yourself to see if what he says matches up to what you read. He only includes stuff where he comes out the winner. And you buy that he's always the winner! :lol: Okay, you can deny this (denying things is so easy, isn't it?).

But except for the above ridicule (in bold) I don't do this hardly at all. But he does it all of the time to almost everyone.

Let him continue boasting if he wants to. But I sort-of take what he says in stride nowadays. It's more or less interesting to see how creative he can be with his insults. You, however, probably think he means what he says. :lol:

Oh, deny this now (easy isn't it?).

Rayado

March 24th 2006, 02:19 PM

But inside he's thinking how lame and insipid and ignorant you are. That's his personality type.

While you're channeling Dr. Phil there, would you mind telling me what's making my boss so cranky lately?

Screwball rating: bronze

Cynic Sage

March 24th 2006, 03:45 PM

Scientologist Steven Hayes (did the voice for Chef from South Park) for his double standards. Recieving huge paychecks from episodes making fun of Christianity, Islam, Judaism ect. then proclaiming that he is upset over the show's "intolerance and Bigotry towards religious belief" when an episode is made that makes fun of Scientology:

http://www.variety.com/VR1117939918.html

The dust-up gained steam last week when Isaac Hayes, a practicing Scientologist who has long been the voice of the character Chef, quit after objecting to a "South Park" episode called "Trapped in the Closet," which lampooned both the religion and Tom Cruise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4836286.stm

Soul singer Hayes recently announced he had left the show because of its "intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs".

But co-creator Matt Stone said: "In 10 years and over 150 episodes of South Park, Isaac never had a problem with the show making fun of Christians, Muslim, Mormons or Jews.
"He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was his religion featured on the show."

I mean come on, when your a voice actor for a satirical cartoon show that makes fun of religion, you can bet your hat that there will be lampooning of Scientology. It's the easiest religion to make fun of in the world, it's founder published it's earliest scripture in a Sci-Fi magazine for crying out loud.

Doubting John

March 24th 2006, 03:55 PM

While you're channeling Dr. Phil there, would you mind telling me what's making my boss so cranky lately?

You complete idiot! I know nothing about your boss to even make a stab at it. But I do know quite a bit about Holding.

And you presume to toss out the screwball nominations?

But I'll try anyway, since I do know something about you.....Your boss is cranky because you're just too dumb to grasp what it is you're supposed to be doing, much less being able to do it. Unlike what I've said about Holding, this is just a guess. :lol:

Now go out and defend something that has the remote possibility of being defensible in the first place. Sheesh.

You stay with Holding. You need him to know what to think. He'll take your hand and remind you to look both ways before you cross the street on your way to get an ice cream cone, which he'll clean up the mess on your face when you're done. Then he'll take you home and place you back inside your playpen for a nap. :lol: Now isn't that comforting to have him help you?

jpholding

March 24th 2006, 05:33 PM

Yea, well, well. Why in the world you would claim that this stuff of Jason Long's is worthy of a lifetime screwball award, is simply beyond me:

No, you Hostess Ding Dong. :lol:The Screwball goes to YOU for asking him to join the crew in the first place.

Here's some more of that caliber you can invite:

* Acharya S
* Penn and Teller
* the ghost of John Remsberg
* Papa Smurf

You act like the only thing that matters is intelligence and knowledge.

When it comes to scholarship, it's NOT?

I see no relationship with a loving God in much of anything you say or do.

Neither did the Pharisees in Jesus. I already taught you about how to define agape properly, and we found you asleep under the couch instead of listening like you were supposed to. :zzz:

The problem is that the very Christian young people who support you and like what you do are probably too dumb to realize that you look down your nose at them too!

What are they doing standing on the end of my nose?

The answer is, I don't. I respect JSDileo 10 gazillion times more than you. And I respect Peter Kirby and Matt Green 10 gazillion times more than you, and they're SKEPTICS.

DJ, you're just not worthy of any respect and that's that. Now go clean a carpet.

Keep up the smoke and the mirrors, that's what you have going for you.

Smoke for your smoking delusional meds, and mirrors to look at yourself with that grinning mug? :lol:

One of these days maybe you'll amuse me with an actual answer to one of my articles. :hehe:

BronzeArcher

March 24th 2006, 07:01 PM

But inside he's thinking how lame and insipid and ignorant you are. That's his personality type. Deny it all you want to, and I'm sure you will. Because you probably are ignorant--just his type to lead by the nose.

Hi DJ! :smile:

I like your rhetoric, as you may remember. I need to keep this in mind--confidently make a claim that you don't have evidence for and neither does the other party (who's got the pro psych analysis? nobody!), and the claim is such that they are almost compelled to disagree with it. You are caught here, but it's a good tactic in other places. Come to think of it... I see people using it quite often.

JSDileo

March 24th 2006, 07:06 PM

No, you Hostess Ding Dong. :lol:The Screwball goes to YOU for asking him to join the crew in the first place.

Here's some more of that caliber you can invite:

* Acharya S
* Penn and Teller
* the ghost of John Remsberg
* Papa Smurf

When it comes to scholarship, it's NOT?

Neither did the Pharisees in Jesus. I already taught you about how to define agape properly, and we found you asleep under the couch instead of listening like you were supposed to. :zzz:

What are they doing standing on the end of my nose?

The answer is, I don't. I respect JSDileo 10 gazillion times more than you. And I respect Peter Kirby and Matt Green 10 gazillion times more than you, and they're SKEPTICS.

DJ, you're just not worthy of any respect and that's that. Now go clean a carpet.

Smoke for your smoking delusional meds, and mirrors to look at yourself with that grinning mug? :lol:

One of these days maybe you'll amuse me with an actual answer to one of my articles. :hehe:

I find it ironic that DJ is talking about how you think that we're stupid, while at the same time referring to Rayado and I as 'complete idiots' and 'numbskulls'. :hrm:

jpholding

March 24th 2006, 08:42 PM

I find it ironic that DJ is talking about how you think that we're stupid, while at the same time referring to Rayado and I as 'complete idiots' and 'numbskulls'. :hrm:

If he were consistent in his thinking, he wouldn't be where he is now. :lol:

In fact, I think so little of you, JSD, that when I answer your latest email I'll be offering you a choice of one of two special gifts much like the last one. :wink: Check your box a little later and I'll be back in the morning.

jpholding

March 24th 2006, 08:53 PM

Who said anything about him not liking me?

Not without horseradish and two slices of bread. :popcorn:

where he has a good grasp doesn't mean much over-all, because he knows I-am/will-be influential.

True, but even a lower-level roll-on will take care of that problem. :hehe:

As far as I can tell Holding maintains a relationship with Green so that he can proclaim he doesn't treat us all the same.

I maintain a relationship with him and the others because they do what you can't do -- learn. You think you're done learning, and are stuck in a rut, but don't think you are, and that's why you and halfwits like Blabinski get the treatment you deserve.

They're also not out to deconvert people because of their insecurities, like you are. :rasberry: Much as you'd like to deconvert me and join your blog, you're just plain too dumb to succeed.

Because he cannot tolerate anyone who throws it back in his face.

Whaddya mean, I can't tolerate it? I enjoy it. Lip smackin' good. :ahem:

I have my reasons for rejecting Christianity that are good enough for me,

Academically, those reasons amount to, "The bones say inauspicious happenings are ahead."

I could ridicule him like he does to me in those areas he hasn't a clue, like philosophical questions and arguments of a philosophical nature. Compared to me on such issues he's an idiot and he knows it!

Actually I don't know, and don't care.

I enaged Holding in a debate of whether "Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious," here on TWEB, but you won't find that on his site, nor the debate I had with ApologiaNick here on the "Problem of Evil." Why is that?

I don't archive debates by others, dum dum. As for the other, I haven't updated my archives of debates with ANYONE here for over a year. Not even the ones where I thrashed Stevie Carr, who is definitely unable to pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

He only includes stuff where he comes out the winner. And you buy that he's always the winner!

Really? So you think I won ALL those debates I list? Including the ones with your teammate FormerFundy? Cool! Thanks! :thumb:

Let him continue boasting if he wants to. But I sort-of take what he says in stride nowadays.

That stride looks more like a chicken walk every day. :lmbo:

Shadow Phoenix

March 25th 2006, 01:50 AM

Sorry DJ. JP has always been a friend in my eyes. I'll be glad to tell him about any problems in my life, and he does know about them. I trust him with them greatly. I know he knows a lot more than me in so many areas, and that's cool. I've never received anything condescending from him. In fact, he ends his emails to us with the letters YFS. (Your Fellow Servant.)

Now if you know he's being condesecnding, please tell me how you got the mind-reading started.

Rayado

March 25th 2006, 02:24 AM

You complete idiot!

Give it to me, big boy. :teeth:

I know nothing about your boss to even make a stab at it. But I do know quite a bit about Holding.That didn't prevent you from flying off the handle about it, now, did it? :eh:

And you presume to toss out the screwball nominations?Let's talk about presumption:

But I'll try anyway, since I do know something about you.....Your boss is cranky because you're just too dumb to grasp what it is you're supposed to be doing, much less being able to do it. Unlike what I've said about Holding, this is just a guess. :lol:

Wrong again. Actually, I've been complemented on my job skills, even as a fairly new employee, by three or four of the house supervisors at the two hospitals that I work at, several in the administration of the hospital system, Human Resources, and by the others in my department. For little things like courtesy, timeliness, clarity, and skill under pressure, in case you want to know why.

Now what behooved you to go and place the blame on me...

Now go out and defend something that has the remote possibility of being defensible in the first place. Sheesh.Like JP's honor? I know it firsthand. I didn't even deserve it, really. But courtesy and kindness were what I recieved, and I am grateful for it. (Not to mention that boatload of research.)

Because eventually we have to face it: next to you and what you've said in this thread, you just don't hold a candle to JP's honor.

You stay with Holding. You need him to know what to think. He'll take your hand and remind you to look both ways before you cross the street on your way to get an ice cream cone, which he'll clean up the mess on your face when you're done. Then he'll take you home and place you back inside your playpen for a nap. :lol: Now isn't that comforting to have him help you?Yes, yes it is. Because even being treated like a child is better than having mud thrown all over me like you've done so far.

And even that is not true: I don't need JP to tell me what to think. (Lord have mercy if I listened to, oh, say, you...)

I choose to.

Why? Because you're partially right--I am an idiot. I'm a numbskull. You can stand next to me and hear the ocean, for crying out loud. And it doesn't take studying under William Lane Craig to figure that out about me. But you know what? JP, along with people like Nick, and Jaltus, and RumTumTugger, and Xavier, and a lot of other people here and in my life know that though I'm young, inexperienced, and timid, they know that I want to learn about what I believe--and unlike you, JP & Company don't treat people like dirt. All that I've seen from JP, in correspondence or not, qualifies this: he, and those with him in ministry, have the grace and the ability to help me learn, and I am humbled that he and those like him would stoop down to lift a nobody like me up. JP had the grace to recognize that I would benefit from learning, even when it was a long way out of his way and more than likely took time away from his already busy schedule.

Yes, I'm a child.

But not for long.

Doubting John

March 25th 2006, 01:28 PM

Hi DJ! :smile:

I like your rhetoric, as you may remember. I need to keep this in mind--confidently make a claim that you don't have evidence for and neither does the other party (who's got the pro psych analysis? nobody!), and the claim is such that they are almost compelled to disagree with it. You are caught here, but it's a good tactic in other places. Come to think of it... I see people using it quite often.

If you make a psychological claim about someone and you know they will disagree with it, then it's a good tactic to state they will disagree with it before they comment on it. That way you've got them pinned down on both sides. However there is a good reason to do this, not based solely on rhetoric. When I make a psychological claim that hits a person dead on who disagrees with me about everything else I say, then it is too easy for them to deny it, since it is about them, and I'm not privy to their insides, even if I do know something about psychology.

For instance, ApologiaNick, let's say I claimed you were addicted to pornography on the net, based upon things I've seen you emphasize here on TWEB. I have no evidence for this, so you could just lie and say it isn't true. And since you are the expert about the things you do, and since I have no evidence for this claim, you could make me look foolish for suggesting this, even though I have strong hunch this is true.

I think Holding isn't genuine. I really do. Only he knows of course, but I'm not as stupid as he tries to convince you that I am. I think there is evidence for this claim that will come out soon enough too. I think Holding feels superior to those people here in this thread who seem to always defend him on everything he does. He chuckles to himself about how stupid you guys are too. He sees himself as a leader of the blind, who need his level of intelligence to thwart off the infidels like me, and he thinks if he weren't around many of his followers would flounder and doubt the faith. He would be devestated if his followers didn't see how important he was for the cause of Christianity. I think Holding uses people for his own selfish ends, even though he can effectively convince the lamebrained that he's not really using them. He'll deny this, or he'll be clever and say he does use people in the service of God's glory. :lol: .

JP Holding to DJ:
They're also not out to deconvert people because of their insecurities, like you are. Much as you'd like to deconvert me and join your blog, you're just plain too dumb to succeed.

So, you ridicule me because I am not interested in learning, and that I am trying to deconvert people? Well, well. There's the rub. You get along with people who want to learn from you and who don't wish to deconvert others.

In the first place I do learn from you. I listen and learn when you're not farting, and burping of course. But you are way too offensive to learn much from. It's true that my personality is different from other scholars. I return barb for barb, slap for slap. For me it's a way of expressing my frustration at ignorance, and other times it's just fun to do. I suspect JP and I have a personality conflict, and that it's not just about levels of intelligence or education. Although I do outclass him, and he's upset over this. :lol:

But what exactly is wrong with trying to convince others I'm right about Christianity, aside from the fact that you are a Christian? You are doing the reverse with everyone else, when you try to convince them to convert? Why do you hold to this double-standard? I'll grant you the right to try to convert others. Why won't you grant me the right to try to deconvert others?

Hmm. And what's this about joining my Blog? I don't remember inviting you. Are you worried that someday you may be interested? That's funny. :lol: How strong is your faith really, Holding? Is it faltering? :smile: Naw, you could never admit to your faithful lamebrainer young followers that you have doubts from time to time, could you? But of this I know better. [B]Anyone who studies these things out like you do will doubt the very things he defends. And you do. That's one of the reasons why I think you aren't genuine. Your doubts are growing just like mine did. I think I am seeing it. Now deny this all! :lol:

I'm done. My shingle is now out of my window. That'll be $65 please. When you need more of the same, just PM me like you did in the first place, Holding. I knew you would miss me. Thanks!

Or, you could just let this sleeping giant lay.

You've always known....post it and he will come.

And you've got to know Holding, that I personally don't have a grudge with you, although I should. It's with the brothers who surround and defend you. The Nuts brothers....Lug, Cracked, and Numb. :lol:

Shadow Phoenix

March 25th 2006, 01:34 PM

For instance, ApologiaNick, let's say I claimed you were addicted to pornography on the net, based upon things I've seen you emphasize here on TWEB. I have no evidence for this, so you could just lie and say it isn't true. And since you are the expert about the things you do and I have no evidence, you could make me look foolish for suggesting this, even though I have strong hunch this is true.

Ah. So you believe something without evidence and are just going on a strong hunch.....

And the Christians are the ones who go by faith......

Sorry DJ. I have never once looked at online porn. You can call me a liar all you wish, but I'm more curious why you'd even have such a strong hunch.

Doubting John

March 25th 2006, 01:59 PM

Ah. So you believe something without evidence and are just going on a strong hunch.....

And the Christians are the ones who go by faith......

Sorry DJ. I have never once looked at online porn. You can call me a liar all you wish, but I'm more curious why you'd even have such a strong hunch.

Look if I'm wrong about a specific, then I'm wrong, and I apologize, because I do like you and I think you are a genuine person, unlike Holding. But just do a search for ApologiaNick together with the word sex here at TWEB, and you tell me.

Maybe I should have said you are preoccupied with sex--that's less specific. But hey, what young red blooded male like you should ever apologize for this? Women look so.... so.....so.....nice! And my wife is all the woman I'll ever need. You're still single.

Sparko

March 25th 2006, 02:01 PM

i think all the derailing DJ is doing needs to be moved to another thread. But its not my thread. JP if you would report it I am sure it will be taken care of.

having said that, I think DJ thinks so poorly of others because he knows how morally bankrupt he is and he projects that onto others. In other words, he automatically assumes others to be as morally corrupt as he knows he is.

Shadow Phoenix

March 25th 2006, 02:06 PM

I still love the idea of the skeptics presenting claims without evidence and just going on strong hunches, yet somehow, we're the ones that don't use reason.

BronzeArcher

March 25th 2006, 03:29 PM

If you make a psychological claim about someone and you know they will disagree with it, then it's a good tactic to state they will disagree with it before they comment on it. That way you've got them pinned down on both sides. However there is a good reason to do this, not based solely on rhetoric. When I make a psychological claim that hits a person dead on who disagrees with me about everything else I say, then it is too easy for them to deny it, since it is about them, and I'm not privy to their insides, even if I do know something about psychology.

True! To the unsuspecting or less-than-competent it may appear that you are in complete control. And using this kind of rhetoric (which may be called 'assumptive rhetoric', although I don't know if it's an official category) is effective for shutting down any serious, open discussion. It switches from discussion of evidence and reasoning to less-than-helpful mud slinging.

jpholding

March 25th 2006, 04:46 PM

Nah, Sparko, let's keep it here since the month is almost over anyways. Besides, a lot of what DJ has been saying could go in the Screwball feature. :hehe:

If you make a psychological claim about someone and you know they will disagree with it, then it's a good tactic to state they will disagree with it before they comment on it.

We're responsible for disabusing you of the stupid things you say? Wow. Want we should also serve you your formula and change your diaper? :ahem:

I think Holding isn't genuine. I really do.

My bro ("the Toa Of Justice") is sitting next to me here and says I'm genuine. So there. :rasberry:

I think Holding feels superior to those people here in this thread who seem to always defend him on everything he does.

Not only that, I also secretly include their images in the backgrounds of my comics, as part of bad guys' faces.

He chuckles to himself about how stupid you guys are too.

The entertainment you and yours provide is sufficient, thanks. :thumb:

He sees himself as a leader of the blind, who need his level of intelligence to thwart off the infidels like me, and he thinks if he weren't

The sermon's running a little long, could you hurry? I don't want to miss "Bonanza".

You get along with people who want to learn from you and who don't wish to deconvert others.

Learn from ME? No, moron. :doh: Matt Green, for example, has done his learning from scholarly sources, not ME. At most we exchange bibliographic recommendations. There's no hope for you on that, unless I include authors like Theo Geisel on the list.

I return barb for barb, slap for slap.

Well, barb for blat, slap for hand waved in air at target that left 10 minutes ago, anyway.

But what exactly is wrong with trying to convince others I'm right about Christianity, aside from the fact that you are a Christian?

Mainly, you're not edjamacated enough to do so with authority. It's like asking what's wrong with letting Pee Wee Herman enter the pull and jerk event. Even worse, you're too ignorant to know how ignorant you are.

Hmm. And what's this about joining my Blog? I don't remember inviting you.

Then I suggest you check your PMs you sent me.

How strong is your faith really, Holding? Is it faltering?

This is like a cockroach looking up at me and asking, "Is that your shoe?" :lmbo: Here's how worried I am, DJ....I started a site for my cartoons because you people weren't entertaining enough any more.... :hehe:

Naw, you could never admit to your faithful lamebrainer young followers that you have doubts from time to time, could you?

Last time I did was about 15 years ago, actually, and only about a specific facet of Christianity, not the whole magilla.

But of this I know better. Anyone who studies these things out like you do will doubt the very things he defends. And you do. That's one of the reasons why I think you aren't genuine.

What, because I'm not stupid and weak-minded like you? Because I don't throw over the burrito when I see what might be a crack in the tortilla?

Comfort yourself, per the usual, with projections of your own insecurities. :rasberry:

Your doubts are growing just like mine did. I think I am seeing it.

What optometrist did you pay to paint that on your glasses, then?

Now deny this all! :lol:

OK. :thumb: What next?

I'm done. My shingle is now out of my window. That'll be $65 please.

Didn't know you had shingles, but we can get better service at the place that charges five cents.

Or, you could just let this sleeping giant lay.

It looks to me like he fell out of bed.

You've always known....post it and he will come.

Precisely. That's why I put your name up, Goofy. :hehe: It's like pushing a button and seeing the little birdie come out.

And you've got to know Holding, that I personally don't have a grudge with you, although I should.

Well, go ahead. If you get one, you'll fall out of your hole some more, make even more stupid mistakes in public places, and I'll gig you some more. It's a vicious cycle and I love it. :whistle:

Tell ya what, though, next time around I'll have Sheila answer again, OK?

Cynic Sage

March 25th 2006, 05:10 PM

The site also has this kind of fun stuff on it:

http://www.librarising.com/hollow/index.html

Dude, I just found something that goes so well with that (not a screwball).

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20051102.html

:lol:

JSDileo

March 25th 2006, 07:14 PM

Ray Fletcher, for this post: (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1438405&postcount=8)

...The following equation refutes this:

1 x 1 x 1 x 1= 4

You see, this proves that god is made of 4 parts.

Meditate on a square for a moment.

Somebody needs a math lesson.:lol:

JSDileo

March 25th 2006, 07:21 PM

Oh my friggin' gosh! This website is absolute GOLD! :rofl:

http://www.timecube.com/

Cynic Sage

March 25th 2006, 08:05 PM

Oh my friggin' gosh! This website is absolute GOLD! :rofl:

http://www.timecube.com/
Hasn't that already been nominated last year or something?

JSDileo

March 25th 2006, 08:29 PM

Hasn't that already been nominated last year or something?

I dunno, but it's absolutely hilarious.

Sparko

March 26th 2006, 04:25 PM

yeah we already nominated the time cube a long time ago. In fact when I want to play wacko troll on pal talk I will quote stuff from that site into the room and watch everyone go "huh?"

You have not the mentality
to comprehend the simple math of Cubic
antipode creation, for at about age 6, your
parents gave your 2 opposite antipode brains
to Big Brother academic hirelings, to clone
thought to serve evil singularity brotherhood -
destroying Cubic families, villages and tribes.

jpholding

March 26th 2006, 06:31 PM

DJ just added more gilding to his Screwball Award by now inviting Derek "Chicken Liver" Sansone to participate on his blog. :hehe:

I'm expecting to see Acharya S added to the roster soon.

Cynic Sage

March 26th 2006, 07:57 PM

Bagger Vance, for his strawman on freewill:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73909

If Hell exists then there can't be choice. In the practical sense a gun to your head obliterates your ability to make a free choice. If a battered wife wishes to end a relationship with her abusive husband and he threatens to bash her head in with a baseball bat if she leaves what choice does she have? What if a individual is held at gunpoint with a choice between following orders or being shot is that a choice? God of the bible is a abusive bat wielding husband that says love me or I'll bash your skull in. These are the "choices" that christians pose. I refuse to be a battered wife shielding my black eye behind glasses while I make excuses for a God that abuses me.

To be free, to really be free you have to be able to choose not to participate without being demolished. If God really loved and wished us to have choice the dichotomy would be different. You could choose b/w God or nothingness or God and being left alone.

Lousy abusive gov't, if I steal cable, they send me to jail. If I smuggle guns across the border, they send me to jail. How can they call Canada a free country?:bawl:

And a nomination for Mentalist:

I'll say that God did give us free-will and like any other object, its use or improper use has consequences.

What I'm wondering at this point is why is it that someone like Bagger Vance complains so much about all the evil in the world and all the suffering there is, yet when God steps up and acts as a judge and deals with these people that are causing evil, then God is evil for condemning them for their choices.

I guess you just can't please some people.

A supposed bigoted homophobic dictator, lawmaker, judge and jury whom tortures much better people than you for eternity for not believing. Should he be pleased?

:ahem:

Cynic Sage

March 27th 2006, 02:47 AM

Todangst:

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-17816-days0-orderasc-15.html

He's borderline dangerous at this point... he's had an obsession over me for 2 years running. The funny thing is that he never even tries to deal with the arguments I give him..... he just focuses on me, personally. The argument in question was given to him 3 days ago... and he never responded to it, even when I repeated it to him over and over.

Wow JP, for someone you obsess over, it's pretty weird never heard you talk about this guy here. :hehe:

Wait, is he DJ?

Cynic Sage

March 27th 2006, 04:05 AM

Todangst:

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-17816-days0-orderasc-15.html

Wow JP, for someone you obsess over, it's pretty weird never heard you talk about this guy here. :hehe:

Wait, is he DJ?
Nevermind, he was talking about John Powell.

Cynic Sage

March 27th 2006, 04:08 AM

Todangst and a bunch of guys are giving John Powell a hard time, claiming he is a "Closet-thiest":

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-17816-days0-orderasc-0.html (http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-17816-days0-orderasc-0.html)

And if you think that's bad, they also mistake LGM for a theist.

Yes, that LGM.

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-17816-days0-orderasc-390.html (http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-17816-days0-orderasc-390.html)

I think I’ve learned quite the valuable lesson here.

And that is that an atheist run forum, that prides itself on “free thinking”, can actually be much more heavy handed, threatening, and intimidating to those who dare to disagree, or mock their pretentiousness, then the Christian run forum where I usually post.

Yes, it would seem I have a new found respect for the Christian moderators and admin team at Tweb, who have a far more fair minded and formal process of moderation, then the ad-hoc application I have seen from you.

On many occasions I have tried to refute the claim made by Christians on Tweb, that atheism can be a form of religion, and that it can be just as bigoted and intolerant as Christianity. I guess now that I have witnessed a taste of it, I’ll have to concede that point in the future.

You come here to stir things up in the name of your loving god by adding nothing to the discussion but personal abuse, get friendly advice to read the rules before you post further (why more people don't follow that advice on all forums I don't know), refuse to do so and force a mod to step in.

When the mod stepped in with a warning (based on your actions - Why do theists preach personal responsibility except when it comes to their own persons?), you launch into a mini rant on how bad the atheists are here because they won't let you get away with stuff (calling it "censorship") and talking up a forum full of loving, tolerant christians who would ban most of the people here inside of two heartbeats for saying that their god isn't all that he's cracked up to be, showing why with their own book.

Yes, we ban athiests for arguing against xtianity. That apologetics forum is were we say we're sorry to each other.:ahem:

What really annoyed them was LGM's respnse to Todangst's siggy (Another screwbie for Todangst for his siggy):

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-17816-days0-orderasc-315.html (http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-17816-days0-orderasc-315.html)

[attachment=1]
click to enlarge

You know what's really ironic?

When some pompous, atheist blowhard gratuitously uses the holocaust and the tragic death of Anne Frank, to take a cheap shot at her own god in his signature.

But perhaps Mr. Genius Argument doesn’t realize that Anne was a theist, that she wasn’t burned by Hitler, that she died of typhus in a concentration camp, and that she worshipped the same god of the Jews that dimwit is trying to degrade with her image in his sig?

The irony is rich and satisfying.

Why do we even need parody when we have so much hilarious angst?

{Tim}

March 27th 2006, 10:50 AM

Cynic Sage

March 27th 2006, 02:36 PM

Oh dear. That's just classic. :no:

Now changing the subject, where did you get that spoof MTG card of Godwin's Law?
I don't remember. Maybe it was Allen Glenn's old site.

One Bad Pig

March 27th 2006, 02:37 PM

Maybe he made it. There are M:TG card generators online.

jpholding

March 27th 2006, 02:42 PM

Cynic Sage

March 27th 2006, 02:56 PM

I hereby award the Useless Apologetics Trophy to Campus Crusade for the following:

http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/

Yes sir. That will sure answer Brown's claims that Christianity came from Mithraism won't it. "Never mind that, God has a wonderful plan for your life." :doh:

I've also gotten a note that Josh McDowell has written a short (112 pages) book on TDC. I'll either laugh or cry when I see it, probably.

Dude, their article answers nothing. It's just their weird "circle-tract" junk (http://www.whichcircle.com/episodes/02.html).

BTW: Hey JP, have you ever read Which Circle (http://www.whichcircle.com/episodes/index.html)? It's hillarious. :lol:

jpholding

March 27th 2006, 03:05 PM

BTW: Hey JP, have you ever read Which Circle (http://www.whichcircle.com/episodes/index.html)? It's hillarious. :lol:

No, but I know the Door is good at that stuff. :lol:

Website award meanwhile:

http://www.christianitymeme.org/

Darth Executor

March 27th 2006, 03:05 PM

I hereby award the Useless Apologetics Trophy to Campus Crusade for the following:

http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/

Yes sir. That will sure answer Brown's claims that Christianity came from Mithraism won't it. "Never mind that, God has a wonderful plan for your life." :doh:

I've also gotten a note that Josh McDowell has written a short (112 pages) book on TDC. I'll either laugh or cry when I see it, probably.

Hmm. I considered joining Campus Crusade for Christ a while ago. Good thing I'm so lazy and didn't get around to it. :tongue:

Cynic Sage

March 27th 2006, 03:06 PM

No, but I know the Door is good at that stuff. :lol:

Website award meanwhile:

http://www.christianitymeme.org/
I nominated that last month.

jpholding

March 27th 2006, 03:07 PM

I nominated that last month.

Oh. :blush: Sorry.

jpholding

March 27th 2006, 06:12 PM

"Biblischism" stains Apol 301 with this exercise in fractured fundy thinking:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."

Why the meeting? I thought the Satan and his angels were thrown to Earth for the crime of rebellion. But here they brazenly stand before their Creator to accuse humanity of offenses far less severe than they've commited (in fact, Job had commited none at all being "perfect" [apparently he didn't need Jesus]). God "burns with anger" over Uzzah's trying to stabilize the ark of the covenant but plays this game to titilate and delight the most evil beings in the universe? Huh?

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou?"

For the Lord knew not the comings and goings of Satan and his fork-tongued horde

"Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

I thought "going to and fro" and "walking up and down" were the same things, actually. Gotta love Satanic redundancy!

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

Knowing Satan's background of malevolence, wickedness, and rebellion, what would you think the answer to that question would be? "Yes, I have Lord. Indeed, I'm stumped, because I really wanted to (bleep) with this dude, Job, but he's just too righteous for me!"

It's as if Satan turns this into a lesson on theodicy--but the student is God! How can this ever be believable?

"Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. "

Uh, apparently the answer to this question is "yes." So Job is indeed good only because God has blessed him with providence. Again, Satan schools God here, hence the story's unbelievability.

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. "

And the cosmic game begins...

Anyone else here have a problem with this book's believability?

Wow. Ignorance of at least three subjects (honor and shame/challenge-riposte; use of rhetorical voice; the nature of the apocalyptic genre) in one post. Can anyone spot more?

spl_cadet

March 28th 2006, 03:34 PM

Christ myther fun:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=87801

I read in the Swedish TV Guide that a new documentary series about Jesus Christ ("Son of God") would start on BBC Prime and that the first episode would deal with whether or not Jesus Christ was a historical character. I kept thinking before the show started, "Do not bring up Josephus as proof that he existed". What was the first thing they did? They brought up Josephus and claimed that Josephus proved that Jesus had lived and died (and the presenter also mentioned 80 other non-specified "sources").
The next thing they did was to turn to the gospels. The presenter, Jeremy Bowen, said that they "were the best sources for the life etc. of Jesus Christ" and claimed that the writers of the gospels did what he would've done if he was to write a book about World War II: talk to survivors. It also didn't matter that the gospels were written forty years after his death. I then turned the television off.
I think it's highly problematic that a) that the presenter didn't mention the controversies surrounding the passage in Antiquities (not least the fact that early church fathers, such as Chrysostom, didn't mention the highly important passage), but that it was presented as an undisputed fact and b) the gospels are highly internally inconsistent and what evidence are there that the writers spoke with witnesses. Did they travel around Palestine, crossing off potential witnesses? Who was the witness that relayed what had transpired during the meeting of the high priests, for example? And comparing how the existence of the gospels came around with how he would write a book about WWII? WWII is a widely known event, Jesus existence isn't. Contemporary Jewish historians, such as Justus of Tiberia (not far from where Jesus often visited according to the gospels) or Philon, doesn't mention Jesus. Is such a program even worth to be called a "documentary"?

Cynic Sage

March 28th 2006, 03:43 PM

Chunk:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73963&page=2&pp=16

I gave the gospel of Mark a date of around 70ad to 80ad. Only the most fundemental of apologists date it any early than that.

The Pauline epistles are interesting. The make reference to a crucifixtion (at the hands of the Jews), a resurection and the last super. Thats all. They dont speak of anything else written about in the gospels.

Therefore, arguing that Jesus was crucified and there were guards outside the tomb etc is all based on the gospels. You cant really use Paul therefore to support your argument.

The non-christian source that tells us Jesus died is still yet to be named. (Because if youre talking about a first century one, it doesnt exist). My point about the gospels telling us Jesus was famous throughout the land, and the fact nobody wrote about him for 50 years is also yet to be counterd.

Somebody forgot to tell him that the Epistles pre-date the gospels. :lol:

EDIT:Hey JP, you got any material on the dating of Mark and 1st Corinthians? The dating for Mark is between 50-70AD or is it 60-70AD? I can't really recall at the moment.

Cynic Sage

March 28th 2006, 03:55 PM

Pious god, for his incomprehensible posting in "If SATAN used MUHAMMAD than why JESUS is silent":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=72169&page=1

After Jesus, the only one person on this earth who claimed to be prophet WAS Muhammad, he POSED to be very good and wiped out the Christianity, compelled pagans and jews and christians to get converted to Muslim more over Muhammad was identified as prophet via a chriatian priest.

Mohammed did one of the most heinous deeds.
And it’s mentioned in revelation about the false PROPHET.

According to the ISLAM Muhammad was the last prophet for mankind this means that according to the revelation of bible Muhammad fits in to picture of FALSE PROPHET and JESUS is going to come and destroy all those who followed false prophet.

QUESTION: - That means god has kept silence and allowed all the Muslims to get prepared to go to HELL than WHERE COMES THE QUESTION OF JUDGEMENT, FREE WILL everything WAS PREDECIDED MY ALMIGHTY “WHO would go to HELL OR TO HEAVEN”.

NOONE DID ANYTHING TO STOP ISLAM as THE CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES FAILED TO BECOME BORN AGAIN AND LIVE PIOUS LIFE THAN why NOT Muslim BE GIVEN CHANCE BY ALMIGHTY TO ENTER HEAVEN.

QUESTION: - Why god created so much of confusions and still WE SAY WE HAVE FREE WILL.

HOW SATAN molded truth and WIN

IF in front of a person IF we keep a glass of WATER and a glass of POISON no one chooses POISON, In similar fashion Muhammad took some of good concepts of BIBLE + MUHAMMAD MOLDED (AS A TRICK OF SATAN ) SOME OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BIBLES LIKE “JESUS IS NOT SON OF GOD”

A Deadly mixture of “good + WRONGLY molded” was presented in front of world IN Form of QURAN “PEOPLE ACCEPTED AND TODAY ISLAM IA ONE OF THE BIGGEST THREAT TO CHRISTIANITY”

QUESTION: -No one, not you or I were in the ERA OF JESUS or MUHAMMAD than why THERE IS SO MUCH FIGHT FOR THE NAME.

QUESTION: -WHERE IS THE SO CLAIMED LOVE OF ALMIGHTY why he could not STOP these things or SENT HIS ANGELS THE WAY HE SENT IN FIRST CENTURY WHY JESUS IS SILENT IF HE IS TRUE.

QUESTION: -Without HELPING IN TIMES OF TROUBLES AND TESTING AND DISGUISE HOW ALMIGHTY SEND’S SOMEONE TO HELL.

Uh, I don't think God was the one that "created so much of confusions" here. :twitch:

jpholding

March 28th 2006, 04:30 PM

EDIT:Hey JP, you got any material on the dating of Mark and 1st Corinthians? The dating for Mark is between 50-70AD or is it 60-70AD? I can't really recall at the moment.

Mark is kind of odd in that even some of the lib crowd will date it 60 or so. I prefer to say before 64 to correspond with Peter being executed that date, though Mark may have just had it in notes before Peter died and then compiled it later into a whole. I have my series at http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html with the main concern being to defend pre-70 dates only.

I never looked at the date of 1 Cor. as no one (other than Darrell Doughty type wackos) dates it any differently, which I think is somewhere in the 50s.

jpholding

March 28th 2006, 05:36 PM

Ed "Bad Breath" Babinski wins the Spin of the Week Award for this comment in DJ's blog:

Even hard nosed J. P. Holding of Tektonics apologetics, who defends every act of suffering and slaughter directed or performed by God in the Bible, admits that he can no longer believe in hell as a place of eternal "torture." Following link to his article and arguments.

He makes it sound like I went through some sort of mental anguish over hell as a place of torture, when all I did was cohere with the literary and agoinistic tenor of the NT era.

Sparko

March 28th 2006, 06:34 PM

Check this moron out:

Definition of atheist from Merriam-Webster site http://www.m-w.com/

"one who believes that there is no deity"

If god believes that he/she/it is "The Deity", there is no reason to conclude that god believes in any deity, meaning, no "deity" is above god.

From Merriam-Webster, the definition of a deity is:

1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b capitalized : GOD 1, SUPREME BEING
2 : a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Therefore, god is an atheist. Or am I drunk with honey-wine?

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-2672-Is-God-An-Atheist.html

Cynic Sage

March 28th 2006, 06:57 PM

Cynic Sage

March 29th 2006, 01:32 AM

SpiritWoman:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=43154&page=8

To all whom I have observed opinions on this Thread with respect,

How to begin. In the middle East.

All Muslim, Christian, and Judaism began in the land of the birth of Adam as proclaimed in all of their doctrine and spirals out like a spider web in the vortex of time, migration, and evolution of humankind.

Judaism, being the Rock/Birth of a God whom all of it's follower's proclaim to be son's and daughters thereof. Each teaching war, slavery, prejudice, aimed at the Infidels/Non-believers.

Judaism being the chosen people migrated out of Egypt to escape slavery, only to war with the peoples they stole land from, enslave them, murder their children and women in the name of their God.

Christians, in the name of Jesus Christ, mutilated his message in biblical works to Demonize the Jews and Pagens to justify their wars, murders and slave practices while migrating to the west in the name of God to spread his message as truth and their quest for gold and riches.

Muslims, well, it appears to me they adopted all of the above only their quest is still ongoing and has yet to become fruit.

Cynic Sage

March 29th 2006, 01:34 AM

Heaven:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=43154&page=8

Abraham walked by faith and not submission.

jpholding

March 29th 2006, 07:25 AM

Email received:

I never thought I would see the Gospel being attacked
on an apologetics site. Dispensational truth is the
only way to understand the Bible. Bob wrote an
excellent book "The Big Difference between the two
Gospels" in which he clearly proves his points. He is
right on Baptism and open theism as well. What should
I expect in the midst of Apostasy? Just seems there
is enough error being taught right now, that Bob Hill
of all people is coming under attack. Wow.

Wow. Bob Hill is the Gospel. :lolo:

Plus this came, by itself:

Ouch. It must be awfully hard to be right about everything. :)

It must be harder to try to prove someone's not right about something.

Darth Executor

March 29th 2006, 10:21 AM

Who's Bob Hill?

jpholding

March 29th 2006, 02:23 PM

Who's Bob Hill?

Wayward Christian I address on Tekton.

Hmm. http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/ now has some ACTUAL arguments on it and links to resources. Seems they'll lose the Screwball Award.

Cynic Sage

March 29th 2006, 04:01 PM

Wayward Christian I address on Tekton.

Hmm. http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/ now has some ACTUAL arguments on it and links to resources. Seems they'll lose the Screwball Award.
Phew. :sigh:

That's a relief.

Cynic Sage

March 29th 2006, 04:12 PM

Modalism, on what constitutes sin:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74146&page=6

My question, though, was what sin do you think I might have committed that would warrant eternal, unending suffering. And yes I like cats too, but not in my house since they scratch the furniture and cause me to use the Lords name in vain. Oops eternal damnation for me.

Why self-consciousness of course. Let me illustrate:

For the same reason that I should not suffer because I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I think its nonsense and that’s an honest assessment. I’m not ‘rejecting Jesus’ because I’m evil. I’m doing it because I simply don’t believe he performed “miracles” “rose from the dead” or is a “god”. None of these assertions can be proven so I am perfectly justified in my skepticism. And eternal suffering is eternal suffering whether you euphemistically refer to it as “separation from Jehovah” or not, and I haven’t committed any sin worthy of eternal suffering, period.

God-conscious souls enjoy a relationship with God. Self-conscious souls enjoy themselves. Separation if you will. Punishment? Not really. There are laws of lift and gravity. Gravity is not punishment for violation of lift it is simply the natural result. When lift is violated gravity takes over automatically. If you replace God-consciousness with self-consciousness separation takes over automatically. There is an interesting parallel among among psychologists and behaviorists called bicamerism. (see Julian Jaynes)

So you're damned if you you the words "Me", "Myself", and "I"?

:ahem:

JSDileo

March 29th 2006, 04:27 PM

Modalism, on what constitutes sin:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74146&page=6

So you're damned if you you the words "Me", "Myself", and "I"?

:ahem:

Johnny! Don't you know that if you use the words 'I am' that you're claiming that you are God?:glare::lol:

Cynic Sage

March 29th 2006, 04:44 PM

Johnny! Don't you know that if you use the words 'I am' that you're claiming that you are God?:glare::lol:
I am not claiming to be God.

Aw dang! :doh:

jpholding

March 29th 2006, 04:48 PM

I am going to the restroom.

Oops! :doh:

JSDileo

March 29th 2006, 05:01 PM

I am going to the restroom.

Oops! :doh:
You both are very bad people. I am going to have you both burned at the stake!

Oh no! What have I done? I am gonna die!

No! I did it AGAIN. They're gonna kill me.

jpholding

March 29th 2006, 05:29 PM

You both are very bad people. I am going to have you both burned at the stake!

Oh no! What have I done? I am gonna die!

No! I did it AGAIN. They're gonna kill me.

There's only one person not going to hell now.

POPEYE!

"I yam what I yam."

You never knew that extra Y was for the prevention of blasphemy, didja?!? :hehe:

jpholding

March 30th 2006, 01:35 PM

I'm going to supplement the Screwball given to "Biblischism" -- here only, not in the feature -- for his shameful use of his own disabilities as a rhetorical tool. As someone who has known and cared for many persons with disabilities over the years, that's simply reprehensible. Persons with disabilities should never use them to invoke shame or sympathy. That is an insult to those who have them who have proudly (and deservedly so) overcome the slings and arrows shot at them by a world that isn't always accommodating, and have done it not by using it to evoke an emotion or a reaction, but by hard work and sheer determination.

Obviously this is not meant to minimize anyone's difficulty, but I feel rather strongly about this issue.

Cynic Sage

March 30th 2006, 03:30 PM

jpholding

March 30th 2006, 03:48 PM

What'd he say?

He laid out his biography under the rubric of saying it was so we would know who he was. However, the information about his disability contributed nothing to any point made and was of no more relevance than me mentioning that I have bad allergies before starting a discussion about Greco-Roman rhetoric.

Cynic Sage

March 30th 2006, 05:48 PM

RealDebates recently "de-stealthed" their forums (warning, link leads to some foul language and AutoMaton sexually fantisizing about JP. :eww:).

From the old "wound-licking" thread:

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Real_Debates/index.php?showtopic=934&st=40

JP is one of those christian idiots who think he knows something. he has some little talent for verbage and so he is the agreed upon spokesperson for the other dimwits who otherwise would get steamrolled by geniuses holding facts, like me.

every time you kick one of their [edited] using reality, they send you to him because he is like their big brother.

Dude, did he just say "kicked their [edited] using reality". :rofl:

he uses his verbal skills for evil, twisting and bending everything in the usual christian way. he has some education in philosophy and theology, and he can talk a good game.

*Cue pipe organ.

but the fact is, if you believe in ANY religion, you are a self-deluded idiot to begin with so your level of smarts is restricted right off the bat.

sorry, religious people. some of whom are my friends.

Wow. Just freaking Wow! :twitch:

I don't know which is worse. That he views all people that disagree with him on the subject as "self-deluded idiots" or that he says it the the same breath that he says that he has religious "friends".

After a few more fat-fetish related posts. Geifodd (who is a Satanist) says this to Hebrews (a Christian):

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Real_Debates/index.php?showtopic=934&st=50

Hebrews, you are surely the voice of reason in a chorus of misdirected mating calls.

To the athiests out there: When a Satanist reads your posts and thinks you're too obsessively anti-xtian. You need to get serious help, fast.

Cynic Sage

March 30th 2006, 05:54 PM

Pentium 4, from RealDebates.com, for his/her thread "Why do Christians go to doctors when they are ill?":

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Real_Debates/index.php?showtopic=2154

Do Christians not trust God's plan? If a Christian is dying then it is obviously in God's divine plan and if the divine plan is for them to survive then doctors should not be needed, right?

When Christians are simply ill from your everyday virus, why do they seek out a doctor or take medicine (or both)? Where is their God to make them healthy again and where is their trust in their God to make them healthy again?

Now, I already know the stock answer but rest assured that the stock answer is the very reason for this thread so think twice before using it.

jpholding

March 30th 2006, 06:25 PM

RealDebates recently "de-stealthed" their forums (warning, link leads to some foul language and AutoMaton sexually fantisizing about JP. :eww:).

Duh ah, you SURE dat wasn't deh, uh, Hi Eye Cue club forum?

Whattya think, Annabelle?

JSDileo

March 30th 2006, 06:43 PM

Duh ah, you SURE dat wasn't deh, uh, Hi Eye Cue club forum?

Whattya think, Annabelle?

Oh Annabelle, how do you always make such accurate assessments? :teeth:

Cynic Sage

March 30th 2006, 08:08 PM

Duh ah, you SURE dat wasn't deh, uh, Hi Eye Cue club forum?

Whattya think, Annabelle?
Honestly man, that freaking weirds me out when you do that. :egad:

jpholding

March 31st 2006, 07:54 AM

Oh Annabelle, how do you always make such accurate assessments? :teeth:

She's very smart, JSD. :hehe:

(By the way, I'll answer your email later today.)

Honestly man, that freaking weirds me out when you do that.

Time honored literary technique. :thumb: Speech in character.

Cynic Sage

March 31st 2006, 03:30 PM

Brace yourself JP. Crusader is reccomending your work to a skeptic. Yes, it's that Crusader:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1444604&postcount=51

I think Mr. Holding has dealt well with Doherty's credentials.

I thought you were here to find out about Muslim apologetcs? It appears, instead, that you are simply here to parrot the teachings of those who deny the historical Christ.

Do yourself a favor and quit reading anything other than the Bible and let the Holy Spirit be your teacher.

For Holding's comments, see:

http://tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyhub.html (http://tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyhub.html)

:ahem:

Cynic Sage

March 31st 2006, 03:33 PM

Prvoker, on the Trinity:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74146&page=8

Hello Pat:
I wonder if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, could be refering to David, Solomon, and the spirit of kingdom resurrection(the spiritual kingdom).
David and Solomon were the only two kings to rule over David's kingdom, and after it fell, the gospel was that a messiah would come and resurrect the kingdom of his father David, and those who believe, and commit to, that gospel, have the spirit of the kingdom(are the spiritual kingdom).
What do you think?

:lol:

jpholding

March 31st 2006, 04:33 PM

Brace yourself JP. Crusader is reccomending your work to a skeptic. Yes, it's that Crusader:

Nice.

Is the Spirit speaking through my article on Doherty here, or -? :huh: Wait'll Earl hears that one.

JSDileo

March 31st 2006, 04:49 PM

Brace yourself JP. Crusader is reccomending your work to a skeptic. Yes, it's that Crusader:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1444604&postcount=51

:ahem:

Haha.

Congrats, JP, your works are now official Biblical canon.:wink:

JSDileo

March 31st 2006, 04:53 PM

Haha.

Congrats, JP, your works are now official Biblical canon.:wink:
Uggghhh,

Hey, JP, I'm trying to read your article about Earl's critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, and the way you wrote the essay is making it difficult to read. What's with the whole 'wannabe trial' thing anyway?:glare:

It's still a good article, though.

Cynic Sage

March 31st 2006, 05:27 PM

Snarf accuses Sparko of using the NT to justify the Holocaust:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74277&page=5&pp=16

now, when did God give the state governments of the US the right to take life?

Romans 13

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

So, the Jews should have lined cheerfully on their way to the gas chambers?

...

Then by the NT Saddam is justified in doing what he did; do you believe that a ruler has a right from God to kill their subjects by the millions?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74277&page=6&pp=16

What more can be expected from someone who thinks that God kills everyone and that the NT can be used to justify the holocaust?

wow. The irony in that statement is palpable. I never said that the NT can be used to justify the holocaust.

I said that God gives authority to governments to reward good and punish evil. There is nothing to stop someone from disobeying God and misusing that authority. You yourself said that sin was "disobeying God", right? Hitler sinned.

Your purposefully dishonest representation of my view shows you to be a morally bankrupt person, Snarf.

Yes you did, and Hitler said that Jews were evil; therefore by extension you are using the NT to justify the slaughter of those deemed "evil" by the government. In combination with your belief that God kills everyone, then what you say is consistent with God being the author of the Holocaust
(remember-you said that God kills EVERYONE-this includes those killed at Auschwitz and Maydanek).

Not only that, but Snarf uses Deut 21:18-21 in his Chewbacca Defense of being Pro-Choice yet anti dealth-penalty in the thread as well.

jpholding

March 31st 2006, 05:28 PM

Uggghhh,

Hey, JP, I'm trying to read your article about Earl's critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, and the way you wrote the essay is making it difficult to read. What's with the whole 'wannabe trial' thing anyway?:glare:

It's a satire on Earl's own method, which was a fake trial in which he put Witherington, et al on the stand, threw his own dumb arguments at them, and pretended they just sat there dumbfounded. Check at the end where Earl is arrested for breaking into Strobel's house and stealing his interview tapes. :hehe:

Sparko

March 31st 2006, 05:35 PM

Snarf accuses Sparko of using the NT to justify the Holocaust:

Arrgh! Snarf is such a troll. He is on the same level as Vfarris01 in my book. All he can do is tear down and misrepresent other's viewpionts in other to score points.

My quoting Romans 13 means to him that Hitler was justified in killing the jews. what a maroon. and then he actually accuses ME of holding that view later.

One Bad Pig

March 31st 2006, 05:40 PM

Keith Rex, for his post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74447):

There have always been Gay conspiracies to dominate the world. Alexander the Great, The Kaiser, Hitler and countless others. It is probable that all conspiracies are masterminded by small Gay elites, but in the past such conspiracies have been done by small discrete groups of elite Gays and their objectives have been limited to economic and political power and not to change the culture.

But today what we have is unique in all history and that is why it is so hard to recognise it for what it is and what a threat to civilisation it is.

Rather than a small elite of Gays in one country like the Kaiser and his gang or an international collection of connected conspirators like the Masons aspiring to dominate the world by economic or military means we have today a large number of loosely connected cells all over the world with no central authority conspiring to totally change the culture while showing no interest in military or economic power. This is the very reverse of all previous conspiracies.

In part the act like the Communist conspiracy and it is in fact from the failure of the Marxist conspiracy they have sprung. The Marxist were the most successful of all the Gay conspiracies and in the traditional way they had no intention to tolerate universal Gay Culture, but as in the past restrict it as a privilege for the ruling elite. But they managed to plant their cells all over the world - particularly in the Churches.

With the sudden death of the Soviet Union and the loss of Moscow control all these cells were left to their own devices and since all revolutionaries are Gay at heart they soon started to exploit this power the Marxists had bequeathed to them to promote Gay interests. This is how the Gay Revolution hit us in the face with such sudden violence leaving us in a state of confusion.

Of course for centuries Gays have dreamt of a Gay world Utopia and now they think they have it on a platter.

JSDileo

March 31st 2006, 06:10 PM

Cynic Sage

March 31st 2006, 07:19 PM

Sparko

March 31st 2006, 07:35 PM

What a load of bullhonkey! Everybody knows that there's a conspiracy to eliminate the gays. (http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20050722.html) :ahem:

oh man! someone needs to use that rationalization against Keith Rex and see what he says. It'll be classic.

jpholding

March 31st 2006, 07:51 PM

JSD, I will of course want feedback on my latest email. :thumb:

I'll open the April Screwball thread tomorrow.

JSDileo

March 31st 2006, 08:14 PM

JSD, I will of course want feedback on my latest email. :thumb:

I'll open the April Screwball thread tomorrow.

I'm formulating it right now.:thumb:

YAY! April Screwballs!:yipee:

Spheniscine

April 1st 2006, 01:55 AM

http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=199166
Prometheus, the Greek God of Screwballs!

QUOTE (AaronCrane @ Jan 2 2006, 12:46 PM)
....if the Great Beings created the universe....

I have heard that alot, but is there any official information stating that the Great Beings actually created everything. If so, what created the Great Beings.

It would seem more likely to me that the Great beings evolved along side the universe as it was formed by events which I won't go into 'cause the same rules don't apply to the Bionicle as they do to our world, and it might offend someone. But I think that the Great Beings evolved over a long time, then took over the universe, making it seem that it was their creation, but it is more like their property. It's the same way we Humans have taken control of our planet, but did we create it? I think I can safely say no.

So in my opinion, yes evolution is possible in the Bionicle world.
Applying a stupid argument against God to a fictional universe makes it stupider. :ahem:
QUOTE (AaronCrane @ Jan 2 2006, 6:41 PM)
I said, "if." What created the Great Beings if they created the universe? Simple answer--nothing. They always existed.

That is quite clearly impossible. I can't even begin to tell you why that could never happen. The idea that something has always been around is not based out of fact or a thought out theory, but based in a need to quickly dismiss an idea that you have not the explanation for. But If you want to believe that, go right ahead, but you will be the only one.

OK, anyone below me who quoted this little bit right here above this, do not PM me, it will take WAAAAAAAYYY too long to explain why I am right.
Obviously you didn't understand my statement, and I advise you read up on your astrophysics before you say stuff like, "that is not a valid statement at all".

---------

STOP QUOTING ME. You all obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. You cannot reply to someone like me, who uses scientific knowledge behind everything I say, with your own religious philosophy. This topic is not about what happens in our world. It is about the Bionicle.

---------

QUOTE (Onuki @ Jan 3 2006, 10:45 PM)
It sounded like that was pretty heavily influenced by Darwinian evolution. Maybe it's just me, but the whole idea of things adapting to their environment was never really introduced before Darwin came along with his studies...

Well, we have been talking about darwinian evolution this whole time. That is the only big theory on physical evolution. Unless someone on here has come up with his own theory that involves a different process altogether, and dare to challenge 90% of the scientific community, and possibly the other 10%.

---------

Alright look, seriously. You people have to stop quoting me. I know no one on here agrees with me. I really don't care. But once again, this topic is about BIONICLE, not whether I am right or wrong. In fact, you make posts personal. All I did was offer up science. Not repeatedly respond to people saying "your wrong, and you can't say that". But I did say that no one in this discussion know anything about the scientific half, only the simple thinking philosophical half. I know that they are uneducated in physics because if they were, they would agree with me.

So stop posting quotes about me. Just get back on topic. If you have something to say, send me a PM, and make sure it is worth my time.
Self explanatory. Note he tells people not to get so worked up over a fictional storyline, yet does exactly that himself. :lmbo:
=========

Other Screwballs

ForgottenToa

Ok, look in conceptual (but mostly accepted) physics time is a circle. There is no end there is no beggining, everything always lasts forever. The universe shrinks down so small that it can't do itanymore and it blows outward, the big bang, when it can't expand anymore it shrinks inward, the cycle repeats itself. The idea of a beggining and an end is a purely pychological human concept. I t was there and it shall simply always be there. Same amount of atoms in this universe right now as there will always be.

---------

Da Adi J

Again, not necessarily true, forgetting the protodermis for a moment (which I realise has been used to counter aruge this users point) metal could evolve, if you had a metallic lifeform, our bones contain calcium, and thats a metal, have we not evolved?