Submit Your Candidates for April 2006 Screwballs of the Month

[jpholding]

Bring in the April fools!

[Cynic Sage]

If you thought BJU was bad, look at this:

http://www.brianbaute.com/archives/2006/03/pensacola-christian-college.php

...

The rules at Pensacola govern every aspect of students’ lives, including the books they read, the shoes they wear, the churches they attend, and the people they date. Many of those regulations are spelled out in a handbook sent to students after they enroll, but there are plenty of unwritten rules as well. Demerits are common and discipline swift.
It’s all in the name of preserving Pensacola’s “distinctives” — the word the college uses for what sets it apart. But many former students say the enforcement of the rules is often cruel and capricious. Dissent is never tolerated, they say, and expulsions for seemingly minor infractions are routine.

They also complain that Pensacola plays down (or never mentions) an important fact: It is not accredited. For many students, that lack of accreditation has not been a problem; for some, however, it has meant starting college over elsewhere or being rejected by employers.

...

Someone who witnessed the incident reported Ms. Morris and her boyfriend. At Pensacola any physical contact between members of the opposite sex is forbidden. (Members of the same sex may touch, although the college condemns homosexuality.) The forbidden contact includes shaking hands and definitely includes patting behinds. Both students were expelled.


...There are restrictions on when and where men and women may speak to each other. Some elevators and stairwells may be used only by women; others may be used only by men. Socializing on particular benches is forbidden. If a man and a woman are walking to class, they may chat; if they stop en route, though, they may be in trouble. Generally men and women caught interacting in any “unchaperoned area” — which is most of the campus — could be subject to severe penalties.

...

Those rules extend beyond the campus. A man and a woman cannot go to an off-campus restaurant together without a chaperon (usually a faculty member). Even running into members of the opposite sex off campus can lead to punishment. One student told of how a group of men and a group of women from the college happened to meet at a McDonald’s last spring. Both groups were returning from the beach (they had gone to separate beaches; men and women are not allowed to be at the beach together). The administration found out, and all 15 students were expelled.

...

Even couples who are not talking or touching can be reprimanded. Sabrina Poirier, a student at Pensacola who withdrew in 1997, was disciplined for what is known on the campus as “optical intercourse” — staring too intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex. This is also referred to as “making eye babies.” While the rule does not appear in written form, most students interviewed for this article were familiar with the concept.


"Eye-intercourse"? They make it sound so Kinky. :lmbo:

[jpholding]

If you thought BJU was bad, look at this:

http://www.brianbaute.com/archives/2006/03/pensacola-christian-college.php


Good heavens.

I'm gonna go up there and pass out some of my comics, then watch the place blow up. :hehe:

[Cynic Sage]

Good heavens.

I'm gonna go up there and pass out some of my comics, then watch the place blow up. :hehe:

BTW: Here is a list of PPC rules from an underground site about PCC, The Student Voice (not a screwball):

http://www.pensacolachristiancollege.com/rules.htm

Another bit from the previous article:


Pensacola Christian College is “an idea that came from God,” according to its Web site. The college was founded in 1974 by Arlin Horton, who remains its president. It is Baptist but is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention or any similar organization. Both Mr. Horton and his wife, Rebekah, are graduates of Bob Jones University. While it appears that he copied his alma mater’s demerit system and some of its rules, there is a longstanding rift between the two institutions.

Several years ago, Pensacola publicly criticized Bob Jones University for using translations of the Bible other than the King James Version. (Pensacola’s policy is that the King James is the only divinely inspired English translation.) A group of Bob Jones faculty members fired off a lengthy letter responding to the attack.

Dude, they think BJU is too liberal. Freaking-Bob-Jones-Freaking-University! :twitch:


When he was a student, Mr. Harding traveled with a singing group that promoted Pensacola. When prospective students asked about accreditation, Mr. Harding says the singers were instructed to tell them that Harvard and Yale are not accredited, either, and so accreditation doesn’t matter. (Harvard and Yale, for the record, are accredited.)

...

Donald Barber asked about accreditation before he enrolled. The first time he asked, he says, a college representative evaded the question. Then the representative said it wasn’t important. “I had to ask three more times before he said no.”

Institutions like that shouldn't be allowed to exist. :rant:

[jpholding]

I guess I could call this an institutional screwball.

The sadder part is, there must be tons of PARENTS out there like that too, to send their kids there in the first place.

[TuckEverlasting]

I hear Darth is looking for a college to attend next year. :hrm:

[Darth Executor]

I hear Darth is looking for a college to attend next year. :hrm:

I already found one. No bible college for me. :tongue:
I wish I could start now, I'm so sick of staying at home and doing nothing. And Oblivion won't last forever. :help:

[JSDileo]

If you thought BJU was bad, look at this:

http://www.brianbaute.com/archives/2006/03/pensacola-christian-college.php

...

The rules at Pensacola govern every aspect of students’ lives, including the books they read, the shoes they wear, the churches they attend, and the people they date. Many of those regulations are spelled out in a handbook sent to students after they enroll, but there are plenty of unwritten rules as well. Demerits are common and discipline swift.
It’s all in the name of preserving Pensacola’s “distinctives” — the word the college uses for what sets it apart. But many former students say the enforcement of the rules is often cruel and capricious. Dissent is never tolerated, they say, and expulsions for seemingly minor infractions are routine.

They also complain that Pensacola plays down (or never mentions) an important fact: It is not accredited. For many students, that lack of accreditation has not been a problem; for some, however, it has meant starting college over elsewhere or being rejected by employers.

...

Someone who witnessed the incident reported Ms. Morris and her boyfriend. At Pensacola any physical contact between members of the opposite sex is forbidden. (Members of the same sex may touch, although the college condemns homosexuality.) The forbidden contact includes shaking hands and definitely includes patting behinds. Both students were expelled.


...There are restrictions on when and where men and women may speak to each other. Some elevators and stairwells may be used only by women; others may be used only by men. Socializing on particular benches is forbidden. If a man and a woman are walking to class, they may chat; if they stop en route, though, they may be in trouble. Generally men and women caught interacting in any “unchaperoned area” — which is most of the campus — could be subject to severe penalties.

...

Those rules extend beyond the campus. A man and a woman cannot go to an off-campus restaurant together without a chaperon (usually a faculty member). Even running into members of the opposite sex off campus can lead to punishment. One student told of how a group of men and a group of women from the college happened to meet at a McDonald’s last spring. Both groups were returning from the beach (they had gone to separate beaches; men and women are not allowed to be at the beach together). The administration found out, and all 15 students were expelled.

...

Even couples who are not talking or touching can be reprimanded. Sabrina Poirier, a student at Pensacola who withdrew in 1997, was disciplined for what is known on the campus as “optical intercourse” — staring too intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex. This is also referred to as “making eye babies.” While the rule does not appear in written form, most students interviewed for this article were familiar with the concept.


"Eye-intercourse"? They make it sound so Kinky. :lmbo:

Holy moley. This picture is the only thing that can describe my emotions:

[jpholding]

I already found one. No bible college for me. :tongue:
I wish I could start now, I'm so sick of staying at home and doing nothing. And Oblivion won't last forever. :help:

:whistle: RP #3 is cooomming....

[JSDileo]

Good heavens.

I'm gonna go up there and pass out some of my comics, then watch the place blow up. :hehe:

What you should do, JP, is make a gigantic version of the picture of Annabelle and Brett "making eye babies" and put it on a wall where it can be easily seen.:hehe: Specifically, this picture:

[Darth Executor]

:whistle: RP #3 is cooomming....

It's big enough to last until September? Yay.

[jpholding]

What you should do, JP, is make a gigantic version of the picture of Annabelle and Brett "making eye babies" and put it on a wall where it can be easily seen.:hehe: Specifically, this picture:

Even worse, look at the TAILS.

Satan himself is involved! Personally!

Or is it...hm, wonder if M'l'strom knows the way to Pensacola?

[jpholding]

The MMM MMM Good Tasty Irony Award goes to this email I got this morning:

**********

I read your article Shattering the Christ Myth and links, and found myself asking where's your evidence and how has the myth been shattered?

Even 100 Biblical Scholars known as the Jesus Seminar said the Gospels are only 18% historically accurate. I didn't see that in your rebuttal.

Absent in your rebuttal is any mention of Robert Price (Biblical scholar and Jesus Seminar fellow), author of the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. He demonstrates that the Gospels are mythology and a rewriting of the Old Testament and other sources.

The Gospels are a conglomeration of mythology and a form of midrash. Zoroaster, Horus, Krishna, Bacchus, Prometheus, Indra and other deities were born by virgin birth. Empedocles was reported as preaching, curing illnesses, controlling the storms and raising the dead. Dionysus had a last supper. Bacchus turned water into wine. Osiris died and was resurrected.

The Gospel stories didn't originate with Christianity. Mithraism, a religion that co-existed with Christianity, but began much earlier, is the best example of this. Mithra was born of a virgin, his birth was celebrated on December 25th, performed miracles with 12 disciples, held a last supper, resurrected after 3 days on the spring equinox and ascended into Heaven.

Easter itself is rooted in pagan origins. The name Easter comes from the Pagan goddess "Eostre."

The proper way to determine historicity is to examine the evidence and then draw a conclusion, not make a decision and then try to justify it. You've done the latter.

****

I told the wit to use my search feature. :hehe:

[jpholding]

It's big enough to last until September? Yay.

Heck, I plan to be on ST #5/RP #6 by that time (the ST/RP crossover issue).

But if you're bored, join me for a game of Crush the Fundy Atheist Noob over at the Apol 301 Job/Satan thread. He's just the kind I know you'd like with BBQ sauce on him. :hehe:

[Darth Executor]

But if you're bored, join me for a game of Crush the Fundy Atheist Noob over at the Apol 301 Job/Satan thread. He's just the kind I know you'd like with BBQ sauce on him. :hehe:

Man, that thread is RED! I tried to get into it but got bored of reading the drivel of Dr. Phil's evil clone. And now my asthma is acting up again. I hope it doesn't get too bad because nearly choking to death while waiting a couple of hours for the Canadian ER to fumigate my lungs isn't fun.

[Darth Executor]

Man, I looked at amazon's top seller list and my brain hurts. About the only thing I'd want to get off it is Maddox's book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/all/ref%3Dsv%5Fb%5F2/104-9354468-7631160?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[Cynic Sage]

Bagger Vance, for his thread titled "Can we be honest and admit the complete and utter failure of Christianity?" (man, even the title is a loaded question):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74582

It has been 2,000 years give or take. What has Christianity accomplished? Has it changed the world in any positive fashion? Has it shifted the world to a better more peaceful place? Has it changed mankind and made him more charitable and loving?

Well why don't we ask the christians themselves? First we'll focus on their views on morality. They decry and lament the moral depravity in the western world...meanwhile they are the predominant religion of the west! If the west is morally decadent and depraved as christians claim then why is christianity the majority religion? In fact with a good 1,000 years as the dominant religion in the west one would expect a return on the investment of enlightened loving humans. Why haven't we seen this? Where is this return on the investment in Christ made by the west? The claims of Christianity are that you accept Christ and he "changes your heart". 1,000 years of undisputed Christian rule in the west we are sliding further if you listen to the christians themselves.

How about we shift from the moral abstracts. Most Christians might argue that we've all fallen or that even some christians are wrong on what constitutes biblical morality. Fair enough. How about how christianity has changed foreign relations and the world in general. Has Christianity helped stop war, famine, poverty, etc? Christians were participants and key enablers of such tragedies as the slave trade, Crusades, genocide of Native Americans, Inquisitions, etc. In 2,000 years what is the return on this Christian experiment for the world? Has it made the world a better place for humanity? Has it changed hearts and made people more compassionate?

One might ask for a point here. The point is that if Christianity is what many claim it is why hasn't it changed anything? The evidence suggests that it is nothing but window dressing. While it says all the right things it has proven absolutely incapable of changing anything in a substantial way. Christians are the majority in the western world yet they claim it is morally decayed. Christians are the richest and most powerful people on the planet and yet millions die of starvation and preventable disease every year.

The real question would be this: If Christianity never existed would we be able to tell a difference in the world today? Would christians argue that things would be worse?

"Famine"? He expects us to control the weather and the fertility of the soil?

He also completely ignores the existance abolitionist movement.

[Cynic Sage]

Man, I looked at amazon's top seller list and my brain hurts. About the only thing I'd want to get off it is Maddox's book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/all/ref%3Dsv%5Fb%5F2/104-9354468-7631160?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Dude, I think that book's supposed to be humor.

[Darth Executor]

But if you're bored, join me for a game of Crush the Fundy Atheist Noob over at the Apol 301 Job/Satan thread. He's just the kind I know you'd like with BBQ sauce on him. :hehe:

Taken care of. The best part is probably gonna get modded since blabberfitism used a censor bypass so if you don't see it PM me and I'll send it to you.

[Darth Executor]

Dude, I think that book's supposed to be humor.

It is. That's why I said it's the only book I want to get. :tongue:

[Darth Executor]

End times battle flag.

http://end-timesflag.tripod.com/

[Darth Executor]

Not a screwball but I found this hilarious:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

[Cynic Sage]

Abraham Simpson:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1446434&postcount=8


Scriptural Christianity, which began in 6th century BC Babylon, did not seem to have a particular time table for kingdom resurrection, leading to world peace, other than when the body which watches for the Christ reaches the numbers which would make it viable as a force to take, and hold, the land of the old kingdom of Israel.


:lol:

[Anthem]

Man, I looked at amazon's top seller list and my brain hurts. About the only thing I'd want to get off it is Maddox's book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/all/ref%3Dsv%5Fb%5F2/104-9354468-7631160?%5Fencoding=UTF8looks like brown and baigent are reaping the rewards of their court case.

from the amazon book description of baigent's latest http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060827130/ref=pd_ts_b_17/102-8519926-2920946?s=books&v=glance&n=283155:
What if everything you think you know about Jesus is wrong? In The Jesus Papers, Michael Baigent reveals the truth about Jesus's life and crucifixion. Despite -- or rather because of -- all the celebration and veneration that have surrounded the figure of Jesus for centuries, Baigent asserts that Jesus and the circumstances leading to his death have been heavily mythologized. As a religious historian and a leading expert in the field of arcane knowledge, Baigent has unequaled access to hidden archives, secret societies, Masonic records, and the private collections of antiquities traders and their moneyed clients. Using that access to full advantage, Baigent explores the religious and political climate in which Jesus was born and raised, examining not only the conflicts between the Romans and the Jews, but the strife within the different factions of the Jewish Zealot movement. He chronicles the migrations of Jesus's family, his subsequent exposure to other cultures, and the events, teachings, and influences that were most likely to have shaped his early years. Baigent also uncovers the inconsistencies and biases in the accounts of the major historians of Jesus's time, including Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus. The enduring influence of these accounts in forming our most common conceptions of Jesus reveals that spin is not a new phenomenon.

Taking us back to sites that over the last twenty years he has meticulously explored, studied, and in some instances excavated for the first time, Baigent provides a detailed account of his groundbreaking discoveries, including many never-before-seen photos. The evidence he has uncovered has lead him to make shocking new assertions that threaten the conventional account of Jesus's life and death and shake the very foundation of Western thought, based as it is upon the assumption of Jesus's divinity. Ultimately, his investigation raises the hope that we may gain a new understanding of Jesus.id say thats good evidence he is making a lot of stuff up.

[Darth Executor]

I read that one. Master of arcane knowledge... :lol:

[jpholding]

id say thats good evidence he is making a lot of stuff up.

Probably. I have a copy and will review it by May 1.




Taken care of. The best part is probably gonna get modded since blabberfitism used a censor bypass so if you don't see it PM me and I'll send it to you.

Saw it this morning. I expect he'll spend several hours tying buttered pieces of toast to his cat as a way of proving you wrong. :lol:


He also completely ignores the existance abolitionist movement.

Not to mention a lot of lit like Stark's Glory to God. I'd love to slap him but I don't have time.



I'm working on the March Screwball feature now and hope to have it up on Tektoon within 2-3 hours.

[jpholding]

Abraham Simspon, in the Apol 301 thread where Stevie announces his radio debate:


No one knows what Paul says flatout, and there is no reason to think that words written in black and white are reliable evidence.
The only thing that is reliable about the bible, is the story it tells, not individual words in individual verses. If the words and verses don't tell a story which lines up with the whole story, then it is a waste of time to refer to them.
There is absolutely no record in the written language of Paul, regarding what Paul actually said, and the written Greek language of the Textus Receptus, is unlikely to represent what and first century koine Greek writer said flatout.
If your debate will be based on a mutual agreement that seminary written Greek is even anything akin to first century written koine Greek, then the debate will just be an exercise in arguing over the nuances of languages which do not accurately represent the writing of the original authors in the first place.
Rise above the false political correctness of orthodoxy, and debate with the real evidence...the greater context of the whole bible story!!!

We got us a nutcase in the house!

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1449508


That wasn't a joke, it was mockery. Pretty awful too and not exactly my idea of nicey-nicey. Not only that, but my criticizm that your comment was misplaced still stands. 1/10 for trying.


How's that jpholding-shaped chip on your shoulder working out for ya there, Mister Fletcher?


Strange, that post wasn't even directed at him. It looks like I may have triggered a relapse of his condition. Arkham Asylum let him go to soon. Somebody call Batman.

[Spheniscine]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501AP_Jesus_Ice_Theory.html

Uh huh... how does he explain Peter then? By another invisible block of ice?

http://www.pantheism.net/

'Naturalistic spirituality'? Is this where Jim Eisele goes to? :lmbo:

http://betterhuman.org/

I laughed when I saw this chapter from the book the above website plugs: http://wind.securenet-server.net/~galgitr6/Meme/Foreword%20Web%20excerpt.htm

Though this writing has the presentation style of the truth, it remains nothing more than a story, in the sense that there is no such thing as a bona fide, verifiable, true “fact”. Without the possibility of the existence of a fact, there can only be new theories that build on previous theories, as the whole truth about reality continues to and may forever escape the accessibility and capacity of our minds.
Is that a fact? :lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501AP_Jesus_Ice_Theory.html

Uh huh... how does he explain Peter then? By another invisible block of ice?


Even if it was a block of ice, the miracle would be getting some of the water of the sea of Gallilee to freeze, and then maintain sure footing on the slippery ice during the storm. :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Modalist, when asked "Who is the Holy Spirit?":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74146&page=9

James or accurately the Church under James' leadership. If we are to believe the Apostle Paul.

[Bill the Cat]

Snarf after repeatedly being told about the Hebrew meaning of the last word of the 6th commandment

On the meaning of the word kill, I'm going by the English Bible. If you want to substitute 'murder,' that's fine except that God then told the Israelites that it was OK to murder people too.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1451502&postcount=26

[jpholding]

Screwy email:


I am sorry that your faith is so blind and fanatical to not be able to read one simple line for what it says. Dan Brown said the descriptions of the artwork, architecture, etc were accurate. If you take those words literally, which you should, then he is saying only the descriptions are accurate, not the dates, or the periodic comical lines, such as a fax came from Heaven. How could you be upset about an exaggerated joke such as that? I am a Christian and a believer in the Bible. This book does not offend me in any way. Of course some things are inaccurate. There isn’t any book in history that can be universally accepted as 100% true. Some believe the Bible is 100% true and some don’t. Any argument supporting a fact can be argued from the other perspective. Don’t take it so personally. I guarantee that God isn’t.

[BronzeArcher]

"I am a Christian and a believer in the Bible."

Did you know that some people believe this and some don't? :lol:

[Little Shepherd]

I read that one. Master of arcane knowledge... :lol:
When telling people what your job is, it's probably best not to give yourself a title that makes you sound like a D&D character. :rofl:

[TuckEverlasting]

When telling people what your job is, it's probably best not to give yourself a title that makes you sound like a D&D character. :rofl:

[attachment=1] <---- Baigent

[Cynic Sage]

Keith Rex, on Theologyweb:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74829&page=2&pp=16

:haha:
So this is really just another Gay Atheist front run by Gay Atheists who call themselves Christians? I suppose in your Bible Jesus taught "blessed are the Gays - because they have all the money."?

[attachment]

IT'S BIG GAY AL'S BIG GAY THEOLOGY DISCUSSION BOARD!

[Cynic Sage]

Jeannot, on Christianity and anti-semistism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1451709&postcount=140


These original followers didn't even call themselves Christians. They were known as Ebionites, Nazareans, the Brethren, the Followers of the Way, Sons of Light, and Galileans. In fact, they repudiated both Paul and Christianity, when both began to exert influence in the 50's. James, Peter, and John had been members, but apparently conceded to Paul's growing power at the Council of Jerusalem in 48.

Because of the sway that Paul and his disciples exerted among the Diaspora Jews and the "God-Fearers" (fellow travelers), loyal Jews reacted with hostility to the new cult. The passages in scripture about "being thrown out of synagogues," etc., are a reflection of this period, and can hardly have originated with Jesus. From the Jewish point of view, Paul was an apostate.

The turn toward Hellenism (more or less synonymous with Gentilism) made Christianity less and less Jewish, and more and more pagan, imbibing influence from the pagan mystery cults of Greece, Egypt and Syria, with their emphasis on sacramentalism and achieving states of ecstasy and enthusiasm, as Paul had done himself.

Now I can picture him getting enthusiastic, but I have a hard time picturing the Apostle Paul getting "high on Jesus".


...

Note that not only were the men who spoke these words never repudiated by the Church, but instead the Church canonized them, made them saints.

And where did these holy Fathers of the Church get this virulent anti-Semitism? In some of the most unfortunate words ever written – one passage in the gospel of Matthew, and the vilification of the Jews in toto throughout the gospel of John.

...

It cannot be objected that anti-Semitism is an aberrations to Christianity. No, it is at the heart of Christian scripture and teaching.

...

The final upshot of all this was "the final soluton." The Holocaust has roots in the gospels of Matthew and John.


I guess I'd better go inform her that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. :hehe:

[{Tim}]

Can I nominate the 9 o'clock news a few nights ago? Apparently some new manuscript, the "Gospel of Judos", has been found - from what I could tell, dating from around 300AD or so. Apparently, this is grounds to think that Judas "may have been acting on Jesus' orders when he betrayed Him" -- just because some 3rd/4th century pseudo-gospel claims it. :doh:

[Darth Executor]

Another day, anothe nut.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1453443

I'm not cutting and pasting all those pages. The first few lines should give everybody an idea about it so reading more than that is a waste of time.

[Darth Executor]

Hey JP, I just noticed that it's Jimbo's birthday today. Maybe you should draw him a present.

[jpholding]

Hey JP, I just noticed that it's Jimbo's birthday today. Maybe you should draw him a present.

Hmmm. I did have visions of sending him to Hearthstone and discovering that Sheila is actually 10 feet tall by our measure. :lolo:

[Cynic Sage]

Michael Cadry:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=47631&page=51&pp=16

Dear Hitch,

You are right. This desert is where I belong. God proved me to come here to Phoenix by sending 8 inches of snow back in Michigan. I wanted to go to FL, but upon asking a sign from Him to assuredly direct me, He said Phoenix. I would almost rather be in FL, except for the fact that He told me to come here. I was also told by an angel 6 mos. after I got here that this Valley of Phoenix, which they call 'the Valley', is symbolically the Valley of Armaggedon, and that it is spiritually like Egypt, with the same climate, and heat, and vegetation and animals. And that Phoenix is named after an Egyptian mythological bird called a Phoenix, who rises from the ashes every 500 years. This is what I was told by the angel. You don't know if an angel talked to me and said these things, but you see, I DO KNOW, because I was the recipient. Am I suppose to tell the angel to get lost because you people say so. It's not gonna happen!! I am forever faithful, loyal and indebted to my God and His Son Jesus for making this wild life of mine actually come true. You see, in Revelation 12:5 it says, "and her man-child was caught up to God and to His Throne, and shall rule the nations with a rod of iron, just as it is given to Jesus, so shall you find it true in the future that I will sit alongside Jesus helping to rule the earth. And so will many of you, for it says in Revelation 2:27, "Those who overcome shall I give to you to rule over the earth with a rod of iron. Those who can be chaste and overcome that Jezebel, is what it says. Read the chapter if you like. I have remained a 50 year old virgin so far for Jesus' sake. I was told when I was 18 and horny, not to think of my new girlfriend in the way I was thinking. Once I felt horny towards her, an angel spoke in my ear and said, "No, No". I have remained a virgin ever since.
...

P.S. And these two prophets/witnesses shall die in a city which is Spiritually like Sodom and EGYPT, where also our Lord was crucified (in Jerusalem, which was spiritually like Sodom and Egypt at that time). Also Phoenix oppresses people with wages and everything else just like the Egyptians did to the Israelis, during Moses' time.


They're building pyramids in Arizona!? :rofl:

[Darth Executor]

Hmmm. I did have visions of sending him to Hearthstone and discovering that Sheila is actually 10 feet tall by our measure. :lolo:

I was thinking more like him staring at his birthday cake and seeing your name on it. :lol:

[Rayado]

BibleWheel, on grandeur: (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74787&page=1&pp=16)

"The Bible Wheel is the Rosetta Stone of Biblical Hermeneutics."

[jpholding]

The Deludedly Misplaced Confidence Award goes to this email:


I used to be a Christian, and all my classmates were too, nearly all.
Once one of my friends found Jesusneverexisted.com on the internet, we
all left the church, and stopped believing in Jesus. Around 600 of us.
We now go to a group that teaches us about evolution, and it makes so
much more sense. I might only be 14, but I know when I've been taken for
a ride, and Jesusneverexisted.com has shown us that Christianity was all
a lie.


Sad but screwy.

[Darth Executor]

The Deludedly Misplaced Confidence Award goes to this email:



Sad but screwy.

I heard they serve mushrooms and Kool Aid at the meetings.

[Spheniscine]

Frankly, I think that guy just made the whole thing up at the spot. Come on, 600 apostates? Unless the church he comes from is one of those St. James UCC of Limerick-esque wishy-washy types.

[jpholding]

Frankly, I think that guy just made the whole thing up at the spot. Come on, 600 apostates? Unless the church he comes from is one of those St. James UCC of Limerick-esque wishy-washy types.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a fake and it was more like 6 than 600. That's why I thought it made a good screwball. Added irony too (he knows when he's being taken for a ride....huh huh huh huh).

[Sparko]

This made my day...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1456129&postcount=821

Dear JohnnyEC,

No, there is no pyramid building here. What makes you say such crazy stuff, except maybe the devil?? All that I know is that I am being paid half of what I was offered in Michigan to be paid. They offered to me in Michigan $16-17/an hour and here I am in Phoenix making $8/hour. It is atrocious. They oppress people here because they know that people like the sunshine instead of snow. I can't pay my bills on $8/hr unless I work overtime. So please don't take it lightly that I said that Phoenix is a city which oppresses it's people. I am a Behavioral Health Technician and should be paid alot more. I help people who have mental illnesses, like Bipolar Disorder or Schizophrenia. They all are doing better and they love me. What more could I ask for?? A raise, that's what!!

Talk with you later. Please quit being such a sarcastic person.

MichaelCadry

[jpholding]

Gotta make sure to give Lifetime Achievement Gold to Brian "The Apostate Who Wasn't All There" Flemming for his latest campaign.

[Cynic Sage]

This made my day...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1456129&postcount=821


:twitch:

To quote Carmine Falcone from Batman Begins (speaking to Dr. Crane): "When did the nut take over the nut-house?"

[Cynic Sage]

Gotta make sure to give Lifetime Achievement Gold to Brian "The Apostate Who Wasn't All There" Flemming for his latest campaign.
What's he doing now?

[Darth Executor]

What's he doing now?

Check the god who wasn't there topic.

[jpholding]

What's he doing now?

Wheh! Check the thread in this section on The God Who Wasn't There. You're missing a huge party. :hehe:

[Bill the Cat]

The Twist-an-argument Cinnamon Pretzel award and the associated grant money to attend BYU goes to Russian Wolfe on the Bible's decrying of necromancy and Joseph Smith's "visits" from Biblical dead folks. Lots of gems in this post...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1455617&postcount=40

From all of your scriptures the act of consulting those who claim to communicate with the dead is condemned. It says nothing of the dead communicating with the living.

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theatheistmama.com/2006/04/i_have_a_few_things_to_say_abo.html

As a Natinve American, it's sad to see how little changes in 150 years, A lot of Xians are still violent haters. They used to burn our villages down and slaughter unarmed people for fun. Then in the re servation years they took away the Indian kids to boarding schools to inculcate them in their alien religion and physically abuse the kids as well. There is a sickness of violence still there in their culture even tho' Jesus was supposed to be the Prince of Peace.
Here in CA we occasionally get missionaries at the door. My husband calls them "soul harvesters" to their faces and they don't come back! (might not work as well in*bible belt* country)

Yeah, getting missionaries at the door as opposed to getting your village burned down sure is a small change. :ahem:

[Darth Executor]

Hey, something just occured to me. Does Flemming get any money for all the DVDs people bought? Because if he does, I think you should withdraw his nomination (and give it to the morons who bought them) since he's a marketing genius who's probably snorting coke in a Cuban strip club right about now.

[Darth Executor]

some more
http://www.theatheistmama.com/2006/04/i_have_a_few_things_to_say_abo.html

Wow, Orginized religion and the religous in genral never cease to amaze me. Threats of hate and violence from the religous...no.... say it ain't so! Wait a minute, didn't Jesus himself preach nothing but loving kindness towards others no matter what that other beleaves!?! These people are only out to save their own [censored] when the supposed judgement day comes, and you know what the funny thing is and what they will find out... They are more [censored] then we are!!!! Good times, good times. Keep at em Cass! These hypocrates need to be exposed as the fake pieces of [censored]that they are!

:lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

The Twist-an-argument Cinnamon Pretzel award and the associated grant money to attend BYU goes to Russian Wolfe on the Bible's decrying of necromancy and Joseph Smith's "visits" from Biblical dead folks. Lots of gems in this post...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1455617&postcount=40
What about the incident with Samuel's ghost and King Saul?

[jpholding]

Hey, something just occured to me. Does Flemming get any money for all the DVDs people bought? Because if he does, I think you should withdraw his nomination (and give it to the morons who bought them) since he's a marketing genius who's probably snorting coke in a Cuban strip club right about now.

I'll expand the award. :teeth:

Email this morning...



You can't know everything that you claim to know. I want to know if you met the author? Is he as uneducated as you claim him to be? Does he know that you spend your days discrediting his ideas? And if he does, do you ever fear that he will get angry enough with you to find you?

That's it. I have no idea who they are tallking about.

[Darth Executor]

What would we do without AntonS here to deliver messages straight from God's mouth?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74738&page=2

[/url]]It is a very bad book. God told me about thids book. Judas Iscariot did not write it. All its content is lie. One man wrote it according to words of an angel who appeared to him, he did not know who that angel was. The angel told him the story, and the man wrote it. This story is a fiction. When he showed this book to priests, the priests did not accept it as truth. It is one the worst of black books.

[Cynic Sage]

What would we do without AntonS here to deliver messages straight from God's mouth?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74738&page=2

Sigh...:ahem:

Don't you just hate it when a crazy guy agrees with you only because of idiotic reasons.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Doubting John, for inviting Acharya S to post on his Debunking Christianity blog :lolo:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-am-i-doing-here.html

Matthew, GET OUT OF THERE! :hehe:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Luigi Cascioli for taking his defeated (in Italy) Christ-myth related case to the human rights court in Strasbourg. Nope, the historicity of Jesus is not about history, it's about human rights. And I find it hilarious Cascioli is demanding "precise evidence"!

(in Italian, English) April 13 entry
http://nochiesa.blogspot.com/

[jpholding]

Doubting John, for inviting Acharya S to post on his Debunking Christianity blog :lolo:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-am-i-doing-here.html




I don't think DJ realized was I was being facetious when I said he ought to invite her. :hehe: What a dip!

[Doubting John]

I don't think DJ realized was I was being facetious when I said he ought to invite her. :hehe: What a dip!

I did think that.

Ed invited her. Matthew Green objected, as did someone else.

I don't know the full extent of her views, nor her scholarship. What I am concerned about for now is whether she shares in our common purpose to debunk Christianity, and whether she participates effectively. So far she has.

Whether the screwball award is justified this time may be too soon to call. But if you're right then you finally pinned one on me. :blush:

[Shadow Phoenix]

Could we just once have some equal opportunity and have some atheists go on a rampage to "Debunking Islam" or "Debunking Hinduism"?

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75270

No comment...

[jpholding]

.

I don't know the full extent of her views, nor her scholarship.

That just magnifies your screwball award, DJ.

You just invited someone aboard that totally destroys your credibility. That's what you get for being uncritical, which has been your problem since Day 1. :hehe: Edski is a numbskull. Listening to him for advice on ANYTHING is a huge mistake.

Dude, Acharya got reamed a leading scholar on Hinduism in the US for stupid stuff she said, and you know what her reply was? That he needed to take a Religion 101 course! :lmbo:

What I am concerned about for now is whether she shares in our common purpose to debunk Christianity, and whether she participates effectively. So far she has.

So who you gonna invite next? Tom Metzger? David Duke?

Hey, why don't you invite Brian Flemming?

Whether the screwball award is justified this time may be too soon to call. But if you're right then you finally pinned one on me.

I've pinned you all right. Know who Robert Price is? Here's what he said about her "scholarship":

"She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations."

"...no one whose disquiet with traditional Christian faith is based on solid fact or credible theorizing will want to recommend [her] book, much less appeal to it as justification for one's own doubts."

OUCH!

She's so stupid I now have Sheila answering her:

http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/achyvssheila.html

Maybe you ought to read her book too:

[Doubting John]

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists. How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

At the risk of offending her let me put it to people here this way……

Let's see here....she doesn't believe in Christianity, but Christians can take solace in her rejection of their faith because she also believes and supports things which few of us would support and believe.

But what seems strange from my perspective is how sure Christians are about Christianity when she is a living testimony of someone who is trying to do the best she can with the evidence that God supposedly planted here for us all to see.

Let's say she is wrong about everything--everything. [Of course this isn't likely, just like it isn't likely that Christians are right about everything]. Then who is to blame for this state of affairs? Where's your God now? Why can't he help those of us who are trying to find out what we should believe?

[Shadow Phoenix]

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists. How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

At the risk of offending her let me put it to people here this way……

Let's see here....she doesn't believe in Christianity, but Christians can take solace in her rejection of their faith because she also believes and supports things which few of us would support and believe.

But what seems strange from my perspective is how sure Christians are about Christianity when she is a living testimony of someone who is trying to do the best she can with the evidence that God supposedly planted here for us all to see.

Let's say she is wrong about everything--everything. [Of course this isn't likely, just like it isn't likely that Christians are right about everything]. Then who is to blame for this state of affairs? Where's your God now? Why can't he help those of us who are trying to find out what we should believe?

Personally, all of this seems like nonsense to me. I'm not sure what point DJ is trying to make but based on his last paragraph, I do know something.

The reason I'm not sure what to make of it is DJ's fault! It has nothing whatsoever to do with me or any limited knowledge on my part or a bias I might have or a refusal to see something I might not want to see. If I don't understand the communication, it HAS to be DJ's fault.

I am just so thankful that I'm okay.

[Darth Executor]

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists.

Why is it that the universe can be interpreted so differently that there are flat earthers, new earth creationists, day-agers, gap theorists, aliensmadeusists and even evolutionists? Believe it or not a question ends with a question mark.


How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

Most people are not purely logical when it comes to it. Few people that I know can claim that. JPH and Arterial Spray on tweb would be two examples of people who I believe to be purely logical. I'm not, and you sure as heck aren't either.


But what seems strange from my perspective is how sure Christians are about Christianity when she is a living testimony of someone who is trying to do the best she can with the evidence that God supposedly planted here for us all to see.

No she isn't. She's one step away from appearing to be so stupid that I can only assume she's a con artist because nobody is that stupid.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists. How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

I think this is a valid question. My answer would be that many of these and other movements began with a dissatisfaction in something, usually orthodoxy, or what is socially acceptable (I question whether modern satanism=self-glorification is a metaphysical worldview) and it doesn't have to follow that these interpretations of reality are actually valid. It may also be that people do not like testing their presuppositions and prefer to stick with 'what they know' or something like that.

I expect you to say in reply that orthodoxy is indeed unsatisfactory :smile: At least as a freethinker you are free to examine the truth value of such claims (opposition to orthodoxy), whereas in cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Moonies, you are not allowed that luxury.

[jpholding]

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists. How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

Why is it that the political landscape can be interpreted so differently that there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, Communists, Socialists, Free Soilers, Whigs, anarchists, Nazis, Constitutionalists, Greens, Natural Law-ers, and even KKKers? How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to political beliefs?

Better yet, how is this anything but DJ dodging the hard issues again by pretending that diversity of views somehow relieves him of the necessity to defend his own view properly?

It's a fair question, but there was no point in DJ asking it in this context other than as a long, drawn out way of sayin' DUUUUUH.

Let's see here....she doesn't believe in Christianity, but Christians can take solace in her rejection of their faith because she also believes and supports things which few of us would support and believe.

I wouldn't say that. I'd just say you were plumb stupid to take her on your team. It's the story of your life: You make rash decisions without sufficient information, then make a fool of yourself defending those decisions.

But what seems strange from my perspective is how sure Christians are about Christianity when she is a living testimony of someone who is trying to do the best she can with the evidence that God supposedly planted here for us all to see.

Yeah, that's why she accepts crap like Graves' 16 Crucified Saviors as valid and publishes with a group that also does books on Atlantis and UFOs. :lolo:

Then who is to blame for this state of affairs?

Doesn't matter. But here's another eval of her work, from Bede http://www.bede.org.uk who as you may not know is a Christian who does not defend inerrancy:


By new-age-Jesus-mythologist guru Acharya S., this website “is the work of a rebel against the untruths and delusions of the status quo.” She caused a stir at one point, but Acharya S. is now taken seriously by few participants in the Jesus Myth debate. Although an adamant proponent of the Jesus Myth, she is just as likely to rant against french fries as a threat to western civilization or try and convince you that “AIDS is not an cannot be an infectious disease.” J.P. Holding takes her work to pieces as does Mark Licona and even ultra sceptical Robert Price. Bearing in mind that Price thinks the execrable Jesus Mysteries is 'excellent', the fact even he buries Acharya is revealing. As for her website, it is too reliant on bells and whistles so detracts from the contents even further.

Getting the picture that says "Bad Move" yet?

Where's your God now? Why can't he help those of us who are trying to find out what we should believe?

Why do you think He sent me to persecute you, Dum Dum? :lmbo:

One more thing, DJ. I hope for your sake that your little jibe about one of your crew ripping me a "new one" was a reference to Matthew's next entry in the Scholarly Diplomacy series -- which I see more as a discussion than a debate at this point. Because if you send ANY of your pastry team after me, you'll find out the hard way what the full brunt of my wrath is like. I've taken it easy on you so far, believe it or not; get my mojo riled and I'll give you the same treatment that Flemming freak is now getting, and worse. Fancy a toon where Sheila drops a two ton weight on your head? :hehe: Or maybe a full parody of your silly little blog (except anything Matthew writes) complete with illustrations? You know I have the time, the will, and the ability. So you'd better consider your next move carefully.

You might want to check the parable of the king with an army smaller than his enemy before you run your mouth again. :hehe:

[Doubting John]

Why is it that the political landscape can be interpreted so differently that there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, Communists, Socialists, Free Soilers, Whigs, anarchists, Nazis, Constitutionalists, Greens, Natural Law-ers, and even KKKers? How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to political beliefs?

The diversity thesis and the dependency thesis in ethical theory can explain these things. Morals are diverse and dependent on what we've experienced. That explains it! So also are most political theories and metaphysical views. Is there any wonder that both Pascal and Wm James suggested that in order to induce ourselves to believe we should start going to church, reading the Bible and praying? Beliefs are many times caught by association with a culture of likeminded people. I know this would seem strange to you but if you began reading UFO books, magazines, and attended conferences with like minded people you too would be influenced to believe what they do. And before long you'd think there was a governmental conspiracy to cover these things up. What we read influences us all, as does where we go and who we hang out with. We human beings are quite maleable as thinkers. But in your opinion what we believe will cause us to be damned to hell. :lol:

And in your opinion you have the Holy Spirit to guide Christians. So why is there now 45,000 different denominations, eh? How do YOU explain the wide diversity among people in these areas where there is no hard cold evidence one way or another? I can explain it. Can you?


One more thing, DJ. I hope for your sake that your little jibe about one of your crew ripping me a "new one" was a reference to Matthew's next entry in the Scholarly Diplomacy series -- which I see more as a discussion than a debate at this point. Because if you send ANY of your pastry team after me, you'll find out the hard way what the full brunt of my wrath is like...................Blah Blah Blah Blah. :eek:

JP, don't you realize that anyone can rip YOU a new one Oh PERFECTLY LOGICAL ONE! :rofl: YOU'VE GOT 'EM FOOLED, DON'T YOU?

We'll see how it goes on our Blog, but I'm the boss there---no wonder you don't want to come over into my territory. :wink:

[jpholding]

The diversity thesis and the dependency thesis in ethical theory can explain these things.

It's also a good way to avoid defending any one view as right, isn't it? :hehe: DUH. And you did it again, of course.

Is there any wonder that both Pascal and Wm James suggested that in order to induce ourselves to believe we should start going to church, reading the Bible and praying?

Yeah, well, dude, know what I did in church during the sermon 2 weeks ago? I sketched 40 pages of script for Shrike Team #3. :rasberry: Wanna know how often I read the Bible? 5 minutes a day, to the Mrs. in the evening. Wanna know how much I pray a day? 5 seconds at meals. Wow. I've got the brainwash, huh????

DJ, when you gonna stop hauling up the experiential crap and start answerin' some stinkin' arguments?

I know this would seem strange to you but if you began reading UFO books, magazines, and attended conferences with like minded people you too would be influenced to believe what they do.

HORSE MANURE. :ahem: Don't ascribe your collectivist gullibility to ME, sonny boy. I'm not some weak-minded vassal, like you are/were.


And in your opinion you have the Holy Spirit to guide Christians.

Holy Spirit not gumball machine, Bizarro. I correct you on that time and time again, you no listen! I have no such opinion whatsoever.

So why is there now 45,000 different denominations, eh?

Listen, Mr. Dweeb:

1) 45,000 denominations does not equal 45,000 different points of view.
2) Many denominations are based on factors other than doctrine -- geography, ceremony, etc.
3) You can't count denominations like "The Morton R. Meldrim Holy Rolling Steel-Belted Church, Reformed" with only one member in 'em. (Morton R. Meldrim of course.) That's individualism (America's disorder) at work, not differences in doctrine. If it were not so, Mormonism wouldn't have over 200 "denominations" after only 150 years.
4) It's STILL a way to avoid defending your views.

How do YOU explain the wide diversity among people in these areas where there is no hard cold evidence one way or another? I can explain it.

Badly? I know you can. And I'm sure I could explain each one precisely with enough research, which you don't do because all you care about is belching up a big number as though that's an argument.


JP, don't you realize that anyone can rip YOU a new one

Certainly not you, Kemosabe. As of now you have 500 gaping holes (500 witnesses, as it were) with my autograph.

We'll see how it goes on our Blog, but I'm the boss there---no wonder you don't want to come over into my territory. :wink:

You don't WANT me to, son. I'll keep you so busy you'll do the same thing you did here -- get mad and go away. :rasberry:

But keep it up and you'll see how much fun it is to keep up with a parody with the title, "Duh! Bunkin' Christianity".

[jpholding]

By the way, Jason Long, whom DJ invited to his blog, wins another Screwball for this commentary:

Let us suppose that there is a hypothetical dichotomy that the experts must decide upon. If 90% of the scholars agree with the position that favors Christianity, I would feel extremely confident that about 90% of the scholars came into the field as Christians. The opinion of such authorities, who began with the conclusion before considering the evidence, cannot be trusted simply because they are authorities. One simply cannot trust those with huge emotional investments to be objective on critical issues. You cannot trust a car salesman when buying a car; you should trust a consumer report. You cannot trust an Islamic scholar when studying Islam; you should trust a scholar who had no opinion going in. You cannot trust a Jewish scholar when studying Judaism; you should trust a scholar who had no set opinion going in. You cannot trust a mother of an artist when determining which artist made the best painting; you should trust an art critic with no knowledge of the artists. For this reason, I put little stock in the opinions of people who began studying Christianity years after they accepted the notion of a talking snake.

Another long-winded way of saying, "Let's avoid hard data arguments and just whine about 'bias'."

But you CAN of course trust an apostate atheist when studying against Christianity. :lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75270

No comment...

For those not “in the know,” the lost writings of late Sicilian philosopher/skeptic Giovanni Verdi have recently been published in The Lost, Last Gospel of Giovanni Verdi (Iconoclast Press, 2006). The book contains what could very well become the core tenet of atheism.

I think this is just the argument atheism has needed to counter, for example, the luminescent allure of Mormonism, but I welcome any dissenting opinion.

The argument to which I’m referring goes like this:

A good God would have harvested, dry roasted, and ground peanuts into a slurry and then provided men the yummy puree in vacuum-sealed, non-breakable plastic jars. Since man must endeavor to make his own peanut paste, God’s providence is, therefore, incomplete.

Ergo, God must not exist.

(A closer examination of Verdi’s preliminary notes reveals that he tried to extend the argument to cheese and ice cream. Verdi’s peers are currently working on the cheese/ice cream dilemma as we speak; the results so far are promising but inconclusive.)

Just FYI: I’m currently sitting on the fence between atheism and full Mormonic commitment.

Thank you,

B.

P.S. Please respond ASAP, as the compelling apologia of the Smithites is wending its way to my heart.


He's got to be kidding.:twitch:

[jpholding]

He's got to be kidding.:twitch:

With Spasm, it's hard to tell.

[sc_q_jayce]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1458982&postcount=17

He works so hard at writing this all out... yet, I'm still stuck on this:

"I'm Luke... Saint Luke." :rofl:

[Doubting John]

It's also a good way to avoid defending any one view as right, isn't it? :hehe: DUH. And you did it again, of course.

DJ, when you gonna stop hauling up the experiential crap and start answerin' some stinkin' arguments?

I do make specific cases on specific issues. But my particular argument can stated as follows:


1) There is wide moral and religious diversity in our world. There is a very wide diversity of opinion on religious beliefs around the world, including quite a wide diversity among Christians themselves who split off from each other so often one can't keep track of all of the divisions (many of which are claimed doctrinal disputes).

2) Our moral and religious beliefs can be shown to be dependent on a great many non-intellectual factors. The human mind is maleable, capable of believing a great many things depending on where and when people were born, who reached them first, who they hang out with, what they've experienced, and what they read (for instance almost 2/3rds of the people in the world are animists and/or pantheists, 1 billion are Muslims).

Which viewpoint can best explain these two sets of unassailable moral and religious facts? My contention is that atheism best explains these things, not Christianity.

1) The Christian view explains this by.............?
2) The atheist view explains this by...............?

Want to proceed, oh perfectly logical one? :teeth:

[jpholding]

I do make specific cases on specific issues.

And then you run like the plague when I call you on your errors on them.

But my particular argument can stated as follows:

Read my lips:

I....don't....CARE.

OK? :thumb:

It's a non-starter, DJ. Diversity of views doesn't mean DIP when it comes to what is true or not. Bang it into your head, yea?

My contention is that atheism best explains these things, not Christianity.

I'll take stupidity regardless of beliefs as the primary explanation. How's that grab ya? :teeth:

[Shadow Phoenix]

I'm gonna throw my own hat into this ring again.

First off, I want the original source for this number of 45,000 denominations. I want the person who went out and did the counting. Until that's given, it's just going to make me laugh.

As for diversity of views, a misunderstanding of communication from one person to another or one group of persons to another or any combination thereof results in one or more problems.

A problem with the communicator.
A problem with the forum of communication
A problem with the recipients of communication.

Of course, DJ seems to imply that humanity could not obviously make mistakes in understanding any message so the problem must lie in God. Isn't it amazing? Humanity is always in the right and God is in the wrong

What DJ will have to show is that God is the one in error. Of course, to do so, he'd have to know exactly what God is communicating (Which he says we can't know) and how he should have said it to show that everyone else is getting it wrong.

Until this can be shown, I'll rest secured that if I have anything wrong, the problem lies with me. If anyone else has anything wrong, the problem lies with them also. Maybe DJ just thinks that God could only create perfect creatures who could only make perfect decisions yet at the same time have the choice to make an imperfect decision to not serve God.

[Doubting John]

Read my lips:

I....don't....CARE.

OK? :thumb:

N.B. This is JP's usual response to things he cannot answer.

Oh, I'm sorry, he said stupidity explains it.

JP, take Psychology 101. You are one ignorant man if you think intelligence and education will lead everyone to the same conclusions--i.e. the truth. Extremely ignorant, you are. You have absolutely no understanding of how experiences and/or assumptions shape our understandings, and you certainly are a duffas when it comes to the people in the world who don't have the ability to become educated and/or who never were or can be intelligent. They don't have the intelligence, they don't have the education, nor do they have the time to become educated, and you look down your nose at these people who work all day just to stay alive and proclaim that you know the truth because you claim you are educated and intelligent. You are utopian in your understandings just like Plato was who thought that only philosophers should be kings. The only people who will buy this crap are the uneducated and unintelligent. That's why you keep spouting it, because they believe it and proclaim you king and perfectly logical. Bask in your self-proclaimed glory all you want, and parade down the street this nonsense, but you have no clothes on.

What will the uneducated do when confronted with two scholars who have studied the same topic and disagree vehemently with each other, buffoon?

[Shadow Phoenix]

What will the uneducated do when confronted with two scholars who have studied the same topic and disagree vehemently with each other, buffoon?

It's not what they will do but what they should do. They should look at the arguments from both sides. They shouldn't find out just what X believes but why X believes what they believe. Then they should make a decision that best accords with the evidence and is logically consistent.

[Doubting John]

I'm gonna throw my own hat into this ring again.

First off, I want the original source for this number of 45,000 denominations. I want the person who went out and did the counting. Until that's given, it's just going to make me laugh.


The Encyclopedia of Christianity.

Still, you yourself know there are quite a number of them without putting a number to them.

Where's the guidance of the Holy Spirit here? It is apparent he has not been doing his job very well. Oh, I'm sorry, you'll say people/christians have just not listened to his voice. But that's absolute poppycock. There is no distinctive voice coming from the Holy Spirit. And those who claim to have heard it are usually wrong. And which of these denominations are actually listening to the Holy Spirit? Yours, I presume. But don't most all of the others say they have?

[Doubting John]

It's not what they will do but what they should do. They should look at the arguments from both sides. They shouldn't find out just what X believes but why X believes what they believe. Then they should make a decision that best accords with the evidence and is logically consistent.


Now this is practical nonsense. In order for the uneducated and unintelligent to assess between these two scholars they would have to be what they are not...educated and intelligent. It would logically lead to the position that only the educated and intelligent can know the truth--which is snobbery plain and simple. Moreover, Why would your God favor the educated and intelligent?

[Shadow Phoenix]

The Encyclopedia of Christianity.

Still, you yourself know there are quite a number of them without putting a number to them.

Where's the guidance of the Holy Spirit here? It is apparent he has not been doing his job very well. Oh, I'm sorry, you'll say people/christians have just not listened to his voice. But that's absolute poppycock. There is no distinctive voice coming from the Holy Spirit. And those who claim to have heard it are usually wrong. And which of these denominations are actually listening to the Holy Spirit? Yours, I presume. But don't most all of the others say they have?

Are you aware also that if you have X number of independent Baptist churches in an area, that it will be counted as X denominations even if they all believe similarly? I believe it was Eric Svenson who did this when answering the Catholic argument.

Now do you actually really believe this stuff on listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit? Are we going to turn to 1 Kings and hear about the still small voice and how that's a normative practice for today? I think the problem is that people aren't listening to the voice, the voice of Scripture. Instead, they rely too much on their experience and have their experience interpret reality instead of the other way around.

I'm a Baptist myself. There are some doctrines the Baptists have tended to hold strongly in the present that they didn't in the past that I don't agree with. It doesn't really bother me too much. I'm with the church I'm with because I see a lot of truth there and I like the people.

And again, you're on the same kick that if there's a problem with the understanding of a communication, that the problem couldn't possibly be with the people. Unfortunately, I see no reason to believe the problem is with anyone but the people considering the way we can all disagree on anything at all.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Now this is practical nonsense. In order for the uneducated and unintelligent to assess between these two scholars they would have to be what they are not...educated and intelligent. It would logically lead to the position that only the educated and intelligent can know the truth--which is snobbery plain and simple. Moreover, Why would your God favor the educated and intelligent?

You know DJ, I happen to have this belief that people can change. I don't think you have to be a Rhodes Scholar for instance to look at these two statements

2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 5

And know that one of them is false.

I personally think logical thinking is implicit within all of us. Does God favor the educated and intelligent? 1 Cor. 1 indicates that God has often used that which is shameful and despised. However, at the same time, the Scriptures tell us to use our minds. We are to love God with all our minds, God calls us to come and reason with him, we are to test all things and hold to that which is true, we are to study to show ourselves approved, and we are to take every thought captive in obedience to Christ.

The Christian should really then be the most educated person of all because he sees a God who created the universe and invites him to explore and study it. I suppose then in that case that skepticism can at least have a good excuse for being ignorant. They have no such mandate.

[jpholding]

N.B. This is JP's usual response to things he cannot answer.

Oh, I'm sorry, he said stupidity explains it.

You're a case in point, DJ.

JP, take Psychology 101. You are one ignorant man if you think intelligence and education will lead everyone to the same conclusions--i.e.


Stupidity I take to include willful decision to ignore the correct conclusion because of "experiences" and "assumptions" that should be discarded as evidence. It's another type of stupidity; it comes in several forms, as you ought to know since you are trying to go down the list and experience each type. :rasberry:

They don't have the intelligence, they don't have the education, nor do they have the time to become educated, and you look down your nose at these people who work all day just to stay alive and proclaim that you know the truth because you claim you are educated and intelligent.

Spare me this. For one thing, I did this even before I did apologetics full time. Second, I wouldn't care at all except that these people who "don't have the intelligence, they don't have the education, nor do they have the time to become educated" nevertheless presume to run their gators as though they were worthwhile authorities who DID have the intelligence, education, etc. and then go out and vomit out their nonsense to others by starting stupid blogs and websites with titles like "1001 Bibull Errors". You're one of those too now, as far as I'm concerned, since your education stopped well before the topics you're criticizing.

The only people who will buy this crap are the uneducated and unintelligent.

Huh? You just said people didn't have the time to become educated and intelligent, so there can't be any such people, and what you're saying is that there are people who did have time and such to see through me, so will you please make up your mind? :huh:

but you have no clothes on.

So says John Loftus the Lifetime Nudist. :hehe:


What will the uneducated do when confronted with two scholars who have studied the same topic and disagree vehemently with each other, buffoon?

Realize they're in over their heads, moron, and refrain from starting a website or a blog claiming that they know better themselves. :thumbd:

[Darth Executor]

and you certainly are a duffas

Man, DJ parodies himself, who needs Sheila. :teeth:

[jpholding]

Skepticbud, for calling NT figures racists and then also posting this in the same message:


Another reason why I think honor-shame societies are stupid is because they falsely assume that dogmatic words should pass for reality.

[spl_cadet]

The Encyclopedia of Christianity.

Still, you yourself know there are quite a number of them without putting a number to them.

Where's the guidance of the Holy Spirit here? It is apparent he has not been doing his job very well. Oh, I'm sorry, you'll say people/christians have just not listened to his voice. But that's absolute poppycock. There is no distinctive voice coming from the Holy Spirit. And those who claim to have heard it are usually wrong. And which of these denominations are actually listening to the Holy Spirit? Yours, I presume. But don't most all of the others say they have?

You really ought to pay more attention to Catholic-Protestant arguments. In addition to being 15,000 higher than that source actually gives, that source's number is highly inflated. It counts 800+ Roman Catholic denominations for instance.

[Cynic Sage]

Michael Cadry, on the standards a prophet of God should be held to:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1459430&postcount=836

What do you all expect of me?? To be right ALL of the time??

Well, uh, according to Deuteronomy 18:20-22, yes. :duh:

[Cynic Sage]

Lazy Agnostic, in one of his "appeal to emotion" posts on PoE, miracles, and prayer:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74464&page=2&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74464&page=2&pp=16)

So the fact we're born is an indicator of answered prayer? Why would G_d fashion a fetus to be a dwarf when it is declared that dwaves and other impefectly-formed humans are disqualified from priestly functions?...

What's so bad about being disqualified from performing priestly duties in the Temple?

Do you believe in Fatima and Lourdes and many other appearances by Mary? How about Tortilla Mary or Water Stain Mary? Can you guess why an apologist refuses to touch the topic?

Awww. How cuuuute. He misses you. :hehe:

But since he can't obsess over you anymore, he has to find another pastime...

If an old lady witnesses a murder, we can easily put her on the witness stand in a court case and have only her own testimony be what is needed to put someone behind bars or even send them to the chair.

Not that easily, especially if there is seconday gain by her testimony. Do you really think a jury in a capital case is going to buy the testimony of a looney, unbalanced social misfit like Dee Dee Warren, for example?

OH SNAP! No he DIDN'T! :ahem:

[Darth Executor]

Do you believe in Fatima and Lourdes and many other appearances by Mary? How about Tortilla Mary or Water Stain Mary? Can you guess why an apologist refuses to touch the topic?

What a joker. Refuse to touch the topic? There was a topic about the Lourdes in Apologetics somewhere and I don't recall the apologists not touching it. Quite the opposite in fact, the skeptics tried to touch it and pulled out a stump where their hand used to be. :hehe:

[{Tim}]

Not that easily, especially if there is seconday gain by her testimony. Do you really think a jury in a capital case is going to buy the testimony of a looney, unbalanced social misfit like Dee Dee Warren, for example?:shocked:





:lmbo:

[jpholding]

Here we go -- another of those emails that manages to rebut everything I've written, in detial (he used my real name, I subbed JPH):


The increasing tolerance toward homosexuals in recent times should not blind us to the fact that gays can be a menace, a destructive force in society. And here's the oens who are: deeply closeted, self-hating gays. Finding the pressure intolerable, they sometimes seek relief by projecting this hate onto others. Being painfully aware of their sexual unorthodoxy, they may overcompensate by being hyper-orthodox in every other way, and by attacking the unorthodoxy of others.

This is what motivated Roy Cohn, the weaselly sidekick of Joe McCarthy. And it also motivated David Brock, right-wing character assassin par excellence, who did more than anyone to whip up the bogus Impeachment Crusade agaisnt President Clinton.

But something happened to David Brock: He admitted to himself that he was gay, and stopped hating himself for it. Once that happened, he no longer felt the need to be a character assassin, and he repented of his evil ways.

YOU can know this same relief. You don't need to pretend anymore. Not in this day and age. There's a lot of tolerant people who will accept you as you are. Stop hating yourself. Stop being a negative force in society, projecting this hate onto others and needing to be a vicious attack dog. The world needs more positive people and that they're gay doesn't matteer to anyone but the negative and ahteful. Why ally yourself with them, with those who hate you and make you hate yourself?

It starts with a single step: Face yourself in the mirror and say,

"My name is J. P. Holding and I'm gay!"

Everything else will follow. You'll feel so much better.


Wait'll my wife gets the news. :hehe:

[Darth Executor]

Here we go -- another of those emails that manages to rebut everything I've written, in detial (he used my real name, I subbed JPH):


Weren't you gonna get that changed?

[jpholding]

Weren't you gonna get that changed?

Yeah. Had to put the money towards my new AC instead. :rant:

[Cynic Sage]

Here we go -- another of those emails that manages to rebut everything I've written, in detial (he used my real name, I subbed JPH):

Wait'll my wife gets the news. :hehe:

[attachment]

IT'S BIG GAY HOLDING'S FAAAAAABULOUS XTIAN APOLOGETICS SITE!

[One Bad Pig]

But something happened to David Brock: He admitted to himself that he was gay, and stopped hating himself for it. Once that happened, he no longer felt the need to be a character assassin, and he repented of his evil ways.

David Brock's still a character assassin; he only switched sides. :shifty:

[jpholding]

Twin award for Farrell Foo Foo Till and his obsessed fans. One for his unnamed thrall for sending him a link to this statement I made:


Yeah, well, dude, know what I did in church during the sermon 2 weeks ago? I sketched 40 pages of script for Shrike Team #3. Wanna know how often I read the Bible? 5 minutes a day, to the Mrs. in the evening. Wanna know how much I pray a day? 5 seconds at meals. Wow. I've got the brainwash, huh????

And one for Foo Foo himself, for this commentary on it:

I didn't need to hear this in order to know that [Holding] doesn't read the Bible very much, because his limited knowledge of it shines through in his articles, but I was a bit surprised to see him admitting it in a public forum. For some time, I have been working on an article that analyzes the language in [Holding]'s articles to show that he not only lacks any depth of biblical knowledge but also doesn't really believe that the Bible is what he defends in his articles, but I have been sidetracked by other projects that require me to put this article on hold. I hope to finish it someday. Anyway, I thank [Holding] for publicly admitting that he is not what he tries to present himself in his articles. It gives me a link to use when I continue to point out his biblical ignorance and hypocrisy.

Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between devotional reading (which was DJ's obvious point) and serious study via commentaries and reference materials. I spend all day, literally, in the latter. :hehe: Mega-screwball, dewd.


(Added: A little note for Foo Foo's obsessed fan: After looking at Foo Foo's article this was in, I have declared the article Too Stupid To Reply To (TM). I feel safe with this especially because it is so droningly dull that I doubt if anyone other than a narcissist [him] or a sado-masochist could get throught it and figure out what he's saying. Please let him know. Thank you. :hehe:)

[jpholding]

That inspires a new "You may be a fundy atheist if..." entry:

You say that if a Christian reads their Bible a lot, they are brainwashing themselves. But if they don't read it much, you accuse them of being ignorant.

[Darth Executor]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Till for president.

[attachment=1]

[jpholding]

And I'm still waiting for an apology for this...

http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillsorry.html

[Cynic Sage]

Lazy A:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1460823&postcount=33

As for your comment on Xena, I'll let her handle that, but I will say I don't appreciate my friends being described as looney unbalanced social misfits.


She's not Xena---but she is wont to display graven images of that sexually-provocative, thinly-veiled lesbian icon.


A jpeg is a "graven image"? :huh:

Oldskool Lazy A:

"Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Why does God hate lobsters and midgets? Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding [insert JP's real name here] Holding Holding Holding WAAAAAAH! I told Bruce Malina what a big meanie you are Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding you calling me on my misrepresentations shows your lack of spiritual growth Holding Holding Darth Executor Holding..."

New Lazy A:

"DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee and Holding wink wink nudge nudge say no more say no more DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee is a socially unbalanced neurotic misfit DeeDee DeeDee I didn't mean it that way DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee Xena=Lesbian wink wink nudge nudge say no more say no more DeeDee DeeDee DeeDee NO, DEEDEE'S AVATAR, YOU SHALL NOT SEDUCE ME!"

[Darth Executor]

Wasn't he banned? How come they let him out of the cage again?

[jpholding]

Wasn't he banned? How come they let him out of the cage again?

Matrixed for a while. But everyone usually gets extra chances.



Special ANTI-Screwball award to a guy under the name of "Like Crimson" over at waroneaster.org. He added a comment to the entry about my response under Sheila's name. One of the atheist nutcases implied that Sheila's low cut top was pornography. His reply was priceless:

"Look at the bunny at the top of the [waroneaster.org] page. He's naked! :wink:"

:hehe: :lmbo:

[jpholding]

"Lost" On Paul:


I wonder why God need Paul at all?
Jesus hand-picked 12 guys and mentored them for 3 years.
They were jews but then so was Paul.
Paul can't have been anymore qualified to preach to the gentiles than the 12 disciples.
How can vision accomplish in a few minutes what couldn't be accomplished in 3 years?
Was Jesus not good at training while on earth but did a refresher course after going up to heaven and was then able to do a fantastic job on Paul but left the rest of the disciples to rot?
I mean how much of the new testament is written by the disciples?
Almost nothing.
Awful lot of sand sitting on top of the rock I think.
House must be built on rock - hmmmm.....

On apologetics sites:


When I try to find rebuttals to skeptic type criticisms of the bible I get lost in their arguments.
Some of the skeptic sites are very easy to understand and laid out in a very easy to read manner.
Even on this board the arguments get way too complex for me.
I'm sure I can't be the only one put off by the complexity of the arguments.
Does anyone know of simpler sites written by christians who have been down the skeptic path and managed to get back again.
I hope to get back myself but atm I can't see how - I am overwelmed with very forceful arguments showing a picture of a nice jesus for whom lots went wrong at the end, followed by a jerusalem church that was much closer to Jesus's teachings than Paul.
Paul it seems unwittingly hijacked the teachings of Jesus and was in turn hijacked knowingly by the Catholic church.
This concept seems to make all my problems with scripture fixed in one foul swoop.
Tektonics is too complex most of the time altho I'm sure the author means well and lots of people with a hight IQ than me can follow it quite well.
The skeptics seem to set things out much more simply and understandable.

This guy is a screwball mine. See if ya'll can dig out some more of his junk.

[Darth Executor]

War on easter:

The zombie has flown into the air, to leave us alone until he comes back in December as a baby. (Which, come to think of it, means God raped Mary a couple weeks ago. UPDATE: A comment informs us that the zombie will actually be walking among us for 39 more days. Keep an eye out. Also, Mary may actually have been raped by an angel, armed with God’s semen. Don’t be shocked. In myth, gods rape humans all the time. Christianity didn’t invent it, just borrowed it.)

:lolo:

[Darth Executor]

Nomination for both of them.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1462799

Why should we atheists be so concerned with exposing the rethreaded arguments of the theists ? ijust love to do so for an intellectual exercise. I realize that logic is the bane of theists and thu,sthey will not fathom our arguments generally. Why otherwise should we care to expose their arguments? Is it important to do so? Has one ever helped a religious person to see the light of reason,the reason that saves. Why?

Do you really care about theism?

I will agree most theistic arguments are pretty lame at best, and retread (with rather thin tread), arguments are the general rule, but you have not had the opportunity to debate me. I do not use retread arguments, nor do I try to prove God's existence with road-kill logic. I am a fan of Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Thoreau, and I also use sound atheist/agnostic arguments against other theists. I have also run the mill with irrational and illogical atheists. Reason can kill as well as save.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Looks like SkepticBud is again issuing his challenge to debate me on if the Bible brainwashes or not. The thread can be located here.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75314

Shall we start taking bets now on how many posts he'll make before he turns and runs?

[jpholding]

Shall we start taking bets now on how many posts he'll make before he turns and runs?

Odds I'll give based on experience:

2 rounds -- 2 to 1 odds
3 rounds -- 4 to 1
1 or 4 rounds -- 7 to 1
5 or more -- 1 hundred skillion to one

[Shadow Phoenix]

Odds I'll give based on experience:

2 rounds -- 2 to 1 odds
3 rounds -- 4 to 1
1 or 4 rounds -- 7 to 1
5 or more -- 1 hundred skillion to one

Start placing bets now!

[Darth Executor]

100 bucks on "who cares, the dude's a moron".

[jpholding]

Bandecoot for this oldie and goodie in the Semantic Gyration Department:

Atheism is not a position at all. Its a lack of a position

[Cynic Sage]

War on easter:



:lolo:

Dude, link and who said it?

[Darth Executor]

Dude, link and who said it?

It's the war on easter blog. There are a whole bunch of links around here.

[jpholding]

And anyway, blog links keep moving around, don't they? I've seen that quote there though.

[Cynic Sage]

And anyway, blog links keep moving around, don't they? I've seen that quote there though.

He doesn't have permalink, does he?

[jpholding]

He doesn't have permalink, does he?

I don't think so. I find that things aren't on the same bookmark when I get back to them

Meanwhile, "Lost" piles on with the Depth of Profundity Award for this OP:


Millions of Jews, Muslims, Christians & Athiests and other religions must be wrong.
Only one group, or none, can be right.
And yet each group is pretty certain that they alone have got it right.
Its a pretty humbling thought really.
Of course if the athiests are right then no-one will no anyway so its a mute point.
If they are wrong tho...

[Cynic Sage]

Biblischism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75541

Is there such a thing as truly “sacred” plants according to Christians? Shamanic cultures have used entheogenic plants and their derivatives to “commune” with God and touch the etheric plane (OK, whatever that means).

Should we fault these cultures for using these sacred plants, especially given that their “trips” give them the unmistakable impression that they are communicating with their Creator?

This is a sore point for biblicists and indeed most evangelicals. On one hand, they must disavow the pursuit of botanical highs since they seem to be so contrary to (parts of) the Bible. On the other hand, the Author of these botanical chemicals bid us to eat His plants, giving no warning of their hyper real, psychoactive effects (which, in many cases, dissolve socially indoctrinated belief systems [like religion] and magnify cognitive dissonance to the point where it must be addressed and not merely regarded as a Beelzebubic tool to deceive the individual).

Your thoughts, please…

Apparently he's basing this on Genesis chapter 2.

"Biblegod says you have to do shrooms". :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Skepticbud, once again in a new thread on "Bible-Brainwashing":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75569 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75569)


First, when i said the bible tries to brainwash it's readers, I was using the dictionary definition of the word "brainwash". Were you?

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
1 : a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
2 : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/brainwash


Do you agree to both of the dictionary definitions, that brainwashing may either be construed as forcible indoctrination, or persuasion by propaganda?

If you agree to the dictionary definitions, we can move forward.

Second, the dictionary defined 'brainwash' partially with the word "propaganda", so I'll now quote the dictionary again to minimize everybody's wiggle room:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

propaganda

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/propaganda


Do you agree with both of these dictionary definitions of the term "propaganda"?

If so, let's move to some bible statements:

1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Do you think Paul is in any way "spreading ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of injuring" (see definition of "propaganda above) the cause of the legalists he is battling? Does his comment about being severed from Christ, sound like he is trying to injure the cause of the circumcision-demanding legalists he opposes in Galatians?

Do you think Paul is in any way setting forth ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further his cause or to damage the cause (see definition of "propaganda" above) of the legalists he opposes here?

If so, then we agree that Paul was propagandizing here in Galatians. Now it only remains for me to prove that Paul engaged in such propgandizing for the purpose of brainwashing the Galatians:

Do you agree with me that Paul was using persuasion by propaganda(see "brainwash" definition #2 above) to convince the Galatians to reject the legalists and start believing in his own version of the gospel?

If so, then you agree with me that Galatians, thus Paul, and thus ultimately the bible, tries to brainwash it's readers. In this case, the bible readers of Paul who were in and around Galatia.

Using Skepticbud's definition of "brainwash", everyone on Tweb qualifies as a "brainwasher", especially him trying to persuade us with his own "propoganda". :rofl:

[Cynic Sage]

Spiritwoman, on Paul and Jesus:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75569&page=1&pp=16

Do Guns Kill People? No, People kill People.

Do Bibles brainwash people? No religious leaders brainwash people.

And Paul was a religious leader.

Not Jesus.

[Jnthn]

I read this:

So before Paul's mysterious conversion, he wanted to wipe out Christianity. And once he converted, he rebuked Peter to his face, and made Christianity into a different religion. And why should we trust this guy? Because he claims to have had a vision? And dreams that contradict Peter, in fact. I'm not buying it.

It's more likely that Paul was the pagan philosopher Apollonius, the heretic, also known as Simon Magus, and a very famous man from the time period. The Paulican heretics in the Byzantine Empire claimed that Paul was Apollonius, and they claimed to have his true teachings, which are very similar to the biblical teachings. Hatred of sex and women and that sort of thing. Apollonius was a persecutor of Christians. Moses Maimonides, an important Jewish scholar from the 12th century taught that Paul was actually Apollonius. That's the meaning of first Corinthians when Paul says, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." And then, "He who plants and he who waters are one."

My head hurt. Nearly spoiled my Thursday pizza.

Ow.

J

[Cynic Sage]

I read this:



My head hurt. Nearly spoiled my Thursday pizza.

Ow.

J
linky linky.

[Jnthn]

linky linky.

too thick to work out how to link to an individual post, so here's the post in situ:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75531&page=3

Top of the third page.

J

[Cynic Sage]

Lather, rinse, repeat...:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75569&page=2&pp=16


If a person exhibits characteristics universally recognized in modern psychology as those that are expected of mind-controlers, then it really doesn't matter whether those characteristics are exhibited in first-century collectivist Palestine, or 20th century Waco Texas, agreed?


:ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

NormATive:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75531&page=2&pp=16
(http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75531&page=2&pp=16)
This is my personal belief. I think Paul's letters - besides never having the intention of being published - were heavily edited to suit the wealthy, male-dominated Roman and Greek aristocracy who pushed the "blood and the cross" message as a parallel to fit nicely with Roman culture.


Yeah, worshipping St Paul's Palestinian Jew who hung half-naked and most-likely soiling himself on a cross would really appeal to the 1st century Roman aristocracy.:ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Snarf gives literally the very worst pro-abortion argument in existence:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75595

Just wondering,
the pro-life POV is that abortion is wrong because it is murder of a defenseless human being, and it is always wrong for one person to murder another.

Yet these same consider it OK that God's followers in the OT killed others by stoning, for a variety of reasons like adultery, being gay, disobeying parents,etc. The assumption is that God ordered the killings as a form of punishment, and it is just because He makes the rules and we have to obey.

Question: How do pro-lifers know that God isn't commanding women to have abortions today?

After all, according to pro-life logic, God can do whatever He wants. Therefore, He could also be ordaining abortions. If you disagree and say that it is impossible, then who are you to disagree with God or question His judgement?

:hrm:

[Sparko]

to get a link to an individual post, look for the post number in the upper right of the post next to the buttons that say Edit|Report this Post|

if you right click on the post number and choose copy link location to the clipboard you can past it here. Alternately, find a post, click on the post number and it will open up in a new window, then cut and paste the address at the top of the browser.

[Jnthn]

to get a link to an individual post, look for the post number in the upper right of the post next to the buttons that say Edit|Report this Post|

if you right click on the post number and choose copy link location to the clipboard you can past it here. Alternately, find a post, click on the post number and it will open up in a new window, then cut and paste the address at the top of the browser.

Thanks, and "Yarr" :teeth:

J

[Teallaura]

Snarf gives literally the very worst pro-abortion argument in existence:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75595



:hrm:

Awww, drat - I was gonna post that one...:sigh:

Well, I'll just share this little gem from Biblischism:





Biblischism[/i]]Jnthn][/i]

Not in the sense of, say, peyote or marijuana, no, but there are many plants which have symbolic importance - vines, olives, figs etc. - for Jew and Christian alike.




Please note thread title. One need only a passing familiarity with the opening chapters of Genesis to conclude that plants have symbolic value. But it's not what I asked.

Jnthn][/i]

Do I fault users of sacred plants? Not as such.


What do you mean by “Not as such”? Are you attempting to sound pensive here, or are you just undecided? A “yes” or “no” would help propel the discussion forward, methinks (see James 5:12).

Jnthn][/i]

Legal issues aside, altered states of consciousness are unnecessary to talk with God since God has made himself readily accessible with unaltered senses.




Yes, but some make the inverse claim--and “readily accessible” sounds relative, especially compared to the hyper real experiences shamans and those in Rick Strassman's DMT study (http://www.rickstrassman.com/dmt/) have described.

Jnthn][/i]

To an extent, there's a nasty whiff of the gnostic and secret knowledge about it all, but that's a minor point.




Why bring it up then? LOL.

And what offends you so about “secret knowledge”? Do you experience a similar noxious odor when you consider the “secret knowledge” of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (a tree that had a teensy weensy hint of secretiveness attributed to it).

Since the genesis of the earth itself, “secret knowledge” has been imparted to plants. Leave those poor gnostics alone; they acquired this concept from their Maker (see Genesis 2).

]Jnthn[/i]

Does the presence of psychoactive plant substances cause an issue? I don't think so

So far, your shaky air of certitude has me thinking you've not examined this issue to the degree that you pretend. I mean, why did you even enter this discussion if you “don't think so”? [emphasis mine]

Jnthn][/i]

because the perception of problem relies on the assumption that all plant matter was created for human consumption. As is recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis, it does differentiate between plants pleasant to look at and good for food.




This is differentiation?

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb-bearing seed, which upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which the fruit of a tree yielding seed, to you it shall be for meat.” [emphasis mine]

Or this?

“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” [emphasis mine]

Are you actually arguing that we are under the Law of Two Trees?

* The ones that are yummy
* The ones that are purty

Even if I [i]did accept your asinine interpretation of this verse (there are two kinds of trees) over the most logical interpretation of this verse (all trees are pleasant to the sight and some of these bear fruit), we have this whole other problem:

Richard: This tree looks unpleasant to my sight.
Jane: I think it's beautiful.
Richard: But it's got all those disgusting fruity things hanging off it!
Jane: Hey, those are cherries!

[pensive pause]

Jane: This tree is visually unpleasant!


“So to that extent, your argument is flawed.” [emphasis mine]

B.

Please note the Scripture to which he refers.

Then later on, we get this:





Teallaura]

Um, you're basing your argument on how things were in the Garden - that's not a necessarily sound basis for an argument on how things are now. Presumably, given the verses you quote, there were no poisonous trees in the Garden. That is not the case now. Ergo something changed and Jnthn's point would seem to be valid.

Sin entered the world and Paul tells us that all creation groans under its weight - it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that trees and their fruit also bear part of that weight and are no longer the ideals they were in the Garden.




Oh I get it: you think what I was talking about was poisonous plants. Did you know I'm not talking about poison at all?

And what is this "weight" you're referring too? Somehow non-poisonous cannabinoids sprang into existence after the fall? LOL.

Per usual, paper-thin credulity from an armchair apologist.

Now, go make that fit into your Sunday School Edenic dogma.

Um, if every plant is good to eat pre-Fall per his citation of Scripture and post-Fall we have plants which are clearly not good to eat, then how the heck does he conclude that psychotropic plants must have existed pre-Fall as they do post-Fall? :hrm:

Logic? Who needs logic??:ahem:

Sheesh!

[Spheniscine]

Oh I get it: you think what I was talking about was poisonous plants. Did you know I'm not talking about poison at all?
Aren't narcotics a type of poison? Or could it be that he doesn't think they are? Hmm...
Somehow non-poisonous cannabinoids sprang into existence after the fall? LOL.
Given his naturalistic mindset I'm not sure how this is any more or less incredible to him than poisonous (however he defines it) compounds springing into existence from the Fall.

[Shadow Phoenix]

It'd be worth considering the origin of the potato. Many plants today that are poisonous we've actually found good medical use for.

[Darth Executor]

It'd be worth considering the origin of the potato. Many plants today that are poisonous we've actually found good medical use for.

Potatoes have medical use? I just like the way they taste. :yummy:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

This has probably already been said, but I think just about anything that comes from Skeptibud deserves a screwball award.


Particularly entertaining is his claim that proofreading somehow disproves inherency. Or his two threads about the Bible 'brainwashing' its readers.

Heres another little gem http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75516&page=1

When I try to find rebuttals to skeptic type criticisms of the bible I get lost in their arguments.
Some of the skeptic sites are very easy to understand and laid out in a very easy to read manner.
Even on this board the arguments get way too complex for me.
I'm sure I can't be the only one put off by the complexity of the arguments.
Does anyone know of simpler sites written by christians who have been down the skeptic path and managed to get back again.
I hope to get back myself but atm I can't see how - I am overwelmed with very forceful arguments showing a picture of a nice jesus for whom lots went wrong at the end, followed by a jerusalem church that was much closer to Jesus's teachings than Paul.
Paul it seems unwittingly hijacked the teachings of Jesus and was in turn hijacked knowingly by the Catholic church.
This concept seems to make all my problems with scripture fixed in one foul swoop.
Tektonics is too complex most of the time altho I'm sure the author means well and lots of people with a hight IQ than me can follow it quite well.
The skeptics seem to set things out much more simply and understandable.

Of course this ignorse the fact that issues involved in reading and interperting the Bible are hardly ever simple. And that skeptics far too often over-simplify things.

[Darth Executor]

Bud's gone off the deep end. NOw he's supporting Christ Baba (evilbible.com)'s theory that there are Christian atheists. :rofl:

Someone should introdice him to that Eisele fellow.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I wonder if its possible for an indvidual to recieve multipule screwball awards in the same month.

[jpholding]

Yes, it is possible. It's been done.

Meanwhile, there must have been a zoo of stupid people that had a breakout this week. Here's another, "scisyhp" from Apol 301...



If you're Christian, you have to either oppress women if you're a man, or be oppressed and not question it if you are a wemon.

So you have a daughter. She used to be cute and affectionate, but the older she gets, the more rebellious and disobedient she becomes. Displeased? Of course you are, every father would be! But what to do... hmm, how about selling her into slavery? Sure, not only do you get rid of the ungrateful cow from your home, but you make a few bucks at the same time! A win-win solution! Read all about it in Exodus 21:7-10.

Soldiers of a conquering army have their pick of the women in any captured city. If a soldier "seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her," that soldier can force her to marry him. Whether she wants to or not doesn't really come into the equation. The catch is that once you marry her, you can't sell her to someone else, you have to either keep her as your wife or let her go. Read all about it in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

Of course, army life isn't for everyone. So what do you do if you don't want to join the army but you do want to force a beautiful woman to marry you? Well, according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29, all you have to do is rape her, then pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Done and done, she's yours forever! What do you mean, a woman probably wouldn't want to marry her rapist, what's that got to do with it, god says she has to, so she has to! Just be careful not to rape a married woman, as that will earn you death by stoning, as outlined in Deuteronomy 22:23-27.

All good christians know that women are only good for one thing, right? That's what god says! According to 1 Timothy 2:15, "... women will be saved through childbearing". So, I guess any woman who thinks for herself and decides not to get pregnant won't be saved, huh?

God hates flirtatious women who wear flashy jewelry and clothing. Women are supposed to be subservient, not sexually aggressive! Isaiah 3:16-26 teaches us what happens to women who flirt. The lord will strip them naked, make them bald, cause them to smell really awful, and make them ugly. Yeah, that'll teach them, way to go, god. 1 Timothy 2:9 backs this up.

If there's anything god hates more than flirtatious women, it's sexually active women. You see, only men are allowed to go screwing around as they see fit, women simply can't do that. Ezekiel 23:19-27 tells the story of one such woman, Oholibah, who was promiscuous with men from a very young age. Eventually, god got fed up and decided to punish her. First he arranged to have her gang raped, then he had her nose and ears cut off, her children sold into slavery, and all her possessions taken away and burned. Yeah, that'll teach her for giving in to those sexual urges you gave her, god, way to go! Leviticus 21:9 puts it a little more succinctly: whores should be burned to death.

14:34-35. Women are not allowed even to speak when in church. If they hear something they don't understand, they have to keep their yaps shut, wait until they get home, and then ask their husband to explain it to them.
Another great example along the lines of the above is presented in 1 Timothy

2:11-14. Women are not allowed to teach, nor have any authority over man. Why? Because Adam was created first (making Eve, and by extension all women, secondary), and also because Eve was deceived by the snake (therefore meaning that all women, naturally, are easily deceived).
Yes, god knows how important it is for a woman to obey her man. Ephesians 5:22-24 tells us that a wife must obey her husband the same way she would obey god himself. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this, and Colossians 3:18 says it yet again.

Are men and women equal? Not according to god! He's even kind enough to provide us with dollar values when comparing the worth of a man to the worth of a woman. Check it out: Leviticus 27:1-7.

God forces women to endure pain during childbirth, and also tells woman that man "...shall rule over thee". Glad I wasn't born a christian woman. Genesis 3:16


How do you justify these things theists? Do you feel that wemon should be treated as though they are worth less than men? DO you believe that men should be allowed to mistreat women and use the bible as justification?

From now on I'll be posting the Jelica-Beamer screwball pics over any posts I find that deserve it.

[Teallaura]

Aren't narcotics a type of poison? Or could it be that he doesn't think they are? Hmm...

Given his naturalistic mindset I'm not sure how this is any more or less incredible to him than poisonous (however he defines it) compounds springing into existence from the Fall.

He says they have no deleterious effect on health... :lolo:

What kills me is that it's totally illogical using his own argument from Scripture. He says such mind altering compounds must have been 'good' because God told Adam all the plants were good to eat, then argues that they must have been present pre-Fall. If that's true, the same would be true of poisonous plants - which makes no sense if all the plants were good to eat in the first place.... :twitch:

[Darth Executor]

Bud, in the brainwashing thread.

I say YOU go google the search term "gospel of Christian atheism" and discover worlds unknown... at least to you.

Yes, I seriously think it is quite easy to be a Christian and yet be an atheist, here is how:

1 - For you, "Christian", meaning follow of Christ, means you agree with Jesus's view on things, though not on absolutely everything. Just like if you said you were a Pentecostal, this would imply you are a follow of Pentecostal theology, though it wouldn't necessarily imply that you believed that ability to speak in other EARTHLY tongues, as DEMONSTRATED at Pentecost in Acts 1, was necessarily true for today. Therefore you have no problems being identified as a follow of Christ, as long as those you talk to aren't decieved into thinking that mainline protestantism represents anything a Christian could be.

2 - You disagree with Jesus about the existence of God, because you never said Jesus was your Lord and Savior, since you reject the mental shackles of Lordship salvation, and wish only to be called a Christian, a follow of Jesus, not a slave of Jesus, just like you wish to be known as a follow of morals, without it meaning that that you make a moral issue out of every breath you take.

See? Just a little common sense applied to the bible, in an effort to cleave out what doesn't work for you and keep what does, you can very easily be a Christian atheist. The disagreements from other Christians mean nothing to you, since you don't view the bible or Jesus the way they do. The bible is a book that contains principles for social intercourse, and Jesus is nothing more than a great guy.

[DesertBerean]

From now on I'll be posting the Jelica-Beamer screwball pics over any posts I find that deserve it.Oh.....NOW I get it. :doh: :argh: ..don't mind me, I'll catch up. Go on.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Personaly I'm partial to this bit from Skepticbud:


Well, at least we have another proof of a wannabe Christian who says 'Lord, Lord,', even if it means NOT getting to level three of Quake 4 before the rapture. What committment!

Could you be evangelising lost souls during the time that you play video games?

What's more important to God, the preaching of his word and gospel, or you and your selfish indulgence in things that aren't gonna end up saving anybody? Doesn't the bible say do all in the name of the Lord Jesus? how exactly do you play video games in the name of the Lord Jesus, unless you use his name to cuss out your frustration of not winning?

Isn't it true that you could do more for Jesus? Why aren't you doing your best then, if you are a true Christian?

Yep, video games were invented by Satan to distract Christians from evenglizing 24/7.

[jpholding]

Yep, video games were invented by Satan to distract Christians from evenglizing 24/7.

I'll have to think about that when I skip church to play Ty the Tasmanian Tiger 3: Night of the Quankin. :hrm:

[Cynic Sage]

This has probably already been said, but I think just about anything that comes from Skeptibud deserves a screwball award.


Particularly entertaining is his claim that proofreading somehow disproves inherency. Or his two threads about the Bible 'brainwashing' its readers.

Heres another little gem http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75516&page=1



Of course this ignorse the fact that issues involved in reading and interperting the Bible are hardly ever simple. And that skeptics far too often over-simplify things.

Um, that's Lost, not Skepticbud.

[Cynic Sage]

Wyzard and Bandecoot defend The Skeptics Annotated Bible:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75516&page=8 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75516&page=8)

Hmmm...

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)

Funny and disturbing.

I agree, but probably not for the same reasons. It's funny because the decontexualized one-liner knee-jerk reactions are self-evidently ignorant but disturbing because the site authors apparently think they're actually making valid objections.

If you want the flip-side, you might be interested in a rebuttal of the SAB available at JP Holding's website:

http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html

Enjoy.

Its funny that context only comes into play when we hit a nerve. Feel free to send JPH after me again. I will ignore his inane rantings as I have done for the last 2 years.

I cant believe people are actually defending the Skeptics Annointed Bible.

Seriously I thought even skeptics could see through the overly-simplistic and painfully-literal readings of that site.


Why should we trust in your judgement on matters of proper context and what it implies? You're investigations are already poisoned by faith from the start.

"Can't trust dem xtians, if you listen do dem a memeplex will jump out atcha and lay eggs in your brain." :noid:

[jpholding]

Um, that's Lost, not Skepticbud.

There's a difference? :hehe:

Note to self: Gold for Bubbahotep for quoting to me as an authority the "Blue Letter Bible" and Matthew Henry's ancient commentary. :hehe:

[Cynic Sage]

There's a difference? :hehe:

Note to self: Gold for Bubbahotep for quoting to me as an authority the "Blue Letter Bible" and Matthew Henry's ancient commentary. :hehe:

"Blue letter Bible"?

Coulda been worse, he coulda just used the english dictionary. BLB is a significant step-up for most screwb-worthy skeptics.

[Cynic Sage]

Paul Ferrel and Kathy Demchuk, for the mass decontextualization in in their "Illustrated Stories from the Bible That They won't Tell You in Sunday School":

http://www.illustratedbiblestories.ca/

[Cynic Sage]

Paul Ferrel and Kathy Demchuk, for the mass decontextualization in in their "Illustrated Stories from the Bible That They won't Tell You in Sunday School":

http://www.illustratedbiblestories.ca/

EDIT: It will appeal to Lost, it's at her reading level. :hehe:

[Cynic Sage]

Oops, double posted, my bad. :blush:

[Cynic Sage]

Paul Ferrel and Kathy Demchuk, for the mass decontextualization in in their "Illustrated Stories from the Bible That They won't Tell You in Sunday School":

http://www.illustratedbiblestories.ca/

EDIT: It will appeal to Lost, it's at her reading level. :hehe:

http://www.illustratedbiblestories.ca/When%20Jesus%20Drowned%20the%20Pigs.htm

What's wrong with this man, and what does Jesus want with him? Does he have a friend with him or is he all alone? Shouldn't he at least fix himself up a bit and put on some clothes before he meets with the Son of God? Where do the pigs come into the story and why does Jesus want to drown them? Well there's more than just strange looking men, Jesus, and pigs to this story, and you'll want to see them all in action. We'll show you them all and demonstrate how to perform exorcisms on livestock.

[Cynic Sage]

Pitchforkpat, defending IBS:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75721

I don't hold much hope for the accurate representation of the stories if they show kids being ravaged by bears - from the word used to describe the youths they could have been anything from teens to thirty.

Skeptical exegesis 0, Straw Man 1


The author acknowledges a range in age debate (although I don't know if it would go up to thirty). Some bible translations are used including King James “little children”, NIV “youths”, Young’s Literal Bible “little youths”, English Standard Version “small boys” to make the point that, even though there’s debate about the age, the debate alone (not to mention the prevalence of these popular translations) justifies the illustration.

Why do you say the range is from “teens” to “thirty” when the examples above, Literal Bible, English Standard, and King James all point to younger than teen? Is this not more a bias on your part?

"Screw the original Hebrew, everybody knows that modern English is Earth's default language."

[Sparko]

Personaly I'm partial to this bit from Skepticbud:




Yep, video games were invented by Satan to distract Christians from evenglizing 24/7.

I thought that was TV?

[Cynic Sage]

I thought that was TV?

Naw. It is the toilet that is the devil's opera-house.

:hehe:

[Cynic Sage]

Honestseeker, on Paul and the Second Coming of Christ:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1468580#post1468580

Didn't Jesus use up his second coming, when he converted Paul on that highway, according to Paul and some of his friends?

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here Christ, or there; believe [it] not. Mat 24:23

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, [he is] in the secret chambers; believe [it] not. Mat 24:26

Jesus: Dang! Thanks to that vision I gave Paul, I now have to go back to Heaven and re-do all the paperwork I need for another "second coming" before coming back and ushering in the final ressurection. <sigh> This'll take a quite a few millenia. :doh:

It seems strange that he didn't convert Paul all of the time that he was here on earth, in front of the other apostles, as he did with the others. Paul could have learned Jesus' teachings as he was teaching the other apostles. Mabe that's why his teachings are so much different from Christ's and John's.

Also, Jesus never mentioned or announced the coming of a teacher who would throw out the Laws of Moses, that David and even Jesus said were eternal ( ps.119:160 & Mat. 5:17-19 ) Deut. 4:2 says not to add to them, nor subtract from them; doesn't that sound alot like that verse in Revelations? Paul says they were nailed to the cross, but Jesus never mentioned that during the 40 days he was here on earth, before he ascended? Wouldn't Jesus have mentioned something as monumental as that, before he ascended?

Uh, weren't most of Christ's followers in the world converted post-ascension anyway? And what's the contracdiction between Paul and John, "Paul and James" could be more understandable, but "Paul and [i]John"? :huh:

The coming of the Messiah was foretold.
The coming of " my messenger " was foretold.( Mal 3:1 )
But the man who threw out the "eternal" Laws of Moses was not foretold.
And his teachings fill half of the "New Testament", and have very little to do with Jesus' teachings ???

THAT IS SCARY !!!

Lions and Tigers and Pork
Oh My! :egad:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Um, that's Lost, not Skepticbud.

I know, didn't I note that in my post? I guess I didn't or else you woldnt have said that. I suppose I definetely should have though.

Anywho, like JP said, is there really any difference?

[Cynic Sage]

I know, didn't I note that in my post? I guess I didn't or else you woldnt have said that. I suppose I definetely should have though.

Anywho, like JP said, is there really any difference?
I believe there actually is. Skepticbud may occasionally argue from ignorance, but Lost argues pro-ignorance.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

You know, I honestly have no answer to that.

[Cynic Sage]

Honestseeker tries his hand at some JAM (Jewish Anti-Missionary) material:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75814 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75814)


Yes, and God is refered to as the "Lord God of Israel" 329 times, throughout the "Old Testament".

But Lord God of Gentiles, occurs "0" times.

:ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Wyzzard plays with straw dealing with JP's refutation of SAB:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75516&page=9&pp=16

I can only assume you didn't actually read the Tektonics.org rebuttal beyond skimming the page as fast as you could while avoiding the links to the many in-depth articles that justify the charge of "decontexualization". But it's nice of you to poison the well.

No, I clicked on quite a few. But again, why should I bow to their dubious "the bible's the inspired word of god" authority? Even if they were to highlight a more objective historical reading of the texts, their assumptions about the concordinant divinity of the work again poisons the well (assuming of course that divinity can be verified by any means whatsoever). With sufficient wiggle-room, such presuppositions would lead to interpretations of canonical unity without proper justification! Thus, the further space of skepticism to step in and say "Wait a minute..."

But what your doing is like a judge ignoring the case presented by the defendant's attorney simply because he believes his client is innocent of the crime he is accused of. In doing this you are simply begging the question.

What would be a better analogy is a reverse of the roles... SAB is the defense attorney who has given evidence, and the judge says "No, that's not evidence at all! Just look at all my unjustified faith-biased counter-evidence built upon a teetering ad hoc ediface... oh, and by the way, you're guilty regardless of any evidence whatsoever, because I have a relation ship with Truth and you obviously don't.

I just asked him to point out where on your site you give an argument like that. Can't wait for his response. :hehe: :grin:

And there's this tidbit as well:

How bout this: try actually answering our arguemnts, instead of just throwing them out by saying "they're rooted in faith from the begining."

It's a pointless game, if the argument boils down to questionable contexting and predisposed corcordinance. It's the presuppositioning that needs addressing.

:lol:

[Teallaura]

Wyzard and Bandecoot defend The Skeptics Annotated Bible:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75516&page=8 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75516&page=8)





"Can't trust dem xtians, if you listen do dem a memeplex will jump out atcha and lay eggs in your brain." :noid:

I love folks who can see your bias - but not their own... :teeth:

[Cynic Sage]

Biblischism, for his "perfect refutation" of the doctrine of Biblical Innerancy:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75721&page=3&pp=16

Perhaps your exegesis of the Bible should extend beyond English translations. Just a thought.

Hard to take a guy's exegetical advice who weekly posts new Petra lyrics in his signature. (Petra writes music designed to summon a small arenaful of fists into the air. Very heady stuff.)

I believe this is known as a non sequitur.

Or a diversion. But you never do that, do you, PetraFan?

Man, what is it with Biblischism and making issues over his opponents' hobbies and interests while ignoring the facts? :lolo:

Please do continue proclaiming that English Bible translations give an incomplete or inaccurate account of biblical events.

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Odd that you think simply restating my point suffices as a rebuttal.

When it's an unwitting admission that all English versions of The Holy Bible are incomplete and inaccurate and, therefore, errant, it not only suffices as a rebuttal; it is the perfect rebuttal.

The guy doesn't know what the Chicago Inerrancy Statement is. :lmbo:

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75721&page=3

Aaahhh…so now we finally have it. Elisha was defending his honor by having 42 people mauled by a bare. I think the rotting carcasses and the screams of the mothers is a great testament to Elisha’s honor. What an honorable gentleman.

So if a bunch of kids accuse you of lying, then you’d better defend your honor and have them all mercilessly mutilated! That is if “honor” is “important” to you. Boy, I’m glad honor is now only important in SOME parts of the world (as you claim above). Where is it in the world today where honor isn’t important? Empty-headed twaddle.

I loved the "you" part as if I live in ancient Israel. :ahem:

I'm taking votes. Should I still bother with the idiot or call it a day?

[Darth Executor]

Same idiot, same thread.

The biggest whopper of a cop out yet. Now inerrancy is simply inferred and stated. In other words, it is completely unverifyable and impossible to critique so you'll just have to take our word for it. We're saying it's without error and you can't check. NO original manuscripts exist, so NO accusations of inerrancy can ever stick again. Genius. Pure Genius.

However, it’s also a lie. If they were truthful it would be the Chicago Statement on Original Manuscript Inerrancy (that's the TRUTH). Saying that because no original manuscripts contained error, that therefore the Bible doesn’t contain error is a bald-faced, unscrupulous cheat. The Bible is the book I can walk down to my local Christian Book and Music store and buy – and it contains errors.

[jpholding]

I'm taking votes. Should I still bother with the idiot or call it a day?

I have him on ignore as one Too Stupid (TM) to reply to. So you know my vote.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I'm taking votes. Should I still bother with the idiot or call it a day?

I say continue, you may still get a few cheap laughs out of him.

Then again I'm a semi-masochist when it comes to things like this.

[Jnthn]

Biblischism, for his "perfect refutation" of the doctrine of Biblical Innerancy...The guy doesn't know what the Chicago Inerrancy Statement is. :lmbo:
I'm starting to lose patience with this guy. He needs to be slapped like a misbehaving kid. :blush:

J

[Cynic Sage]

I have him on ignore as one Too Stupid (TM) to reply to. So you know my vote.
Hey JP, you can read the Biblischism quotes I'm posting here even though you have him on ignore, right?

[Cynic Sage]

Biblischism weaves argument ad-hominem and gentetic fallacy together so well, doesn't he? :hehe: :

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1470584&postcount=50

Man, what is it with you and making issues over piddly little things like your opponent's hobbies or taste in music and such?

Thanks for asking. It's a very basic principle: I judge people according to the quality of their taste; the ones who have good taste tend to be more interesting and, oftentimes, more intelligent.

It's a general rule, but as you see in the case of MM, it's pretty accurate in judging individuals and the merit of their arguments. In other words, if that golden brain of MM's could not find anything more edifying and soul nourishing to listen to than This Means War!!! by Petra, then what are the chances this same brain has successfully contemplated the whole of biblical scripture, properly meditated on its precepts and tenets, and thoughtfully considered the myriad complex issues attached to it? Such a man is a Grade A poser--vainly pretending to know what his Petra-addled mind hasn't the sufficient resources to know.

Ergo, Petra fans are unintelligent people and, therefore, unworthy of serious discourse.

How can I be the only one here who has grasped this? Where are the pure thinkers, fer criminy?!



:ahem:

[jpholding]

Hey JP, you can read the Biblischism quotes I'm posting here even though you have him on ignore, right?

Yep. And I can tell E. T. stands for "Egomaniacal Twit". :hehe:

I'll be emailing you something shortly.

Added: Egad. Biblispasm and Pitchafitpat in the same thread? That's enough fundy atheism in one place to blow up a Sk'lan terminal.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Thanks for asking. It's a very basic principle: I judge people according to the quality of their taste; the ones who have good taste tend to be more interesting and, oftentimes, more intelligent.

It's a general rule, but as you see in the case of MM, it's pretty accurate in judging individuals and the merit of their arguments. In other words, if that golden brain of MM's could not find anything more edifying and soul nourishing to listen to than This Means War!!! by Petra, then what are the chances this same brain has successfully contemplated the whole of biblical scripture, properly meditated on its precepts and tenets, and thoughtfully considered the myriad complex issues attached to it? Such a man is a Grade A poser--vainly pretending to know what his Petra-addled mind hasn't the sufficient resources to know.

Ergo, Petra fans are unintelligent people and, therefore, unworthy of serious discourse.

How can I be the only one here who has grasped this? Where are the pure thinkers, fer criminy?

There's also the possibility that MM listens to Petra for musical entertainment than spirtual edification. Petra is(or rather, was) after all a very talented band, regardless of how deep and edifying their lyrics are.

[Darth Executor]

Nomination for Farrell Till's parents. It's his birthday today. :hehe:

[Cynic Sage]

Nomination for Farrell Till's parents. It's his birthday today. :hehe:

:thumbd:

Dude, that's low. The blame for his sheer and utter incompetence should be placed on him and him alone. Leave his parents out of this.

[Darth Executor]

:thumbd:

Dude, that's low. The blame for his sheer and utter incompetence should be placed on him and him alone. Leave his parents out of this.

It was a joke. :tongue:

[jpholding]

:thumbd:

Dude, that's low. The blame for his sheer and utter incompetence should be placed on him and him alone. Leave his parents out of this.

Besides, they were planning to use the egg for an omelette but forgot where they put it. :rasberry:

[Cynic Sage]

It was a joke. :tongue:
So was I. :hehe:

[Yakkity Yak]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75939

Dear JP Holding!

I nominate Johnny EC for calling 1 Corinthains 13 cut and crap on my thread in answer to "Paul - the mosted hated Apostle", I answered with: Paul - the most Adored Apostle on the Topic of Love.

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75939

Dear JP Holding!

I nominate Johnny EC for calling 1 Corinthains 13 cut and crap on my thread in answer to "Paul - the mosted hated Apostle", I answered with: Paul - the most Adored Apostle on the Topic of Love.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1472230&postcount=5

[attachment]
:ahem:

[Darth Executor]

Oh man, I wish I had access to some sound editing software. The ending to The Hornburg from the LOTR soundtrack would be perfect right about now.

[Cynic Sage]

Raptureready.com answers a pretty weird question on their FAQ page:

http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq460.html (http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq460.html)

Why is Batman just Batman while Robin is the Boy Wonder? The name "Robin, the Boy Wonder" was partly based on the medieval hero of the poor, Robin Hood. The name also fit the flying animal motif of Batman.

In 1940, Robin was introduced as part of an effort by DC Comics to soften the dark broodiness of the Batman character. In time, virtually all of DC's major superheroes wound up with a "kid sidekick" of some sort. Aquaman had Aqualad, Green Arrow had Speedy and Superman had Jimmy Olsen as a vehicle for better plot development.

In the case of Robin, the phrase "Boy Wonder" was simply used as a marketing tool to emphasize his youthful contrast to Batman. The partnering of Batman with Robin the Boy Wonder has been one of the most successful match-ups in comic book history.



How the heck did that get to be a frequently-asked question for a Dispensationalist Eschatology website? :twitch:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Also, Batman has several other names: The Dark Knight, The Caped Crucadior...

[Cynic Sage]

Raptuready.com has several End-Times Timelines (http://www.raptureready.com/time/rap31.html) on their site. Check out the one second from the bottom of the list :hehe::

http://www.raptureready.com/time/marriage.html (http://www.raptureready.com/time/marriage.html)

To document the decline in the sanctity of the institution of marriage, what better example to use than the Queen of Serial Marriage herself, Miss Elizabeth Taylor. Liz is as known for her revolving door marriages as her acting ability-of course today this might be seen as common place, but surely raised an eyebrow or two during her heyday. She has been married eight times to seven husbands:

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

5/16/1950
Liz Taylor, 18 years old, marries Nicky Hilton. People were listening to Mona Lisa by Nat King Cole, The Tennessee Waltz by Patti Page, and I Can Dream, Can’t I? By the Andrews Sisters. Harry Truman was president, All About Eve was named best picture of the year, gas cost 27¢ a gallon and a loaf of bread cost 14¢. New television programs were the Lone Ranger, Arthur Godfrey’s Talent Scouts and the Colgate Comedy Hour; kids were playing with Little People and Clue; and folks were reading Florence Nightingale.

1/29/1951
Liz Taylor, 19 years old, divorces Nicky Hilton after a marriage lasting nine months. People were listening to Come On-a My House by Rosemary Clooney, How High the Moon by Les Paul and Mary Ford, and Be My Love by Mario Lanza. Harry Truman was still president. An American in Paris was named best picture of the year, gas was still 27¢ a gallon and a loaf of bread cost 16¢. I Love Lucy and the Roy Rogers Show debuted on TV; kids were playing with Colorforms; and folks were reading The Catcher in the Rye and From Here to Eternity. During that week the first X-rated movie opened in London. 1951 The divorce rate is 2.5%

2/21/1952
Liz Taylor, 20 years old, marries Michael Wilding thirteen months after her divorce from Hilton. People were listening to I Went to Your Wedding by Patti Page and Half as Much by Rosemary Clooney. Harry Truman was still president. The Greatest Show on Earth was best picture of the year, gas was still 27¢ a gallon and a loaf of bread still cost 16¢. Our Miss Brooks and the Red Buttons Show debuted on TV, and the Life of Riley and Hopalong Cassidy went off the air; kids were playing with Mr. Potato Head and folks were reading the Invisible Man.


...




"Hollywood Marriages don't last long. IT'S A SIGN OF THE APOCALYOPSE!"
:lol:

I also reccomend you check out their Photorama Signs of the Times selection:

http://www.raptureready.com/photo/signs/rap83ee.html

Which contains gems such as:

http://www.raptureready.com/photo/signs/link16.html

(Floods) When God exercised His first judgment on the earth, He used a flood. God promised to never again destroy the world with a flood. It doesn't mean He won't use regional flooding to manifest His wrath on the sins of mankind.

Never mind that the areas where the majority of the homosexual population of New Orleans resided recieved the least damage.:ahem:

http://www.raptureready.com/photo/signs/link9.html (http://www.raptureready.com/photo/signs/link9.html)

Who puts a photograph of a buch of dancing gay men wearing skin-tight speedos on a Dispensationalist Eschatology website? Couldn't they have just used a photo of a gay-rights activist holding up a sign with a rainbow or a purple triangle on it? I think my breakfast is going to be raptured. :eww:

http://www.raptureready.com/photo/signs/link8.html (http://www.raptureready.com/photo/signs/link8.html)

I'm even confused as to how they would get photos like, for example, this one. Does the photographer for Raptuready.com go to places like San Francisco, Hollywood, and/or LA, walks up to some people, and say:

"Excuse me, ma'ams. I work for the Christian website RaptureReady.com and right now I need a photograph to show the depraved sinfullness being practiced in the last days. I already have a photograph of several dancing gay men wearing skin-tight speedos, but that's for illustrating the sin of homosexuality and now I need a photograph to demonstrate the sin of hedonism. Now if you folks would be so kind as to make-out in front of my camera, I'd be very much obliged."

:lolo:

[Cynic Sage]

Also, Batman has several other names: The Dark Knight, The Caped Crucadior...
Caped Crusader. I don't think he's ever been called "Caped Cruciador".

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Caped Crusader. I don't think he's ever been called "Caped Cruciador".

Oh sure make fun of the bad typist.

[JSDileo]

Raptuready.com has several End-Times Timelines (http://www.raptureready.com/time/rap31.html) on their site. Check out the one second from the bottom of the list :hehe::

http://www.raptureready.com/time/marriage.html (http://www.raptureready.com/time/marriage.html)

To document the decline in the sanctity of the institution of marriage, what better example to use than the Queen of Serial Marriage herself, Miss Elizabeth Taylor. Liz is as known for her revolving door marriages as her acting ability-of course today this might be seen as common place, but surely raised an eyebrow or two during her heyday. She has been married eight times to seven husbands:

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

5/16/1950
Liz Taylor, 18 years old, marries Nicky Hilton. People were listening to Mona Lisa by Nat King Cole, The Tennessee Waltz by Patti Page, and I Can Dream, Can’t I? By the Andrews Sisters. Harry Truman was president, All About Eve was named best picture of the year, gas cost 27¢ a gallon and a loaf of bread cost 14¢. New television programs were the Lone Ranger, Arthur Godfrey’s Talent Scouts and the Colgate Comedy Hour; kids were playing with Little People and Clue; and folks were reading Florence Nightingale.

1/29/1951
Liz Taylor, 19 years old, divorces Nicky Hilton after a marriage lasting nine months. People were listening to Come On-a My House by Rosemary Clooney, How High the Moon by Les Paul and Mary Ford, and Be My Love by Mario Lanza. Harry Truman was still president. An American in Paris was named best picture of the year, gas was still 27¢ a gallon and a loaf of bread cost 16¢. I Love Lucy and the Roy Rogers Show debuted on TV; kids were playing with Colorforms; and folks were reading The Catcher in the Rye and From Here to Eternity. During that week the first X-rated movie opened in London. 1951 The divorce rate is 2.5%

2/21/1952
Liz Taylor, 20 years old, marries Michael Wilding thirteen months after her divorce from Hilton. People were listening to I Went to Your Wedding by Patti Page and Half as Much by Rosemary Clooney. Harry Truman was still president. The Greatest Show on Earth was best picture of the year, gas was still 27¢ a gallon and a loaf of bread still cost 16¢. Our Miss Brooks and the Red Buttons Show debuted on TV, and the Life of Riley and Hopalong Cassidy went off the air; kids were playing with Mr. Potato Head and folks were reading the Invisible Man.


...




"Hollywood Marriages don't last long. IT'S A SIGN OF THE APOCALYOPSE!"
:lol:

I also reccomend you check out their Photorama Signs of the Times selection:

http://www.raptureready.com/photo/signs/rap83ee.html

Which contains gems such as:

http://www.raptureready.com/photo/signs/link16.html

(Floods) When God exercised His first judgment on the earth, He used a flood. God promised to never again destroy the world with a flood. It doesn't mean He won't use regional flooding to manifest His wrath on the sins of mankind.

Never mind that the areas where the majority of the homosexual population of New Orleans resided recieved the least damage.:ahem:

Are you nuts?

I've been all around New Orleans, I can tell you that EVERYTHING that got HARD. Besides, New Orleans was a trash bin before Katrina. They didn't call it "Sin City" for nothing. There would literally be a murder, or several, every single night. I'm sure that New Orleans had more people die in two years from murders than soldiers have died in Iraq.

[Cynic Sage]

Are you nuts?

I've been all around New Orleans, I can tell you that EVERYTHING that got HARD. Besides, New Orleans was a trash bin before Katrina. They didn't call it "Sin City" for nothing. There would literally be a murder, or several, every single night. I'm sure that New Orleans had more people die in two years from murders than soldiers have died in Iraq.

I thought LA was "Sin City".

[Darth Executor]

I thought LA was "Sin City".

And I thought it was Vegas.

[Cynic Sage]

PitchforkPat, on The Chicago Innerancy Statement:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1470545&postcount=48


The biggest whopper of a cop out yet. Now inerrancy is simply inferred and stated. In other words, it is completely unverifyable and impossible to critique so you'll just have to take our word for it. We're saying it's without error and you can't check. NO original manuscripts exist, so NO accusations of inerrancy can ever stick again. Genius. Pure Genius.

However, it’s also a lie. If they were truthful it would be the Chicago Statement on Original Manuscript Inerrancy (that's the TRUTH). Saying that because no original manuscripts contained error, that therefore the Bible doesn’t contain error is a bald-faced, unscrupulous cheat. The Bible is the book I can walk down to my local Christian Book and Music store and buy – and it contains errors.

:ahem:

[Darth Executor]

I nominated that already.

PitchforkPat, on The Chicago Innerancy Statement:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1470545&postcount=48



:ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

I nominated that already.
My bad. :blush:

[jpholding]

I thought LA was "Sin City".

You're ALL wrong.

"Sin City" is Bithlo, FL.

[{Tim}]

To Snarf, for totally ignoring the context of ancient israel, when he got the answer to his question about "why Jesus commands us to stone disobedient children"; and then for going on from there to say "Jesus says to kill children here therefore he would probably be OK with abortion."

:lolo:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75576

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I thought LA was "Sin City".

I thought "Sin City" was a graphic novel/movie :eek:

[jpholding]

Great email just came in that wins the Proud to Be Dumb Award:


You amaze me!!! You neither proved anything and after reading your critical ramblings on the trinity teaching of L. Ray Smith, It so reminded me of the church I came out of! You use alot of big words and you proved nothing with all your gobbledygook and I saw a lot of words but did not see that you said anything at all.

Does not the bible say that there is one God and one Son and also it states that God is spirit!

Ray Smith taught this through and by the Spirit of Christ!

Theologians like you still turn my stomach! The knowledge of men is foolishness with God!

Nice try my friend but you have not convinced me on anything nor to many others!

II Peter 2:1-2

II Tim. 4:2-4

I Tim. 1:4-7

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1473461

I don't consider the new testament to be very reliable evidence - despite all the attempts by apologists - it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, unless of course you are a one-eyed believer.

Are you a one-eyed believer JP?

[attachment=1]

[jpholding]

http://www.thechurchreport.com/content/view/823/32/

This is all we need to understand why we have so many stupid apostates like Lost.

In this list of the Top 50 most influential Christians, we have:

*People who teach heretical or stupid doctrines (Jakes, Crouches, Hinn, Meyer, Schuller, Hagee, Dollar, Parsley)
*People who teach decontexuailzed feelgoodism (Osteen, Warren)
*Pastors or evangelists who for the most part teach pap (the Stanleys, Hybels, the Grahams, Palau, Swindoll)

But no scholars or apologists, of course. Colson comes closest to that on the list, since he does some apologetics now and then (but it's not what he's being picked for); Sweet (32) is a professor but doesn't seem to be recognized for his scholarly work. Kennedy at least cares about apologetics. But the list itself wins an Institutional Screwball for Western Christianity.

It'll be a fine day when the likes of Jakes and Warren get kicked out of such lists and are replaced by the likes of Witherington and Wright. But it probably won't happen. :hehe:

[jpholding]

Are you a one-eyed believer JP?


With 20/10 vision, no less. :hehe:

I'll use that pic in the feature, too.

[Darth Executor]

http://www.thechurchreport.com/content/view/823/32/

This is all we need to understand why we have so many stupid apostates like Lost.

In this list of the Top 50 most influential Christians, we have:

*People who teach heretical or stupid doctrines (Jakes, Crouches, Hinn, Meyer, Schuller, Hagee, Dollar, Parsley)
*People who teach decontexuailzed feelgoodism (Osteen, Warren)
*Pastors or evangelists who for the most part teach pap (the Stanleys, Hybels, the Grahams, Palau, Swindoll)

But no scholars or apologists, of course. Colson comes closest to that on the list, since he does some apologetics now and then (but it's not what he's being picked for); Sweet (32) is a professor but doesn't seem to be recognized for his scholarly work. Kennedy at least cares about apologetics. But the list itself wins an Institutional Screwball for Western Christianity.

It'll be a fine day when the likes of Jakes and Warren get kicked out of such lists and are replaced by the likes of Witherington and Wright. But it probably won't happen. :hehe:

I can't believe Dr. Phil is on that list. :rofl:

[Cynic Sage]

RaisingPaine:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75576

Since when does being pro-choice make one pro-abortion?

Okay, so you can choose to not have an abortion, or you can choose to try to get an abortion but not succeed? :huh:

[Cynic Sage]

Griggsy, on Mary and the Holy Trinity:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75760

How do Christians justify their dogmas? How can there be a trinity? If the son is one with the other two, how can he sit at the father's side? Did the third person of the trinity pass on DNA to the son? He and the mother, by not wedding,committed a sin. Since Mary is the mother of the second person,does she make the godhead a quarternity? Is she really a virgin for life?The Bible does not record Joseph as having an other wife,so how was she a virgin after all? The dogma of fee will falters, because if we have to have free will here ,we would have to have it in a heaven, thus more of the same for eternity. If no evil in a heaven,then why evil here. What is with the dogma of heaven? One says that there , we shall learn finally all the whys. But that is to use one dogma to buttress another one. Logic is the bane of the theologian.

If you got a JW drunk he'd still have a better understanding of the Trinity than this guy. :lol:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I also like the way he attacks some of the Catholic ideas about Mary as if all Christians believed them.

[spl_cadet]

But no scholars or apologists, of course. Colson comes closest to that on the list, since he does some apologetics now and then (but it's not what he's being picked for); Sweet (32) is a professor but doesn't seem to be recognized for his scholarly work. Kennedy at least cares about apologetics. But the list itself wins an Institutional Screwball for Western Christianity.


Benedict XVI is a well-known scholar, with a number of books (and of course an encyclical) as is, I would imagine, Cardinal McCarrick. Though that list deserves an extra screwball for putting B16 at number 44.

[jpholding]

Benedict XVI is a well-known scholar, with a number of books (and of course an encyclical) as is, I would imagine, Cardinal McCarrick. Though that list deserves an extra screwball for putting B16 at number 44.

If you can, find out about McCarrick for me, please.

[Darth Executor]

http://www.adw.org/about/lead_bio_mccarrick.asp

[sc_q_jayce]

http://www.thechurchreport.com/content/view/823/32/

This is all we need to understand why we have so many stupid apostates like Lost.

In this list of the Top 50 most influential Christians, we have:

*People who teach heretical or stupid doctrines (Jakes, Crouches, Hinn, Meyer, Schuller, Hagee, Dollar, Parsley)
*People who teach decontexuailzed feelgoodism (Osteen, Warren)
*Pastors or evangelists who for the most part teach pap (the Stanleys, Hybels, the Grahams, Palau, Swindoll)

But no scholars or apologists, of course. Colson comes closest to that on the list, since he does some apologetics now and then (but it's not what he's being picked for); Sweet (32) is a professor but doesn't seem to be recognized for his scholarly work. Kennedy at least cares about apologetics. But the list itself wins an Institutional Screwball for Western Christianity.

It'll be a fine day when the likes of Jakes and Warren get kicked out of such lists and are replaced by the likes of Witherington and Wright. But it probably won't happen. :hehe:
At least they didn't put Wilkinson down primarily for writing the Prayer of Jabez. :eww:

Anyway, considering the website is about Church Business, I wouldn't be surprised that they considered influence on a purely business-like mindset.

HAHAHAHA BENNY HINN HAHAHAHA TOUCH HAHAAH

In my college days (wow, that was only a few months ago), whenever I got so down in the dumps that I didn't know what to do, I'd go online and watch "This is Your Day." Hearing him speak and make people fall down crack me up so much that there's no way I couldn't see the sunshine around me. I tried to get my friends to do it, too, but they were confused. Very sad he's on there.

But if you look at the people on there, then you can see that the whole reason why this magazine is screwy is by the way they deterine "influence," "success," etcetera.

Were you aware that NT Wright has three more books on the Market as of December 2005? One on the authority of the Bible, one called "A Fresh Perspective on Paul," and another one about being Christian.

Do you know much about them, JP?

[jpholding]

At least they didn't put Wilkinson down primarily for writing the Prayer of Jabez. :eww:

I know, I forgot he wrote that (shows how memorable he is). I'm going to expand on my comments today and I'm not sure where I'll put him now. Also mistook McLaren for someone else and will be moving him to the "I dunno" section.

In my college days (wow, that was only a few months ago), whenever I got so down in the dumps that I didn't know what to do,

The guy used to preach 10 miles from where I live. :rant: Tragic comedy is about right.

Were you aware that NT Wright has three more books on the Market as of December 2005?

Someone is lending me a copy of the last one. The other two I had not heard of yet.

[Cynic Sage]

Biblischism, for his "Yahwistic View of Cripples" thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76043&page=1&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76043&page=1&pp=16)

One objection to biblical theism that was a stumbling block for me when I was a churchgoer is Leviticus 21. In that chapter, God shows what can only be described as a bigoted view of the handicapped.

How can the God of Leviticus 21 possibly be the God of the gospels? I always wondered. Granted, Jesus says some harsh things in the NT, and I’m aware that reconciling the OT Yahweh with the NT Yahweh has been a point of debate for quite some time (for good reason), but being handicapped myself, this chapter would be embarrassing to me if I had to witness to the “blemished” (some of whom must daily confront human attitudes that are not unlike God’s inexplicable view in Leviticus 21).

I can even understand sacrificial animals having to be blemish-free--but human beings?

Is it unreasonable to argue that if the handicapped were profane in His sight in Lev. 21, then they are just as odious to Him now? If not, why? Did he take a sensitivity course some time between 1,500 B.C and 33 A.D.?

You do know that Lev 21 applies only to priests, right? Not to the entire congregation of Israel?


Yes. And it merely modifies the original question thus:

"Is it unreasonable to argue that if handicapped clergy were profane in His sight in Lev. 21, then they are just as odious to Him now?"


Modern-day Rabbis and Ministers are Levite's that offer sacrifices in the Temple? :hrm:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I vote manwithdream for his comments on Psalm 22: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76100



I am not sure if I am writing this in the right forum because I am new to this internet site and it is the most complicated site I have ever seen.

I have an unusual explanation about Psalm 22 . I think the writer first says he is a worm and not a man. A worm does not have arms, legs, or bones. Later he says "dogs...have surrounded me like a lion, my hands and my feet I will count , all of my bones they will see" (my translation)." I think at that point he felt strong like a lion, and he was saying that he is not a scared worm anymore. A lion has hands, feet, and bones, so he poetically might have been saying that he is not a worm anymore simply by saying he now has hands, feet, and bones like a lion. I have a more detailed explanation in my own website, but this is the basic idea. I'd like to hear what other people say about this. thank you.

Did anybody understand a word of that? Because I sure didnt.

[Cynic Sage]

I vote manwithdream for his comments on Psalm 22: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76100


[/color]

Did anybody understand a word of that? Because I sure didnt.
I dunno, he seems to be honestly confused.

I'd wait a bit before going through with the nomination.

[jpholding]

I understood it and I'm giving him silver anyway.

[JSDileo]

Hey JP, did you get the e-mail for the book review? If so, did you think it was too short? Just wondering.

[jpholding]

Hey JP, did you get the e-mail for the book review? If so, did you think it was too short? Just wondering.

I got it. I'll be looking at posting book reviews next week, so I'll reply then. :thumb:

Time to log off for the weekend.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I understood it and I'm giving him silver anyway.

Ouch, I was expecting him to get a bronze, and that would have been mostly for his apparent inability to explain things coherently.

[Cynic Sage]

Skepticbud has a bad case of JPHOCD:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1460615&postcount=23


If you reject the Bible as authoritative then you've rejected Jesus Christ because the Bible is the only credible historical document that contains a record of his actions and teachings, IMHO.

then obviously you don't think J.P. Holding is a true Christian, right?

=============
jpholding
April 29th 2003 , 03:53 PM [Report This Post] #29

**useless bravado snipped***

Try this: what reason do you have for supposing the bible is divinely inspired?

I actually don't care if it is. I just work after historical accuracy as one might for Tacitus or any other historical work.

***more bravado snipped***
=============

The link to that theologyweb page is:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=3700&page=2&pp=16 (http://showthread.php?t=3700&page=2&pp=16)


If JP says "it was just sarcasm", then let the reader click the link and then ask themselves whether it looks like sarcasm, or whether it looks like JP Holding is now just trying to cover up his true view of the bible. Was his reference to historical accuracy and Tacitus also just sarcasm?

If JP says he still doesn't care if the bible is inspired, then this would prove a hypothesis that I've had on JP for the last 4 years or so, namely, that he is NOT a Christian, but only goes through the bare minimum of motions to look like he is a Christian, in order to allow the Christian task of apologetics to provide him with a way to deal with his overly aggresive demeanor. This would be proven because if JP is still willing to defend biblical inerrancy, EVEN IF THE BIBLE IS NOT INSPIRED, then the task of Christian apologetics certainly cannot be his primary concern.

Yes, because there is a unwritten law that says that ALL athiests and agnostics on the internet has to be nice little boys and girls or else they get kicked off the internets.

If his primary concern really was mere historical accuracy (and so that part of his answer was NOT sarcastic), then we have to wonder he is so concerned to defend the bible as historically accurate and not devote equal amounts of time to other ancient works. Does JP have a website that has the same amount of material of him defending the historical accuracy of other ancient volumes outside the bible? No.

So exactly how often does someone attack The Annals of Tacitus anyway?

So then why is this non-Christian so concerned with defending the bible?

Let it not be forgotten that JP said he didn't care if the bible was inspired or not, which means he wouldn't stop doing his apologetics ministry even if he discovered that the bible was not inspired. That's an awful lot of effort and time to defend an uninspired secular book. I think JP just uses Christianity as a pretext to vent what looks like a very obvious problem with aggression.

[attachment]
click thumbnail


Sure, he might go to church, sure, he might have family bible study with his wife and kids. But Jesus said "out of the abudance of the heart, the mouth speaketh", and if we apply that to JP, then JP's heart is devoted 100% to Christian apologetics, without caring if the bible is actually inspired or not, and.

The reason you don't often meet Christian apologists who don't care if the bible is inspired or not is because people can be safely assumed to be more consistent with their own minds than this, usually.

"JP's heart is devoted 100% to Christian apologetics". :lmbo:

Dude, he sounds so much like a fundy-preacher.

And some more rantings:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75396&page=3&pp=16

So is JP Holding gonna answer this or not?

So far, apparantly not.

He justifies his use of insult and invective by saying he has seen skeptics succeed in causing Christians to lose faith.

Then he says he doesn't really care if the bible is inspired or not.

I can't think of what more evidence need be given to show that JP Holding's religious faith is maginal at best, and his primary interest in inerrancy is not sincere belief in it, but an outlet for his angry demeanor.

An inerrantist who "actually doesn't care" whether the bible is inspired or not.

And given Holding's equation of inspiration with inerrancy, Holding logically is saying he doesn't care whether the bible is INERRANT or not! :eek:

So unless something is divinely inspired, it can't lack errors?

2+2=4

I guess that's now divinely inspired.:ahem:

[Darth Executor]

So exactly how often does someone attack The Annals of Tacitus anyway?


Urge to make bad Brokeback Mountain joke rising.

[Cynic Sage]

Urge to make bad Brokeback Mountain joke rising.
ANNALS. The word I used was "annals". :rant:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

So unless something is divinely inspired, it can't lack errors?

2+2=4

I guess that's now divinely inspired.:ahem:

I find it funny that this same statement is coming from someone who elsewhere tried to claim that proofreading could create an 'inherent' document. And somehow arrive at the conclusion that God didnt inspire the Bible.

[Cynic Sage]

I find it funny that this same statement is coming from someone who elsewhere tried to claim that proofreading could create an 'inherent' document. And somehow arrive at the conclusion that God didnt inspire the Bible.

"inherent" or "innerant"?

BTW: Could you provide a link to that. That makes him even more worthy of the Gold. :grin:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Heres the link, but since his post is pretty big I'll quote the relevent part:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75544

JP Holding likes to mock unbelievers who make errors in their arguments via not knowing what life was like back then. Ok, I know of no instance where a popular speaker or teacher, who knows her writings will be read by thousands if not millions, REFUSES to proofread in order to catch and correct mistakes before it is sent out. So with proofreading being so common-sense, it would seem the only single solitary reason inerrantists would deny such expected behavior of the apostles and their secretaries, is their question-begging concern to maintain their belief that "the originals" were inerrant. After all, if the apostles and their secretaries proceeded to produce the NT in the normal manner that popular teachers and authors prepare writings before presenting them to the masses of their followers, then the inerrancy of the originals, still not yet proved to begin with, would be accounted for by processes totally expected to take place in such circumstances.

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.outrageousmastery.com/

The Outrageous Mastery Manuscripts
Are Your Blueprint to Power that will
Rock Your World


Hi, I'm Sasha Xarrian, the author and foremost authority of Outrageous Mastery, An Outrageous Xperiment.

I Am The Originator of The Formula That Will Allow You to Harness A Higher Power, Wake-Up to Your Divine Birthright and Create Everything.

I have Xperimented for 30 years to see if there was a Formula to have Powerful Faith.

All holy writings tell us we can do anything if we have faith. I kept wondering why we couldn't create anything. Maybe we didn't know how to really use faith.

Through my 30 years of Xperimenting, I found a formula that works.

It's dirt-poor exegesis of the Bible coupled with New-Age Hippie-Crap TO THE X-TREEEEEEEME!!!

Testimonials come to me every day from my readers, declaring that it is working for them also.

Their dreams are finally coming true, as are mine.


And these testimonials, they are where exactly?


Now It's YOUR Turn ...

I want to disclose to you:

• How you acquire doubt-free & powerful faith
• How to create money
• How to blast through limitations, fear and worry
• How to heal illnesses
• How to hear answers to prayer
• How to pray effectively
• How to create daily miracles
• How to create outrageous love in your life

Share your name and primary email address with me and I will send you my gift of a glimpse into my system to powerfully create anything in your life.



Isn't that illegal?

[Darth Executor]

I'm gonna sign up just for kicks.

[Darth Executor]

And these testimonials, they are where exactly?


http://www.outrageousmastery.com/movemountains.htm

If you sign up you get access to that page.

[Sparko]

http://www.outrageousmastery.com/

The Outrageous Mastery Manuscripts
Are Your Blueprint to Power that will
Rock Your World


Hi, I'm Sasha Xarrian, the author and foremost authority of Outrageous Mastery, An Outrageous Xperiment.

I Am The Originator of The Formula That Will Allow You to Harness A Higher Power, Wake-Up to Your Divine Birthright and Create Everything.

I have Xperimented for 30 years to see if there was a Formula to have Powerful Faith.

All holy writings tell us we can do anything if we have faith. I kept wondering why we couldn't create anything. Maybe we didn't know how to really use faith.

Through my 30 years of Xperimenting, I found a formula that works.

It's dirt-poor exegesis of the Bible coupled with New-Age Hippie-Crap TO THE X-TREEEEEEEME!!!

Testimonials come to me every day from my readers, declaring that it is working for them also.

Their dreams are finally coming true, as are mine.


And these testimonials, they are where exactly?


Now It's YOUR Turn ...

I want to disclose to you:

• How you acquire doubt-free & powerful faith
• How to create money
• How to blast through limitations, fear and worry
• How to heal illnesses
• How to hear answers to prayer
• How to pray effectively
• How to create daily miracles
• How to create outrageous love in your life

Share your name and primary email address with me and I will send you my gift of a glimpse into my system to powerfully create anything in your life.



Isn't that illegal?

Gee. If she can create money then why is she trying to sell her secrets for $147?

in fact, if you can create anything, why do you even NEED money? Money is just used to buy things. She should be able to make anything she wanted: houses, cars, food, etc.

She should use her powers to make a better looking website.

[DesertBerean]

Has anyone seen this one-Church of Reality (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home)? I've only glanced through it but sounds like some maybe-atheists figured out how to have a tax-exempt organization. Even if it is a serious religious site, they have a problem only with the Judeo-Christian (and Mormon(!)) God (link (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/does_god_exist))

[Darth Executor]

Sevivon1913 on paltalk.

Every manuscript that references Jesus is fake, doesn't exist or is kept a secret by the Catholic Church (to sum up).

Oh yeah, and the word "jew" is a racial slur. :ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Has anyone seen this one-Church of Reality (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home)? I've only glanced through it but sounds like some maybe-atheists figured out how to have a tax-exempt organization. Even if it is a serious religious site, they have a problem only with the Judeo-Christian (and Mormon(!)) God (link (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/does_god_exist))

Oh man, they royally screw up when it comes to the Biblical definition of faith:

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/the_faith_paradox/

Many religions, especially Christians believe that you are saved by faith. In fact that is the only criteria. If you don't have faith then you don't get into Heaven, end of story. It doesn't matter how good you are or what works you did - it all rests on faith. So if faith is so important, then what is it?

If Salvation is based on faith, and if faith is believing without proof, then proving God is real undermines salvation.

Faith means to believe in something without evidence or proof. Using the term in the Christian sense, faith is required. You have to make a commitment to accept statements as true without evidence or proof. In fact that is God's test to see if you can believe in him without any reason other than trust in the authority of the church and it's holy books. And you are prohibited from doubting, questioning, scrutinizing, or putting the object of faith to the test. Once something that relies on faith is proven, then it becomes science. If everything were proven then there would be nothing left that is real to have faith in.

...

Another side effect of faith is that it makes you more gullible. We live in a world where deception is common and it's important to figure out who's telling you the truth and who isn't. People need to have good screening mechanisms to survive. You have to be able to test information to see if it's true.

When you believe on faith you reprogram you mind to accept information that is untested. It's like having a back door where crooks can sneak in and get you to believe anything they want. All they have to do is cook up a scam and slap a cross on the front of it and Christians are reaching for their wallet.

The reason Christians are so gullible is because they have accepted the role of being a follower and doing what their crowd does rather than to think things through themselves. So once they become convinced that their peers are doing it then they are ready to get in on it.


Yeah, an athiest would never blindly fall for a scam because a cross is slapped on it, unless of course, it is "Orpheus on the Cross". :hehe:

...

What is of concern here is that there are two worlds. "This World" is the world of science and reality and it is materialistic and physical, full of sex and evolution and black holes, and quantum singularities, logic, reason, space-time, atoms, and gravity. This world is inherently evil and ruled by Satan. This is the world of the Church of Reality.

The real claim behind faith based salvation is that you are saved only by giving up reality.

Then there's this "other world" which is like a parallel universe with a completely different set of rules. This world is the world where God lives. It is the spiritual world that one can experience only through faith that allows the mind to communicate with this other world. In this other world there is no science. It is the world of miracles where anything and everything is possible. It is the world of "the spirit" that created this physical world as some sort of "test" to see if your soul will find it's way back to the "other world". Those who hear the calling will be rewarding with eternal life in paradise and all others will be tortured forever in Hell.


Don't you love it when they tell us what we "really" believe. :lol:

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1477261

This story is a doozy, isn't it? It deserves further analysis.

I'll not harp on his attempt to give his daughters to those sex drunks in Sodom. That really needs no analysis. This other problem is much bigger.

Consider Genesis 19:32:

"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father." [emphasis mine]

Show of hands, non-perverted fathers. How many here would put a quietus to such a plan in an instant? I'm imagining a majority will be raising their hands on this one--even some Christian fathers. The point is, it's hard to imagine anyone in this reprobate culture of ours allowing his daughters to intimidate him into getting drunk to the point of blacking out. How much more unbelievable is it that righteous Lot was thus duped?

It gets better.

"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose." (33) [emphasis mine]

I'm wondering if he percieved evidence of her in the morning, then--them being virgins and all. Human intercourse being messy and all. I guess not, though, because he was "tricked" in the exact same manner the very next night. If he perceived said evidence of his violation the next morning, it appears he dismissed it out of hand before pouring his breakfast coffee. Weird.

Woulda freaked me out. Maybe he thought in a fit of libidinous sleepwalking he attempted coitus with the enormous salt lick outside the cave and that's where all the blood came from.

Oh, and there's also that annoying problem of how Lot became aroused to begin with given that he was passed out drunk from wine.

Two nights in a row, mind you.

[jpholding]

Will mods please close this thread as the month is over. I will post the feature sometime this week on tektoonics.