Submit Your Candidates for May 2006 Screwballs of the Month

[jpholding]

Starts with this email I got this morning:


Apologetics is right. Christianity has a lot to apologize for.

That was all. :hrm:

[jpholding]

Collective award to fans of L. Ray "Proud to be Dumb" Smith at this forum thread, which includes the L. Ray fan who won a Screwball Award last month (and he announces it there):

http://forums.bible-truths.com/viewtopic.php?t=575

Comments especially of note about my articles on L. Ray, which appeal to such points as Jewish Wisdom theology:



Read these 'refutations'(LOL!) of Rays work. Some of the weakest stuff I've ever seen...L-A-M-E!





thats very funny
they don't even make a valid argument
they really need to do more research otherwise they'll just look stupid as they do now



Do they use any scripture in there arguments? Or just belittle ray, because they got there PHD in memorizing the bible?
I skimmed through ti so i don't knwo if scripture was used, but some of the stuff sounded kinda wack like, "I guess God is not a mushroom also" or "God is not conscious."
Perhaps they forgot the very diffinition of GOD. I think its UNDERSTOOD He is conscoius



I read the whole thing and here is what it said:
NOTHING!!!!



Blah, blah, blah, I fell asleep half way through it! Laughing Laughing
He sure did not use much scripture, except vain mumblings of a doctor of theology.




This guys serious WOLF!!! I've read other 'refutations' of Rays work and this one was BY FAR THE WORST EVER!!!!!!!!!
The stongest aspects of Rays paper he never even addressed.(of course)
All that was said was,' he uses quotes from guys in the 1800's', as if that means there not respectable scholars being quoted.
Some of the quotes were old guys, so it cant be right?!?



I agree with you Gary about no sense arguing with one such as that... it's like throwing pearls before swine, etc. Maybe later they will get it. Right now they might be choking on this meat!




The only way they can claim that Ray doesn't use Gods word is to maintain that current translations are flawless. So right here is where they fail.



You know, these men have spent 1000's of dollars and 1000's of hours studying. They really do think they know more than anyone else. They brag about all their degrees and honors. I wonder how Jesus and the disciples would do in their churches. Not too well, I don't think.



That guys ia a follower of jail house gosple, and assume another name supposebly to hide from the convicts he ministered.
the guy is so full of bull is does not know what side is up.
CHeck out this link about that phoney. (links to Farrell Till's article on me)




Nothing like stupid people comforting other stupid people assuring each other of how Spirit-filled they are. :hehe:

[Darth Executor]

Now I do not know about you all but that reply to me from was just down right hateful!!

:rofl:

[Sparko]

The moronic mindset of most nontrinitarians pretty much explains WHY they are nontrinitarian. They can't think.

When I first became a Christian I really didn't know anything about the trinity. In fact, I was a bit poisoned against it since when I was a kid some JW's used to come around and my mom let them in and they left literature.

Anyway, once I started actually READING the bible, it was just so obvious that it was teaching the Trinity. The only explanation regarding Jesus being God other than the trinity is that the NT authors were completely ignorant of the OT and just made stuff up. But that doesn't jive either in context. Reading the NT the authors were very familiar with the OT and YHWH.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Skepticbud's up to his old tricks again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76307


I created this thread for the purpose of giving any Christian here the opportunity to give their best evidence for any miracle-claim they choose.

The only rule I would ask you to keep is that you post your evidence one bit at a time. If your evidence consists of both eyewitnesses and confounded doctors, for example, then please list only the eyewitnesses first, or a single eyewitness if possible, so that we may focus our scrutiny precisely and not get spread too thin trying to assess many different point, which can easily end up taking longer than the posting word limit to fully respond to.

With that, stop whining that skeptics hold miracle-evidences to higher standards which cannot rationally be expected to be met by the apologists, and post your best miracle-evidence you can think of.

Us skeptics will then most probably give you the kind of reasons for denying the miracle claim, as the reason YOU would use to deny some naturalistic claim. Keeping this in mind, be prepared to be asked for verification of the story (no, giving us title and author and page number of the book making the miracle claim doesn't count, because that doesn't accomplish anything toward VERIFYING this claim. Showing that your story is found in a book doesn't suddenly mean the story is thus verified. What have YOU done to verify this story, beyond taking the author's word for it on blind faith?)

Be prepared to tell us whether your eyewitnesses have a history of lying about similar things or not. Any apologists who balks at the naturalist's attempt to ascertain the trustworthiness of your cited eyewitnesses, doesn't know too much about biblical apologetics.

Be prepared to tell us why you think the picture or video which captured the miracle, if any, are free from doctoring, which is known to occur quite regularly in this technological age. The wrong time stamp on the video stills of the Pentagon being hit by something on September 11, 2001 (the stamp says September 12, 2001) come to mind.

Either make sure you abide by these guidelines, or offer an argument to show why some or all of them are too subjective for obtaining objective results.

GO for it!

Let me guess. Satan's face shows up in the clouds of destruction at the World Trade Center on 9-11-01, and skeptics can't prove that it DIDN'T, right? :ahem: First problem: how do you know what Satan's face look like?

See what I mean?

[Sparko]

Skepticbud's up to his old tricks again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76307

[/color]

LOL,

The skepticbud to english translation:

"Let me try to put you Christians into as tight a corner as I can by limiting anything you can say, so I can try to nitpick it all away with more of my silly illogical reasoning."

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Actually I tried to propose the release of the new Earth Bound for the GBA. If that doesnt qualify as a miricle I dunno what does.

[sc_q_jayce]

Actually I tried to propose the release of the new Earth Bound for the GBA. If that doesnt qualify as a miricle I dunno what does.
If Earthbound is Released in the US, then yes, you've got yourselves a verifiable miracle on your hands.

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76250

Fellow atheists,y'all do me proud! It seems to me that Hume is doing nothing more than what patent officials do when they deny patents to people who claim to have developed perpetual motion machines.The Vatican claims it has verified miracles, but others dispute that.When have amputated limbs grown back miraculously?

:hrm:

Oh,can you defend me on the trinity thread?]Hume is right after all.More please!

:lmbo:

[Sparko]

Is being able to type without a brain a miracle? cuz if it is, we have lots of verifiable miracles on this site.

What is with this latest pack of raging idiots? They are shameful excuses for an atheist, which I guess is good for theists, but sheesh! Arguing with them is like having a debate with a rock.

[jpholding]

http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/apr06scr.html

April feature is up.

[sc_q_jayce]

http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/apr06scr.html

April feature is up.
Jason Long's name is too close to Jason Kong. Everytime I read it, my face does a doubletake. :twitch: I thought to myself, "What did I do this time?"

[jpholding]

Even funnier, you two couldn't be more polar opposites, especially in the intellect department.

[jpholding]

The man in this story, told by Berean Todd (NOT a screwball) whose Prof (also NOT a sccrewball), wins an award.


This Prof of mine was in a store and saw the book prominently displayed. Now he (as well as I) are not big Osteen fans. But he decided to pick up the book to read the jacket and see what this one was about. As he's standing there doing this a man walks up to him and says "Biggest mistake of your life ..."

Now my prof. is thinking 'Oh no, I'm about to get lectured for looking at this book and I was just looking at it.'

"What?" my prof asked.

"It would be the biggest mistake of your life if you don't read that book!" the guy says. They get into a conversation where this guy just goes on and on about how great and impactful the book was for him.

My prof. mentions "Yeah, I feel the same way when I read the Bible ..." and tried to steer the conversation towards the Scriptures.

The man basically tells my prof, "Oh, I don't have time for the Bible, it was written 2000 years ago, but this book (Osteen's) is great ..."

[DesertBerean]

http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/apr06scr.html

April feature is up.Ooo, churchofreality.org made the Website Award list! :yipee: Do I get sumthin' for the find?? Huh? Huh?

...j/k...kinda...

[jpholding]

Sheer delight. :teeth:

[Bill the Cat]

Sheer delight. :teeth:
Russian Wolfe again with a bronze award canard...

But for those who claim that the Bible is inerrant, this is a death blow. How can the Bible that we have be inerrant, if there are so many manuscripts that aren't inerrant? The 5,000 manuscripts are not an evidence of inerrancy, but quite the opposite.

:ahem: Ever heard of textual criticism???


*******************************************************


Edited to add this gem...

When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, did he copy it? Or did he receive it by revelation? We know he wasn't an eye-witness so how did he know it was true? How do you know it is true?

Ever heard of an oral tradition?

If you are looking at manuscript evidence, some of the Chinese and Indian religious texts have more evidence that the NT. What is your view on them? If there are more manuscripts for them, does that make them more true?

This guy can't be the best that Mormonism has to offer, can he?

[Teallaura]

This gem (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1480478&postcount=1) from Biblischism took me several reads just to figure out what he was saying. It wasn't worth it, believe me....:no:



I’m mystified as to why Christians would expend so much energy to prove the existence of the supernatural when the proof is right there in God’s creation. God created plants and certain fungi that contain chemicals that give people an overwhelming sense of the supernatural. The most powerful of them by far, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), is even endogenous and exogenous, and limited studies* suggest that DMT plays a role in dream, near death, and mystical states.

So much for cold, material rationalism.

What’s more, some entheogens have been and still are used as therapy and remedies for addiction to alcohol and some opiates.

Conversely, if you think Yahwistic atrocities, biblical incest, and a literal Noah account make Christians stammer, just sit back and watch the tortured explanations that arise from bringing this issue to the fore. (Or watch none respond at all. I wouldn’t blame them in this regard; when I held this particular worldview, I didn’t know how to respond, either.)

* “Limited” only because our gargantuan and inexplicable fear of these plants makes such investigation a bear to conduct.

[Rayado]

In the case against marijuana use, Teal, this is Exhibit A.

[Teallaura]

You should look at the actual post - he went back and edited something. The reason he gave - 'clarity'.

:lol:

[Rayado]

:lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

Collective award to fans of L. Ray "Proud to be Dumb" Smith at this forum thread, which includes the L. Ray fan who won a Screwball Award last month (and he announces it there):

http://forums.bible-truths.com/viewtopic.php?t=575


Falconn003 deserves a special mention:

http://forums.bible-truths.com/viewtopic.php?t=575&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

That guys ia a follower of jail house gosple, and assume another name supposebly to hide from the convicts he ministered.

the guy is so full of bull is does not know what side is up.

CHeck out this link about that phoney.

The guy then links to an article by Farrel Till on you ("The Want-to-be Apologist"). Man, those guys have to be serious fundy nut-jobs to call a xtian apologist who encourages serious contextual study of the Bible a "Wolf" while refrencing an article on "how bad he is" written by an Apostate Preacherman who actively tries to get xtians to deconvert. :lolo:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Some more nonsense from Skepticbud:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76481


18 Now the sons of Israel arose, went up to Bethel, and inquired of God, and said, "Who shall go up first for us to battle against the sons of Benjamin?" Then the LORD said, "Judah shall go up first." 19 So the sons of Israel arose in the morning and camped against Gibeah.
20 And the men of Israel went out to battle against Benjamin, and the men of Israel arrayed for battle against them at Gibeah.
21 Then the sons of Benjamin came out of Gibeah and felled to the ground on that day 22,000 men of Israel.
22 But the people, the men of Israel, encouraged themselves and arrayed for battle again in the place where they had arrayed themselves the first day.
23 And the sons of Israel went up and wept before the LORD until evening, and inquired of the LORD, saying, "Shall we again draw near for battle against the sons of my brother Benjamin?" And the LORD said, "Go up against him."
24 Then the sons of Israel came against the sons of Benjamin the second day.
25 And Benjamin went out against them from Gibeah the second day and felled to the ground again 18,000 men of the sons of Israel; all these drew the sword." (Judges 20, NASB)

Was God lying to Israel by telling them to go to this battle, and withholding any mention of the fact that they'd suffer a bloody defeat?

Before your knees jerk with the kind of force that makes computer desks have nightmares of being murdered.....

Let's consult the dictionary in order to make sure that we understand what lying really is, and to guard against possibly defining it too narrowly merely to win this debate:

Quote:

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impressiontransitive senses : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>




Notice definition # 2 which I italicized.

Do you agree with the dictionary definition, which includes the giving of a false impression as part of the definition of "lying"?

If so, then doesn't the weeping of Israel in their second question to God indicate that they never expected Judah to suffer defeat?

If God knew that Judah would never interpret "Judah shall go up first" to mean that Judah shall suffer bloody defeat, then wasn't God creating a false impression to Israel by conveniently choosing not to tell them that they'd also lose that battle?

In other words, how can you argue that God was NOT giving a misleading impression (which is what lying is, according to the dictionary)?

Hebrews 6:18 says "God cannot lie"...

"in order that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong encouragement, we who have fled for refuge in laying hold of the hope set before us."

The Greek word for "lie" here is Strong's Number: 5574 - pseudomai, and it means:

1) to lie, to speak deliberate falsehoods
2) to deceive one by a lie, to lie to.

And since the dictionary includes the giving of a false impression under it's definition of "lie", I've made a good scholarly argument from Judges 20 to show that the bible god actually LIED to the Israelites via giving them a false impression (i.e., withholding the detail about Judah suffering bloody defeat), amen?

If not, then how exactly will you argue that God did NOT give Israel/Judah a false impression with the short answer "Judah shall go up first" (Judges 20:23)? Why didn't God include the detail that Judah would suffer defeat, in his short answer "Judah shall go up first", if in fact he wasn't trying to give them a false impression?

Do you think Judah would have went to battle if God's answer had included the detail that they would suffer the deaths of thousands of their military men?
I honestly cannot imagine how any apologist will argue that God did NOT give a false impression by withholding the detail that Judah would be suffer massive loss of life in the first battle. Do you think Israel consulted God because they wanted to know what to do in order to lose the battle?

This is one thread we'll definetely want to watch.

[jpholding]

I guess Mr Military Tactician doesn't have the idea that if some other tribe had gone up the losses would have been a heck of a lot worse. :bonk:

[Christy]

There's lots of screwball replies to this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1766035,00.html


Also I would like to nominate Christy for her reply in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1480227#post1480227

DUH!

:eek:

[Spheniscine]

The Guardian link doesn't work.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Heres an interesting objection from Minnesota:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76535


In the distant past written works were not punctuated. Words were simply run together and it was up to the reader to sort out the sense of what was being said. As the years passed it became evident that separating these individual thoughts into distinct pieces would be extremely helpful, yet it wasn't until the middle ages that copyists and printers began using punctuation marks like the commas and semicolons. Moreover, it was left to the printer or translator to decide where these punctuation marks would go. While this seldom proved to be of any real concern, punctuating can sometimes be quite dicey: a mere repositioning of a comma can change the entire meaning of a sentence, and unless one knows for a fact what the intended meaning was, it can be a real crap shoot.
Minnesota asked: "Who was the culprit Bob, Dick or Jane?"OR Minnesota asked: "Who was the culprit, Bob, Dick or Jane?"In the first sentence Bob is being asked if the culprit is either Dick or Jane. In the second sentence the person being asked is not identified, and the possible list of culprits now includes Bob.


So punctuation can really make a difference.


And this situation was no different with the Bible. No one really knows how ALL the scriptures were meant to be read. So although the different versions of the Bible are pretty unanimous as to the meaning of each verse, this is only because they have consciously followed what has gone before, rarely daring to change anything that might conflict with previous interpretation. Yet, there is nothing to guarantee that what went before was correct: that a particular comma's position is absolute. So, what happens if a verse can be re-punctuated and still make sense? Was the original punctuation correct? Nobody knows, although people will argue until they are hoarse that it is, because . . . . . . well, because "It has to be!" Not necessarily! That comma, or what ever, was placed there because that's what the first translator or printer to punctuate the verse thought it should be. NOT that he knew for a fact it should be. So we're left with the following verses, which have come be the standard interpretation, but still admit to a different punctuation AND meaning.
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
(assures the criminal that he will be in paradise before the coming of next day.)*OR And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”"
(Assures the criminal that he will be in paradise sometime, which could be eons from then.)*


Isaiah 40:3
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
(It's the voice that is in the wilderness crying, and those preparing the way may so where ever.)OR The voice of him that crieth: in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
(The location of the voice is not specified, and those preparing the way must do so in the wilderness.)


Isaiah 40:1
Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
(please go out and comfort my people)*OR Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, saith your God.
(Just cheer up, you guys, it might never happen)**paraphrse of comments by Lynne Truss, whose book, Eats, Shoots & Leaves uses these three verses as illustrations, and inspired this OP.

I dont really see how any of his examples affect any critical doctrines. So even if he's right, I dont think it's that big a deal.

[jpholding]

]I dont really see how any of his examples affect any critical doctrines. So even if he's right, I dont think it's that big a deal.

Not only that, both he and Truss know nothing about Hebrew or Greek. You beat me to this award for the Chicken Little of Atheist Trolldom. :thumb:

[Christy]

The Guardian link doesn't work.


I guesse they took down the article. Not all of them were that screwy anyway. The one I remember though is somebody saying that St. George was probably a myth, since there's myth built around his story. Something like that.

[Ishmael]

RE: Minn's thread on commas, etc.

Not only that, both he and Truss know nothing about Hebrew or Greek. You beat me to this award for the Chicken Little of Atheist Trolldom. :thumb:
1. I don't really see how this rises to the level of "screwy."

2. I don't understand the use of mockery in apologetics. I understand the use of mockery and plain rudeness for entertainment and trolling, but I don't understand how it is valuable here.

[Cynic Sage]

Sylvius asks a poses a weird question to the Jews of Theologyweb (posted in the Judaism forum):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76305 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76305)

what you think:

was the resurrected Jesus still circumcised or not?


and:

the one who sits at the right hand of the Father, is he circumcised or not?


and:

when the Messiah finally comes,will he be circumcised or not?


and:

the Jesus who lives in your heart, is he circumcised or not?

:hrm:

So then Gavriel (a Jew) tells him that maybe he should have adresses those questions to xtians in either "General Theistics" or "Apologetics", so Sylvius responds with this:

the Jesus who lives in your heart, is he circumcised or not?
Belongs on Christian board.

So what you're doing on christian TWeb since you've got not even a tiny spot in your heart for Jesus?

Why would anybody ask this question anyway?

it is crucial

:lol:

[jpholding]

1. I don't really see how this rises to the level of "screwy."

Because he doesn't even use credible sources, for one. I can think of more later. But he has a history of being ridiculous that helps.

2. I don't understand the use of mockery in apologetics. I understand the use of mockery and plain rudeness for entertainment and trolling, but I don't understand how it is valuable here.

Look up challenge and riposte on my site. Jesus mocked people all the time.

Many deserve it. Like this email I got just today....


********

I recently ran across your review of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. I found the review to absolutely absurd, you crticize the book, which is fiction, for its lack of historical evidence. It would seem to me that you do not understand the idea fiction. Fiction is a written creation of the author designed to entice and entertain readers, this book never claimed to be historically accurate, and to percieve it as such does not lend an intelligent light to your critique. Also, since you are arguing from an obviously christian position, and are trying so valiantly to debunk this book and maintain any semblance of respect from the world at whole, I would not find it wise to argue the possible historical inaccuracies evident in the text. Christianity is based on faith, and it must be, because there are not significant historic, or even scientific facts lending credibility to religion. Actually the historical facts pointing to the falsehood of the Bible, which you claim was inspired by God and the Holy Spirit, and therefore infallible. For example, Adam and Eve were the first, and only two humans on earth. Now I'm sure that you have heard this idea before, but I'll continue just in case; Now Adam and Eve must have had children together, which is fine. But all of these children were related, and had the same genetic material, without new material introduced to the breeding process, human beings do not develop well, and the rest of the human race would be afflicted with the side effects of inbreeding. Another instance of the Bible's fallability is seen in the story of Noah's Ark. 1. Water does not just appear on the planet, rain, and disappear, basic Biology teaches children the water cycle, and the idea that water is conserved on the planet. 2.In the entirely impossible event of that much water suddenly appearing on the planet, so much that no land was visible, the atmosphere would be entirely saturated, and any creatures above water would drown. And please don't try to claim anything about the translation of the Bible, or the story specifically, you said that there are errors inherent in any translation of a historical nature such as the Bible, but if it is the base for the supposed masses to become more spiritual, is accuracy not important, so to respond to a point you bring up in your article, yes it does matter that Bible could be mistranslated. In your review you also presume that you are more educated and far more intelligent than your average reader who apparently, cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. That assumption, which you make of the majority of people, certainly does not give you any credibility. Again in the article, you find yourself vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy. You claim that his passing criticism, throughout the book, of your beliefs is unjust, but you then proceed to attack the ideas that Brown has come to believe in. Do you sit on such a high horse that you really cannot see in yourself what you criticize in others. I myself am spiritual, and when people like you attack in a so seemlingly blind manner, it paints us all in a bad light.

[Ishmael]

I admit that that email is horrendously stupid, and the sender should go back to paragraph break school.

Edited:

I read your article entitled "Offensisensitivity" and had an interesting thought:

From your article, first line, a rhetorical question:
"What place does satire and the like have - what place can it have-within the defense of a religion based on a God who is Love?"
This implies something about your God that I think is contemporary, namely, that the God you worship is both all-powerful and all-loving.

This reminded me of some comments that Bertrand Russel made about religious worship in general, speaking of the ancients notion of what kind of God was worthy of worship, namely, a simply all-powerful god:
"The savage, like ourselves, feels the oppression of his impotence before the powers of Nature; but having in himself nothing that he respects more than Power, he is willing to prostrate himself before his gods, without inquiring whether they are worthy of his worship"

Is this mockery a way to demonstrate the power of God?

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Just when you thought Skepticbud couldnt possibly get any worse:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76547

A comparison of gospel doublets will show that some Christians remembered incorrectly the words of Jesus:

Matthew says the miracle of the loaves and fishes fed about 5000 men besides women and children:

"And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children. (Matthew 14:21)


In the very next chapter, Matthew says it was 4000 men besides woman and children:

"And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children." (Matthew 15:38)

Why does this prove that the early Christians remembered something incorrectly?

If you place the complete stories side by side, you will see that except for the numerical differences, they are almost identical textually.

In Matthew 14, the feeding of the 5000 was preceded by the beheading of John the baptist.

In Matthew 15, the feeding of the 4000 with loaves and fishes was preceded by his healing of multitudes.

Matthew 14
13 Now when Jesus heard it, He withdrew from there in a boat, to a lonely place by Himself; and when the multitudes heard of this, they followed Him on foot from the cities.

Matthew 15
32 And Jesus called His disciples to Him, and said, "I feel compassion for the multitude, because they have remained with Me now three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not wish to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way."

Matthew 14
14 And when He went ashore, He saw a great multitude, and felt compassion for them, and healed their sick.
15 And when it was evening, the disciples came to Him, saying, "The place is desolate, and the time is already past; so send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves."

Matthew 15
33 And the disciples said to Him, "Where would we get so many loaves in a desolate place to satisfy such a great multitude?"

Matthew 14
16 But Jesus said to them, "They do not need to go away; you give them something to eat!"
17 And they said to Him, "We have here only five loaves and two fish."
18 And He said, "Bring them here to Me."

Matthew 15
34 And Jesus said to them, "How many loaves do you have?" And they said, "Seven, and a few small fish."

Matthew 14
19 And ordering the multitudes to recline on the grass,
He took the five loaves and the two fish,
and looking up toward heaven, He blessed the food,
and breaking the loaves He gave them to the disciples,
and the disciples gave to the multitudes,

Matthew 15
35 And He directed the multitude to sit down on the ground;
36 and He took the seven loaves and the fish; and giving thanks,
He broke them and started giving them to the disciples,
and the disciples in turn, to the multitudes.

Matthew 14
20 and they all ate,
and were satisfied.
And they picked up what was left over of the broken pieces,
twelve full baskets.

Matthew 15
37 And they all ate,
and were satisfied,
and they picked up what was left over of the broken pieces,
seven large baskets full.

Matthew 14
21 And there were about five thousand men who ate,
aside from women and children.

Matthew 15
38 And those who ate were four thousand men,
besides women and children.
==============



Quote:

"In Matthew 14, 5000 people are fed miraculously, but in Matthew 15, it’s only 4000. The differences in these two versions are primarily concerned with numbers: five versus seven loaves of break; two versus a few fish, twelve versus seven baskets of leftovers, and five thousand versus four thousand men fed. The argument that these two account represent totally different events would not be persuasive to anyone with the slightest familiarity with folklore, not only is the basis structure of the legend similar, but even the wording of the specific details - for example, so many men “beside women and children” - and the concluding element of sending the multitudes away and taken ship confirm the cognation of the two texts. From a folklorist perspective, it is perfectly obvious that we have two versions of one and the same event. The editorial rhetorical device of specifically drawing attention to parallel events does not succeed in disguising the fact that there are two or more different versions of the same story." (Alan Dundes, “Holy Writ as Oral Lit”, 1999 edition, page 34.)

Dundes received his Ph.D. in Folklore from Indiana University in 1962, and currently serves as graduate advisor for the Master of Arts in Folklore program at U.C. Berkeley. He is a member of the American Folklore Society, the California Folklore Society, the American Anthropological Association and the International Society for Folk Narrative Research.




This world-class expert on folklore says it only takes the slightest familiarity with folklore to see that these two feeding stories are just a single event told in two different ways.

So the choice for inerrantists is either a) Christians deliberately made two stories out of one, showing that they didn't view the biblical text (the oral tradition) as inspired, making one wonder why today's Christians regard the written text as inspired, or b) they thought these were two different stories, but the almost idential language of Jesus and the disciples and presentation by Matthew's author, show that they are indeed, a single story, thus remembered incorrectly by the Christians whose oral tradition lay behind it.

I dont believe any comment is needed.

[jpholding]

Is this mockery a way to demonstrate the power of God?

As the old MGM toons used to say....


"MMMMMM....could be!"









So that's what Bud said, huh? Well, chalk up one more thing he doesn't know -- the use of of templates in primarily oral societies. (Licks finger....puts strike on wall.)

Jayce is gonna kick his patootie....

[Ishmael]

As the old MGM toons used to say....


"MMMMMM....could be!"


Makes sense... an earlier "more purely biblical" conception of god might lend itself towards "salt and light" taking on a more vigorous and sometimes even violent (Matt 11:12) in its taking of ground. I don't think you need to write any articles concerning the Patristics, just admit that you are a man of that age-- out of context. You, my friend, are an anachronism.

[sc_q_jayce]

Jayce is gonna kick his patootie....

I thought I already went over this! :bomb:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Some comments from Ishmael:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76564


1. The New Testament is essentially a mythological history of a person named Jesus. Jesus, and others, are attributed to have had power in the supernatural to do God's wonders. Unforetuneately, events recorded in the Bible are utterly absent from the modern experience. While the Bible stories might be inspirational and even give human persons a sense of hope, reason alone tells us that our experience in the present must inform us about the reality of the past. There are no miracles now, therefore, the New Testament, for whatever reason, is essentially false.

2. The Old Testament faces the same problem as the new but also is also an essentially immoral collection of stories by modern standards. Some might say, "But the stories are to be read and understood in their context," and I will reply, "Their context is precisely why they should be discarded as a matter of religion in most cases." I admit that many Old Testament stories and teachings have a place in the arena of "ancient wisdom," but would add that that is not very unique.


Although to be fair, he does show some thought later on the thread.

Also a tiny bit from Skepticbud

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76481&page=2

The fact that Israel next started weeping over the loss, indicates that they felt the number lost in the Benjamite tribe was negligible. Otherwise they would have felt the battle was a victory or else a stalemate. Please don't tell me they didn't know about chess.

Yes I'm sure the ancient Israelites were very familar with a game that wasnt invented until the middle ages. :lol:

[Darth Executor]

Sevivon1913 on paltalk:

englsh is a horrible mamzer language

[Rayado]

:lmbo:

[Rayado]

From some humorless sap in Paltlk, to us for not ridding the room of Bandecoot:

miletic_mike: may you all dwell in your misery God bless

[jpholding]

I don't think you need to write any articles concerning the Patristics, just admit that you are a man of that age-- out of context. You, my friend, are an anachronism.

As my soulmate CS Lewis called himself a dinosaur...well, we have the same personality profile, after all.

But we're both proud velociraptors. :hehe:

[Shadow Phoenix]

This gem (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1480478&postcount=1) from Biblischism took me several reads just to figure out what he was saying. It wasn't worth it, believe me....:no:

It's nice to have John Allegro on TWeb isn't it?

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

And now for something completely different

From Burning Bush--U

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76276&page=4&pp=15

Are you a seeker of the whole TRUTH ?

HUM !!!

If you are, then you can not take /rely on the bible for meaning what it says.

Example Noah's Flood ? Gen. 6
Example Psalms 114
Example Ex. 10.15

See also those N.T. ONLY dumb jackasses --- Acts 24.5

You must not take the bible for what it says, because it is a TRANSLATION.

You Must Consider Many things. One thing to consider for instance : Baptism

TO SUBMERGE

I wonder why they chose not to translate this word?

Why do you suppose the Godly Fearful givers of this HOLY BIBLE neglected to translate this one tiny little word? Hum, any gusses?

Wonder of the fact that the "Church Powers that Be At That Time" practiced "Sprinkle Baptism"? Could it be, there are other doctrinal things hidden from the casual reader?

If this was and is the Words of God... Then if you are HIS follower, then don't you think if you were honest and filled with the LOVE of the TRUTH, that you'd investigate the matter to see if the translation is accurate?

Could it be that you just like the bill of goods sold to you by whomever?

Jackasses don't have a LOVE of the TRUTH and will refuse to delve into the matter...... are you a JackAss ? or will you dig for the truth?

The Very Truth I tell you, for those that wan't to know absolute truth, is you must take the bible for "WHAT IT MEANS" not just what it says on it's surface, otherwise you do not Love Your God with All Your Heart.

That's the Truth from
BurningBush--U

Amen

I'm not even going to try to come up with something to say here.

[jpholding]

Anyone nominate JackC yet?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76469&page=1&pp=16

I left him the Jelica and Beamer pics to figure out. :hehe:

[Darth Executor]

Anyone nominate JackC yet?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76469&page=1&pp=16

I left him the Jelica and Beamer pics to figure out. :hehe:

Well, he lives up to his name. :teeth:

[Philosophickle]

Perhaps the weirdest argument I've ever witnessed:

synod of Diamper [A.D. 1599--Ed.] (see glossary for Diamper), session 3, cannon 6: "The synod reveals: ... remaining still inviolate[sic] before, during and after delivery Mary gave birth to the incarnate son[sic] of the true god[sic] born without birth pains or other sorrows and without the placenta ever being formed (see ii. below) and without her being subject to purification and other disorders that do occur in other woman and furthermore, both during and after delivery there was no necessity for assistance of any midwife or for any other assistance, for this reason that at the hour and moment pre-determined by holy trinity[sic] the eternal word[sic] emerging with supreme joy and blissful knowledge of the virgin[sic] Mary proceeded from the holy[sic] uterus without any rupture whatsoever of hymen [cited from Sathyanädam, (ME) Medom 1, 1881, 'Synod of Diamper']

[v. synod of Diamper, op.cit., canon 14: Having most clearly witnessed and perceived that Syriac books filled with fell[sic] doctrines and calumnies and wrongful teachings of the fallen[sic] Nestorians and other devilish[sic] creeds have spread throughout this bishopric [of Angamali--Ed. (see glossary for Angamali)], the synod decrees: No one at all shall keep, read or have read to them the books below expounded. To wit [firstly] the book of the infancy of the saviour otherwise called the history of our lady (see below under Book data--Ed.). As this has many calumnies and numerous fables, the fathers have cursed it. Against what is related by the evangelist Luke that the angel of the lord[sic] pronounced the good[sic] news to the holy virgin[sic] Mary at Nazareth, this book states the same occurred at the temple in Jerusalem, ... that st. Joseph took her to priests to test if she had committed adultery and that she underwent test by water in accordance with precepts of the law, that she delivered herself with pain and sorrow at the time of childbirth, that on account of the extreme pain she had to go to a manger in Bethlehem ... (italics added) (cited from Sathyanädam,


The account of the birth of Jesus is given only by Luke. A reader at the present time would still find no abnormality from a casual reading of the account except the fact that the birth took place in a manger. Ultimately, however, he will find that the manger is the sole true indicative--therefore a true symbol--of the real nature of the birth. The ambiguity is actually imposed on the reader by a composing technique devised by the author. Being a physician, Luke was aware if the freak delivery by Mary.

The circumstances that caused Mary to seek a manger are set forth in some detail. They sound so natural that need of a manger is not easily capable of derogation. Even though, at first sight, the passage narrating the birth circumstances does not positively indicate any abnormal feature, it does not contradict the doctrine of the synod of Diamper either (see above at i.--Ed.). But it does contradict the conventional birth theory of Jesus at two points. Both figure in the same sentence.

Luke I, 57 describing the birth of John, Jesus' prototype, is analogous to II,7 which narrates Jesus' birth. The sentence begins in the past tense and ends in the past perfect. Thus the chronologically later episode of Mary's departure is placed in the first clause and the earlier episode of John's birth in the final clause. Knox removes the ambiguity in the footnote. But we find he has not done so in the analogous subsequent account of Jesus' birth.

When we examine the birth account of Jesus in its aspect of analogy with the birth account of John and proceed to apply the plu-perfect tense to the verb 'laid' as Knox has done in the prior account for a valid linguistic reason, we get a similar sentence in which the initial incident is mentioned in the last clause. The fact then emerges of Jesus having been hatched in a manger, removing the ambiguity.

The second premise (in Luke II,7) consists of the reason why Mary took to a manger. It is for want of rooms in the inns. That exigency was caused by a census that was then under way. Obviously, everyone had to flock to his original settlement. Actually, however, the census did not take place until 6 A.D. Writing at a later date and under possession by the devil, Luke fabricated the account making use of true history subsequent to the event narrated that would make the birth of Jesus in a manger plausible.

Historians point out that there is no evidence of such a census held in Judea at the time mentioned. Cyrenius only became governor of Syria after the death of Herod. So, the last clause of the birth sentence not being factually true, the manger was sought by Mary as it was suitable place for such a kind of delivery.

Mary had already witnessed the carrying and ejection of a demon child while staying for three months with her cousin and prototype Elizabeth. Luke was deliberately concealing the facts he well knew, but could hardly narrate without leaving a clue. The Jesus embryo, being bereft of placenta, was LAID by Mary in a manner of a hen laying egg. This is why the Jesus egg had to be hatched in a manger;

enjoy reading!

http://serpentscradle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72

:twitch:

[Raptor]

Perhaps the weirdest argument I've ever witnessed:



http://serpentscradle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72

:twitch:
:lmbo:

[Teallaura]

:twitch:

This is your brain on drugs, kiddies.... Not pretty, is it?

[Shadow Phoenix]

I nominate RantRant for anything he said on page 2 (And anything that will follow) of this thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76396&page=2

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Pitchforkpat, for his claim that not only is the Bible non-inherant, but in fact does not exist:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1483899#post1483899

Does the Christian Bible Exist?

The Christian Bible is a collection of a larger set of independent books. There were early, variant collections before what we know as “The Bible” was finally fixed in the 4th century. Various versions and translations of this Christian Bible exist today and all contain minor errors and contradictions of this kind:

2nd Samuel 8:4 says, "And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen." Meanwhile, 1st Chronicles 18:4 says, "And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen and twenty thousand footmen."

When David is offered a choice of three punishments, two accounts of the story contradict each other. 2nd Samuel 24:13 says David was offered 7 years of famine: "Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? Or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? Or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land?" In the Chronicles version, on the other hand, David is offered only three years of famine: "Thus saith the Lord, Choose thee either three years of famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes...or else three days the sword of the Lord, even the pestilence, in the land (21:11-12)."

Inerrantists who are aware of contradictions like these, but want to maintain the tenet of inerrancy use the excuse that these errors were not in the original manuscripts. But then, as noted the Bible is not a collection of original manuscripts. It is a collection of copies of copies which vary. Since no original manuscripts exist, if one claims that the Bible is a collection of original manuscripts, then it doesn’t exist. You can’t have it both ways. Either the Bible is a collection of copies of copies (which it is) and contains errors, or it doesn’t exist.

[Rayado]

I nominate RantRant for anything he said on page 2 (And anything that will follow) of this thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76396&page=2
:twitch:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Skepticbud reaches a new low:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1484257#post1484257

God: an incoherent concept

copyright 2006
by skepticbud

==========
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "god" means:


Quote:

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.

(from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/god) (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/god))




Whatever else it might mean, "god" appears to mean at least a "being". That same dictionary says a "being" is:


Quote:

1 a : the quality or state of having existence
b (1) : something conceivable as existing
(2) : something that actually exists
(3) : the totality of existing things
c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing; especially : PERSON

(Ibid, "being", noun)





So far, God is a "being", and a "being" is either something which simply has existence, or is a living thing, a person, with conscious existence.

Excluding basic existence, the more specific definitions are the beginning of the coherency problem. I start with (3) c above, conscious existence, life.

A. God is a being, and a being is or has a conscious existence/life.

1. Does God have a physical brain? The Christians at theologyweb say no.
a. So Christians believe in conscious existence without a physical brain.

2. Does God have a physical body? The Christians at theologyweb say no.
a. So Christians believe in the possibility of life without a physical body.

B. God is a being, and a being is a living person.

1. A living person? Oh, so God is human? Yes, say Mormons. Nope, say other Christians. God is a person but he's not human.
a. So now Christians talk seriously about persons who aren't human.

2. So does the God being have flesh and blood something like humans? Yes, say Mormons, nope, say other Christians. The other Christians say God is a person, but not the kind of person who has flesh and blood.
a. So now Christians talk seriously about a person that has no flesh and blood.


C. A being has personality (from #2 above for the "being" definition)

1. Does this God being have a history of learning, which lead to the sort of personality he has now? Yes, say Mormons. Nope, say Tweb Christians. God has personality and self-awareness, but he doesn't have the history of learning and interacting with others which shape a person's personality.
a. So now Christians talk about a person whose personality was not formed due to their history of interacting with other people.


D. A being is a living thing (from # 3 above, the entry for "being")

1. If God is alive, does that mean he has a physical body? No, say Tweb Christians. God lives, they say, but lives without a physical body.
a. So Christians believe a being can be alive without a physical body.

If we tally up the Christian beliefs listed above, we end up with:

Conscious existence without a physical brain, being "alive" without a physical body, a person who isn't human, a person who has no flesh and blood, and a personality that didn't develop through interacting with other people and things earlier in it's life.

The reason this makes a good case for saying the god of the Tweb Christians is an incoherent idea, is because although they use terms like consciousness, alive, person, personality, etc, they radically redefine them so that they no longer carry their normative meanings. When you say a person is conscious, who would guess you were speaking about a non-human that didn't have a physical brain? Nobody, except apologists at a god-debate, whose defensive redefinitions of standard words are up. But in the supermarket with the kids, they too would think you were crazy if you said the person you said was conscious, was a non-human without a physical brain.

In conclusion, the Christian concept of God is incoherent, because while they use standard terms to describe their god, they redefine these terms so that they are often the very opposite of their expected common meaning. As such, we would end up having to believe in consciousness without brains and personhood without the person being human.

Christians and even the bible always refer to God as a "he" (i.e., a male). But, just like the previously cited examples of radical redefinition, they do NOT intend to convey the impression that God is male. They are quick to point out that calling God a "he" is simply for the convenience of conversation. Nevertheless, most of those who acknowledge this language rape, are quick to denounce gender-neutral bibles, and scorn those who call god a "she".

Apparantly the word-games involved in talking about God never end.

I'd say that any departure from standard definitions, such as the Christian concept of God requires, raises suspicion that they must empty and reload common terms, because in fact their God constitutes nothing more than a word-game.

Addenda:

Most apologists try desperately to justify the redefinitions evidentially, such as by offering evidence of life without a physical body (spirits), and evidence that the mind isn't completely explained as a physical process in the brain (mind/body duality). However, in about 20 years of actively pursuing apologetics, the first 12 as a Christian, the last 8 as an atheist, I have never seen evidence to prove that spirits exist, or that the mind is anything more than the physical brain. In fact, I accuse Christians of raping language in their use of the word "spirit" as much as they do in their use of "god".

Allow me to throw in a test in order to demonstrate, from their own mouths, how utterly bankrupt semantically the Christian arguments really are: Maybe the reader who disagrees with me would like to answer the question:

"what IS a spirit?"

However, do not answer with a negative, such as "a spirit is a NON-physical life form". Doing so will only tell me what a spirit is NOT (i.e., it is NOT physical).

But I didn't ask what a spirit is NOT, or what a spirit LACKS.

I asked instead what a spirit IS.

Keep that in mind as you attempt to answer the question. :ahem:

I told him to watch Star Trek to understand the concept of a 'being with no physical body.'

[Teallaura]

Skepticbud reaches a new low:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1484257#post1484257



I told him to watch Star Trek to understand the concept of a 'being with no physical body.'

:twitch: He refutes his own thesis with the definitions he cites....

This is a put on, right? Please, it's difficult - and fairly frightening - to believe that there are human beings who are that... entirely devoid of intelligence....

(:idea: Wait now, maybe we can use his thesis to refute his existence :cs:... Naw, too stupid. :no:)

:twitch:

[Shadow Phoenix]

:twitch: He refutes his own thesis with the definitions he cites....

This is a put on, right? Please, it's difficult - and fairly frightening - to believe that there are human beings who are that... entirely devoid of intelligence....

(:idea: Wait now, maybe we can use his thesis to refute his existence :considering:... Naw, too stupid. :no:)

:twitch:

You can say that after the past few sessions of PALtalk? I'm sure I remember seeing you there....

[Teallaura]

You can say that after the past few sessions of PALtalk? I'm sure I remember seeing you there....

Sure, I visit - but I'm not stupid enough to listen! :teeth:

[Cynic Sage]

Yes I'm sure the ancient Israelites were very familar with a game that wasnt invented until the middle ages. :lol:

IIRC it didn't begin to originate until the days of the Roman empire.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I would like to propose we name skepticbud, skepticdud

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

IIRC it didn't begin to originate until the days of the Roman empire.

Well board games have been around since the dawn of civlization. But Chess was developed in the Middle ages to teach knights the basics of battle tactics. Each piece was supposed to represent a person in battle. The pawns were the frontline advancing infintry, the knights were your mounted calvery, the king was the commander in the battle(whether it be the actual king, a general or some other high ranking guy) and so on.

[Cynic Sage]

Well board games have been around since the dawn of civlization. But Chess was developed in the Middle ages to teach knights the basics of battle tactics. Each piece was supposed to represent a person in battle. The pawns were the frontline advancing infintry, the knights were your mounted calvery, the king was the commander in the battle(whether it be the actual king, a general or some other high ranking guy) and so on.

http://scsc.essortment.com/chesshistory_rmct.htm (http://scsc.essortment.com/chesshistory_rmct.htm)

Sez here it developed in China, India, and Persia. I've seen the Japanese variant of the game, Shogi, but never learned how to play it.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Skepticbud crushes himself in a debate(again):


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76625&page=2

But I argue that this conception is incoherent. I can also concieve of flying giraffes, does that mean there is the least bit of coherency to the idea? No. The dictionary defines "incoherent" as:


Quote:

incoherent
One entry found for incoherent.


Main Entry: in·co·her·ent
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
1 : lacking coherence: as a : lacking cohesion : LOOSE b : lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : INCONSISTENT
2 : lacking clarity or intelligibility:

from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=incoherent (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=incoherent)




What is clear or intelligible about a life that doesn't have a physical body? the mere fact that the mind of man can imagine things that are obvious fictions doesn't suddenly mean that they become coherent.
Except of course for the fact that following his definition the idea of flying giraffes is not incoherent, it's perfectly consistant. There's just the fact that it is false.

[sc_q_jayce]

http://scsc.essortment.com/chesshistory_rmct.htm (http://scsc.essortment.com/chesshistory_rmct.htm)

Sez here it developed in China, India, and Persia. I've seen the Japanese variant of the game, Shogi, but never learned how to play it.
Yeah, Chinese Chess has existed before the advent of the AD time scale.

[Sparko]

Yeah, Chinese Chess has existed before the advent of the AD time scale.

Do they play it with chopsticks?

:eek:

[sc_q_jayce]

Do they play it with chopsticks?

:eek:
They'd better! :mossrose:

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1486175

You are tossed to and fro, with every wind of doctrine.

By itself the comment isn't screwy, but it's in response to my imaginary scenario regarding a flying pig. Apparently flying pigs are doctrine now. :duh:

[Leonhard]

How about this one?!!

The Bible's All Wrong (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/14/notes041406.DTL)

"The Bible's All Wrong, Again
The surprising Gospel of Judas proves you just
can't be too sure about all that God stuff"

What do you think, is it a bad Haiku or just plain dumbness? :lol:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

If it is a Haiku, its done wrong. Haikus have only 17 syliblas.

[jpholding]

Email just received:


I'm not exactly sure why this is on your site, but the
"300 disproofs of God's existence" is absolutely
ridiculous. I'm doing research on a Philosophy paper
and came across this. It is quite possibly the most
stupid thing I have ever read on the web. If I were an
athiest or agnostic I would be ashamed that somebody
made this available to the public. It totally makes
all non-believers sound like idiots.

"Duh....what's a parody?"

And he thinks I'm an atheist, too. :hehe:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I wonder if he even bothered to read anything else on your site. Probably not.

[sc_q_jayce]

Email just received:



"Duh....what's a parody?"

And he thinks I'm an atheist, too. :hehe:
That had to be one of the funniest things on your site. A shame that even that gets flamed. :lol:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I nominate Burning Bush--U for a long string of mostly incoherent posts on a pretty much dead topic:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=75516&page=10

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Biblschism for being himself

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76808

"Edenic Fall" is a common theological term. I did not coin it.

Make up your mind. Did he rebel before or after the events of Genesis 1? On one hand you say his rebellion created disease and natural disaster before man fell. On the other hand, you say his rebellion occured after Genesis 1!

Think before you speak, lest you appear the fool.

And if "humans had yet to be touched by sin," I would think the "touching" was virtually guaranteed by God's allowing the most skilled tempter in the entire universe to mingle with Adam and Eve.

There's a dearth of detailed responses here. Methinks I touched a nerve.


I've already made my response on the thread.

[Cynic Sage]

Brian Fleming:

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002144.html

So you want to debate me... So you would like to challenge me about the claims I make in The God Who Wasn't There?

No problem. But please understand that I get a lot of these requests, and I can't waste my time arguing with people who are not open to changing their minds or who haven't developed enough familiarity with the material.

So just download and sign this "Statement of Belief" PDF (http://www.thegodmovie.com/debate/StatementOfBelief.pdf), have it notarized, then mail it to Beyond Belief Media. Then we can talk.

If you are unable to sign the Statement, we cannot talk any further, for one or both of the following reasons:

1) You are not familiar enough with the facts to be ready for a meaningful discussion at this time.

2) Your capacity to understand the facts is so compromised by your religious ideology that a conversation with you would be pointless.



And what is on this "Statement of Belief"...


STATEMENT OF BELIEF

I believe it is possible that Jesus did not exist.

I believe there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the time of his alleged life.

I believe there are no written eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ.

I believe the names of the Gospels were added well after their composition, and there is no good reason to believe that these names correspond to the original writers.

I believe there is no good reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ, or that any eyewitnesses to Jesus were involved in their composition.

I believe the Bible is not infallible.

I believe it is common for religious cults to make things up.

I believe it is common for religions to influence each other, and for young religions to be derived from older religions.

I believe that any claim can be part of Christian tradition and also be false.

I believe that no figures such as "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "Satan" performed any supernatural actions that had any significant effect upon the formation of early Christianity.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

SIGNATURE OF BELIEVER
____________________________________


So basically if you can only debate Fleming if you don't disagree with him too much. :lmbo:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I'd just pull a George Bush and draw a line through all of his points except maybe the bit about it being common for religions to make stuff up, and the the bit about religions influenceing each other.

[Cynic Sage]

Apparently Jesus is the Antichrist. :ahem:

http://www.gaiaguys.net/666.htm

[Cynic Sage]

Thanks to Gakuseidon for showing me this bit of an interview with Brian Fleming:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/FlemmingAnswersAGdonQuestion.mp3

RRS Interviewer:

Brian, on the message board we had a question... we figured we'd sneak one question in from GDon who put together a list of questions that hopefully we'll have some historians answer in there. But the question was: "Beddru of Japan seems to have been created by Kersey Graves in the 19th C. How did that name end up in The God Who Wasn't There movie? "

Brian Flemming:

You know, one thing that I regret, is that the word Beddru -- B-e-d-d-r-u -- I never mention anything about that figure in the movie but unfortunately it's in a background graphic where you can really see it and that's a mistake -- that shouldn't be in there. What I did was I cut and pasted from a list of gods that I was researching to find out "were these true or were they not" and I should not have put that one on the list.

Kersey Graves appears to have made that up. And so people who say, you know, that Kersey Graves is full of crap and this Beddru thing -- he only knows about it [so] its probably false -- they're actually right, and I'm going to change that in the second edition of the DVD.

I do have to clear up this whole, you know, I wish that I hadn't used a word that's associated with Kersey Graves anywhere in the movie, because there aren't any ideas associated with Kersey Graves anywhere in the movie. And Richard Carrier early on in my research actually steered me away and said "don't", you know, "he cheated, he's not anybody to rely on".

So unfortunately what they are doing in this movie that's over an hour long, they take one background graphic that appears for like one second and they blow it up to represent the whole movie.

RRS Interviewer:

Right. It's good that at least you admit that, cause there are people who wouldn't even... they cling to their fundamentalist idea...

Flemming:

Yeah, I think that I need to come out with a second edition of the DVD and correct mistakes as well as just remove stuff that people are clinging to that isn't terribly -- it's sort of tangiental -- but basically rip -- The kind of good thing is that I can tell right now what all the arguments people are using against the movie are and I can create a second edition of the DVD that says absolutely the same thing in every way but doesn't include any of these sideline issues of these people, and I hope to do that actually soon enough that I can send that DVD to the people who are making the movie "The God Who Was There" -- do you know these fundamentalists are making an answer movie to "The God Who Wasn't There"...

I hope to get a corrected edition out there so that basically all the stuff that these people are doing to try to attack the movie becomes moot, because of the second edition with corrections and I've admitted mistakes that I've made. Which will probably stun them that you know someone can actually admit that they made made a mistake. They won't understand -- they come from a religious standpoint where they can never admit that anything is wrong at all that's in the Bible or anything they've said is ever wrong, whereas I'm rational, I can say "oh I made a mistake here and here and I'm going to correct them".

[attachment]

click thumbnail to enlarge

[jpholding]

Email from the PC Police:


Even to a lay Christian like me, your articles reek of a degree of self-obsession, drowning in the desire not to prove sceptics wrong, but to ridicule their views, but more importantly, their personalities. Your attempts at using contemporary realities to illustrate ancient beliefs border on the desperate, like a fish wallowing in the shallows.

Use the information you have access to in a more sensible manner, and I will listen. But the manner in which you attack people, ridicule them and verbally assault them you display the precise attitudes that have turned millions away from religion. I have no guarantee that you will not treat me the same should I engage in correspondence with you.

In fact, you sicken me, and I for one would prefer to be treated with respect by a sceptic, that treated with ridicule by a fellow Christian.

If you for a single moment believe that your attitude will draw more people towards the faith, you are sadly mistaken. It has, in my experience, the opposite effect.

I will have you know that I have written a similar letter to some of the sceptic writers who indulge in the same form of smear-campaign against believers in their articles.

However, I will continue reading those articles you provide that rely on properly researched facts, and steers clear of personal attacks on those who do not agree with you.

[jpholding]

Website award:

http://evocc.com/index.html


This book proposes a new view of the
development of early Christianity. It gives
evidence that the character of Jesus of
Nazareth is a literary character, based on
prior literary Christ characters, including
John the Baptist, Simon Magus, and
Joshua of Nun. It also suggests that an
important part of the New Testament
gospel texts can be traced back to a play
written by a woman named Mary.

The book demonstrates that the gospels
are not meant as histories, but entertaining
stories. In this case, we may ask why does
Mary Magdalene (Translation: Mary the
Tower) play such an important, positive and
primary role?

This book proposes that it is because a
woman named Mary is the original writer of
the story. Later male gospel writers revised
the story, cutting out many scenes between
Jesus and her, and suppressing the
embarrassing fact that the original writer
was a woman.

Perhaps the real cover-up is not that
Mary married Jesus, but that she invented
him.

[Darth Executor]

Mary the Tower? :hrm:

[Cynic Sage]

Website award:

http://evocc.com/index.html

That site looks like it was done by the same guy who did POCM.

[Cynic Sage]

Keith Rex on a rather odd pre-requisite for atheism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=933&page=62&pp=16

In my experience I find that most Atheists are very unpleasant and invariably Gay and I find Gays intolerable. They are vicious lewd and have no respect for the great majority of the worlds population. I also find Christain Gays very nasty selfish people. I also find that these Atheists who are in the majority insist that if a person is not Gay they cannot be an Atheist, But you have a lot more choice with Christians. they are not all Gay.

[attachment]

IT'S BIG GAY AL'S BIG GAY FREETHOUGHT ASSOCIATION!



I think the only thing that kindness and love of Gays will get you is AIDS. They show no respect for the majority who are not Gay.


You say your attitude changed, but do not mentione the dirsction nadwhy it changed? Did you reject Christianity when you discovered that so many Christains were secret Gays? Why else would they be so keen on choir boys and fancy vestments? But please be more specific as I would like to know.

[jpholding]

That site looks like it was done by the same guy who did POCM.

Nah. This new guy lives near me. The POCM guy lives in Colorado.

[Teallaura]

Something this stupid just had to be shared....

Kinda like lice...:hrm:


Make a new law:

Abortion to be outlawed for women who claim to be "pro-life." The only women who can receive abortions are 'pro-choice.' Then we'll see just how 'pro-life' those women are. One condition-if a woman claims to be pro-life but can't get an abortion when she wants it, then she must sign a document stating that she is pro-choice, and she may carry on with the procedure. But a provision should be added that her family and church be made aware of her decision.

It would be funny watching the protests of 'pro-life' women demanding their right to have an abortion.

[jpholding]

Email (and this is all it said):


When you learn a little humility, you might actually be in a position to profit, but then that isn't really what Christ taught, is it? You receive free, give free. Get out in the trenches and preach like a man.

[Christy]

Fran and Steven Carr here: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/04/angry-atheists-and-mistrust.html#comments


Fran: This is actually very funny - people taking the War on Easter as something other than the joke that it was.

Do you believe the daily news from the Onion?

Just for the record Brian Flemming of Beyond Belief Media is a cheerful, personable, attractive atheist, very friendly, not obviously angry, with a good sense of humor. You can watch his documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" to find out why he says the things he says about Christians - not all of which are angry, and some of which you might appreciate.

And I don't think he has ever portrayed Christians as stupid, since he used to be one. Deluded, yes, but not stupid.

I would like to ask the Christian Cadre if they would give up Christianity if they could only meet a friendly atheist who respected their beliefs? If not, what would be the best way of deconverting Christians?



BK - thanks for your response.

I think the War on Easter was an attempt at humor. Perhaps it fell a little flat. There is just so far you can stretch that silly joke about The War on Christmas.

If you watched the video, I think you missed the part about Flemming being an ex-Christian, and you missed his personal sympathy for a lot of Christians. When he talks about a "backward and deranged theology" he's talking about what was taught to him at Valley Christian School. And he makes it clear that he used to believe (did you miss that part?)

He doesn't think that Christians are stupid, or that he became an atheist because he was smarter. He thinks that Christians are indoctrinated as children using fear, and the indoctrination is kept up with social pressure, nothing to do with stupidity. Christians personally can be very smart, and he's trying to reach them (and has).

In fact, I wonder if you are a bit defensive here - are you unsure about your own reasonableness in your beliefs? Why do you keep accusing atheists of thinking you are stupid? At this point, most atheists know of smart Christians, and have read Michael Shermer's book on How We Believe, and know how smart people can sometimes use their intelligence to find rationalizations for what they want to believe. A lot of smart people believe a lot of things that are wrong. That's why we need methodological skepticism, tools to examine what we believe and test it against reality.

In your original post, you said if you really want to convert Christians to your viewpoint, stop being inflammatory. You need to be more tolerant of the views of others, you need to stop thinking that you know it all, and you need to stop belittling everything you disagree with.

Can I also throw this back at you. In the previous paragraph you used the terms "silly little websites" "rampant materialists" "cultural elitists" "rude, crude and obstinate". In a response, you called this "edgy," but I don't think it has any edge at all, it's just you releasing your frustration with some good old insults. Flemming is edgy, the War on Easter was edgy - you take yourself too seriously to be edgy.

(And can I just note the irony of you calling for civil dialogue when you associate with Metacrock? It's easy for you to denounce Fred Phelps. What about denouncing Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell? What have they ever done for civility? Do you think that skeptics like me will burn in Hell? If not, do you denounce Christians who do?)

Getting back to Beyond Belief Media, could you tell me where Brian Flemming misquotes the Bible? How does he misquote the authors of Left Behind? Do you claim that Charles Manson and David Koresh did not claim to be Jesus Christ, or just that it's not fair to link them to other Christians? A few specifics would help your case here.

I'm not saying the film is perfect. I know he shows that picture from the cover of the Jesus Mysteries that may not be what the authors thought it was. But in general, I thought it a good artistic and personal effort. But it seems to have raised some hackles with you. I can't tell if it is just that you can't stand to see your faith/identity criticized, or if you actually do have some valid objection.

I notice you're still criticizing Beyond Belief on you current blog post, for saying that Christianity and Islam are equally bad. I agree with you, that Christianity today is not as bad as Islam is today. But I think that is because today's Christians don't really believe their doctrines (more power to them!) Evangelicals are always complaining that most Christians act like secularists. In fact, I think most modern Christians are only one step away from atheism, and the world would be a better place if they just took that one step and renounced all fanaticism and fundamentalism.

But I don't know what makes you a Christian, so this is probably going too far off topic

Steven Carr: Atheists should be more tolerant?
Many Christians read the Old Testament and are happy to proclaim that it is right and just to kill whole tribes of people, men, women and children

[One Bad Pig]

Website nomination:

In an article on "Godly Music", I found the following (http://www.themoorings.org/perspectives/music/message.html):

Unfortunately, words of fleshly love spoil several popular Christian songs. An example from contemporary music is Gaither's "He Touched Me." An example from older music is "In the Garden." Any worldly-wise person hearing the latter song for the first time would, I am sure, recognize it as the description of a lovers' tryst. The last line is the most objectionable, because it sounds like one of the sweet lies whispered by paramours. "And the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known." On a spiritual level, the line has no truth in it. Our joy in the Lord, however great, is no greater than other believers have known. The author's statement that the song celebrates the meeting between Jesus and Mary Magdalene on Easter morning strengthens our doubts about the song's propriety (4). The sentiments he ascribes to Mary ("And he tells me I am his own") and the picture he draws of their encounter (lasting all day until the approach of darkness, mentioned in the third stanza) are inaccurate and in poor taste. Incidentally, in one city where I lived, the song was a favorite waltz tune at local dances for senior citizens.

They also feel that any song that hints at postmillennialism is heretical.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Heres a gem from somone comparing Blizzard explaing one of their games to apologetics:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76932


Found this (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=8290240&p=1&tmp=1#post8290240) on the Bliz forums today. Background is that World of Warcraft is introducing two new playable races with the expansion pack. One of these is the Draenei ...and some players claim that Blizard is messing with "lore" (history within the game's setting) to do so.

Amazing how similar this looks to Christian apologetics:

" OK. What's gonna happen here... is we're going to go over the Draenei issue in two basic points and resolve the problems. Everyone who's getting themselves in a twist over this, bashing Blizzard, saying how much everything sucks, and making dumb jokes, shaddap and listen. Then comprehend. Then stop being morons about this.

First off: The Existing Lore issue.

By all accounts, there is a problem with the Draenei's lore.

By the old lore, the Eredar were evil and went about conquering things.

By the new lore, their society was peaceful and Sargeras came and took them over.

It's somewhat more invovled than that, but that's not the point. Point is, this apparent contradiction can be fixed with either one of two simple methods.

1) The Eredar were indeed EVIL back in the day (requires a slight rewording of the new lore) but after they drove Sargeras mad and he came back to enslave them, the third leader, Velen saw that by going with Sargeras they'd all be turned into Demons. He didn't like that prospect and left with his followers, who ended up having to do battle with the Legion as they fled. Along the way the Naaru offered their own aid, with no apparent strings attached, which Velen took. The Naaru used this opportunity to slowly convert the Draenei to the path of the Light. So they go from evil to good and it all adds up. Personally, I think it's a good story.

2) An easier fix, though not quite as good, in my opinion. All that needs to be said is that the Nathrezim were the ONLY ones that influenced Sargeras's transformation into madness, and one of his first conquests was the Eredar. Over the vastness of history the story was confused, so the inhabitants of Azeroth didn't know the truth until the Draenei show up wielding the Light and knowing how to swing it, and all that. The Draenei clarifying their own history also adds up nicely with all the lore."

It's actually very well timed seeing as a just got back into Diablo II.

[Cynic Sage]

Heres a gem from somone comparing Blizzard explaing one of their games to apologetics:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76932
[/color]

It's actually very well timed seeing as a just got back into Diablo II.
That's Seasanctuary.
(remember the name next time).

[Darth Executor]

Seasanctuary is getting more trollish with every post. And she's a Till fan. Pity. :sigh:

[Cynic Sage]

Website nomination:

In an article on "Godly Music", I found the following (http://www.themoorings.org/perspectives/music/message.html):

Unfortunately, words of fleshly love spoil several popular Christian songs. An example from contemporary music is Gaither's "He Touched Me." An example from older music is "In the Garden." Any worldly-wise person hearing the latter song for the first time would, I am sure, recognize it as the description of a lovers' tryst. The last line is the most objectionable, because it sounds like one of the sweet lies whispered by paramours. "And the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known." On a spiritual level, the line has no truth in it. Our joy in the Lord, however great, is no greater than other believers have known. The author's statement that the song celebrates the meeting between Jesus and Mary Magdalene on Easter morning strengthens our doubts about the song's propriety (4). The sentiments he ascribes to Mary ("And he tells me I am his own") and the picture he draws of their encounter (lasting all day until the approach of darkness, mentioned in the third stanza) are inaccurate and in poor taste. Incidentally, in one city where I lived, the song was a favorite waltz tune at local dances for senior citizens.

They also feel that any song that hints at postmillennialism is heretical.

Could be worse.

He could have mentioned that "YES LORD! YES LORD! YES YES LORD!" worship song they used to make us sing in youth group (the youth pastor would always wonder why we would snicker at that).

[BronzeArcher]

Carr. Oh, you guys should check out Rosson's blog entries linked to in the OP, it's pretty interesting. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=165540/

Is there one person who lived at the same time as Jesus (I assume Meier accepts this definition of contemporary) who says Jesus performed excorcisms or healings?

Nothing is more certain than something which is not even a fact? - welcome to the crazy world of Historical Jesus studies, where the standards are those that would be ridiculed mercilessly in science.

A mod replies with

Steve Carr - What's crazy is people demanding unreasonable evidence for someone who if it were anybody else the requirements would be much lower.

What it does show is that you lack the necessary training in historical studies period. I suggest you start by learning Greek. From there, we can move on to what is reasonable evidence v. what is unreasonable evidence, and from there, methods on determining probability.

Good luck to you.

And Carr's response is,

I think this extraordinary outburst highlights the fact that there is no methodology for historical Jesus studies.

Or else Weimer would simply have named a contemporary of Jesus who said that Jesus performed exorcisms and healings.

Chris is right that I should always be happy to learn a bit more Greek. Paul said that Jesus became a 'pneuma'. What is the definition of 'pneuma'?

Interesting response:
Chris: What it does show is that you lack the necessary training in historical studies period.
Carr: I think this extraordinary outburst highlights the fact that there is no methodology for historical Jesus studies. Or else Weimer would simply have named a contemporary of Jesus who said that Jesus performed exorcisms and healings.

Oooooookay. I find it pretty funny that Carr calls it an "extraordinary outburst" ... ECREE!!

---

Okay, good grief. You can look at Magdlyn's other posts, but here's a really obvious (even to someone who isn't too competent in HJ stuff) post that shows she's out to lunch (post 26):

Chris: Isn't it a bit obvious that in order to first describe the historical Jesus you would have to at least think he's real?
Magdlyn: Hardly. Many of the Jesus Mythers or agnostics here would be well able to describe the historical Jesus as depicted in the Bible.

Historical Jesus or Jesus in the gospels? She's so confused.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

On the Beast movie forums, while discussing the work of Kersey Graves, I got accused of plagiarising my own research!

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1493&page=4

[Rayado]

That one earns the golf clap, methinks

[sc_q_jayce]

On the Beast movie forums, while discussing the work of Kersey Graves, I got accused of plagiarising my own research!

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1493&page=4
Wow. That skill of ownage deserves pearls.

[jpholding]

Swell eamil this morning which may reflect the truism that even with education, some people are incorrigibily stupid:


Dear James Patrick Holding,

I am the son of devout evangelical Christians and a graduate of an evangelical Christian theological school plus three semesters of graduate work. I have read the entire King James Version of the Bible twelve times and have studied Biblical archaeology and Christian apologetics. No where, no where is there evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I recommend that you start doing a more thorough and objective job of your so-called research and stop supporting this fictional, delusional, and hence unhealthful belief system called Christianity, and begin studying the true word of our Source as written in Nature. Thank you for your serious consideration.

Yours with empathy in integral natural science and trust in our mysterious Source,

XXX (name withheld by JPH)

[jpholding]

Stupid from above has a blog that is a Screwball Haven in itself:

http://shiftinaction.com/declare/my/43


Passions or Hobbies: Conscious oneness with infinite, timeless aware transparent Source of All and cocreatively managing my temporal life accordingly;

My Global Intentions

To continue my efforts to harmonize with Nature's laws and principles
and influence others to do likewise.
To be an instrument and facilitator of healing throughout the world
via my example, my writings, my workshops, and monetary donations.
To demonstrate faith in our mysterious Source for healthful ecosystem
and economic outcomes while accepting my share of the responsibility
for the consequences.



An Interdependent's Bill of Rights

1. I have the right to be conscious that I am inherently one with implicit transparent timeless awareness and interdependent with explicit nature in all its manifestations.

2. I have the right to affirm my innate worth and dignity as an interconnected psycho-spiritual-social-cosmic being.



:lolo:

[jpholding]

Gold for Farrell Till again, for this suggestion in reply to http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillsorry.html :


But what about the photocopied title pages that [Holding] put into his article? They may be real. The problem may be in the computer system of RTS. However, it is just as possible that they aren't real. I could obtain a copy of Coogan's commentary, photocopy it, and then take a book with a stamp from my local library on the title page, photocopy its title page, and with a little splicing together make a copy that would appear to "prove" that my local library had Coogan's commentary available.

I'd answer, but I have a meeting with the Pope at Area 51 to attend. :lolo:

[jpholding]

More from Mr Kook, who's been inhaling nitrous oxide...I asked if he wanted to debate the Christ myth, and the chicken squawked:

With all due respect, I've been there done that with many Christian apologists over the past forty years. I've looked over your material and find nothing different from what they have to offer. I have a very good friend who is a renowned evangelical Christian Bible archaeologist who has performed over 250 digs in the Holy Land to no avail . . . still no artifactual evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. I'm waiting for him to come up with something valid and reliable evidence. Until then he or someone of his scientific equivalent does I won't be doing any more debating on this subject. Thank you.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

What does he expect, sandals with name tags attached? :lol:

[DesertBerean]

I believe he wants a sign saying "Jesus slept here."

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I believe he wants a sign saying "Jesus slept here."

Nah, then they'd want to know "Which Jesus?" And the authenticity of the sign. And whether the guy who found it got arrested.

[Sparko]

He's probably holding out for a dvd of the resurrection.

[Teallaura]

He's probably holding out for a dvd of the resurrection.

Nope, he's waiting for Jesus' actual bones - which would kinda make the whole point moot....


:teeth:

[Teallaura]

Ya just gotta see this one:


Let's get serious for a minute. Whether the Council of Nicea decreed the canon or whether Nike was better than Adidas is missing the point.
In the years after the crucifiction Mary and her child and Jospeh of Arimethea travelled to the south of France. There their descendents eventually intermarried with the Frankish Merovingian kings... it's all fact. The Merovingians, now descendents of the House of David were clearly heirs to the Holy Roman Empire, but were denied.
Jesus' descendents walk among us. And when the time is right they will claim their true rulers of Europe. You'll see.
The well renowned scholar Michael Baigent pretty much summed the REAL STORY in his scholarly magnum opus Holy Blood, Holy Grail. A masterpiece that is becoming standard reading in undergraduate and graduate history classes. Facts don't lie. The church does.

Source (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1492103&postcount=54)


Yeah, facts don't lie - as long as they support his point.

:rofl:

[JB]

Gold for Farrell Till again, for this suggestion in reply to http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillsorry.html :

But what about the photocopied title pages that [Holding] put into his article? They may be real. The problem may be in the computer system of RTS. However, it is just as possible that they aren't real. I could obtain a copy of Coogan's commentary, photocopy it, and then take a book with a stamp from my local library on the title page, photocopy its title page, and with a little splicing together make a copy that would appear to "prove" that my local library had Coogan's commentary available.

I'd answer, but I have a meeting with the Pope at Area 51 to attend. :lolo:

If I had to take a guess, Till couldn't find the original book because he was looking under the name "Coogan", which is how you cited it in your article (http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/jehukingsvshosea2.html) replying to Till on the 2 Kings vs. Hosea issue. I've noticed that Till continually refers to the author as "Coogan". Yet, as can be seen from the title page you scanned, the author's name is Mordechai Cogan, not Mordechai Coogan.

One would have hoped Till would have managed to be more cautious before making accusations, or at least to have realized what had happened after he became aware of the discrepancy between the title page and what he had as the author's name. But then again... this is Farrell Till we're talking about. :hehe: The appropriate time for him to give up the argument and be quiet came several minutes before he said his first word.

[jpholding]

Email this morning...


Hey you coward ,

Why are you attacking this poor lady that that's just on a mission to expose the

truth-THE BIG TRUTH . JESUS IS A MYTH. It's all FAKE . You know that.

Please accept the fact. My friends and I are on a mission too. We are

visiting bible loving people to tell them that their bible is no more real than

the cartoons. We are also giving away alot of Acharya's books for cheap or free.



THE WORLD SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH. THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE

AND JESUS ARE 100% FAKE. The churches have done more harm then good.

My friends and I are spreading the truth thru webblogs and paid ads etc,.

Ah, ah ah.

[Cynic Sage]

The Irony Meter blows up:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310273005/qid=1147674229/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-3881664-0523967?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[attachment]

click thumbnail

[Cynic Sage]

Beastmaster22 decides that they best way to keep religious politicians from forcing their beliefs down his throat by forcing his beliefs down theirs:

http://thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1011 (http://thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1011)

I really enjoyed "The god who wasn't there" & now own the DVD. I was inspired to create a petition for the leaders around our country. I hope that's okay.

Congressional Petition

Friends, here are 3 excellent videos that highlight what is going on in America & the US government today. I very strongly suggest that all 3 of these videos must be a mandatory view for all US politicians, Justices, Congressmen & women. Americans have kept quite on the sidelines for to long while Christian influence in our government continues out of control.

Folks must realize that accuracy, transparency, facts & evidence do not equate to religious intolerance. We have both a right & a responsibility to demand all of those attributes when it comes to our most cherished beliefs. We must unite & demand accuracy & transparency in religion & government before it's to late. An open & honest discussion on the topic of religion is still taboo in America. This must change now. We have a lot to learn very quickly & one good way to catch-up is to view these 3 videos that explain it very well.

http://www.thegodmovie.com/

...

Please send a copy of this Petition letter to your state, & local representatives etc, etc.

FirstGov encourages you to contact your elected officials and share your thoughts on current events and government policy. Below you'll find links to e-mail addresses, as well as phone numbers and mailing addresses for key elected officials -

http://www.us.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[attachment]

[skepticbud]

The screwball for May 2006 will be proven to be none other than J P Holding, just as soon as First Baptist Sweetwater Church of Longwood, Florida reschedules the DaVinci code talk that a certain "Bob Turkel" was supposed to give on May 17, pending a real heart-to-heart pow-wow and maybe a sermon or two about how wrong it is to lie to your own personal Christian friends about your true identity. :eek:

What? Sweetwater kept you on the schedule for that talk, even though they KNOW you are the author of the most mean and nasty unChristian apologetics articles on the internet? Not a chance. Those good Christian folk aren't half-that deluded....at least they became less deluded after a very enlightening IM I had a few hours ago with one of their staff.

I told them that I wasn't sure if it was the same guy, but the person they affectionately refer to as their resident apologist, is the writer of some of the most unChristian and spiteful and hateful apologetics-invective to ever disgrace the internet, second only to KJV Onlyists.

I gave them a few names and terms to google, and after about 2 minutes of dead air, they came back with a final IM...they had to "get going now..."

:eek:

The best evidence against Holding's common sense was his foolish decision to try and take his ministry public AFTER he created such a dumpsterfull of apologetics garbage attached to his false name. I don't think even Einstein could help Holding recover from the bed he made for himself.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

* edited by a moderator *
I nominate Skepticbud, for getting moderated in a screwball thread. :lol:

[jpholding]

Email this morning:


Your article on the Da Vinci Code was poorly stated, and your points were luke warm at best. The book made
ludicrous jumps of faith (remember-it's fiction), but shabbily-written
arguments like yours in contrast are far less appealing as a side in the
debate. By the way, the fact that you and others have created such a
(excremenet)-storm over a piece of fiction is hilarious. Brown's laughing all the
way to the bank, and I'm sure he greatly appreciates the publicity.
This article must be the work of the devil, written to convert intelligent
christians everywhere:
http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm
You mention the word "evidence" several times in your article, yet provide
no sources for your claims. "Near universal acceptance" is not "evidence"
(I know, I know, everyone says it's so, so it must be so) "historians of the
day" are not "evidence" (names would be good) and are we supposed to
believe 90-95% of people were illiterate in the time of the great Roman
philisophical enlightenment era? Just because you make the statements, they
somehow become "evidence."
I stopped reading your article at this point, but thought it might be fun
to let you in on a secret: I also abandoned my church because of the rampant
weak-mindedness you've fantastically displayed in this wretched waste of 6
minutes of my life.


:lolo:

Yep, I believe him over WV Harris any day. :hehe:

[{Tim}]

Nomination for John Powell. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1492372&postcount=34
Maybe they figured it could be understood a different, acceptable way and so didn't need to be fixed. Sort of like the plural "gods" (elohim) can be understood to mean "superlative god" if you try hard enough.:twitch:
Does he really think it's a matter of mental gymnastics by Christians? I suspect he probably does, actually... :doh:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I nominate Skepticbud, for getting moderated in a screwball thread. :lol:

Which makes me wonder exactly what he said. Although a better(but mostly unanswerable question) is why he even bothered to come over here in the first place.

[Cynic Sage]

I told this story in the "Purpose-Driven Cynic (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76304&page=4)" thread. But I think it deserves a mention here as well:

Last night after Bible PDL-study (I was told that I should save discussing the Bible and PDL until after the study) I brought up the subject of RW's decontextualization of Bible passages. I reccomended to them www.purposeverses.com (http://www.purposeverses.com/) as a good place that offers a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the claims and quoted bible-verses in PDL and this was the response I got from one of the guys (let's call him "Gary") there.

Gary (not real name):
"Well, just cause it's well-researched doesn't mean you can trust it. I've been on the internet and I've seen detailed and well-researched arguments in favor of things like child-molestation. You can't believe everything you read except for the Bible."

He then went on to say that even with the doctrinal and Theological errors in PDL, I shouldn't criticize it because "Any book sold in a Christian-Bookstore can lead someone to Christ." And that "If it contained dangerous errors God wouldn't be using it to change lives".

I then tell him that the "changed-life" argument is subjective ("LavaLifeTM internet-dating changed my life forever" ect.) and has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the claims of PDL or any other religious-movement and/or book.

Now, I could've said "Jesus had gay sex with all the Apostles and your dad" and the group wouldn't have reacted as strongly.

They asked me if I was a real xtian. I said yes. Then they asked me if I had ever witnessed to any unbelievers. I told them that I discuss scripture, theology, and apologetics with unbelievers on Tweb. Apparently witnessing via email or discussion-board doesn't count as witnessing because I "can't see their facial expression or hear the tone of their voice".

[One Bad Pig]

I nominate Skepticbud, for getting moderated in a screwball thread. :lol:
It gets even better. He got banned for what he posted. That's no mean feat.

[jpholding]

They asked me if I was a real xtian. I said yes. Then they asked me if I had ever witnessed to any unbelievers. I told them that I discuss scripture, theology, and apologetics with unbelievers on Tweb. Apparently witnessing via email or discussion-board doesn't count as witnessing because I "can't see their facial expression or hear the tone of their voice".


:hrm:

They woulda had lots of fun in a collectivist society where people didn't get to know each other as people.

[Ishmael]

:hrm:

They woulda had lots of fun in a collectivist society where people didn't get to know each other as people.
Yeah, like on the Borg ship in the future... or is that the past... ?

[jpholding]

Yeah, like on the Borg ship in the future... or is that the past... ?

In the lore, it's both. Did you know the plan for the ST:TNG Borg movie was originally to send them into medieval Europe at the time of DaVinci?

Now THAT would be a twist on The DaVinci Code I'd appreciate!

[Ishmael]

In the lore, it's both. Did you know the plan for the ST:TNG Borg movie was originally to send them into medieval Europe at the time of DaVinci?

Now THAT would be a twist on The DaVinci Code I'd appreciate!
It would be fairly difficult to convert a single Borg to Christianity.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

They could have just converted the Borg Queen and the rest would have to follow. Although that probably would have been too weird even for Star Trek(that and the only series that touched upon religion at all was DS9)

[tranquily_rsrvd]

I read what skepticbud said before the moderator came across his post. I don't want to get into trouble so I won't go into details. I can assure you it wasn't anything unique or clever, though.

[Sparko]

I read what skepticbud said before the moderator came across his post. I don't want to get into trouble so I won't go into details. I can assure you it wasn't anything unique or clever, though.



I am sorry but we need to moderate your memory. Please send in your brain to Theologyweb's Post Office Box for a thorough brainwashing.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I read what skepticbud said before the moderator came across his post. I don't want to get into trouble so I won't go into details. I can assure you it wasn't anything unique or clever, though.

Not that I was actually expecting it to be. I mean this is Skepticbud we're talking about after all.

Seriously though, JP pm'd what he said to me. I wont risk getting mod'd by repeting it, but I will say it deserved to be deleted, esp. being posted here.

[tranquily_rsrvd]

:lol: 1984 all over again.

[Darth Executor]

Dang, I missed out on the fun.

[Teallaura]

It would be fairly difficult to convert a single Borg to Christianity.

**cough** Hugh **cough**

[Cynic Sage]

I read what skepticbud said before the moderator came across his post. I don't want to get into trouble so I won't go into details. I can assure you it wasn't anything unique or clever, though.

Crud. Now I'm interested.

Can you PM me about it?

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.christianshirts.net/

Do TeenageJesus-Worshipping ChristiansTM live in the sewers and have a giant mutated Rat for a pastor?

[Rayado]

And Jesus wept

[Cynic Sage]

Ray(R) from The Beast forums:

http://thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1011&page=2

Judgments and religious feelings are seperate.

There is a sincere difference, between seperating Religious views, and politics, and eliminating each individuals rights.
Learn your **** history.
For people that want to *protect their constitutional freedoms* you guys apparently don't know much about them in the first place.

You cannot morally, NOR LEGALLY force people to become athiests.
Not even politicians.

"**** history" isn't religion a freakin history yet?

Constitutional freedom is what your king and later your president or even your boss decided, as for me I have no country to be a patriot for, I have no king to get on my knees for, I have no president to respect to, and definitely no boss cause I'm my own boss.

And I guess I could say, YES... I can morally or legally force people to change BUT that's as long as their belief is making my life a living hell if you know what I mean... after all what's a revolution?

One can ONLY judge when he/she personally experienced on whatever he/she is judging on or for!
75% of humans on earth thing DRUGS are devilish stuff or whatever they think it is, and as for your government, the only reason they would mind you use it, is that there's no profit for them and you're not paying TAX for, besides that they can not make it legal so they could charge you for tax because of their belief. You’re the judge.... solve this one!

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Crud. Now I'm interested.

Can you PM me about it?

I'll foreward you the PM jp sent me.

[jpholding]

http://www.christianshirts.net/

Do TeenageJesus-Worshipping ChristiansTM live in the sewers and have a giant mutated Rat for a pastor?

Why am I reminded of those stickers I used to see as a kid that were parodies of real products (like Garbage Pail Kids)? :glare:


Oh, and anyone who wants to see Bud's post can ask me, too. I don't mind.

[Darth Executor]

Why am I reminded of those stickers I used to see as a kid that were parodies of real products (like Garbage Pail Kids)? :glare:


Oh, and anyone who wants to see Bud's post can ask me, too. I don't mind.

Now I'm really curious. Can you send it to me?

[Cynic Sage]

Pat Robertson makes a "prophecy":

http://www.wftv.com/news/9235304/detail.html


The founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network has told viewers of "The 700 Club" that the revelations came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January.

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8.

He added specifics in Wednesday's show.

"There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest," he said.

I'd have to agree with Meh-Gerbil on this: "It is a pretty bold prophecy to predict a storm in the middle of global warming where we've had scientists saying major weather changes are expected.(NOT!)"

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I was in Wall Mart earlier today, and I saw on one of those women's magazines they have at the checkout(does anbbody actually read those anyway?) I saw "The DaVinci Diet: secret inside the popular best seller to losing weight..." and so on.

I didnt actually bother to read it(I never do) and honestly I cant even remember what magizine it was, but I'll try to find it later on today.

[Cynic Sage]

I was in Wall Mart earlier today, and I saw on one of those women's magazines they have at the checkout(does anbbody actually read those anyway?) I saw "The DaVinci Diet: secret inside the popular best seller to losing weight..." and so on.

I didnt actually bother to read it(I never do) and honestly I cant even remember what magizine it was, but I'll try to find it later on today.

You think that's bad. Try reading any of Joyce Meyer's work. She has some kinda "Spiritual-Diet" book out:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446532037/sr=8-6/qid=1147983703/ref=sr_1_6/103-9278829-0364610?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Discover a Life of Eating Well and Feeling Great! Many people think too often about eating, and whether it's five pounds, fifty, or more, they worry about losing weight. God never meant for food to be a primary focus. He intends for His children to enjoy all of life free from worry and fear, including constant concern over losing or maintaining weight. In this book, best-selling author Joyce Meyer shows you how to stop thinking about food and get on with the rest of your life- free from bondage and filled with joy. With the sensitivity of one who struggled for years with eating and weight problems, Joyce Meyer blends her personal experiences with biblical revelations of how to enjoy food but keep it in its proper place. She confronts and exposes misconceptions and offers fresh, practical advice to guide you step-by-step toward living with true freedom in Christ. Discover and rise above the underlying reasons for overeating, and learn why true weight loss starts with feeding your soul. Focus on becoming all you were meant to be...someone uniquely and lovingly created by God and called for His purposes. Make the decision that today is the day you will begin eating better and living free!

What exactly makes it a "Spiritual" or "Biblical" diet as opposed to a regular one? Do we eat kosher, maybe fast for forty days and forty nights and that's how we lose the weight?

The sad thing is that I have friends who are into Joyce. One of them is always saying how she's worried about "God's will for my life".:sad:

EDIT: Hey JP, If anyone asks you about Joyce Meyer and what she teaches, I reccomend you point them to this:

http://www.pfo.org/preacher.htm (http://www.pfo.org/preacher.htm)

[JB]

I'm also fairly curious what Skepticbud posted. Would you be willing to send it to me, JP?

[Rayado]

Wyzaard, for this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1494924&postcount=117) appalling little gem:

Abortion's the last responsible choice left when others have been exhausted.

:doh:

I'm thinking Silver at least.

[{Tim}]

I was in Wall Mart earlier today, and I saw on one of those women's magazines they have at the checkout(does anbbody actually read those anyway?) I saw "The DaVinci Diet: secret inside the popular best seller to losing weight..." and so on.

I didnt actually bother to read it(I never do) and honestly I cant even remember what magizine it was, but I'll try to find it later on today.
I've found some screwy things on the covers of those before. And I don't know why anyone would read them, but apparently they do...

[jpholding]

Website award....

http://www.inquiryabraham.com

Not the screwiest I've seen but bad enough as a non-expert pretending to be an expert.

Links lead to a related site http://holywarbook.com/ which says:

“... and I do consider this the most important book in at least a hundred years.”

A Book About Three Hebraic Religions in Conflict

A Book About A Christian Religion In Conflict With Itself

A Book Calling For A New Understanding By All Three

Holy War The Blood Of Abraham Echoes

From

Nag hammadi Saying

To All Three Religions

I am not the God you think you know



Jesus says "NO" to the Apocalypse



Gospel of Thomas (Known as 5th Gospel of Thomas)

Possibly written by Didymos Judas Thomas (Twin Brother?)

Ordered destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church in 4th century

Discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945

Recognized today by many scholars as pre dating New Testament Gospels

[jpholding]

Oh yeah,

and one for Jimbo's Holding hate site, anointed-one.com, for having no updates posted in one year! :hehe: Maybe that psychologist was able to help with his JPHOCD after all!

[jpholding]

Very appropos email came in just as I go out the door to see the film...


Read part of your propaganda re: fictional DaVinci Code.

Was the use of Uncle Tom's Cabin an intentional comedic device?

The social upheaval that fiction generated was both necessary and reasonable. Reason and compassion will eventually supplant our various human superstitions (religions) provided we don't suicide in Holy Wars. This will be both necessary and reasonable, and happen eventually despite obvious factual flaws in DaVinci and the absurd arguments you posit with such deceptive authority.

It pains me to listen to Jesus Fans argue trivia rather than live the compassion he taught. But I guess that is what distinguishes a fan from a player.

Enjoy the movie!

[Sparko]

Hey I got the package JPH! Book and original art as promised. Thanks.


VOTE 4 JPH!!!

--
Now to sell the artwork on ebay for big bucks to your obsessed anti-fans who will likely use it in some voodoo ceremony. :hehe:

[Cynic Sage]

Andrew Merrit:

http://thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1493&page=6

Jr HOLDING USES DOCTRINE INSTEAD OF UNBIASE THINKING IN HIS DOGMATIC RELIGION.People often confuse dogmatic doctrines with official facts of how things are.If I want to ,I could show the same christian data from a differant christian perspective.Of course most christians who disagree with another christian viewpiont,tend to view them as worshipping the false christ as they believe that the holy spirit who teaches all truth showed them the truth,otherwise they wouldnt be believing it.Anyways I wanted to make a statement about how silly Shielas statement was when he said that the early christians used old testament verses and took them at random and cliamed them prophecy.He stated he could do the same thing describing the kennedy assisination using Abe Licons letter.I fail to understand how that proves anything?As I could probably use statements out of this websight to describe my life as a child being raised on a farm.How is that proof of anything?Besides that wasnt the aspect I was refering to anyways.I was refering to how many of the stories in the bible are the same myth retold severual times.Moses,Joseph,Jesus,all seem to have similiar things happen to them,even there journy to egypt.Wich in some cases were pointless cause it wasnt nessesary and comes suddenly in the story.Probably cause the story was following a already made blueprint wich is why,suddenly for no apparent reason,they travel to egypt.I do hope people understand what Im trying to say here cause I have a time limit on the computer and Im typing as fast as I can.Shiela JR holding rEMINDS ME OF A PREACHER GUY i USED TO BE A FOLLOWER OF,i THOUGHT AT THE TIME HE WAS A PROPHET OF GOD OF SORTS.hE WAS LIKE A OLDER BROTHER TO ME.Yet now that I think of it he was abusive ,and threatening in a mocking way,just like Shiela here.It made me wonder that if we are to be imataters of Jesus,we must become like him.If JR SHIELA HOLDING is a imatater of Jesus.Then Jesus must be an *******/,

So an evil king trying to kill your child qualifes as "no apparent reason" for leaving the country.

Hmmm, I guess many famous comedian don't exist because "simmilar things happen to them" like a journey to Montreal's Just for Laughs festival. :lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

Another gem from Andrew:

http://thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1493&page=6

Punkish,not everything she says is wrong.By the way have you ever heard of the connection of Gocrates and apostal Paul.

"Gocrates"?

FUUUUU...

SIONNN...

HA!

[attachment]

Similiar to the 30 pieces of silver.You gotta remember at the time,these stories would of been famouse and populuar amongts intellecuals,so there were probably a lot of borrowing.The human mind tends to remember catch phrases that were populuar,like 30 pieces of silver although used differantly,just as in the old testament pieces of silver wasnt meant as a prophecy and had a entirely differant context within a enterly differant story.

Gocrates Speaks:

"Nowadays all them punk kids'r saying are 'Forty pieces of silver', as in 'Dude, that Urn is so 40 pieces of silver. Back in my day we would've said 'That there Urn is five bags o' copper if i e'er saw one.'"


Christians borrowed from socrates about Paul.Socrates often saw a blinding light and heard vioces.He had certian statements that sound lsimiliar too Paul.Ever read Socrates?Do you understand the evolution of ideas and meme viruses throughout villages and cities that have no phone or modern means of communities.By the way,conserning that 30 pieces of silver being wieghed and used during the time of Jesus,I havent been able to find any archeology news on it.You have to be very carefull when it comes to religouse news,exspecially amongts jews and christians,there cliams are rife with fraud and doubouse statements.

He expects there to be archeological evidence for "30 pieces of silver being weighed"? :twitch:

[jpholding]

Andrew is dumber than Johnny Skeptic and more in love with himself. Can you believe I said that?

Screwy email just in:


I read some of Ingersoll's work and found that I had independently come to many of the same conclusions as he. You can argue individual points all you want, but his primary message is clear and unassailable. Faith presents no external evidence. The Bible contains profound acts of cruelty [by god] and superstition -- read it for yourself and you'll see. It's a wonder that people today still give any credence to it at all, and it's sad that common sense and reason are lost on people who believe its stories. I guess that's all part of the human condition.



Now to sell the artwork on ebay for big bucks to your obsessed anti-fans who will likely use it in some voodoo ceremony

I get half. :hehe:

Just remember, these toons indicate I'm a cross dresser who wears a rat suit.

[jpholding]

I guess the movie is bringing out the screwball in everyone. I ask this guy to answer some of my arguments or stop blowing smoke, and this is what I get:


You know this is one thing that ammuses me, I am not devoutly christian, but I have respect for everyones opnion and dont try to not to humiliate people. but your so insulted by anybody daring to doubt the Bible, that you resort to saying " you are blowing smoke" Oh dear, your crediblitiy just dipped 10 points

The Spanish Inquistion, nowhere do you mention, they burnt people at the stake ALIVE Mmm nice very Christian, Im shure Christ would have approved of this --- Not.!!!

And as i said my remarks on the Bible were to throw the critisism of the Da Vinci Code back at you, YOU HAVE NO PROOF WHAT GOD HAS SAID or IS SAYING, and as much praying fails as it does suceed.
It is no good spouting intellectual comments at people hoping to baffle people, In a Court of Law you have to have proof, so ok the Da Vinci Code's proof is dubious, but then so is the existence of God there is no proof.
Having said all of this I belive that Jesus Christ lived, Its to much of a coincedence that his sermons like the one on the Mount, form the foundation of everything decent in our society today
I think what your afraid of is the Possiblity ( and I say this very respectfully) that the whole act of going to Church every sunday and praying to God could be a total waste of time.
In this day and age where Proof!!! is asked by our President G W Bush for global warming, you cant just call me a Heathen and say Im blowing smoke, give me proof,, you cant I hear you say well, leave of the critisism of the Da Vinci Code.
Lastly you don't know that Jesus didnt get married and had a child, you really dont know do you !!!! MMMmm buttt wellll Mmmmmm , you really dont know do you!!!!. I admire Christ for whatever he did in his lifetime and marrying and having children does not affect my opinion at all, I am if you like a Christian, as per God the Jury is out in my opinion, I am prepared to listen to new proof either way.

Smoke end LOL


:lolo:

[Darth Executor]

So JP has Sparko's address? Does he really live in a trailer park?

[jpholding]

So JP has Sparko's address? Does he really live in a trailer park?

No, that's Farrell Till. I live in a limestone cave. It's Florida. :hehe:

Not that I gave Sparko clues. I used the PO Box as the return address. :rasberry:

[Darth Executor]

No, that's Farrell Till. I live in a limestone cave. It's Florida. :hehe:

Not that I gave Sparko clues. I used the PO Box as the return address. :rasberry:

I meant does Sparko live in a trailer park. :tongue:

[jpholding]

I meant does Sparko live in a trailer park. :tongue:

Oh. Let me see...

Is there a trailer park named, "Happy Oaks Asylum"? :huh:

[Sparko]

I get half. :hehe:

Just remember, these toons indicate I'm a cross dresser who wears a rat suit.

There seems to be some light blue words written on the background that are too faint to make out. If I market it right they will think it is a secret message that will defeat you and Christianity once and for all. The Holding Code!

[Sparko]

So JP has Sparko's address? Does he really live in a trailer park?

I live on a boat. I am a pirate, remember?

[Biblischism]

This gem (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1480478&postcount=1) from Biblischism took me several reads just to figure out what he was saying. It wasn't worth it, believe me....:no:

I'm shocked that it confounded you, especially after I read this gem:

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.

To which I responded:

"Let's test this then, shall we?

* Eve ate of the forbidden fruit in the Garden.

* Her act of disobedience had a corruptive effect on our souls and the physical world (indeed, the entire fabric of the universe).

* I am a sinful creature because of that defining moment in the Garden.

Funny how a reprobate skeptic like myself can demonstrate that The Fall continues to affect humankind but you--a Bible believer no less--cannot.

'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.' [emphasis mine]

What kind of inerrantist are you, anyway?"

[Teallaura]

I'm shocked that it confounded you, especially after I read this gem:



To which I responded:

"Let's test this then, shall we?

* Eve ate of the forbidden fruit in the Garden.

* Her act of disobedience had a corruptive effect on our souls and the physical world (indeed, the entire fabric of the universe).

* I am a sinful creature because of that defining moment in the Garden.

Funny how a reprobate skeptic like myself can demonstrate that The Fall continues to affect humankind but you--a Bible believer no less--cannot.

'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.' [emphasis mine]

What kind of inerrantist are you, anyway?"

The kind that uses common sense and can read comprehensively. Read the quote - the word "necessarily" is an important qualifier. Nothing of what I said addresses the Fall period since it wasn't at issue. Your argument makes all its assumptions pre-Fall.

You're attempting to argue about conditions now from the conditions existing prior to the Fall - it's an inherently illogical argument. The Fall changes everything - to argue that it had no such effect and that a condition pre-Fall (which is an unsupported assertion anyway) must necessarily continue post-Fall is simply illogical.

To make such a case you have to show that a given condition existed pre-Fall (in this case you can't) and was not significantly changed by the Fall into post-Fall. It's not impossible in every case - argumentation of ideals can and do use the pre-Fall conditions - but it is very difficult. It's impossible outside the narrow scope - and that's what you've done here, taken the argumentation well out of its narrow scope. Once outside, the argumentation falls to pieces - as yours did.

[Cynic Sage]

Somebody actually made an "Are you a TrueChristianTM" quiz, and I think it deserves a nomination:

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=2906207438070136388

Right now we're discussing it in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77294&page=1&pp=16

[Teallaura]

Somebody actually made an "Are you a TrueChristianTM" quiz, and I think it deserves a nomination:

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=2906207438070136388

Right now we're discussing it in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77294&page=1&pp=16


Hey! :brood: You're just mad 'cause you weren't 98% like me! :smug:


I'm hoping to be 85% pregnant someday! :wink:

[spl_cadet]

* Her act of disobedience had a corruptive effect on our souls and the physical world (indeed, the entire fabric of the universe).

Adam's act of disobedience actually, Eve was deceived.

[Cynic Sage]

Adam's act of disobedience actually, Eve was deceived.
Who said that.

And linky linky.

[Darth Executor]

Who said that.

And linky linky.

babyschism. Follow the conversation in this thread. :ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

babyschism. Follow the conversation in this thread. :ahem:
Aw snap. My head was somewhere else.

[Sparko]

Elijah the prophet who came into paltalk and spammed his wacko site.

Finally, to all you pastors, very soon, you will all have to deal with me. The bible says not to give private interpretations of what you think the word means. You must prove all things. This is why there are so many false doctrines and heresies in the church because you tell the people what you think it means, giving your own opinions and private interpretations. God's word is not to be privately interpreted. It means what it says. It is to be proven and revealed in the words of the Holy Spirit comparing bible with bible. I will be whooping all you lying pastors that corrupt the word. All the false teachers and false prophets will receive their just reward. When the next covenant begins when the church goes into the wilderness for 3 1/2 years, if any person teaches contrary to the word, they will be killed according to the statutes and judgments and I will take care of that by the authority of God. Every person will have to teach God's word by revelation in the words of the Holy Spirit comparing bible with bible.

yeah all the bolding and underlining is his...

http://www.tiptopwebsite.com/elijahthegreatest

[Cynic Sage]

A nomination for Bruce Barry and the First Baptist Church of Springdale, Arkansas:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/007/20.25.html (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/007/20.25.html)

Now when kids enter the rooms, a music video is playing on a giant screen in front, and they can try their hand at a row of nonviolent video game screens along walls.

Once the service starts, it's 90 minutes of mostly frenetic activity, akin to a live television variety show from the 1950s. In Toon Town, buzzers and bells sound, lights flash from the ceiling and from car headlights on the set, bubbles come out the top of a giant bucket and fill the room, confetti streamers squirt out onto the first few rows, and mist is sprayed onto the crowd.


...


Next comes Christian music to a disco beat—"Pump It Up for Jesus" and "Jesus Is the Rock and He Rolls My Blues Away"—with MTV-style video images. That's followed by a modified game of volleyball and a humorous skit with child-size puppets. The pace winds down as Hudson teaches a lesson on respecting siblings. An interactive session with a memory verse follows, then a Hanna-Barbera video clip on Joseph and his brothers. Hudson ends with an evangelistic message.



:twitch:

[Bill the Cat]

What's wrong with this method? Is the Gospel being preached? Are they getting a message or a lesson from the Bible? Is it scripturally accurate? If the Word is being preached and it is scripturally accurate (not the half baked "love-'em into the kingdom" nonsense) then what's the problem?

I gotta disagree with you here Johnny. Sorry, but I don't see a problem with this method if the Word is being preached properly. This extra stuff is just fluff filling.

[Cynic Sage]

What's wrong with this method? Is the Gospel being preached? Are they getting a message or a lesson from the Bible? Is it scripturally accurate? If the Word is being preached and it is scripturally accurate (not the half baked "love-'em into the kingdom" nonsense) then what's the problem?

I gotta disagree with you here Johnny. Sorry, but I don't see a problem with this method if the Word is being preached properly. This extra stuff is just fluff filling.

I'm sorry, it's just that I can't read that w/out twitching/laughing. :lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.savelivesinmay.com/

"I have received information psychically, which is corroborated by scientific data, according to which on May 25, 2006 a giant tsunami will occur in the Atlantic Ocean, brought about by the impact of a comet fragment which will provoke the eruption of under-sea volcanoes. Waves up to 200 m high will reach coastlines located above and below the Tropic of Cancer. However, all of the countries bordering the Atlantic will be affected to greater or lesser destructive and deadly levels. This site is dedicated to life, to civic responsibility and to information. There is still time to save lives. Thanks for participating in the world-wide alert!" -- Eric Julien

We'll just wait a couple of days to see about that. :hehe:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

I nominate Myself in My own time honored tradition, I WANT THE SCREWBALL OF THE MONTH AWARD BY GUM!!! AND I SHALL HAVE IT!!!!

[One Bad Pig]

Welcome back, Cu Mho.

[jpholding]

I nominate Myself in My own time honored tradition, I WANT THE SCREWBALL OF THE MONTH AWARD BY GUM!!! AND I SHALL HAVE IT!!!!

So, what'd you do to deserve it?

Tell you what. Vote for me as Alum of the Month and I'll give you one an honorary Gold.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

So, what'd you do to deserve it?

Tell you what. Vote for me as Alum of the Month and I'll give you one an honorary Gold.
What did I do to deserve it???? I nominated myself for screwball of the Month for crying out loud!!!!

Sure I'll vote ya in...

[jpholding]

What did I do to deserve it???? I nominated myself for screwball of the Month for crying out loud!!!!

Sure I'll vote ya in...

OK. That's crazy enough for an honorable gold.

[One Bad Pig]

jeanpaulchosen1 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1498745&postcount=926), in MichaelCadry's thread (take a deep breath before reading):

the mark of the beast already exists in the army in canada (halifax) the prophecy of t6he twin towers has taken place and sadam husan is one of the antichrists i,ve been studying and found that the arrow dollar is the start of the one world order and that canada dollar is rising at a huge rate next we will sign the constact to the arrow dollar just as well as some other countreis did belive it or not it is close to the end all the plagues and title waves deseases and drugs going around is lining up with the bible (in the end times good will be bad and bad will be good )gay marrages,weed being legalized this is all starting to line up wih the word of god we need to get ready, but if we are not (he will come like a theft in the night ) then we will have to hide to aviod the mark of the beast for it is written (those who die in my name and do not take the mark will be spared) better no hOw to hunt!!!!!!

[Cynic Sage]

jeanpaulchosen1 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1498745&postcount=926), in MichaelCadry's thread (take a deep breath before reading):

the mark of the beast already exists in the army in canada (halifax) the prophecy of t6he twin towers has taken place and sadam husan is one of the antichrists i,ve been studying and found that the arrow dollar is the start of the one world order and that canada dollar is rising at a huge rate next we will sign the constact to the arrow dollar just as well as some other countreis did belive it or not it is close to the end all the plagues and title waves deseases and drugs going around is lining up with the bible (in the end times good will be bad and bad will be good )gay marrages,weed being legalized this is all starting to line up wih the word of god we need to get ready, but if we are not (he will come like a theft in the night ) then we will have to hide to aviod the mark of the beast for it is written (those who die in my name and do not take the mark will be spared) better no hOw to hunt!!!!!!

Steven Harper is the Antichrist? :rofl:

[jpholding]

Lost lives up to his/her name again:


Whether you believe that Jesus rose from the dead is very subjective.

[TuckEverlasting]

Steven Harper is the Antichrist? :rofl:
Holy cow, Johnny! :stunned:

the mark of the beast already exists in the army in canada (halifax)

Well, I'm in the army in Canada in Halifax. Maybe I'll just... stay home... for the next few weeks. Or years. :shifty:

[Sparko]

Holy cow, Johnny! :stunned:



Well, I'm in the army in Canada in Halifax. Maybe I'll just... stay home... for the next few weeks. Or years. :shifty:
\

Woah!!! Tuck is the Antichrist!!!

He is in the Canadian Army and His Avatar is a roasting pig!

How to recognize the Antichrist from http://www.whattimeitis.org/AC/ac1.htm

25. He commits the abomination of desolation [to sacrifice a pig on the alter in Jerusalem (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; Matt. 24:15)]



AAAAAIIIEEEE The AnTuckChrist!

Run!!!!!

[TuckEverlasting]

:darklaugh:

[Sparko]

Snarf outdoes outdumbs himself again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1499800&postcount=1

Definition of manslaughter:
The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.

Since an embryo is considered to be a human being by pro-lifers then the unintentional death of that human being caused by another represents manslaughter.

Miscarriage=spontaneous abortion

[Bill the Cat]

Snarf outdoes outdumbs himself again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1499800&postcount=1

Definition of manslaughter:
The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.

Since an embryo is considered to be a human being by pro-lifers then the unintentional death of that human being caused by another represents manslaughter.

Miscarriage=spontaneous abortion
Beat me to it :jr: :pirate:

[Sparko]

arrr!

:sparko:

[Cynic Sage]

Holy cow, Johnny! :stunned:



Well, I'm in the army in Canada in Halifax. Maybe I'll just... stay home... for the next few weeks. Or years. :shifty:

"And lo and behold, out of the Sea came a Beast covered in brown fur, behind it was a flat paddle, and in it's mouth it had two buck teeth for which it used to gnaw one-third of the earth's wood."

[Cynic Sage]

A clever piece of Satire (I hope) on today's Consumer-Driven Christianity (not sure if it's a screwball, but deserves a mention):

http://www.devoted1.com/

[Cynic Sage]

I wonder if they offer different flavors of Communion wine too:

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/todaystory.asp?id=5700

[Cynic Sage]

A guy has a conversation with a xtian screwball that he then records in his blog (blog isn't the screwball):

http://theparish.typepad.com/parish/2005/09/welcome_to_the_.html

Speaking of Arab Americans: "We should do what we did to Japanese people during WWII, you know, put 'em in those camps. Wouldn't be any sleeper cells that way." Nor would there be civil rights in America for non-white folk, but I think Mohawk guy is okay with that. Because......

"They can just sneak across the border into Texas. That's what them Muslims are doing. People in south Texas are always finding Muslim prayer rugs on their property." I did not make that up.

So remember to always clean up after your Muslim. :lol:

[One Bad Pig]

I wonder if they offer different flavors of Communion wine too:

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/todaystory.asp?id=5700
Isn't it rather typical of large churches?

[Darth Executor]

Drop the wine. Use Dr. Pepper instead.

[jpholding]

http://www.carriedcross.org/pdf/tracts/5020.pdf

Special Screwball Award for Sound Doctrine Church for this one. This was the stupidest thing they've said so far. In particular, Bibles with maps and commentaries are a sin.

[Sparko]

http://www.carriedcross.org/pdf/tracts/5020.pdf

Special Screwball Award for Sound Doctrine Church for this one. This was the stupidest thing they've said so far. In particular, Bibles with maps and commentaries are a sin.

I especially liked the part about 'few or no footnotes'

:hehe:

[jpholding]

I'm going to go one step further than SDC. I think it's an abomination to print Bibles AT ALL.

You see, Bibles are printed on paper. And paper is made from trees. And do you know what crawls all around inside and on trees? Bugs. Wild animals. Yuk!

And these bugs and wild animals EAT. And after they eat, well, you KNOW what they do! And they sometimes do it in and on the trees that are used to make paper to print Bibles.

Even worse, some Bibles are printed on paper that is recycled. Why, who knows what the last person who used that paper did with it! They could have used it to write an adulterous love note. They could have used it to send someone an eviction notice. They may have (shudder) even used it in the bathroom!

If you own a Bible in print, you are guilty of one of the greatest blasphemies even conceived. I insist that everyone at SDC throw away their Bibles, because they dishonor God. From now on, you can only get God's Word by hearing it spoken. Preferably by the pastor at SDC.

Wait a minute...have you ever said anything evil with that mouth? :hehe:

[Darth Executor]

I'm going to go one step further than SDC. I think it's an abomination to print Bibles AT ALL.

You see, Bibles are printed on paper. And paper is made from trees. And do you know what crawls all around inside and on trees? Bugs. Wild animals. Yuk!

And these bugs and wild animals EAT. And after they eat, well, you KNOW what they do! And they sometimes do it in and on the trees that are used to make paper to print Bibles.

Even worse, some Bibles are printed on paper that is recycled. Why, who knows what the last person who used that paper did with it! They could have used it to write an adulterous love note. They could have used it to send someone an eviction notice. They may have (shudder) even used it in the bathroom!

If you own a Bible in print, you are guilty of one of the greatest blasphemies even conceived. I insist that everyone at SDC throw away their Bibles, because they dishonor God. From now on, you can only get God's Word by hearing it spoken. Preferably by the pastor at SDC.

Wait a minute...have you ever said anything evil with that mouth? :hehe:

No computers? I get my electricity from a thermal reactor attached to a furnace in which I burn infidels.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I nominate brinf for these comments on Deuteronomy 22: 28-29.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77612&page=4&pp=15


How ridiculous. One thing that's been continually overlooked in all this is that even if one agrees for the sake of argument that this is a fair "lesson" to men (or a deterrent or a punishment or however you want to look at it) it still completely disregards the woman's interest in the matter. She gets stuck for life, too, with a man that either (depending on which apologist you're talking to) raped her or tricked her/smooth talked her into sex. If the latter, one might argue that the woman is just as guilty as the man and so the punishment is just - yet I haven't heard any Christians on this forum describe the woman's role in that way. The man is either a rapist or a low-down seducer/trickster. Well, in either of those cases, how is it just for the victim to have to spend the rest of her days with a man that she probably fears and despises?

Well aside from the fact that it's nothing besides argument from outrage. It also ignores that fact that in ANE cultures, the only other option for the woman would be to become a prostitute.

[jpholding]

And in an honor-shame society, the woman would have the greater concern for regaining her honor -- which making the guy essentially a slave to her and her family would serve to do. She'd want to see him work his tail off for the rest of his life.

[Teallaura]

And in an honor-shame society, the woman would have the greater concern for regaining her honor -- which making the guy essentially a slave to her and her family would serve to do. She'd want to see him work his tail off for the rest of his life.

Not just honor-shame societies...

...I could definitely get behind hard, lifelong labor as punishment for rape....


But I'm not very nice....:grin:

[jpholding]

Not just honor-shame societies...

...I could definitely get behind hard, lifelong labor as punishment for rape....

But I'm not very nice....:grin:

Nor are the people of Hearthstone by that standard. :hehe:

Website award:

http://www.jesusthemuslim.com/

[Cynic Sage]

Nick Hallandale (referring to JP's series of articles (http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/emptytomb.html) on the book "Jesus Beyond the Grave"):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1502516&postcount=31

Dear JP,
I visited the url in your quotation. It's all about books. I haven't read a single one mentioned in your url. But I have read the Bible a few times. You do a great job of trashing the arguments of those book writers with their theorys against the resurrection. I really liked the one about how Jesus was really a twin separated at birth and reunited after the crucifixtion. I think I saw a murder mystery on TV that had the same plot. Who are these guys who write these books? Are they Christians who write them so guys like you can trash them and then say ""Nobody can prove the resurrection didn't happen...so it must be true""?
Which is your website where you provide evidence that the resurrection really happened rather than the entertaining razzle-dazzle of knocking down straw men?

Let's see, the authors who contributed to Jesus Beyond the Grave consist of:

Richard Carrier
Peter Kirby
Robert Price

and some others who've contributed to Robert Price's "Journal of Higher Criticism" and "The Secular Web". Gee, they must all be Christians.:ahem:

[jpholding]

Nick is about five times stupider than he sounds, I'm thinking.

[jpholding]

More honors for Brian Flemming. I just posted this on Tekton too. His FAQ says:

Does Hebrews 8:4 really say, "If he [Jesus] had been on earth, he would not have been a priest at all?"

Yes. Christian tradition has altered translations of this passage to be more consistent with Christian doctrine. But the most plausible interpretation from the original Greek is this translation. Beyond Belief Media stands by its decision to use the most plausible translation, not the translation favored by Christian tradition.

Hmm, that's funny, because one of Flemming's own interviewees, Richard Carrier, said this in reply to Earl Doherty:

Doherty intuitively mentions the correct reading, but is evidently unaware of the more esoteric details of Greek grammar that confirm this intuition: an ei...an phrase using the imperfect tense is always a present contrafactual (a past contrafactual would call for the aorist). In other words: "So, then, if he were on earth, he would not be a priest..." is the only correct translation. This is not an obscure point in Greek grammar. It is so fundamental to habits of oral discourse that this is simply the only way to read this passage. This takes away some of the force of [Doherty's] interpretation, but does not contradict it.

It seems now that Richard Carrier, according to Flemming, is a part of the Christian tradition that has altered translations of the passage, and is simply wrong about "has been" being "the most plausible interpretation" of the word used.

Flemming had better not "stand by" that decision too long. He might end up with another case of "Beddru burn."

[Cynic Sage]

Nick Hallandale again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1502327&postcount=22


Concerning the Flemming DVD, it really is too big a topic. It would be too time consuming to debate every point made in the movie. Besides, I'm not an Atheist. I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. I believe in the Bible. I'm just skeptical about some of the details. I even go to church on Sundays. I love the music, and the singing. I love to go to the Bible Study and ask questions.


And then compare it with this taken from a chache of a universist web-site:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:H_lX549_YskJ:universist.org/meeting/lofiversion/index.php/t544.html+%22This+is+my+first+post+on+this+site.+I+was+a+Christian+for+over+50+years.+I+did+a+lot+of+Bible+reading.+As+I+spent+more+time+reading+I+found+errors+and+contradictions.+At+first+I+thought+t he+problem+was+my+lack+of+understanding.+Eventually+I+realized+that+the+only+way+one+can+harmonize+the+Bible+is+to+accept+that+it+is+fiction.%22&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a


Jan 12 2004, 09:01 PM
This is my first post on this site. I was a Christian for over 50 years. I did a lot of Bible reading. As I spent more time reading I found errors and contradictions. At first I thought the problem was my lack of understanding. Eventually I realized that the only way one can harmonize the Bible is to accept that it is fiction.
nick hallandale

[{Tim}]

Snarf: "Law == absolute morality (if I agree with it)"
Of course, none of your collective pro-life opinions matter because of one great fact:

ABORTION IS LEGAL-GET OVER IT

BELLYACHING ABOUT AFFECTS NOTHING.

HAHAHA!!!!!!!
:lolo:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1496380&postcount=43

[{Tim}]

LindaK thinks Geochron is anti-abortion... (she should have read the OP - and here he's actually answering someone's question as to, if abortion was murder, who would be quilty of what)

The abortionist would be guilty of murder too.
I remain thankful and am further reminded of the existence of God because he allows for you (and those of like mind) to remain in the minority with regard to those who write and vote on the legislation of this issue.
:ahem:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1497948&postcount=73

However, she did apologise when he pointed out that he was actually pro-choice. I still find her comment a little funny, though. "God is in favour of abortion, because he let it get voted into law" sort of thing. :doh:

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

A little later, she says: If I freely choose to travel to South America and contract malaria, I think I have a right to treat my body even though the changes it is undergoing were a result of what I freely chose to do with my body.

I am not comparing a fetus to an infection, but a body isn't a body until it's been born (we can argue about the stage of viability, but born is where I currently draw the line).

As theonomy responded: "Oh, so we're just stating our position on the disputed facts as the obvious truth? Fine: killing a fetus is like murder. QED"

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1498482&postcount=86

[Cynic Sage]

Minnesota (few typed words, but you have to see the images to get the point):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77434

[attachment=1]
source (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/)

[attachment=2]
source (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html)


[attachment=3]


Apparently the Church is behind a major conspiracy to make sure Minn' favorite movie get's bad reviews and he stumbled onto it. Better send out an assasin-monk to "take care" of him:

[attachment=4]
click thumbnail

[Cynic Sage]

Stuart H, commenting on a blog entry by Scott Adams:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/05/could_science_e.html#comment-17777932

If you look, you will see that programs to change peoples religious beliefs have been in effect for a long time. And they are working. Our way of life is desirable--thats what tore down the Berlin wall. Our way of life is desirable--thats why 11 million Mexicans are here illegally. I talked to a soldier who is on leave from Irag. He tells me there is no running water in Irag and no bathrooms. People **** ouside anywhere. Iraq stinks. There is no toilet paper in Irag, They WIPE THEIR BUTT WITH THEIR BARE HAND!! Irag citizens have only recently been allowed to own cars. When they learn about our way of life--They Will Change Their Religiou Beliefs.

So apparently lacking indoor plumbing and not using toilet paper are the other two cornerstones of the Muslim faith.:ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

A nomination for the "biblical epic" titled "Noah's Ark" (directed by John Irvin and written by Peter Barnes), in which Noah lives near the city of Sodom and is a friend of Lot who later becomes a Pirate after Sodom is destroyed.

Here's a review of the film (not a screwball):

http://www.needcoffee.com/html/dvd/nark.html

[Darth Executor]

:rofl: I wanna see that.

[DesertBerean]

A nomination for the "biblical epic" titled "Noah's Ark" (directed by John Irvin and written by Peter Barnes), in which Noah lives near the city of Sodom and is a friend of Lot who later becomes a pirate after Sodom is destroyed.

Here's a review of the film (not a screwball):

http://www.needcoffee.com/html/dvd/nark.html
Uuuuugh, I knew it. I didn't watch this travesty, just glimpses, but younger friends did, and they told me not to bother and told me some of the wonderful highlights :duh:. Ugh again.

[Sparko]

Doubting John's Latest: Christians have too much they have to be right about, therefore they are wrong.

There just seems to be so much that a Christian needs to defend in order to justify his or her belief. And it goes on and on and on, over and over and over.

This is just my observation, but Christians have to be correct on a great many beliefs for them to be right about their faith, that's all.
...
There is much more they need to believe and need to justify. Several of these beliefs are necessary for their faith. They've got to be absolutely correct on each and every one of them. If any one item of their faith isn't correct, their faith fails.

...

The odds are that the Christian defender is not right about it all, that's all.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1503503&postcount=1

[jpholding]

Note to self: Lazy Agnostic wins a double gold screwy for 1) taking a thread in the Locker Room seriously; 2) taking my role-playing on the Beast forums as Sheila seriously.

(Yeah, I still keep him on ignore but darn those quote functions...)

[Lazy Agnostic]

Note to self: Lazy Agnostic wins a double gold screwy for 1) taking a thread in the Locker Room seriously; 2) taking my role-playing on the Beast forums as Sheila seriously.1)I didn't take the Locker Room thread seriously but I did take seriously your threat to send someone to my door if I didn't backoff listing your invectives.

2)You may spuriously attempt to pass it off as role-playing but, to that forum, it was you disguised as a woman who supposedly supported YOU. It's willful (and a little creepy) dishonesty. You can't expect readers to not wonder what other IDs you use to support YOU.

[Darth Executor]

Women are human. Giant rabbits are not women. Are you insane? This is a serious question.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Women are human. Giant rabbits are not women. Giant rabbits don't type.

Are you insane? This is a serious question.Are you JPHolding role-playing as someone who supports JPHolding?

[Darth Executor]

Giant rabbits don't type.

Point being?

Are you JPHolding role-playing as someone who supports JPHolding?

Yes. I am jpholding. Dee Dee is jpholding. Around here, we are all jpholding. :evil:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Point being?Point being JPHoliding didn't pose as a giant rabbit, he presented himself as a woman (Sheila) who supposedly supports JPHolding, establishing that he has no compunction about disguising himself to act as his own shill.

Yes. I am jpholding. Dee Dee is jpholding. Around here, we are all jpholding.I don't think it's likely that Dee Dee is Holding (whoever he really is).

But you...if you look back, there are some of your posts which are composed EXACTLY in his style---and there is no one who is more johnny-on-the-spot to jump to his defence (maybe Johnny EC). In fact, there was twice that you announced an upcoming period when you anticipated needing to take a break from the internet. Was it merely coincidence that Mr Holding would be busy during those same periods? Maybe but, given Mr Holding's admission of such dishonesty, it's not unreasonable to speculate.

[Darth Executor]

Point being JPHoliding didn't pose as a giant rabbit, he presented himself as a woman (Sheila)

Sheila is a giant rabbit.

I don't think it's likely that Dee Dee is Holding (whoever he really is).

But you...if you look back, there are some of your posts which are composed EXACTLY in his style---and there is no one who is more johnny-on-the-spot to jump to his defence (maybe Johnny EC). In fact, there was twice that you announced an upcoming period when you anticipated needing to take a break from the internet. Was it merely coincidence that Mr Holding would be busy during those same periods? Maybe but, given Mr Holding's admission of such dishonesty, it's not unreasonable to speculate.

I'd like to nominate this as well. :lmbo:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Sheila is a giant rabbit.No, Sheila is the disguise JPHolding used as an ID in another forum to tout JPHolding. I'd like to nominate this as well.While you're at it, nominate yourself for alumnus of the month.

[{Tim}]

No, Sheila is the disguise JPHolding used as an ID in another forum to tout JPHolding.Yep. And she's a giant rabbit. JPHolding pretended to be a giant rabbit. Surely you can use this as fodder for something? :hehe:

[jpholding]

WOW :lolo:

That about sums up the screwiness of LA here.

[dizzle]

JPHolding pretended to be a giant rabbit. Surely you can use this as fodder for something? :hehe:

:rofl: :rofl:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Yep. And she's a giant rabbit. JPHolding pretended to be a giant rabbit. Surely you can use this as fodder for something? No, JPHolding pretending to be a human (not identified as JPHolding) making posts which touted JPHolding. I suspect if Farrell Till had conducted a similar ruse, the spin here would be a little different.

[dizzle]

Till would be a giant weasel no doubt.

[Sparko]

I sure am glad that Lazy Agnostic is using his real name here in this forum and is not a 'sock puppet' for some human being in the real world with a different name.

:lolo:

[Cynic Sage]

Rationalist, on the Atonement as a "recruiting tool" for early xtianity:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77867&page=1 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77867&page=1)

Actually, Rat, that Christ died for our sins is not a recruiting tool. Unbelievers don't care one way or the other about sin.

Sure they do. All humans have feelings of guilt and conscience. Offering a way to wipe all those feelings away without having to really do much of anything is a fantastic recruiting tool.

This is one way that Christianity exploits a common human need, to erase guilt without any real effort. Similar to how gambling exploits the desire for money without having to do any hard work.

Maybe today, but you are forgetting that the chief moral motivator in the 1st century Roman Empire was "Honor/Shame" as opposed to "Pride/Guilt".

http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm

Thats an interesting claim. The problem is that I don't believe it, and you have no proof that it is true and not just self serving speculation.

So what else have you got other than wild speculation that humans of ancient times were entirely alien in their moral disposition vs. every known human society today?

Simply stating that something is true, and actually providing strong statistical or empirical evidence that it actually are two entirely different things. First prove that people in HS societies don't feel guilt, then come back to me. Simply "saying" that they don't when they do in all modern HS societies is just not good enough.

:ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Bagger Vance and EvoUK:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77879

You misunderstand. No one goes to hell for sin because if that was the case everyone would go to hell because everyone sins. You go to hell because you hurt god's feelings by ignoring him. You see anybody can go to heaven if they kiss up to god and his son. Everyone in heaven will have sinned just like you and I. However we'll burn because we didn't take the word of hebrews 2000 years ago while they did.

I'd argue that the way you behave has nothing to do with it. You're not a christian (what that means depends what christian you talk to- the definition is really quite ambiguous and unhelpful), ergo you'll go to hell. Heaven and hell has little if anything to with how you behave- only on if you believe in jesus etc. It's a punishment for not being christian, nothing else.

[{Tim}]

Till would be a giant weasel no doubt.
:lol:

[Lazy Agnostic]

I sure am glad that Lazy Agnostic is using his real name here in this forum and is not a 'sock puppet' for some human being in the real world with a different name.

I'm not posting with a different ID touting myself. JPHolding was using another name to tout JPHolding. If Farrell Till had done that, I bet your spin would be a little different.

[Cynic Sage]

I'm not posting with a different ID touting myself. JPHolding was using another name to tout JPHolding. If Farrell Till had done that, I bet your spin would be a little different.

If Farrell Till did a webcomic about a talking dog named "Scraps" and then posted on another forum pretending to be "Scraps the dog" I wouldn't really care.

I'd be a bit weirded out, but otherwise, I really wouldn't care.

[Sparko]

I'm not posting with a different ID touting myself. JPHolding was using another name to tout JPHolding. If Farrell Till had done that, I bet your spin would be a little different.

uh I went and checked out the board in question. In about 'her' 4th post on that site, Shiela posted a link to tektonics showing her 'authority to represent JP Holding' - the link led to a news page on his site where he publically stated he was going to post on the Beast site as Sheila.

He never tried to hide the fact that it was him posting as Sheila. Anyone familiar with JPH knows about his toons. If they don't then they don't know anything about him anyway and the point is moot.

Posting under a forum using an assumed name is called using an alias. Not being a sock puppet. Most of us on this site use aliases, including yourself.

A 'sock puppet' is a person who starts ANOTHER account to bolster and support his FIRST account on a board. If JPH had a JPH account on that board and a Sheila account and the Sheila account pretended to be someone else who was making posts agreeing with the JPH account, THAT would be a sock puppet. JPH never did that.

If Farrell Till wanted to come on this board and use an alias and did not want anyone to know he was Till, we would be fine with that and would not call that being a sock puppet. And we would mod anyone who tried to 'out him' - He could even discuss 'Farrell Till' in the third person to protect his identity if he wanted.

But again, JPH did not even do that on the other site, he never hid the fact that Sheila was JPH and even provided a link explaining it to anyone who bothered to read it.

[Teallaura]

At least he didn't review his own book, under his own name, on Amazon...:ahem:

[Darth Executor]

Nominating Love-Warrior, for thinking I really am jpholding. JP, if you missed the chaos, PM me and I'll give you the summary. :teeth:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I'm surprised nobody has claimed I'm J P holding.

I bet its only a matter of time now.

[dizzle]

Okay guys since we put the kibosh on this in the LR, let's not carry it on further here 'kay?

[{Tim}]

I thought I posted this information here but I can't seem to find it now. I don't plan on posting any more about this here. I just want to see if this post stays up. :lol:

JPH posts under the name "Sheila Rangslinger" and talks about himself in the third person on a different board where few of the people seem to know who "Sheila" actually is. This is discussed here, on this thread (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1552):

"Wait a second... Someone named J.P. Holding has been coming here using a pseudonym, and posting 30 messages a day in support of...J.P Holding? Is there even a question about whether we should let him get away with this?"

When the moderator asked "Sheila" if she was actually "Holding," "Holding" wouldn't say yes or no. "Sheila" quickly stopped posting and left the board.

Somehow it just doesn't seem very "Christian" to do something like this...

Check it out for yourself.

Brooks
Sheesh. Anid he posted this straight after Dee Dee made her post asking us to leave it alone? :doh:

[jpholding]

I'm compiling tidbits of Andrew Merritt's choicest idiocies. It'll be hard with whoppers like this coming up first:

Define informed christian,sounds like a oxymoron.They tend to be informed by the doctrine of whatever church they belong too

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Okay guys since we put the kibosh on this in the LR, let's not carry it on further here 'kay?

Awwww...but we were having so much fun.

[jpholding]

Email late last night... this is all it said:


so you are calling yourselves preterists now , huh? Yea , right ! All I see are a couple of failed futurists disguised as preterists , with the intention of and hopes of receiving money from unsuspecting real preterists . stop the deceptions , crooks

Darn, and I was gonna publish a 12 part fiction series and make some REAL dough....

[jpholding]

Ishmael's gettin' a gold one for this if he doesn't take it back...

Never have I seen a man in more desperate need of a year long study of J. Vernon McGee's comentaries.

[Cynic Sage]

Ishmael's gettin' a gold one for this if he doesn't take it back...
I thought he was being sarcastic.

[Cynic Sage]

Sebastian:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77836&page=2&pp=16

So the tomb is still empty? Why couldn't or didn't Jesus' enemies produce the bones after Crossan's Wild dogs had there way, or paraded a corpse through the streets?

Maybe because the gospels were written and circulated by anonymous authors at least a century after the alledged event?
And would people even recognize Jesus' body? There were no photos back then and the body would have been severely decomposed.

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.savelivesinmay.com/

"I have received information psychically, which is corroborated by scientific data, according to which on May 25, 2006 a giant tsunami will occur in the Atlantic Ocean, brought about by the impact of a comet fragment which will provoke the eruption of under-sea volcanoes. Waves up to 200 m high will reach coastlines located above and below the Tropic of Cancer. However, all of the countries bordering the Atlantic will be affected to greater or lesser destructive and deadly levels. This site is dedicated to life, to civic responsibility and to information. There is still time to save lives. Thanks for participating in the world-wide alert!" -- Eric Julien

We'll just wait a couple of days to see about that. :hehe:

It's may 31. The Prophecy is false, but that doesn't stop him, nosiree Bob:

UPDATE MAY 30, 2006: What do the stars have to say for the immediate future?


Many people undoubtedly think that the announced event has fizzled and may be readjusting their outlook on life and returning their lives to normal.

I have trouble doing that when I think of all the dreams and other signs which I have witnessed that point to this event. What would otherwise be the purpose of all these warnings?

Yesterday I was reminded to use astrology and in particular the Sabian Symbols to look ahead. One major event seems to stand out. See document below "A clue from the stars?" by Craig Boswell

UPDATE MAY 27, 2006: A clue to the timing of the anticipated event


Note: The May 27 update, which did not turn out to have the significance originally thought, has been appended verbatim to the document below "Why I think there is something to Eric Julien..." -- Craig Boswell

UPDATE MAY 26, 2006


Please note our addendum to document Apocalypse May 2006 Part IV relative to the upcoming resignation of the U.S. Treasury Secretary and its possible significance.

CNN's interview of NOAA's Ed Rappaport should be viewed all the way to its closing statement. CNN's piece on NYC and hurricanes is likewise telling, as is their video on underwater volcanoes.

[Cynic Sage]

post deleted

Alreasdy done material.

[Sparko]

that last one reminded me of Nancy Lieder and her Planet-X is going to destroy the earth conspiracy. No matter how many times she predicted the wrong date, she just kept on going. My favorite excuse was when she said she was lying on purpose to fool the US government who she said was spying on her. (http://www.zetatalk.com/index/psdate2.htm)

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

[Cynic Sage]

Biblischism again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77935



In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul makes a statement that should alarm any Christian man still sporting his hippie locks:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Why this sounds clear enough, doesn’t it? Paul clearly says that male long hair is self-evidently against nature. How exactly nature teaches that long hair is a disgrace is not entirely clear. But Paul was not a man given to specificity or reasonable explanations, as his silencing of all females within the church fairly well demonstrates.

It is also not entirely clear how Absalom’s flowing Pantene locks could have made him the most handsome man in Israel if male long hair were the universal shame that Paul insisted it was.

It is also not clear how Nazarites--people who were under the holiest of biblical vows--could have been a shame unto themselves if the very vow that was to make them holy included a prohibition against cutting one’s hair*. But Paul was not a man given to exegetical analysis, as his not considering Absalom and Nazaritism fairly well demonstrates.

* For the Nazaritically challenged, the Nazarite vow prohibited the touching of human cadavers, DRINKING WINE, and cutting one’s hair.

Did he ever stop to think what long hair on a man meant in Greco-Roman culture?:ahem: He truly is a disciple of Till.

[jpholding]

Not only that, the word used meant literally tresses of hair. Beehive level stuff.




Will mods please close this thread as it is now June 1. I will open the June thread in a moment.