Submit Your Candidates for June 2006 Screwballs of the Month

[jpholding]

Open for business...

I'll have the May feature up on tektoonics.com the same day I load Shrike Team #3, which looks to be about June 10 at the present pace.

[Cynic Sage]

I honestly hope this website is a parody:

http://www.datetosave.com/


WELCOME TO DATE TO SAVE!!!

Hello, my name is Tamara! As you can probably tell, I'm a Christian woman who loves Jesus Christ and cares for all humans, even the wicked. What you probably don't know is that I'm hot. My picture below isn't really that good. I want to use my beauty for GOD, and want to encourage Christian women (my sisters in Christ) to do the same, according to the Great Commission.


Calling all Hot Women of the LORD!!!

So, I created this web page for information regarding the calling of Missionary Dating. First of all, it helps that you're good looking. Romans 12:1 says "to offer your bodies as living sacrifices." Since our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), it makes sense that we should use our beautiful bodies to glorify HIS name, the Holy Spirit will work the strongest since He's in our body, right? That's the best position to be in!

Not only can we date hot guys (as only hot Christian girls could do), but hopefully we can lead them to God and help them get saved them from the burning fires of Hell. I've outlined a few tips (http://www.datetosave.com/christian_dating_tips.shtml) to help you get a date off to the right start, step-by-step. Jesus saves through hooking up with cute heathen guys!

Also, if you believe in this evangelistic dating ministry and feel led to support it, I have a few shirts and other stuff (http://www.cafepress.com/datetosave?pid=1835665) you can get to show your support. Click Here (http://www.cafepress.com/datetosave) (thanks to Jeff for the cool pictures and setting up the store. He was my 3rd missionary date. I don't love him anymore, but Jesus still does). Oh, also thanks to Tony for helping me put together this web page for me. Sorry for being so internet dumb. He's so darling. Remember, Jesus loves you!




http://www.datetosave.com/christian_dating_tips.shtml

1. If he tells your that you are hot...
Tell him God made you hot.

2. If he wants to hold your hand...
Give him a Bible.

3. If he tries to get closer...
Tell him the Holy Spirit is wooing him.

4. If he asks to pay for dinner...
Remind him that Jesus also paid a debt He did not owe!

5. If he reaches his arm around you...
Tell him that nobody will ever be as close to you as Jesus is.
(or ask him if you instead could "lay hands" on him in prayer)

6. If he tries to kiss you...
Remind him that a kiss killed your Savior.
(and you're not ready to "speak in tongues")

7. If he asks to come inside...
Ask him if he has asked Jesus to come inside his heart.

8. If he tells you he loves you...
Tell him that Jesus loves him.

9. If he gets angry that you won't put out...
Clarify to him that W.W.J.D. does NOT mean "Who would Jesus Do."

10. After you dump him...
Tell him that Jesus Christ will never leave or forsake him.


:twitch:

EDIT: Found some more stuff on their site:

http://www.datetosave.com/dating_questions.shtml


Questions About Missionary Dating

Here are a few questions that have come up about the Date to Save Missionary Dating Ministry...

Doesn't God look down on missionary dating and tells us to not be "yoked with unbelievers"?
I looked up yoked, and the dictionary says it's a "A crossbar with two U-shaped pieces that encircle the necks of a pair of oxen or other draft animals working together." I would never encourage anybody to do this on a date... I think the thing that is more important is that we should use our talents for God. If you're really good at dating, or just really really good looking, then you should use that to bring souls to God.

Should you date one person until he comes to Christ, or should you date lots of people?
Jesus told us to reach the "outermost parts of the world." I mean, I'm not going to fly to Kenya and date some guy who eats worms, but I think for me, "outermost parts of the world" means all the hot guys that live around me here in Fremont, California. But, God told me not to be a polygamist, so the goal would be to dump your boyfriend before witnessing to your next one. If you follow my tips (http://www.datetosave.com/christian_dating_tips.shtml), you should have no problem!

http://www.datetosave.com/me_2.jpgAre you available to date? I think you're hot.
First of all, God made me hot. Second of all, how would you know a hot girl based on one picture? I'm so much better looking that that. Thanks for the offer, but I don't date anyone I meet online. So, if you're emailed me, that automatically counts you out of my prospects, unless you are cuter than Matthew McConaughey and aren't a Christian. And you're not. And aren't.

What happens if the person I am dating becomes a Christian?
Praise God!!! That hasn't happened to me yet (still just planting seeds!), but you have two choices: Dump him and start dating a better-looking nonbeliever... or keep dating the person you're with now. I'd just see how hot he (or she) is and base the decision on that. The Bible says "man looks at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart." We're definitely not God, so just decide if your date is hot enough for you (after praying about it, of course).

I think I'm in love, but I don't think my boyfriend is going to become a Christian... What do I do?
This happens all the time... but here's a failproof solution: just tell him that you're going to date Jesus for a while. This will help you get your priorities straight while you look for another hot guy to date, and it will show your ex-boyfriend how much Jesus means to you. What a great witness!

I believe in the Date to Save Ministry... what can I do to help?
Well, first of all, date people and bring them to Christ! Also, as the Holy Spirit leads you, you can show your support by wearing a Date to Save t-shirt (http://www.cafepress.com/datetosave?pid=1835665).

Do you have a comment? You can email me at hotforjesus@datetosave.com and I'll see if I can help. If I can't, don't expect a reply (I'm a busy person with all this dating ministry stuff!)... just remember that I love you with the Love of the Lord.


I'm going to phrase this as politely as possible: There is a song sung by Eric Cartman (from South Park) that accurately describes her. Since I am a gentleman I won't post the lyrics here.

[Darth Executor]

:rofl:

[aspiretohope]

gold
utter gold

[Sparko]

its definitely a parody site.

[Cynic Sage]

its definitely a parody site.

I dunno, they have a discussion board...

[Sparko]

fer crying out loud, Johnny, did you READ it? :lmbo:

The whole site is a parody. It's purpose seems to be making fun of Christians. Did you notice that the male person on the logo has an upside down cross that seems to be representing an erection? Does that look like something a Christian would do?

[Darth Executor]

Did you notice that the male person on the logo has an upside down cross that seems to be representing an erection?

An erection? On his chest? :hrm:

[Sparko]

An erection? On his chest? :hrm:

Its a LOGO, dorkus.

[Cynic Sage]

fer crying out loud, Johnny, did you READ it? :lmbo:

The whole site is a parody. It's purpose seems to be making fun of Christians. Did you notice that the male person on the logo has an upside down cross that seems to be representing an erection? Does that look like something a Christian would do?

I saw it. I don't think it was intended to represent an erection as it's on his chest. Either that or he's a well-endowed unbeliever.

[jpholding]

First screwy email for June...read it all, it takes a while for it to get off course...


To the Body of Christ,

For many years I have sat in quiet meditation looking at the utter mess and delusion that Christianity is currently mired in and quite frankly I am amazed at how backwards and deluded the majority have become. I doubt very much that the majority who would read these words would heed the message and take to heart what is uttered, but that ultimately is our choice; our God given free will. I just look all around me in bookshops, the media, even on the Internet and all I see is so called leaders teaching all manner of delusions, sound doctrine has gone completely out the window [2TIM 4:3] and indeed Christianity has heaped up teachers satisfying the itching ears.

This current crop of pastors, teachers, apostles, prophets and evangelists have gone through all manner of training and the delusions continue from one generation to the next, radical change calls for radical action. Christianity is completely spiritually impotent against the dark powers that infect all manner of institutions within our collective society. Democracy is a joke and we are all under the illusion of freedom while we are robbed blind by a banking system that favours the elitist few. I am amazed at how many are ignorant of our current banking system and the evil of inflation created by the central banks as they secretly plunder our bank accounts. Many ministries continually go on about the insidious evil of the Illuminati and the connected New World Order (NWO) and I would agree they are a bunch of arrogant individuals that must and will be destroyed but not in the way that we think.

Many ministries point the finger of blame and the current woes of humanity at the NWO and these puppets are deluded into thinking they are in control and continue with their evil on a daily basis. The things that I will speak of in this letter are some of the most closely guarded secrets of the occult elite, I have dared in the name of Jesus to stick my head above the parapet and speak on these subjects. While the nexus of centralised power continues to grow on an almost daily basis with takeovers and mergers something is very very wrong within NWO. Something with tremendous power is attacking the NWO and they cannot figure out what it is; this is unlike anything they have experienced before, something unholy is attacking them and is about to destroy them.

Here I must stick my foot down and absolutely blast Christianity in its absolute insistence that Jesus is God, he is not [EPH 4:6] and my assertion is that he was the archangel Michael in human form, just study [LUKE 10:18] and [REV 12:7] and it is this single fact that makes Jesus so special. This current cult of Jesus worship [REV 22:8-9] that infects the born again movement and many other movements within collective Christianity has to stop if we are ever going to make sense of Revelation which in my opinion is probably the most important book for our modern times. The dogma that has been handed down from one generation to the next is Jesus is God and this single lie will deceive billions for I tell you for the Antichrist to be as God he must appear to be God. How else would the Antichrist gain power if the masses had not already been conditioned to accept him? This reminds me of a quote from Hitlers propaganda minister that if you tell a lie often enough then the masses w
ill believe it to be the truth, hells propaganda machine has been working overtime on this little beauty about Jesus being God.

Where in all of Christendom is good sound scriptural logic? For the sake of all that is holy and true have we not witnessed being lied to through the whole mess in Iraq and the WMD fiasco in which thousands of our brave service personnel continue to perish based on a lie while our politicians are controlled by the bankers and the military/industrial complex, this is not freedom. Can't we see that Satan has setup the NWO as the patsy to take the fall for all the worlds woes because the one that will destroy them will be the Antichrist; here I would remind you of an important teaching [IS 5:20] and yet we continue with our delusions. Not even the NWO have figured this out yet and when they do find out they will be terrified! The simplicity of this stratagem of Satan is its brilliance when you see it in the light of truth.
This reminds me of a saying I learned many years ago that taught me that truth lies in simplicity and delusion in complexity. This issue of the NWO will have profound effects across religious boundaries because the power of the Antichrist will break down all religious boundaries when the NWO are exposed to the world. Many in the born again movement will rejoice at its destruction and will be sucked into the lie that the one who destroyed the NWO is the returned Jesus. This will be like dominoes toppling and when we consider that the NWO (with Templar ties) have been implicated in poisoning at least two popes the problem with Catholicism becomes obvious. The Antichrist who has destroyed the perceived enemy in the eyes of the masses (the NWO) will proclaim him the returned Jesus and if the pope endorses this view Catholicism is finished. This whole scenario reminds me of the Greek myth of Chimera that in order to create the ultimate hero (Antichrist) you have to create the ulti
mate monster (NWO).

Ministries preaching rapture teaching we are all going to get sucked up by some huge divine hoover and squirted into heaven really need to think about this; [1THES 4:16-18] is actually teaching about a fundamental change in human consciousness from a materialistic to a spiritual Christ centred civilization. Personally I also despair at those ministries that decry the occult as completely Satanic when Jesus openly demonstrates occult power. I have maintained and shout from the roof tops that occult power is exactly like nuclear power which can be used to generate power for a city or blow it up, the outcome is our choice! It was this narrow-minded dogmatic attitude of Christianity that lead God to become furious and hand over a great treasure into the hands of the dark powers and that treasure was the Bible itself. We must stop literally interpreting scripture because in places it is deeply allegorical.

Many accept the KJV Bible as the only true version and it is well known to occupy pride of place on masonic altars. The simple reason is the KJV Bible is the allegorical Ark of the Covenant in the temple of Solomon (lodge) because the OT and the NT are the equivalent of the two tablets on which God wrote the Ten Commandments, in Gods fury God sent the Ark into captivity [PS 78:61] because of Christian narrow-mindedness. But what Christianity failed to realise is that the text of the KJV Bible has been carefully constructed and contains a code within its pages, never underestimate Satan [JUDE 1:9]. I must jump up and down and tell you bunch of muppets that Satan personally gave the decryption key to the KJV Bible to Aleister Crowley. They contain the secret psychic teachings of Jesus and these have been perverted into something unholy.

These encrypted teachings are more explosive than an atomic bomb, I know I've seen and read some of them. The decryption of the KJV Bible is spoken of allegorically within Revelation as the opening of the Ark of the Covenant [REV 11:19]. Let me begin with one teaching in which Jesus demonstrates the manifestation of matter (the loaves and the fishes) by turning energy into matter. This principle is the driving force of the atomic bomb as shown by Einstein and if the fundamentalists kick off I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would beg to differ with you. If every human being mastered the ability to manifest matter in any shape or form desired by turning energy into matter what would be the need for money? I would like you to watch the sci-fi film "Forbidden Planet" so that you would understand what I am talking about. These teachings are used virtually daily in occult lodges like OTO and others further up the pecking order and they are awaiting their master because
he sure as hell ain't my master. These perverted occultists are the true puppet masters, not the NWO; the NWO puppets are easily manipulated through principles such as greed.

I implore the Christian leaders not to continually teach about the NWO; let the dead go bury the dead, they where given power for a time until they had created global chaos in preparation for the Antichrist to come and destroy them. The NWO is smoke and mirrors and a massive deception so avoid it, by all means be aware of it but channel your energies into something that will bear spiritual fruit. The USA has become Babylon and holds the entire planet in bondage through the dollar which is rapidly failing, just look at the economic press; its happening right before our eyes! The lunatic in the Whitehouse running around the world starting wars and imposing puppet democracy through force of arms is in total contradiction to the words of Jesus [MATT 26:52] and claims that God talks to him! When will Christianity wake up to the utter madness being unleashed. Bush is being controlled through psychic techniques taught in the secret psychic teachings of Jesus, our own teachings are b
eing used against us!

These psychic techniques are lethal and in the hands of a few fanatical occultists drunk on power and I cannot stand by and let this madness consume humanity. The dollar itself is being undermined by the dumping of huge quantities of American treasury bonds by the likes of Russia and China; there is an economic war raging, a rebellion against the dollar, this is destabilising the entire world economy, let alone the new Iranian oil exchange trading in euros. The great millstone in [REV 18:21] is the millstone of debt that will cripple the USA (Mystery Babylon) and its military, what army will fight if it can't get paid, remember [1TIM 6:10]? Start buying physical silver/gold to protect yourself from the coming economic storm. The storm that is just around the corner is of truly epic proportions (the economic aspect is only a part) and will have a profound effect on us all. There will be no hiding place because God is about to shake the very foundations of our civilization, inc
luding money itself, it is the lifeblood. God has told me that a massive earthquake will strike California and it will be catastrophic. Watch the true hand of God move, God is furious. We MUST stop calling evil good and good evil [IS 5:20], the prophets speak and now in the name of Jesus let the exorcism of mammon and the testing of your work begin, so is the seed sown.

[spl_cadet]

God has told me that a massive earthquake will strike California and it will be catastrophic.

And if he knew anything about California's earthquakes, he'd know that we're overdue for a large one. Some prophecy :ahem: Though I rather doubt it'll be catastrophic, our building codes are rather rigerous.

[Cynic Sage]

And the most messed up analogy award goes to... :

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1512699&postcount=182


being human can bear comparison to being a railroad track. according to my spources, railroad tracks have short memories and soon forget that a train has passed over them. they pass their time by discussing the purpose of being a railroad track with the tracks opposite. railroad tracks

to say which track is being more logical, I am really unable to say

he other thing about fundamentals is that not assuming any given fundamental is not a nuteral position. you don't seem to have fallen for the "lack of beleif in God" thing very much, so i'll leave it there

to clarify what i mean by "fundamental", let us remove ourselves to the nearest trainline. according to my spources, railroad tracks pass their time by discussing their origin with the tracks opposite. railroad tracks can be divded into two classes of belief on origin. some say that they are just laid down, rust out, and die peacefull deaths in retaining walls. others say that they are there for a purpose: to serve the railway company. there comes a response that "railway company" is unsupported speculation- apparently the maintenence dudes just com along cos thats what they do. which recieves the response that "it is all for a purpose, can't you see _TA_E RAIL CO somwhat scetchily ground into your own side?" to which the respone

to say which track is being more logical, I am really unable to say
belief in God is so qualitively different from most other kinds of belief that analogy is difficult

:huh:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

First screwy email for June...read it all, it takes a while for it to get off course...

Sounds like a JW on acid(which is probably what he is)

[FrankWalton]

Maybe Doubting John. This is what he said (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1511612&postcount=185):

Doesn't your Bible say to answer a fool according to his fool?

:lol: I mean this is coming from a guy who claimed to be a "Christian"!

[Doubting John]

Maybe Doubting John. This is what he said (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1511612&postcount=185):



:lol: I mean this is coming from a guy who claimed to be a "Christian"!


Ouch! That really hurts. You've got me now. Ill never bi abl to lve that 1 dwn.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Triple nomination for jimbo, Doubting John and Farrell Till for posting *that* photo. Getting frustrated are we? :wink:

[Cynic Sage]

Triple nomination for jimbo, Doubting John and Farrell Till for posting *that* photo. Getting frustrated are we? :wink:

What the heck is "that photo"? it's not JP in the shower or something werid like that, is it?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

nah, not weird, it's just..Farrell Till has obsessed so much about JP for years that posting what is supposedly his pic is like the final straw. And of course jimbo went and updated his site with that pic instead of engaging JP's arguments (no surprise).

[Cynic Sage]

nah, not weird, it's just..Farrell Till has obsessed so much about JP for years that posting what is supposedly his pic is like the final straw. And of course jimbo went and updated his site with that pic instead of engaging JP's arguments (no surprise).

Oh, THAT pic.

Till: Whuh... WHAT! Holding has a beard? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!! (Starts typing frantically)

:hehe:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

well let's give Till double frantic-typing...I have a beard too! :hehe:

[{Tim}]

well let's give Till double frantic-typing...I have a beard too! :hehe:
Ooh, can I join the club? :grin:

[aspiretohope]

And the most messed up analogy award goes to... :

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1512699&postcount=182



:huh:
one of those blue sections is a mistake, and the other one is a good idea

[Philosophickle]

nah, not weird, it's just..Farrell Till has obsessed so much about JP for years that posting what is supposedly his pic is like the final straw. And of course jimbo went and updated his site with that pic instead of engaging JP's arguments (no surprise).

Is it weird that this is the first thing DJ said about it?

"He's kind of a handsome guy."

JP, I think you have an admirer.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

DJ also called JP "obnoxious". That makes for an odd kind of admirer, no?

[Kristian Joense]

The kind of admirer with mental problems ?

[jpholding]

JP, I think you have an admirer.

I hope DJ's wife isn't reading his blog. :shifty: He might get turned out on the carpet. Dirty carpet.

DJ also called JP "obnoxious". That makes for an odd kind of admirer, no?

It's just the sort of thing I do best -- bringing out the schizoid in my opponents. :hehe:

[Doubting John]

It's just the sort of thing I do best -- bringing out the schizoid in my opponents. :hehe:

But I'm kinda handsome and not I'm obnoxious! :lol:

[jpholding]

But I'm kinda handsome and not I'm obnoxious! :lol:

I can't judge looks, but the obnoxious part is true. You're mainly delusional and psychopathic, not obnoxious. :rasberry:

[Doubting John]

I can't judge looks, but the obnoxious part is true. You're mainly delusional and psychopathic, not obnoxious. :rasberry:

Not so! :tongue:

[jpholding]

Not so! :tongue:

Then why is it that I can't go to a post office without seeing your mug? :hehe:

[BronzeArcher]

Date to save is a parody.

[Doubting John]

Then why is it that I can't go to a post office without seeing your mug? :hehe:

And why can't I access the sex offender list without seeing yours? :tongue:

[Cynic Sage]

DJ also called JP "obnoxious". That makes for an odd kind of admirer, no?
J.P. Obsession's got a hold on me...
Whoa, whoa...

[FrankWalton]

What the heck is "that photo"? it's not JP in the shower or something werid like that, is it?

Doubting John may be interested in that. After all, he finds Holding handsome. Like I said, Doubting John is a girly-man (http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/06/when-john-w-girly-man-loftus-attacks.html).

[FrankWalton]

And why can't I access the sex offender list without seeing yours? :tongue:

:lol: Doubting John is into searching for sex offenders. You perv!

[FrankWalton]

But I'm kinda handsome and not I'm obnoxious! :lol:

Well, you suck at grammar too. But you're as good looking as the fecal matter my neighbor's dog leaves in my lawn.

[FrankWalton]

Ouch! That really hurts. You've got me now. Ill never bi abl to lve that 1 dwn.

No, you won't because it proves you don't know the Bible all too well. Yet you criticize it? You're in no position to ciriticize it because you suck at interpreting the Bible, Doubting John.

[Philosophickle]

:lol: Doubting John is into searching for sex offenders. You perv!

He needs to find someone to babysit him.

[jpholding]

And why can't I access the sex offender list without seeing yours? :tongue:

It's those darned buxom Hearthstone girls. :hehe: The authorities are bewildered by their natural beauty!

Don't you wish you could draw, DJ? I mean somethin' other than flies. :rasberry:

[OfficialPro]

Boy have I got a screwball for you.

Over at Deviantart, a dude (or is it a dudette? I don't know) by the handle of SK19KT posted a topic about Final Fantasy VII. http://forum.deviantart.com/entertainment/gaming/646675/

The guy thinks that the whole purpose of the game is to turn kids into immoral perverts, and thinks Cloud is a gay transvestite based on ONE short series of scenes in the game where Cloud HAS to dress like a girl in order to save Tifa. Never mind that in order to gain the necesary items to do so, there ARE choices that DON'T make Cloud look gay. He seems to have forgotten that HE controls Cloud's actions for the most part. But appears this concept went straight over poor SK19KT's head.

Then he proceeds to criticize the character of the main cast:

- A giant black man with a gun attached permanently to his arm (reinforcing the stereotype that all blacks are violent, gun-toting maniacs).
You know, that never once crossed my mind.

- A woman with supermodel dimensions who thrusts her breasts into the air at the conclusion of each battle

Tifa is a caricature of Lara Croft. So she's naturally "bouncy." So what? Does this person wash their eyes every time a busty woman jogs down the street?

- A woman whose sole purpose is to die violently at a key point in the game

................Now why does this seem so awfully familiar? OH YEAH! I seem to recall a book where a man dies violently...in order to SAVE LIVES. Censor this book plz? :lmbo: (LOL J/K)

- A scantily-clad, obviously underage girl whose specialties include murder and thievery

If the definition of scantily clad is cutoff jeans and a t-shirt, then this person needs re-education pronto. You want scantily clad? Try the Final Fantasy VIII versions of Shiva and Siren.

- A robot feline who decieves your characters and turns out to be a backstabbing spy

This guy totally missed out on Reeve's (Cait Sith's) "redemption" moment, obviously. There's so much "redemption" in this game it's not even funny.

- An undead instrument of satan who wields guns

Sure, ignore completely that Vincent's "undead" (I'm not sure that's entirely technically accurate) status was not his choice but was the result of Professor Hojo's experimentation, and subsequently Vincent is repentant of all the bad things he's done. Doesn't THAT count for something? :ahem:

- A man who smokes constantly and travels in a ship named the "High Wind", an obvious drug reference

Now that came straight out of left field. I don't even think the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell crowd thinks that. See, this is what happens when people overanalyze and nitpick to the point of utter absurdity.

- A giant talking cat, akin to a furry (which is a kind of internet sex pervert)

Oh great, another person who is hung up about "OHNOES TEH FURVERTS!! :eek: 11!!!!!" :ahem: Red XIII isn't anything LIKE a "furry". IN FACT, there's a clear scene where Hojo intends some unnatural act to take place, which Red XIII IS NOT INTO!!! He pretends to be vicious so that he doesn't have to do it.

I seem to recall an instance of a talking donkey somewhere...

If kids didn't know about Furries before, they sure as heck won't learn about em from FF VII.

- A giant man with a giant sword who is a constant, possibly sexual, fixation for Cloud

Sephiroth? Giant? Fixation? sexual???!!! Dream on! This guy (gal?) obviously wasn't paying attention during the "Finding Cloud" sequences in Mideel.

And what would a critique be without going on about Magic? While I definitely agree that humans should NOT try to use Magic in real life, this is a COMPUTER GAME. Satan's forces are NOT appealed to every time you click the confirm button to cast Fire. Materia does not exist in our world, so it's highly unlikely that anyone would try to use magic in that manner.

The strangest part about this, is the person is trying to "warn" people who are NOT religious. This is putting the cart before the horse, IMHO. Casting pearls before swine, as it were. After all, if clicking a button to "summon Knights Of The Round" is a sin that will send you to hell, what the heck difference does it make if the person is (hypothetically speaking) ALREADY headed there?

This person's anti-Final Fantasy warnings to nonChristians make about as much sense as a cop arresting a person for stealing a VIRTUAL PIXELLATED car WHILE PLAYING GRAND THEFT AUTO SAN ANDREAS. :lol: :lol:

[Doubting John]

It's those darned buxom Hearthstone girls. :hehe: The authorities are bewildered by their natural beauty!

Don't you wish you could draw, DJ? I mean somethin' other than flies. :rasberry:

"Come into my parlor (Blog) said the spider to the fly."

[jpholding]

"Come into my parlor (Blog) said the spider to the fly."

I'd rather make a parody of it for my own site. A lot more people will see it. :lol:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Sure, ignore completely that Vincent's "undead" (I'm not sure that's entirely technically accurate) status

Actually it's not. Vincent was only put into a kind of cryogenic sleep, because he didnt want Hojo expermenting on his son.

- A giant man with a giant sword who is a constant, possibly sexual, fixation for Cloud

Sexual, yea right, Cloud hated Sephoroth. And it's not like his hate was completely unjustified either. I mean he did try to destroy the world and all.

But anywho I have to wonder if he actually played FF7 or just skimmed through a synopsis of its plot.

[Sparko]

Guys we are putting the lid on all discussion about DJ's identity and photo, or JPH's identity and photo or anyone else's. So please cease.

Thank you.

[OfficialPro]

Actually it's not. Vincent was only put into a kind of cryogenic sleep, because he didnt want Hojo expermenting on his son.

Yeah I seem to recall that it wasn't true "undeath". some people are so dumb that they think if a guy is sleeping in a coffin, he's automatically "undead." Vinnie sure looked alive to me.



Sexual, yea right, Cloud hated Sephoroth. And it's not like his hate was completely unjustified either. I mean he did try to destroy the world and all.

But anywho I have to wonder if he actually played FF7 or just skimmed through a synopsis of its plot.

The person claims to have played the game. I don't know how far they got in it though, as they didn't say whether they actually finished the game or not.

But they are clearly teh clu3l3ss.

[Cynic Sage]

- A giant talking cat, akin to a furry (which is a kind of internet sex pervert)

Oh great, another person who is hung up about "OHNOES TEH FURVERTS!! :eek: 11!!!!!" :ahem: Red XIII isn't anything LIKE a "furry". IN FACT, there's a clear scene where Hojo intends some unnatural act to take place, which Red XIII IS NOT INTO!!! He pretends to be vicious so that he doesn't have to do it.


Man, if he thinks "talking animal"="sexual perversion", he's gonna be in for a heck of a surprise if he reads any of the Narnia books. :hehe:

[{Tim}]

Man, if he thinks "talking animal"="sexual perversion", he's gonna be in for a heck of a surprise if he reads any of the Narnia books. :hehe:
:lmbo:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

- A scantily-clad, obviously underage girl whose specialties include murder and thievery

If the definition of scantily clad is cutoff jeans and a t-shirt, then this person needs re-education pronto. You want scantily clad? Try the Final Fantasy VIII versions of Shiva and Siren.

Also, if I'm not mistaken(and I could be) Yuffie is supposed to be around 21 years old, so she's not really 'underage' at all.

Also, I'm surprised he didnt mention that some of the main characters(esp. Barret and Cid) regruarly use curse words. Although in fairness they did replace many of the worse ones with other characters.

[jpholding]

I'm not sure how screwy this is, but it is a symptom...got this on a list I subscribe to:


PASTOR RICK WARREN TO MAKE FIRST-EVER APPEARANCE IN A SYNAGOGUE
Saddleback Church founder and best-selling author of The Purpose-Driven Life invited to Sinai Temple following ground-breaking meeting with Synagogue 3000


LOS ANGELES - Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church will be the special guest at Friday Night Live Shabbat services on Friday evening, June 16, 2006 at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. This exciting event will be the first time that Rick Warren has been a featured speaker in a synagogue. The visit comes exactly one year after Pastor Warren's historic 2005 meeting with the Synagogue 3000 (S3K) Leadership Network, a transdenominational group of visionary clergy and artists working to revitalize synagogue life across the country. Video from that meeting are available at <http://synagogue3000.iamplify.com/video.jsp>. A roster of S3K Leadership Network members is available via <http://www.synagogue3000org/network.html>.

WHAT
Pastor Rick Warren Speaks at Friday Night Live at Sinai Temple

WHEN
Friday, June 16, 2006
7:30pm - 10:00pm

WHERE
Sinai Temple
10400 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90024

WHO
Pastor Rick Warren, Saddleback Church
Rabbi David Wolpe, Sinai Temple
Craig Taubman, Craig n' Co., S3K Leadership Network
Dr. Ron Wolfson, President, Synagogue 3000


Friday Night Live (http://www.sinaitemple.org/religious/FNL.php) is a unique monthly Shabbat service designed for ages 25-40 that combines live music with spirituality and insightful commentary, with the spiritual leadership of Rabbi David Wolpe and the music of Craig Taubman. FNL attracts over 1500 Jews from the Los Angeles area and beyond. Following services, Sinai Temple is transformed into a Friday night hot spot with opportunities to meet new people, engage in stimulating discussion with a featured speaker, dance, groove to a live band or just schmooze with other young professionals.

[Cynic Sage]

I'm not sure how screwy this is, but it is a symptom...got this on a list I subscribe to:
Where is that barfing smiley?

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

- A woman whose sole purpose is to die violently at a key point in the game

This is just plain false. Aeries has a number of purposes in FF7. As the last Ancient she symbolizes the collective knowldge and wisdom of the earth. She plays as the thrid point in a love triangle between her, Cloud and Tifia. Her powers as an ancient help Cloud and the gang several times, such as obtaining the Black Materia, finding Sephoroth when he heads north towards his 'mother' and so on. And her Holy Materia is what ultimately stops the Meteor. Also gameplay wise she is the best magic user, and has the best non-attacking limits.

On a side note, I remember when I first played FF7. When Aeries died I thought for sure that her materia(the Holy Materia, although I didnt know what it was at the time), would later be used to bring her back to life. I actually read an interview with on of the writers of ff7's story. He said were at first going to bring Aeries back to life(although he didnt say how), but changed their minds because it was such a powerfull and sad scene that they felt it would cheapen her death if they did. Plus, since as an ancient she still lives on in the lifestream she can still talk to Cloud and them.

And what would a critique be without going on about Magic? While I definitely agree that humans should NOT try to use Magic in real life, this is a COMPUTER GAME. Satan's forces are NOT appealed to every time you click the confirm button to cast Fire. Materia does not exist in our world, so it's highly unlikely that anyone would try to use magic in that manner.

Also 'magic' in ff7 and other such games is nothing like the magic used by Wiccans and other such groups. In fact I know one Wiccan and she is actually offended by the idea.

Yea, ok, I'm done tearing apart this guys critque of ff7. But I gotta say this guy is one of the better ones when it comes to things like this. I actually heard one guy claim that Xenosaga encouraged violence agains Christians because it suggested they were part of a giant conspircy to take over the earth.

[One Bad Pig]

jonfan posted a thread entitled A Cracker and Grape Juice is Not What your Lord Commanded (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78395). The OP is a quote of John 6:41-66, copied with references to study notes intact (notes not included). :lolo:

[Cynic Sage]

iJacker:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78398&page=1&pp=16

does anyone else think that enthogens or psychoactive plants such as "psychadelics" influenced todays religions, or maybe was the catalyst for theier rituals?

were psychadelic plants more prominent in the east several thousand years ago, enough to be readily availabe to say Moses, Jesus, or the authors of the vedas in india?

is the story of Jesus symbolic of a mushroom, and are the rituals ascociated with him a throwback to a secret "mushroom cult"?

did enthogenic plants become taboo because of a "cover-up" by the early Xians?

are these types of plants responsible for the evolution of the human mind to what it is now?

where would we be now had primative man never discovered mind altering substances?

why are psycadelic drugs so taboo now, while alchohol kills millions, and millions more are addicted to meth, cocaine and heroin?

have halucinogens become victims of "collateral damage" in the war on drugs?

Im sorry if i have offended you, but IMO, if someone told you about religion today, and you had never heard of such a thing, wouldnt you think that they were high?

I would, and still do.

as soon as this thread dies out, imma start one about how having a certain faith is irrelavant, because the deciding factor was what faith your parents belong to. (posed as questions, like this thread)

:eek:

[jpholding]

Email that wins the Excellence in Temporal Provincialism Award:


From the view of an entomologist, your argument doesn't work. You should skip trying to use the honey bee as an example and try useing a praying mantis. The first pair of legs really don't look like legs and the function is for grasping not walking. Bees still use thier metathoracic legs (last pair) for walking.

Unfortunately, your article is not very convincing. However, I asked my husband how many legs a dragon fly had and he didn't know. ( he is a college grad with aspirations on getting a masters in theology) I just think the Hebrews weren't very observant.

You could also theorize that maybe back then insects had four legs and they evolved a third pair.

You should read the article "The Evolution of Insect Flight" by Matthew Vanhorn at www.apologeticspress.org. He seems to actually have a background in science. Although he is wrong, he does a better job supporting his creationist view against science.

I don't care if you convince people to believe in myths, but try to do it right. (hint: Matthew Vanhorn)

[jpholding]

Website award:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Especially funny how Paine, Robertson, and Massey are regarded as "Bible scholars" along with the likes of Pagels.

[jpholding]

Nudder one, from a reader:

http://spl.haxial.net/religion/cross/

All the usual. Note the cite of Freke and Gandy as a source (yuk).

[Cynic Sage]

Email that wins the Excellence in Temporal Provincialism Award:
What article of yours is he referring to?

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

What article of yours is he referring to?

I think it's the Da Vinci Code. If I'm not mistaken.

[jpholding]

No, http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html - which already answers most or all of what they said.

[Cynic Sage]

Biblischism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78416 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78416)

Many pastors and Christian authors use characters from the Bible to illustrate how similar humanness is today compared to humanness back then. Biblical figures, they claim, experienced the same feelings of embarrassment, lust, rage, and fear that we experience today and that is one of the reasons why they insist we can take comfort in our Bible.

Lot is good example of this, as many apologists and theologians have argued that the extreme stress of seeing his wife "die by salt" exacted a heavy toll on him and seriously impaired his judgment, resulting in two consecutive nights of debauchery with his daughters.

Biased as I am about the Lot matter, I can move myself to believe this line of defense (at least for the sake of argument).

Even the words Jesus spoke while paying his death sentence exemplify the time-transcending truth of human frailty, specifically when he cried out to his Father "…why have you forsaken me?" The argument from many orthodox Christian theologues is that the intensity and duration of the punishment caused Jesus to fear that he'd been abandoned by his Father. It would not be blasphemous, then, to say that Jesus' human understanding of his unjust execution, and the horrors that preceded it, would temporarily eclipse the overall mission of the atonement from his thoughts. His full humanness would allow for this brief vulnerability.

Descriptions like these are no accident, I would concur. They are a legitimate way of likening our experience with the experience of people who lived thousands of years ago (since it is our natural inclination to think that the huge gulf of time and region that exists between biblical figures and us makes the Bible less applicable to our lives).

Unfortunately, like most arguments advocating belief in biblical theism, it has its inverse.

Let us first consider the tale of the Jews that Moses was appointed to lead. It is but one example of human behavior so foreign, so folklorian, even, as to be rejected outright as a true historical tale.

I will not enumerate the Mosaic plagues for you, nor the inexplicable facsimiles thereof by Pharoah's crack team of magicians. Suffice it to say, the Jews were aware that a Being unlike any other they had worshipped before loved them so much that, through miraculous feats hitherto unseen in all the world, He endeavored to win their release.

Remember that biblical figures were as human then as we are now. They experienced the same feelings of grief, happiness, pity, and love that we experience today. (When Moses saw an Egyptian mercilessly beating a Jewish slave, he killed the abuser. Such would be the reaction of many of us here if the law did not restrain us from doing so).

So after the release of the Jews, the miracles continue in an even more dramatic fashion. First, God becomes a theophany of cloud and fire and leads them as a divine compass away from evil Pharoah who had grown weary of the disasters that God--and his very own magicians--had wrought on his country. Then, when followed by an army of Egyptians whose sole purpose was to recapture and return the Jews to their former slave existence, God cleaves the Red Sea in two--a miracle whose grand scope was unprecedented in the history of the world.

Imagine seeing an entire sea separated before your very eyes for the express purpose of giving you a means to outrun your captors. Would not the enormous thunsh of the sea crashing upon itself--and your enemies--crystalize your belief that God was the "real deal"? Witnessing such an event would surely send the Jewish mind into a very focused state of consciousness in which every thought would be concentrated on the One who had just delivered them. Think of real-life situations of peril in the present: are not the rescued enamored of their rescuers? Is it not a common psychological phenomenon that when one's life is saved, a tangible bond forms between the saved and the savior? In the same way, does not Paul's assertion that

"Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die."

hold true today just as much as it did back then (i.e., we are no more or less human today than we were back then)?

Similarly, one would expect the Jews to have been so impacted by these unprecedented acts of rescue and providence as to not even consider doubting if the next provision would come.

This God, the Jews should have concluded, was a very loving God indeed.

This God, the Jews should have concluded, was a God capable of protecting them from any errant force directed their way by any human king.

So how is it, then, that three days into the journey these awe-stricken Jews--whose Provider was still visible in the form of cloud and fire--would grumble to God about a lack of water? They were thirsty, you numbskull, I hear you say. It is not inconceivable that three days of heat bombardment and throat-scorching thirst would provoke such grumbling.

This would be a good point if God had not wondered aloud in Numbers 14:11 why his miraculous "shewings" did not get more appreciation:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?"

Therefore, how could you, a mere mortal, know the answer to the question that God did not? If the withholding of water and food for prolonged periods of time alone provoked such grumbling, why would God wonder aloud why his signs and wonders alone had not won the Jews over? Clearly, he would have known that testing the limits of their endurance would engender such a response.

No, God's works alone were enough to persuade them that a Provider like no other was leading them to a better place.

In the same way that the Jews' glib response to seeing God's handiwork writ large is not believable, so, too, is the inexplicable ignorance of David.

The Bible tells us that David was, from a very young age, appointed by the Creator of the Universe to be a mighty leader of His people. From his assassination and beheading of Goliath to his voluntary doubling of the foreskin payment for Michal, David seems to have been blessed in every way by His Creator.

It is a wonder, then, how a man with such an unprecedented intimate relationship with the God of the Universe could have lost sight of the fact that God was omniscient and would thus spy on him as he concurrently spied on the glistening nude body of Bathsheeba on her rooftop.

Yes, yes, he was inflamed with passion for her, and lust leads one to do crazy things sometimes, but do remember we're talking about a man "after God's own heart."

Do remember we're talking about a man to whom any woman was legally available for legitimate--albeit polygamous--sex.

That the foul murder of brave Uriah followed David's tryst with Bathsheeba makes this story smack even more of folklore. For what man with such knowledge of God's attributes would have the temerity to be surprised to learn that God saw his deeds?

Especially a man who had unprecedented intimate contact with the Creator of the Universe.

Did David not know with whom he was speaking?

This is what happens when cognitive dissonance is recognized for what it is and not Satan's tool to deceive the individual. If anyone can demonstrate that Satan, and not cognitive dissonance, has made me disbelieve the historicity of these passages, I'm all ears.

"The people described in Bible-stories had weaknesses, experienced human emotion, weren't perfect, and would often make mistakes. This means that the Bible is all made up."

I'd have to agree with Biblischism on the subject that the reason he disbelieves the Bible is due to cognitive dissonance...

...His. :lmbo:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Johnny, That reminds me of JP's parody...


Happily for Christianity, things improved later when parchment was used. This was the name given to prepared skins of sheep, goats, antelope and other animals. Their skins were shaved and scraped in order to produce a more durable writing material. I think that this is very cruel. Why did they do this to live animals? And the animals would probably run away before you could write on them or read anything that was written on them. This is more stupid than writing on a reed. (9) It also tells us why the Bible is full of mistakes. It is because it was written and read on the run.

[jpholding]

http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200606/0162.html

Paul Seely, who thinks the Bible teaches a flat earth and who I took apart in an article for one of the creationist publications, wins at least Silver for this, particularly:

In the third paragraph, Holding says I gave a list of "several" scientifically naive societies that thought the earth was flat. If you read the list in my actual paper, you find not "several" but numerous examples from all over the world with no clear exceptions until the time of Plato.

:glare:

[jpholding]

Email:

A God who creates the whole universe and everything in it from the smallest to the largest, so complex, so perfect, so beautiful, is a jealous God -and-thinks its a good idea to cut up some critters. I don't know that just doesn't make a real lot of sense. What does a God do all day? He's made the universe, holy moly and then he sits around watching mankind 24-7, and he already knows whats going to happen. Being all knowing and all. I am thinking this whole concept needs some work. Is God unable to prevent suffering and thus not omnipotent or is he able but not willing and thus not merciful. I already know the answer to that one. No need to reply. Peace

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

website award: www.biblewheel.com

[Cynic Sage]

website award: www.biblewheel.com
That was nominated a long time ago.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

was it? oh ok...the author of this site has turned up on the (what was) Beast forum.

[Jnthn]

was it? oh ok...the author of this site has turned up on the (what was) Beast forum.
The author's first visit to TWeb ended, as I recall, with him storming off accusing DDW that TWeb was corrupt. Biblewheel came back recently in a spirit of faux reconciliation and started re-pimping his numerological nonsense

J

[jpholding]

was it? oh ok...the author of this site has turned up on the (what was) Beast forum.

He and Beastmaster deserve each other. :thumbd:

[Cynic Sage]

Wiseman, on sexual responsibility:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78300&page=2&pp=16

sometimes a woman doesnt have time to be prepared when a man is all over her. ugly people will not understand because they will never be loved. it is not a coincidence that only ugly people practice 'abstinence'.

:lmbo:

[Christy]

Wiseman, on sexual responsibility:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78300&page=2&pp=16



:lmbo:


He's such a jerk. I'm not going to take anything he writes seriously.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Wiseman, on sexual responsibility:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78300&page=2&pp=16



:lmbo:

I should introduce him to my g/f(a seriously cute girl, who has sworn herself to abstiance.

[jpholding]

I wonder if wiseman's parents practiced abstinence.

[Sparko]

I wonder if wiseman's parents practiced abstinence.

probably. ...After they saw what happened when they didn't.

[{Tim}]

probably. ...After they saw what happened when they didn't.
Zing! :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Biblischism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78608

One very folklorish element of the Bible is angels equipped with swords. In Genesis, God assigns cherubim with a flaming sword to guard the way thereto. But how could an angel have in his possession a tool that pre-dated man’s invention of it?


Now keep in mind that I'm TE and don't believe Genesis is to be taken literally, but come on. A race of divine-like supernatural beings created possibly eons ago can't come up with the idea for a sharp pointy metal weapon before the bald swimming-apes do. :lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

A nomination for the Motion Picture Association of America, for the reason they boosted the rating of the upcoming indie-film "Facing the Giants":

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RELIGION-FAITH-06-07-06

"What the MPAA said is that the movie contained strong 'thematic elements' that might disturb some parents," said Kris Fuhr, vice president for marketing at Provident Films, which is owned by Sony Pictures. Provident plans to open the film next fall in 380 theaters nationwide with the help of Samuel Goldwyn Films, which has worked with indie movies like "The Squid and the Whale."

Which "thematic elements" earned this squeaky-clean movie its PG?

"Facing the Giants" is too evangelistic.

The MPAA, noted Fuhr, tends to offer cryptic explanations for its ratings. In this case, she was told that it "decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions. It's important that they used the word 'proselytizing' when they talked about giving this movie a PG. ...

"It is kind of interesting that faith has joined that list of deadly sins that the MPAA board wants to warn parents to worry about."



Yeah, it's "Christian Inspirational", so you know it's gonna suck. But boosting the rating? "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!". :ahem:

[OfficialPro]

Also, if I'm not mistaken(and I could be) Yuffie is supposed to be around 21 years old, so she's not really 'underage' at all.

Also, I'm surprised he didnt mention that some of the main characters(esp. Barret and Cid) regruarly use curse words. Although in fairness they did replace many of the worse ones with other characters.

OK the guy now says he was joking, and that his post was a parody/satire. But I think he STILL deserves a screwball award, only for a different reason. After all, failing to jump on the cussing if he's PRETENDING to hax on FF VII like a "religious" person is quite a faux pas.

OH and here's an even better screwball for you,from Protestwarrior:

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=156763

This guy called Tsunami made a post called "Are Christians sinners":

check this out:

Str8OuttaStaines wrote:
Yes. Everyone is a sinner.

Tsunami wrote:
I used to think that until last tuesday when i was at a Bible study. Im still not solid in my position but i am leaning towards christians cannot be sinners.

Here's one verse to think about:

1 John 3:8- He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.


Str8OuttaStaines wrote:
So can you cite an example of someone besides Jesus or Mary who was sinless?

Tsunami wrote:
Job, but thats not my point. I know we all have sinned as it says in Romans. Every christian has sinned before he was a christian but a christian cannot be a sinner.......When somebody accepts Christ into their lives does God call them a sinner? Nope. He calls them saints and holy. The fact is that God requires perfection.

(I love what montanaman posted after that in response: Yes, Christians are sinners. Don't become a fundamentalist. Bad.) :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Michelle Goldberg, for her book "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism", where she confuses premilleniasm with Rapture-theology, confusing the Weimar-era "conservative revolution" in Germany with Nazism, and believing that Leviticus was a person.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0393060942/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-5524198-3207350?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

Excerpt found here:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2006/05/12/goldberg/index.html

Here's a satirical take on it (not a screwball):

http://holyoffice.livejournal.com/80073.html

[Dave G]

Biblischism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78608



Now keep in mind that I'm TE and don't believe Genesis is to be taken literally, but come on. A race of divine-like supernatural beings created possibly eons ago can't come up with the idea for a sharp pointy metal weapon before the bald swimming-apes do. :lmbo:

Biblischism also thinks everything about Christians is ridiculous, but he believes in the supernatural because of a hallucogenic (I'm guessing) plant.

[{Tim}]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1523026&postcount=4
"Sevivon1913", on his reason for not believing in Paul's existence:
However, everything I just typed is irrelevant, because I’m not even aware of any proof that this man existed, except for his own claim that he existed. But since his claim to have existed, didn’t exist until the 4th century AD, we may assume that he didn’t exist. After all, most people who claim to have existed do so whilst they exist.
"Paul didn't exist, because he claimed in the 4th century that he did exist, but he didn't exist in the 4th century, therefore he didn't exist!!!!!!!!" :huh: :doh: :lolo:

(What's worse, he posted this in "intro to theology", which is a Q&A area, but obviously he really wants to have a debate over it... :ahem: )

[BibleWheel]

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

Listen guys,

You have no idea what you are mocking. I praise God it matters not if I am of "no reputation" amongst the members of this illustrious league of Christian gentlemen. What matters is the proclamation of the Divine Unity of God's Holy Word.

The Divine Power of the Bible Wheel is now being displayed in action, for all to see (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1644). I began posting on the radically anti-Christian "Beastmovie" forum a few days ago. As would be expected, a great cloud of confusion arose, every form of distraction, insult, and mockery - just like what I continue to receive from the enlightened folks here on TWeb. But there was a fundamental difference on the Beastmovie forum ... they had sufficient intellectual integrity to see past their prejudices.

And then something miraculous happened.

When the dust of all the failed arguments began to settle, the skeptics and unbelievers began to notice that there was something standing in their midst unlike anything they had ever seen. It was the Bible Wheel - an invincible revelation of the divine design of the Holy Bible - straight from the Mind of God.

Two of the primary opponents of my work are now seriously studying it. The first to move over to the side of Reason goes by the handle Goth_Slut (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28587&postcount=127). And soon after she publicly admitted that my worked needed to be studied before it could be refuted, she was followed by the site administrator known as Jeff. Here is what he wrote (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28607&postcount=129):

I must admit that I'm doing the same -- this IS intruiging and I would love for it to be able to stand the Martini/Goth tests. To me that would be very outstanding.

Thanks again Richard for taking the time to do all of this and post it - even if it turns out to be not true, or not concrete, it DOES allow for all skeptics and believers alike to think hard about their negativity to something no matter WHAT side they're on ...

Jeff

If you guys think you are advancing the Kindgom of God with your endless month after month fleshly orgy-fests of ad hominem and mockery, then you are more deceived than most atheists I have met.

Mockery is the primary tool of Satan, the accuser of the brethren. It also is fundamentally irrational and anti-intellectal.

It also is the primary purpose of this thread, and the primary activity of many folks who regularly post here.

I would be very interested to know if any of you can give me one good reason to believe that any of you are Christians.

Thanks for time.

Let the mockery begin.

God have mercy on your souls.

Richard

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

:lolo: I nominate BibleWheel for another screwball, due to the above post. Especially for linking "Father forgive them" to his project.

BW, the forum is called Danielle now, if you hadn't noticed. And you'll find my friend Goth_S on this forum, too.

[{Tim}]

"[mockery is] the primary activity of many folks who regularly post here."I'd like to see your evidence for that. :ahem:

Do you believe that all mockery is wrong, always? What then do you make of the "tough" sayings of Jesus and Paul? :eh: Or is it only wrong because you're inspired by God, and we're not? :doh:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Good one Tim, and I'd add Tertullian's mockery of Marcion for having a "pumpkin for a brain".

[BibleWheel]

Good one Tim, and I'd add Tertullian's mockery of Marcion for having a "pumpkin for a brain".
The occassional use of mockery is fully justified in certain circumstances.

I have seen no justification for the mockery displayed in this forum

Richard

[BibleWheel]

I'd like to see your evidence for that. :ahem:
Just read this thread. I don't need to point out the 2 ton elephant in the center of the room.

[BibleWheel]

:lolo: I nominate BibleWheel for another screwball, due to the above post. Especially for linking "Father forgive them" to his project.

Why don't you try to meet the Bible Wheel Challenge? It is exceedingly simple. You know exactly what it is from the Danielle forum.

As for the reference to the dying words of my Lord Jesus Christ, I was hoping they would be sufficient to awaken whatever remnant of a Christian conscience remained in the members of the this forum.

Obviously, that is a hope deferred.

BW, the forum is called Danielle now, if you hadn't noticed. And you'll find my friend Goth_S on this forum, too.

Who couldn't notice? The word "Danielle" is plastered across the top of every page. But the URL is still http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums so quit wasting everyone's time with irrelevancies, ok?

If you think I am a screwball, then you should have no difficulting whatsoever meeting my challenge.

But you won't.

Because you can't.

What does that say about your integrity?

Richard

[{Tim}]

I have seen no justification for the mockery displayed in this forum.Why should we point out our "2 ton elephant in the center of the room", when you won't point out yours? :ahem:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

:lmbo: Keep posting BW dude, you'll have a month's worth of screwballs awaiting you for your mantlepiece.

[BibleWheel]

Why should we point out our "2 ton elephant in the center of the room", when you won't point out yours? :ahem:
Because my "elephant" declares the glory of God and His Word, whereas yours declares the sin and corruption of man.

[BibleWheel]

:lmbo: Keep posting BW dude, you'll have a month's worth of screwballs awaiting you for your mantlepiece.

Yes .... I am fully aware of the corruption of this forum. It doesn't touch me at all. My life is hid in Christ my Lord.

The fact that you refuse to meet the Bible Wheel Challenge only strengthens my assertion that the Bible Wheel is invincible.

You seem to forget that there is a large cloud of lurkers with fully functioning minds that can discern between my request to have the BW tested and your refusal to even try.

You have already lost.

But feel free to continue mocking. Yes indeed. Fill up the fulness of your transgression.

Richard

[BibleWheel]

I would be very interested to know if any of you can give me one good reason to believe that any of you are Christians.
I still want an answer to this question.

Richard

[{Tim}]

The fact that you refuse to meet the Bible Wheel Challenge only strengthens my assertion that the Bible Wheel is invincible. FYI: "Invincible" and "unfalsifiable" do not mean the same thing. "Bible Wheel" is the latter, not the former.

You seem to forget that there is a large cloud of lurkers with fully functioning minds that can discern between my request to have the BW tested and your refusal to even try.Since you began a trend of quoting scripture to dubious application...:

Mene Mene Tekel Parsin (Dan. 5:25)
Bible Wheel has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
Your Web space will be divided among the Medes and the Persians... um. :hehe:

[aspiretohope]

Yes .... I am fully aware of the corruption of this forum. It doesn't touch me at all. My life is hid in Christ my Lord.

The fact that you refuse to meet the Bible Wheel Challenge only strengthens my assertion that the Bible Wheel is invincible.

You seem to forget that there is a large cloud of lurkers with fully functioning minds that can discern between my request to have the BW tested and your refusal to even try.

You have already lost.

But feel free to continue mocking. Yes indeed. Fill up the fulness of your transgression.

Richard
mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

:lmbo:

[{Tim}]

mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock
NO, no, that's not the fullness... I think you need two, maybe three more for the fulness of your transgression... :doh:

[aspiretohope]

i'll see what i can do

mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mockmock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock

how's that?

RAISE THE RED MARK!

[BibleWheel]

FYI: "Invincible" and "unfalsifiable" do not mean the same thing. "Bible Wheel" is the latter, not the former.
Tim,

Your statement is a blatant falsehood. It would be excedingly simple to falsify my claims about the Bible Wheel. I am guessing you are simply ignorant of the nature of my challenge, so I will post it for you.

I assert that the Bible Wheel is OPTIMAL, by which I mean it can not be improved upon.

To falsify this claim, all you need to do is rearrange the books any way you want and argue why it would be better. It should be extremely easy; you have 66! = 5.44x10^92 possibilities to choose from. No one on TWeb has ever even attempted this test, but over on the Danielle forum, one person made a suggestion which I immediately showed to be vastly inferior to the authentic BW.

I challenge you to find any fundamental assertion I have made about the BW and prove it factually false. I have been posting on internet forums for five years, and have met the fiercest opposition, but no one has ever succeeded in raising any weapon against the BW.

That is why your activity in this thread is so wicked. You either don't care or are unable to argue with TRUTH, so you slander and lie about me and my work. The Bible declares such behaviour to be a great evil.

Mene Mene Tekel Parsin (Dan. 5:25)
Bible Wheel has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
Your Web space will be divided among the Medes and the Persians... um. :hehe:
This is a blatant lie. You have weighed nothing. You have tested nothing. You have presented no argument against the BW.

How is it possible that you think you can lie to the world and not be found out?

I have met these kinds of lies for years on these kinds of forums. The same thing happened on the Danielle forum. But I met every challenge the atheists and skeptics raised against the BW, so now at least some of them are seriously studying it, including the site admin. It looks like the atheists and the skeptics will be entering the Kingdom before you.

Richard

[BibleWheel]

i'll see what i can do

mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock

<snip of long mechanical repetition>

mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock mock

how's that?

RAISE THE RED MARK!
Someone might want to tell Dee Dee that it is time to change the TWeb rubric. Maybe something like:

Tweb: We mock serious Theology, really!

The pathetically sad thing is that you folks fail to realize that you are not actually mocking me at all - you are mocking your own selves and TWeb and the God in whose image you are made and the teachings of His Holy Word that tell us how we are to treat others with kindness and his command that we test all things.

And that's the short list!

My work stands on the everlasting Rock of God's Word. No one has ever found any fundamental error or systematic flaw in it. No one has ever met the Bible Wheel Challenge. Every assertion I have made about it remains unrefuted.

Praise the Lord God Almighty for His invincible Word!

Richard

[Teallaura]

I still want an answer to this question.

RichardGiven your posts, demeanor and self-righteousness, you need to answer this question for yourself first, well before questioning the salvation of others.

Speck, meet log....

[BibleWheel]

Given your posts, demeanor and self-righteousness, you need to answer this question for yourself first, well before questioning the salvation of others.

Speck, meet log....
Typical pseudo-christian attack.

Will you guys never learn?

You are the ones unjustly attacking me. I entered TWeb with one request: TEST MY ASSERTIONS.

Our conversation would be absolutely irenic if not for your desperate attempts to use every form of ad-hominem, mockery, slander and lies to distract people from the TRUTH of my proclamation.

It is ironic that I have had much greater success with the atheists and skeptics on the Danielle forum. That speaks volumes.

Better try another tactic Teallaura. Your ruse is transparent to every person with a functioning mind who is reading this thread.

Richard

[Teallaura]

Teallaura's Rule of Thumb: Unless He is Jesus, he who is most certain of his own righteousness is most likely to be wrong.

Mr. Log, I'd like to introduce Mr. Speck.

[BibleWheel]

Teallaura's Rule of Thumb: Unless He is Jesus, he who is most certain of his own righteousness is most likely to be wrong.

Mr. Log, I'd like to introduce Mr. Speck.
Wow, you really are a slow learner, aren't you Teallaura?

My proclamation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible has nothing to do with me. It is a proclamation of the glory that God has revealed in His Word.

Your implication that I am "certain" of my "own righteousness" is absolutely fallacious.

I AM A SINNER SAVED BY GRACE JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN WHO EVER LIVED.

I have never claimed anything special about myself, least of all the absolutely idiotic idea that I am "righteous."

I know my sin like the back of my hand.

Do you know yours? I can assure you everyone else does, its hanging out for all to see.

Richard

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

BibleWheel,

may I ask what practical and spiritual purpose this wheel has in the life of a Christian?

[dizzle]

I love how the slogan is invariably attacked. It is a very amusing trait of human nature. As I have said before, I work in insurance defense, and invariably many Plaintiff's counsel break out with somethng along the lines of "THAT's not being a good neighbor" (to use an example for demonstration, not one that was actually used)

[dizzle]

NOTICE: While I believe my work on Matthew 24 has withstood attack and is correct, I promise never to question anyone's Christianity or claim that they are incurring the wrath of God if they think it is stupid.

The work of MY hands just isn't that important.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

NOTICE: While I believe my work on Matthew 24 has withstood attack and is correct, I promise never to question anyone's Christianity or claim that they are incurring the wrath of God if they think it is stupid.

The work of MY hands just isn't that important.
:thumb:

[{Tim}]

FYI: "Invincible" and "unfalsifiable" do not mean the same thing. "Bible Wheel" is the latter, not the former.Your statement is a blatant falsehood. It would be excedingly simple to falsify my claims about the Bible Wheel. I am guessing you are simply ignorant of the nature of my challenge, so I will post it for you.

...

I challenge you to find any fundamental assertion I have made about the BW and prove it factually false. I have been posting on internet forums for five years, and have met the fiercest opposition, but no one has ever succeeded in raising any weapon against the BW.

That is why your activity in this thread is so wicked. You either don't care or are unable to argue with TRUTH, so you slander and lie about me and my work. The Bible declares such behaviour to be a great evil.Accusations of lying are not allowed on TWeb, unless supported by evidence. I would report your post, if I thought there was any chance of someone taking your accusations seriously.



Here is an example of how to accuse someone of lying, without violating the TWeb decorum:
No one on TWeb has ever even attempted this test, but over on the Danielle forum, one person made a suggestion which I immediately showed to be vastly inferior to the authentic BW.
You are lying. In this thead: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62036 ... several TWeb members raised objections to your Bible Wheel. There is no way you can truthfully say that "no one on TWeb has attempted this test."


*****

Now I realise that you claim the objections to "Bible Wheel" are unfounded. However, I disagree. To quote a poster from the above thread:

The poll was invalid from the word go. He openly declared that the only NO votes that he would count would be those that are supported by reasons that have not been refuted. In his mind, of course, his personal disagreement with your reasons equates to refutation (it doesn't, of course, but he believes it does). Therefore, the only points with which he will agree, and thus not refute (in his thinking), are those which agree that the BW is without error.

Thus, I stand by my claim: your theory is, in practice, unfalsifiable.

X
mene, mene, tekel, parsin
...This is a blatant lie. You have weighed nothing. You have tested nothing. You have presented no argument against the BW.1) How do you know whether I have or have not weighed your arguments for the Bible Wheel? In this case, I was referring both to my personal judgement, and the judgement of others who have also found the BW to be "wanting".

2) It is not a "lie", it is a "joke" (albeit with a point: that BW fails to convince). The blatant anachronism ("Web space"/"Medes and Persians"), and especially the ":hehe:" at the end, was supposed to clue you in on that...

[Teallaura]

Wow, you really are a slow learner, aren't you Teallaura?

My proclamation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible has nothing to do with me. It is a proclamation of the glory that God has revealed in His Word.

Your implication that I am "certain" of my "own righteousness" is absolutely fallacious.

I AM A SINNER SAVED BY GRACE JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN WHO EVER LIVED.

I have never claimed anything special about myself, least of all the absolutely idiotic idea that I am "righteous."

I know my sin like the back of my hand.

Do you know yours? I can assure you everyone else does, its hanging out for all to see.

Richard

Your Honor, I'd like to introduce Exhibit A, Mr. Log's post.

[BibleWheel]

BibleWheel,

may I ask what practical and spiritual purpose this wheel has in the life of a Christian?
Praise God! You asked one of the best possible questions!

The Bible was given to teach us the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Knowing God through Him is its ultimate proclamation, as it is written (John 17:3):

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

This is the purpose of the Bible. It coincides exactly with the purpose of the Bible Wheel.

To many, the Bible is a disjointed book. The BW reveals an entirely new depth of its Perfect Unity. Countless saints throughout the ages have seen the thematic unity of its story - from the Creation and Fall in Genesis, the prophecy of Christ as the Passover Lamb in Exodus, and so forth through to the coming of Christ in the Gospels and birth of the Church in Acts, unto the proclamation of the Doctrine of Grace in the Epistles, and finally the consumation of all history in Revelation - as sufficient proof of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible.

They were, of course, correct.

Furthermore, the thematic unity of God's Book is one of the best apologetics, because it teaches the Gospel even as it proves the Bible. This is to be compared with the fruitlessness of arguing such things as evolution or creationism. Even when such arguments are won, the opponent has not come one step closer to hearing the Gospel. Muslims argue for the same thing.

But there is a weakness in this traditional apologetic. Skeptics and atheists can choose to focus on vast diversity within the unity of the Bible, and this then leads to a fruitless stalemate which is all that they need to deny the argument.

The revelation of the Bible Wheel transcends this stalemate. It builds on this traditional apologetic and amplifies beyond all measure. Every canned argument every atheist has in his storehouse has now passed its expiration date.

Now let me answer your question.

When I discovered the BW in 1995, I had very little knowledge of God's Word. Though I already delighted in my daily study, and heard God's Voice in the Bible, the BW burst open the doors of heaven. I knew I was gazing into the very Mind of God. It ignited all the faculties of my soul - spiritual, intellectual, and emotional.

One of the immediate benefits was that I now could see the entire body of Scripture as an integrated geometric whole. Folks who study memory know that it is based primarily on association. Thus I was able to effortlessly memorize the detailed structure of the whole Bible because each book is associated with two others and a Hebrew letter on each Spoke. Though I was still a young Christian and had made no explicit effort to memorize the Bible, people were constantly amazed at how I knew where things were in it and how they related to the other parts. I always kinda felt like I had an "unfair advantage" since I knew that my ability came not from myself, but from the BW, the very Map of Heaven. It is like a hermeneutical star chart to guide us through the galaxies of God's Word.

Another benefit relates directly to the fundamental purpose of the Bible - to know God through Jesus Christ. He is called the Word of God and the Alpha and Omega. This corresponds directly to Psalm 119 - the great Psalm declaring the glory and power of God's Word from Aleph to Tav. This means that God used the same template in the design of the large-scale structure of His Word - the Bible Wheel - as He did in the design of the Psalm of His Word, and both of these structures are based on the title of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God who has revealed Himself as the Alpha and Omega! Endless glory!

I could go on forever. I have written a 412 page book on this revelation which you can download free from my site.

Thanks for the excellent question.

Richard

[BibleWheel]

NOTICE: While I believe my work on Matthew 24 has withstood attack and is correct, I promise never to question anyone's Christianity or claim that they are incurring the wrath of God if they think it is stupid.

The work of MY hands just isn't that important.
Neither is the work of MY hands.

I assert that the BW is the Work of God.

I can prove that assertion.

It has nothing to do with me. It has existed implicitly in the Bible from the day the canon was sealed.

How long do I need to keep repeating this painfully obvious fact?

Richard

[BibleWheel]

You are lying. In this thead: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62036 ... several TWeb members raised objections to your Bible Wheel. There is no way you can truthfully say that "no one on TWeb has attempted this test."

You are correct. I overstated the situation. I repent. Thank you for pointing that out.

I now hope that you will apply the same standard to the testing of my assertions and quit attacking the man who is making them.

Sound like a plan?

Richard

[dizzle]

Neither is the work of MY hands.

I assert that the BW is the Work of God.

And that is highly problematic and extraordinarily cultic.

[{Tim}]

You are correct. I overstated the situation. I repent. Thank you for pointing that out.

I now hope that you will apply the same standard to the testing of my assertions and quit attacking the man who is making them.

Sound like a plan?

Richard
Thank you. It's good to see that.

I have nothing against you personally; indeed, I don't even know you personally. I don't find your "Bible Wheel" to be a convincing argument, but equally you don't find my reasons for disbelieving it to be convincing. At this point, there doesn't really seem to be any reason to discuss it further.

What is more annoying, though, is that you paint those who disagree with you as "opposing God", and question their salvation. Can Christians not disagree over whether or not something is a sign from God? Where is it written, "Thou shalt believe the Bible Wheel to be saved?" :eh:

Well, anyway. That's all I have to say on the subject.

[BibleWheel]

And that is highly problematic and extraordinarily cultic.
I don't understand your assertion at all. How is the proclamation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible cultic?

I claim no secret knowledge. I ask only that my assertions be tested. How is that cultic?

Finally, if my assertion is true - that God did indeed design the Bible on the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet - how could it not be the Work of God?

It seems to me that your use of the phrase "extraordinarily cultic" is extraordinarily meaningless.

Richard

[BibleWheel]

Thank you. It's good to see that.
Your welcome! Its good to be chatting.

I have nothing against you personally; indeed, I don't even know you personally.
Ditto.

I don't find your "Bible Wheel" to be a convincing argument, but equally you don't find my reasons for disbelieving it to be convincing. At this point, there doesn't really seem to be any reason to discuss it further.
Makes sense to me. Why don't you try lurking for a while to see where this all leads. If you have a genuine question about my work, I would be delighted to answer.

What is more annoying, though, is that you paint those who disagree with you as "opposing God", and question their salvation. Can Christians not disagree over whether or not something is a sign from God? Where is it written, "Thou shalt believe the Bible Wheel to be saved?" :eh:

Well, anyway. That's all I have to say on the subject.
As far as I recall, I didn't say people were not Christian. I simply asked if anyone could give me a reason to think they were.

I think that was a valid request, since this forum feels dark, evil, mean, stupid, perverse, and wicked. I mean think about it! I complained about the constant mockery, and rather than stopping, thinking, and showing any signs of any self-awareness concerning how their actions might make another person feel, they started mocking me with the word "mock" itself which was repeated a hundred times in one post. Talk about confirming their own guilt with their own words! Wow ...

Are you saying you don't see a problem with this behaviour?

Like I said, I don't see any signs of self-awareness in these people at all. I see no effort to follow the plain commands of Scripture about how to treat others. I see no interest in even the possibility that the Bible might actually be the true Word of God in the fulless sense. I see nothing that makes me think anyone attacking me is a Christian.

But as I said - this doesn't necessarily mean they are not Christian. I just wanted to know if anyone on this list could give me a reason to think they were.

So far, the answer is a definitive "no".

Richard

[Leonhard]

How about going a bit more international? America doesn't hold all the atheist dummies, you know!

Here is something from a danish paper

"Kristendommens mest ultimative vandrehistorie - nogle vil nok kalde den en løgnehistorie - er således beretningen om Jesu himmelfart, en fortæl-ling der først blev lagt ind i Markus-evangeliet ca. 170 år efter Jesu fød-sel."

Translated,

"The ultimate tale of Christianity - someone would probably call it a lie - is the story of the ascencion of Jesus, a story which was first included in the Markus-evangelium about 170 years after the birth of jesus."

I like the way he bloats the time scale, by starting at the birth of Christ, and here I thought that it was the crucifixion and ressurection of Christ that was central.

[dizzle]

I don't understand your assertion at all. How is the proclamation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible cultic?


Your assertion of divine inspiration for something that you apparently alone (or nearly) alone have "figured out" is cultic.

You have translated soemthing you have found and believe to be true to Thus Saith the Lord.

[Cynic Sage]

How about going a bit more international? America doesn't hold all the atheist dummies, you know!

Here is something from a danish paper

"Kristendommens mest ultimative vandrehistorie - nogle vil nok kalde den en løgnehistorie - er således beretningen om Jesu himmelfart, en fortæl-ling der først blev lagt ind i Markus-evangeliet ca. 170 år efter Jesu fød-sel."

Translated,

"The ultimate tale of Christianity - someone would probably call it a lie - is the story of the ascencion of Jesus, a story which was first included in the Markus-evangelium about 170 years after the birth of jesus."

I like the way he bloats the time scale, by starting at the birth of Christ, and here I thought that it was the crucifixion and ressurection of Christ that was central.
What was the name and date of the Paper?

[BibleWheel]

Your assertion of divine inspiration for something that you apparently alone (or nearly) alone have "figured out" is cultic.

You have translated soemthing you have found and believe to be true to Thus Saith the Lord.
I didn't "figure it out." All I did was "roll up" the list of 66 books like a scroll on a spindle wheel of 22 Spokes, corresponding to the 22 letters.

Not much to brag about, now is there?


EVERYTHING else follows from that one simple act. If there were no patterns designed by God in the linear structure of Scripture, there would be no pattern to appear when it is rolled up.

As you can see, your preception does not relate to the reality of the situation at all.

You really should take ten minutes and read the online Chapter 1 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/Chapt01.asp) of my book before you comment any more.

Richard

[dizzle]

Yes you did you figured it out and with cultic zeal are saying thus saith the Lord. Everything you just said about your wheel, I could say about my commentary. I believe it is Biblically accurate and what God had to say, but I don't claim inspiration for it. I am not inspired. You are not inspired. You cross the line with your claims of divine authorship for your theory. The Biblical authors had not one thing to say about a wheel.

[DesertBerean]

As far as I recall, I didn't say people were not Christian. I simply asked if anyone could give me a reason to think they were. RichardAnd your criteria is false. You were really asking them to meet YOUR definition, not the Biblical standard.

I did see some on this forum engage to discuss your views, but the moment someone disagreed with you, you condemned that individual or proclaimed yet again that you alone have found the true way to understand the Bible, and you alone can teach others. Classic cult mindset.

[BibleWheel]

Yes you did you figured it out and with cultic zeal are saying thus saith the Lord. Everything you just said about your wheel, I could say about my commentary. I believe it is Biblically accurate and what God had to say, but I don't claim inspiration for it. I am not inspired. You are not inspired. You cross the line with your claims of divine authorship for your theory. The Biblical authors had not one thing to say about a wheel.
I have NEVER claimed inspiration for anything I have written. You have failed to understand the most basic elements of my proclamation. I am simply asserting that the structure of the Bible and its integration with the Hebrew alphabet is inspired by God. Since I had nothing to do with the formation of the Christian canon, whereas you yourself wrote your commentary, your statement is proven to be factually false.

As for the biblical writers, they had plenty to say about the Wheel. Ezekiel saw its wheels within wheels as explained by Gregory the Great (593 AD) who wrote a lot words about how the wheels represented the Old and the New Testaments. Fra Angelico painted a picture of it as such in the fifteenth century. Zechariah saw the one stone with seven eyes (sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Bible Wheel) which Coffman and others interpret as the WORD OF GOD. And God Himself capped off His sevenfold book with the revelation of the book sealed with seven seals, suggesting that the Bible itself is the very Seal of God written on the foreheads (minds) of those who belong to Him. I could go on and on and on ... but what good will it do if you don't care about evidence?

Richard

[dizzle]

Neither is the work of MY hands.

I assert that the BW is the Work of God.

That quote speaks otherwise.

And nice eisegesis there. It is funny that you alienate the ones who like mystical stuff (myself) and you swing your bat wildly.

[Leonhard]

What was the name and date of the Paper?

Whoops forgot that part!!!

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten 2. 10. 2005

You can read it at løgnehistorie (http://www.poulblak.dk/avis10.htm)

[BibleWheel]

That quote speaks otherwise.

And nice eisegesis there. It is funny that you alienate the ones who like mystical stuff (myself) and you swing your bat wildly.
How does it declare otherwise?

Please specifiy the exact statement that is supposed to be "eisegetical."

And how am I swinging "my bat wildly"? You called me cultic for declaring the the Bible is the Word of God. That seems like a pretty wild wack. Where have I done anything like that?

Richard

[Rayado]

You have no idea what you are mocking.

Actually, when you claim that your work is the Rosetta Stone of Biblical Hermeneutics, you open yourself up to all sorts of (deserved) mockery. DeeDee was right to call such behavior extraordinarily cultic.

If you think I am a screwball
Actually, this is the whole problem: you are taking all of the (deserved) criticism of the BW and assigning it to yourself. Screwball awards are given for what people say, not for simply existing.

Which brings me to my next point: you've taken what everyone has said about the BW and applied it to yourself--needlessly, I might add. It's immature, and it seriously looks like you cannot maturely accept any criticism of your work without getting bent out of shape over it.

Oh, and one more thing: don't try to shame and guilt my friends into behaving how you want them to. Shame and guilt are not weapons for you to wield. Those are only rightfully used only by God and no other.

[dizzle]

How does it declare otherwise?


You continually mistake your pronouncements on what you think God has done and said to what God has actually done and said.

Please specifiy the exact statement that is supposed to be "eisegetical."

Your ones claiming that the Bible taught about a Bible wheel. That is beyond silly.

And how am I swinging "my bat wildly"? You called me cultic for declaring the the Bible is the Word of God. That seems like a pretty wild wack. Where have I done anything like that?

Read this thread wherein you claim that you are the only one who has reason to believe they are Christian.

[BibleWheel]

And your criteria is false. You were really asking them to meet YOUR definition, not the Biblical standard.
As far as I know, I have not given any definition of how people should behave in this forum not thoroughly supported in Scripture. Therefore, either you will have to provide a quote of something I wrote where I applied my own definition that differs from the plain teaching of Scripture, or your statement will have been refuted.

I did see some on this forum engage to discuss your views, but the moment someone disagreed with you, you condemned that individual or proclaimed yet again that you alone have found the true way to understand the Bible, and you alone can teach others. Classic cult mindset.
That's a blatant lie. I have always sought dialogue. I have NEVER said that I alone have found the true way to understand the Bible. I have NEVER said that I alone can teach others.

Your statements are total and complete lies.

[BibleWheel]

You continually mistake your pronouncements on what you think God has done and said to what God has actually done and said.
I have NEVER mistook my statements with the Work of God. I have NEVER suggested anything I have written is the Work of God. Your statement is absolutely false (and quite rude, I might add).

There is one and only one thing that I declare to be a pronouncement of God - the HOLY BIBLE.

That's it.

Why are you so committed to diverting the conversation away from a simple test of my assertions? If you can find any fundamental assertion that I have made about the BW that can be proved factually false, you will have won the debate and I will have to admit defeat.

Why are you not even trying?

Your ones claiming that the Bible taught about a Bible wheel. That is beyond silly.
The thing that is "beyond silly" is your inability (or unwillingness) to understand the most basic English sentences. I claim nothing for my self. The BW has nothing to do with me. I am asserting that the Bible has a design called the BW. That's it. I'm, talking about what God has done in His Word.

A child of five years old could understand my words. Why can't you?

Read this thread wherein you claim that you are the only one who has reason to believe they are Christian.

I never wrote that. So now you need to either find the quote, or PUBLICLY admit your error.

I merely asked people if they could give me a reason to think they are Christian. The reason I asked is because most people in this thread seem cruel, heartless, Christless. I'm just judging by their posts, mind you. People then spewed our more mockery - even to the point of absurdity in a post that repeated the word "mock" a hundred times.

The thing that really astounds me is that the people posting in this thread aparently have no self-awareness whatsoever about how they are treating others. There also seems to be no awareness of the basic rules of logic, or what it means to seek truth. Every post contains new slaps, snipes, rips, and tears in the fabric of this "community" you claim to love.

Why don't you try to reason with me? Why the constant attack? Maybe you should go read the posts from the athesists and skeptics on the Danielle forum so you can learn how people can move from this kind of altercation into a genuine discussion. Given the behaviour of the atheists and skeptics, I have reason to believe that some of them may be true Christians who have been quenching the implanted Word because of pride or abuse in a church or whatever. Why have I not sensed the same thing here? It seems just the opposite. Here I am attacked by people claiming to be Christians without showing any of the fruit! Amazing!

Richard

[dizzle]

You are really funny. I provided the quote that gave that impression. I pointed out many things, and it is quite funny that you would play the hurt puppy and call me rude while comparing me to less than a five year old. You are a hypocrite. If you prefer the Danielle forum, then have fun there.

Your zeal I find comparable to a cultist. No thanks.

[BibleWheel]

Your ones claiming that the Bible taught about a Bible wheel. That is beyond silly.
Ok. At least I now know that you think a Christian interpretation of Ezekiel's vision that held currency from at least the sixth century through the fifteenth and beyond by a wide variety of Christians can be simply dismissed as "beyond silly." And you dismiss modern scholars like Coffman and Unger who declared that the Stone in Zechariah represents the Word of God as "beyond silly." That helps a lot in my efforts to understand why I am having trouble getting you to see the obvious. You don't do theology.

Well now, I guess I stand corrected. Dee Dee Warren has spoken. Its time to burn the all those dusty old books from those no-nothing buffoons who went before us!

Thanks for clarifying the situation Dee Dee.

Richard

[BibleWheel]

You are really funny. I provided the quote that gave that impression.
And you are even funnier, because I showed you how you misinterpreted the plain and obvious meaning of my words, but you still won't admit it!

I pointed out many things, and it is quite funny that you would play the hurt puppy and call me rude while comparing me to less than a five year old. You are a hypocrite. If you prefer the Danielle forum, then have fun there.
A hypocrite is more like someone who pretends to run a form that "seriously debates theology" when in fact it is a mere cult club house where people spend their precious God-given time searching the web for "Screwballs" so they can post their rolling heads and tell themselves how smart they are. It looks (and smells) like purest strain of satanic pride.

Then when someone challenges them to prove their points, the spew forth a putrid slurry of ad hominem, mockery, irrationality, and slander.

Your zeal I find comparable to a cultist. No thanks.
Ditto. At least my zeal is for the Word of God. Yours appears to be for the cacaphonic kindom of self-exaltation.

Richard

[BibleWheel]

Actually, when you claim that your work is the Rosetta Stone of Biblical Hermeneutics, you open yourself up to all sorts of (deserved) mockery. DeeDee was right to call such behavior extraordinarily cultic.
That sums up TWeb in a "nut" shell. I open myself up to DESERVED MOCKERY for proclaiming the glory of what God has done in His Holy Word. It matters not that my work is based entirely on the Bible and the Bible alone. It matters not that I have provided a mountain of evidence for every claim. It matters not that no one has ever found a systematic error or fundamental flaw in my work. It matters not that no one has ever met my exceedingly simple "Bible Wheel Challenge." Indeed, nothing matters on TWeb except the perverse lust you all have in mockery, derision, and insults.

Actually, this is the whole problem: you are taking all of the (deserved) criticism of the BW and assigning it to yourself. Screwball awards are given for what people say, not for simply existing.
The criticism was not deserved. Even on the rare occassion that folks would attempt to actually evaluate my work, they freaked out when they found out it couldn't be distroyed with sophomoric arguments, so they went on the raging ad hominen attack. This is all documented on this site. It is a fact.

Oh, and one more thing: don't try to shame and guilt my friends into behaving how you want them to. Shame and guilt are not weapons for you to wield. Those are only rightfully used only by God and no other.

Your friends have shamed themselves. It has nothing to do with me.

Richard

[Cynic Sage]

That sums up TWeb in a "nut" shell. I open myself up to DESERVED MOCKERY for proclaiming the glory of what God has done in His Holy Word. It matters not that my work is based entirely on the Bible and the Bible alone. It matters not that I have provided a mountain of evidence for every claim. It matters not that no one has ever found a systematic error or fundamental flaw in my work. It matters not that no one has ever met my exceedingly simple "Bible Wheel Challenge." Indeed, nothing matters on TWeb except the perverse lust you all have in mockery, derision, and insults.


The criticism was not deserved. Even on the rare occassion that folks would attempt to actually evaluate my work, they freaked out when they found out it couldn't be distroyed with sophomoric arguments, so they went on the raging ad hominen attack. This is all documented on this site. It is a fact.



Your friends have shamed themselves. It has nothing to do with me.

Richard

Could you take it to the Locker room.

[Cynic Sage]

There's a Left Behind video-game coming out:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-godgames10may10,0,1260114.story?coll=la-home-business

The game's heroes belong to a group of fighters called the Tribulation Force, people whose husbands, wives or children disappeared in the Rapture. This is the moment referred to in the title when, some Christians believe, God calls the faithful to Heaven, leaving the rest behind to face seven years of tribulation.

The game is set in New York City, where the Tribulation Force clashes with the Antichrist's Global Community Peacekeepers in a tale that makes the United Nations a tool for Satan. Each side attempts to recruit lost souls in the battle for the city. "Eternal Forces" is a so-called real-time strategy game — players act as battlefield generals for their virtual armies, deciding where to place units and when to order attacks or retreats.

In the game, Tribulation squads unleash the usual arsenal against the Antichrist: guns, tanks, helicopters. But soldiers lose some of their spirituality every time they kill an opponent and must be bolstered through prayer. The failure to nurture good guys causes their spirit points to drop, leaving them vulnerable to recruitment by the other side.

The player's choices prompt intervention by angelic forces or unleash demons who feast on the faithful. As players progress through the increasingly difficult levels, they see Scripture passages presented as secret scrolls and hear inspirational music.


So if you do your daily devotionals, you can get away with killing people.

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet. I'm going to visit Tim LaHayle. :daveg:

[Cynic Sage]

Remember, it's not about you :ahem::

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

[One Bad Pig]

Remember, it's not about you :ahem::

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/todaystory.asp?id=5700 (http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/todaystory.asp?id=5700)
You nominated them last month.

[Sparko]

Remember, it's not about you :ahem::

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

I think some of you guys are abusing the whole idea of a "screwball thread"

You all just keep nominating people and websites you don't agree with. There is nothing screwball about having multiple worship services. It may not be something you like but that doesn't make it screwball.

[Cynic Sage]

You nominated them last month.

Was it for that, or for Rick Warren's book on interpreting the Bible?

[Cynic Sage]

I think some of you guys are abusing the whole idea of a "screwball thread"

You all just keep nominating people and websites you don't agree with. There is nothing screwball about having multiple worship services. It may not be something you like but that doesn't make it screwball.

It's not the fact that the services are multiple (I think the Spanish one is a good idea), it's the fact that the services are geared towards the personal tastes of the worshippers and "what you can I get out of it" consumerist mindset despite how The sacred text of Warrentology (The Purpose-Driven Life) says that "worship" where that is the motivation isn't true worship.

And that's what's makes it a screwball.

[jpholding]

Website award:

http://www.truebiblecode.com/welcome.html

[Sparko]

It's not the fact that the services are multiple (I think the Spanish one is a good idea), it's the fact that the services are geared towards the personal tastes of the worshippers and "what you can I get out of it" consumerist mindset despite how The sacred text of Warrentology (The Purpose-Driven Life) says that "worship" where that is the motivation isn't true worship.

And that's what's makes it a screwball.

yeah well the Purpose Driven Life isn't what I would call Screwball. It might not be what you think of as good theology, but it isn't screwball either. It teaches nothing heretical or wacky and trying to claim it does and extend that claim to a whole church is just wrong too.

When I read a screwball thread, I expect to read of some nutcase who claims to be God, thinks that aliens kidnapped Jesus, that the holocaust never happened, that Dee Dee Warren really IS Xena, that Hillary Clinton's dog is Satan, etc, not that a california church has seeker-friendly services.

Come on Johnny! I want entertainment, not griping about people and things you don't agree with but are still within the mainstream of Christianity.

[TuckEverlasting]

yeah well the Purpose Driven Life isn't what I would call Screwball. It might not be what you think of as good theology, but it isn't screwball either. It teaches nothing heretical or wacky and trying to claim it does and extend that claim to a whole church is just wrong too.

When I read a screwball thread, I expect to read of some nutcase who claims to be God, thinks that aliens kidnapped Jesus, that the holocaust never happened, that Dee Dee Warren really IS Xena, that Hillary Clinton's dog is Satan, etc, not that a california church has seeker-friendly services.

Come on Johnny! I want entertainment, not griping about people and things you don't agree with but are still within the mainstream of Christianity.
I'm going to flip a coin to decide if I should POTD that. :ponder: You want caribou or Queen Elizabeth, Sparksy?

[Teallaura]

yeah well the Purpose Driven Life isn't what I would call Screwball. It might not be what you think of as good theology, but it isn't screwball either. It teaches nothing heretical or wacky and trying to claim it does and extend that claim to a whole church is just wrong too.

When I read a screwball thread, I expect to read of some nutcase who claims to be God, thinks that aliens kidnapped Jesus, that the holocaust never happened, that Dee Dee Warren really IS Xena, that Hillary Clinton's dog is Satan, etc, not that a california church has seeker-friendly services.

Come on Johnny! I want entertainment, not griping about people and things you don't agree with but are still within the mainstream of Christianity.


:brood: Dee Dee is Xena! Next thing you know, you'll be claiming Semmie isn't really a cow!

[{Tim}]

:brood: Dee Dee is Xena! Next thing you know, you'll be claiming Semmie isn't really a cow!
And then he'll be trying to take my sword away.

:tim:

[Sparko]

you guys really ARE a bunch of Idjuts. Dee Dee is NOT Xena! :glare:



... Xena is Dee Dee. There IS a difference you know.

[Teallaura]

"Dee Dee is Xena and Xena is Dee Dee" - get it right, idjit! :brood:


And leave {Tim}'s sword alone!

[Sparko]

"Dee Dee is Xena and Xena is Dee Dee" - get it right, idjit! :brood:


And leave {Tim}'s sword alone!

Dee Dee is a subset of Xena, ye fool.

XNA=D2(1)

[Teallaura]

Dee Dee is a subset of Xena, ye fool.

XNA=D2(1)

They are mutual subsets - hence the eternal paradox, you banana boat!

Given: XNA=D2(1)
Then: D2(1)=XNA(1)

[Cynic Sage]

yeah well the Purpose Driven Life isn't what I would call Screwball. It might not be what you think of as good theology, but it isn't screwball either. It teaches nothing heretical or wacky and trying to claim it does and extend that claim to a whole church is just wrong too.

When I read a screwball thread, I expect to read of some nutcase who claims to be God, thinks that aliens kidnapped Jesus, that the holocaust never happened, that Dee Dee Warren really IS Xena, that Hillary Clinton's dog is Satan, etc, not that a california church has seeker-friendly services.

Come on Johnny! I want entertainment, not griping about people and things you don't agree with but are still within the mainstream of Christianity.

I didn't call PDL a screwball that (not in my previous post, at least). I nominated Saddleback because they speak out of both sides of their mouths, saying "come and worship to be entertained" on their site:

PRAISE

Hear gospel music that always moves your heart and usually your feet! It’s a big choir worship experience with the videocast message. This is our most popular venue. If you've never tried one of our venues, try "Praise!" in January.
OverDrive
For those who like guitar-driven rock band worship in a concert-like setting that you can FEEL! Rev it up in worship and get ready for the videocast message.
Ohana

Get away to the islands for a time of worship, complete with hula and island-style music. Message is by videocast. There’s a potluck “luau” right after the service on the first Saturday of every month (food, fun, fellowship and hula lessons).

Yet at the same time, saying in PDL:


Worship is not for your benefit. As a pastor, I recieve notes that say, "I loved the worship today. I got a lot out of it." This is another misconception about worship. It isn't for our benefit! We worship for God's benefit. When we worship, our goal is to bring pleasure to God, not ourselves.

If you have ever said, "I didn't get anything out of worship today," you worshipped for the wrong reason. Worship isn't for you. It's for God.

Now do you get it?

[Cynic Sage]

HonestSeeker:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1524586&postcount=966 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1524586&postcount=966)


I just came across some scripture that adds more support to reincarnation:

Deuteronomy 23:2
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Deuteronomy 23:3
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:


:lol:

[Sparko]

I didn't call PDL a screwball that (not in my previous post, at least). I nominated Saddleback because they speak out of both sides of their mouths, saying "come and worship to be entertained" on their site:

PRAISE

Hear gospel music that always moves your heart and usually your feet! It’s a big choir worship experience with the videocast message. This is our most popular venue. If you've never tried one of our venues, try "Praise!" in January.
OverDrive
For those who like guitar-driven rock band worship in a concert-like setting that you can FEEL! Rev it up in worship and get ready for the videocast message.
Ohana

Get away to the islands for a time of worship, complete with hula and island-style music. Message is by videocast. There’s a potluck “luau” right after the service on the first Saturday of every month (food, fun, fellowship and hula lessons).

Yet at the same time, saying in PDL:


Worship is not for your benefit. As a pastor, I recieve notes that say, "I loved the worship today. I got a lot out of it." This is another misconception about worship. It isn't for our benefit! We worship for God's benefit. When we worship, our goal is to bring pleasure to God, not ourselves.

If you have ever said, "I didn't get anything out of worship today," you worshipped for the wrong reason. Worship isn't for you. It's for God.

Now do you get it?

no. You are still picking on someone you dont seem to like, Rick Warren. Do you disagree that worship is about God and not about you? Is that a screwball thing to say? I don't think you do. Warren is just saying that whining about a service that doesn't suit you is being childish. He never says you have to attend a church or service that you dislike and 'tough it out' like worship is supposed to be a chore or something either.

What purpose does it serve to go to a church where you hate the service and can't participate because you don't enjoy it? The worship is about God, but he wants you to worship in joy and truth. Not go along with some stuffy old hymns that you never heard before. If you enjoy the service then you can give that much more worship and love to God.

Get off your high horse.

[Teallaura]

HonestSeeker:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1524586&postcount=966 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1524586&postcount=966)



:lol::lolo:

[jpholding]

Bagger_Vance breaks the Irony Meter again....


I can say with all honesty that not one I've read on TWEBB has ever shook my foundations in the least but being a former christian I can say that a couple at least made good arguments at the time.

I think CS Lewis who gets hammered here and rightly so. In some ways he deserves to be discredited but he is also insanely clever, humorous, and fun to read. I think his great skill was making you want to believe that he was right. He could paint a landscape that made you want to be a part of it if for nothing else just to hang out with him. At least that is what I think.

Another for me was/is Ravi Zacharias. When I was a christian he was the guy I listened too. I never put much stock in Hagee's charts, Hinn's spectacles, or Billy Graham's oratory skills. But Ravi was different. He is a smart guy. There is no denying that but sometimes I listen to him and I wonder how he is unable to direct his highly perceptive mind onto his on faith. You see him skewer Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the like with high degrees of accuracy but it seems his blinders come on as soon as he discusses christianity. In a lot of ways I think Ravi helped me deconvert by showing me how baseless religion was. He just didn't mean for me to take his tools and turn them on Christianity.

[jpholding]

Email....


Hello,

I read a page on your website that makes many claims about how the Bible can not be inerrant, however, I do not see any evidence to prove your point other than a lot of words.

Have you done a thorough investigation of the comparisons of the pre-Christ manusrcipts (ie Dead Sea Scrolls) compared with the manuscripts found in the manuscripts from the years of approximatly a.d.1200? The ancient copyist were extremely accurate and the Jews and other copyists employed methods of ensuring exact copies that border on paranoid obsession.

You should check some books by Josh Mcdowell, such as "Evidence for Christianity" before you make claims that can damage the faith of Christians who do know the truth about the historicity of the Bible.

Your assertion that a person does not need to believe that the Bible is the accurate and timeless inspired word of God is a really good way to create a wishy-washy Christian who will not have the strength needed to make the hard decisions in life based on the solid truth of the Bible.

If you can not trust every single word of the Bible to be the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17) then you really can not trust any of the Bible at all. If you can not trust God to be accurate in something as small as a book of His teachings, how can you trust Him to be reliable when it comes to eternal salvation?

Would it be easier for Him to give us the accurate inspired word and to ensure that it is accuratley translated through the ages and essential to life, or to create the universe, life, man, death, Heaven, Hell, salvation, and eternal life?

The Bible is accurate and can be trusted... period! I applaud your attempt to use the internet to spread the Good News, however, do not shackle the incredible power of God's inspired words in the Bible by minimizing the accuracy of these documents that have come to us over a period of about 3,500 years (Moses' times to 2006) and are the most archaelogically support documents from all ancient history.


So all you guys who've been reading Tekton these years: You're a bunch of wishy-washy weaklings who need to go read some Josh McDowell. :hehe:

[P-Dunn]

"Calpurnpiso" of RavingAtheist's forums for his support of the Jesus = Caesar story. He also seems to believe that all Christians are infected with a disease known as "Christ-psychosis," and asserts that the persecution of Christians by Nero never happened because Christians didn't exist at that time.

This is funniest when you read it with an egotistical French accent. :lol:

p-Dunn wrote:

"Well, I'd think the very fact that Christianity exists in the first place today (due to the near impossibility of Christianity existing without a resurrection), and that the theory that Christ never existed holds practically no scholarly support, should be evidence enough. "

No scholarly support?....are you in elementary school? There is NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence, NO EPIGRAPHY, ZILCH, ZERO,..and specially in the time capsule cities of Pompeii, Herculaneum, Oplontis and Stabiae that Christ ever EXISTED. NONE!!... This cities were BURIED on Aug 24th 79ce by Vesuvius. They lay buried for over 1600 years! EVIDENCE preserved. These were not mere INSIGNIFICANT towns. These were RESORT CITIES where the Roman INTELLIGENTSIA and the upper class of Rome had villas with LIBRARIES!!!! Obviously you are ignorant of these facts.

The father in law of Iulius Caesar ( the true Archiereus Megistos = Iesous Christos who was a GOD and saviour of Rome), Lucius Calpurnius Piso Cesoninus ( also a HEAD PRIEST=Iesous Christos) had a VILLA in Herculaneum with a huge LIBRARY of Epicurean philosopher Philodemus works...and guess what? NO EVIDENCE of the MIRACLE worker 'jewish" messiah, !! Why not? t hese people RULED the EMPIRE!!,, if there was ANY god it was the DIVINE IULIUS CAESAR!!..after all, there were TEMPLES to him all over the empire.

The ONLY evidence of the "jewish Messiah Christ" existence is in the texts that made up the BABBLE. Romans DO NOT MENTION him in their documents! The convenient mentioning of jesus on the writings of Josephus is an INTERPOLATION by Christian aloplogists decades later. Christian FORGED everything to prove the existence of Jesus!!..Alas they are still at it today!! and they fall victims of CON ARTISTS!!, like the james ossuary of few years ago!!. Nazareth and Bethlehem did NOT exist when Christ is supposed to have roamed the earth!..

Obviously you do not know history at all. ..and Nero persecuting Christians? LAUGHABLE..Christian did NOT exist in those days ( except those followers of the Cult of Divus Iulius who were called Christians 450 years later). During the Rome conflagration of 64 e. Suetonius writing about 60 years LATER of what had occurred, said Nero blamed the CHRISTIANI ( followers of a Christos an annointed holy man). What he meant to say was the CHRESTAI, which means SPECULATORS ( this was the name given to jewish/ arab traders that were opportunist at the misery of others). The most IGNORANT of all thing that the Christ-psychotics retards say is that Nero threw Christians to lions in the Coloseum!!! The ignorant Christian retards do not realize Romans tolerated ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS in the empire. But the CULT of the emperor who originated with the god iulius Caesar after his TEMPLE was built in 29bce, gain MOMENTUM and was the most IMPORTANT religion of the empire. The Coloseum ( the Flavian amphitheater) was not begun till Vespacianus succeded Nero building it on top of Nero's lake after it was drained. A Colossal statue of Nero as SOL INVICTOS was nearby, hence its name. There is NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Christians were thrown to lions there ZERO,ZILCH!!!.

Christians in heir ignorance and delusional stupor, attempting at re-writing history think everyone is as uneducated and delusional as they are!!...

And...

P-Dunn wrote;

"I don't appreciate the whole "Christians don't use their brain" stereotype, just letting you know."

It is not an stereotype. It is simply the truth! Don't christians rather accept idiotic delusions based on ancient myths than the FACTS backed up by historical EVIDENCE? No Pistis Sophia here!!

They have cause tremendous intellectual stagnation with this habit of theirs! They were responsible for the desintegration of the Roman Empire and the dawn of the Dark Ages. The fact is that their delusions of invisible friends, gods and demons are no different that those of people suffering from schizophrenia, or temporal lobe epilepsy!!
It is caused by "faith triggers" an influx of deleterious mixed erroneous information of synapses all of it based on delusional innacurate FANTASIES, as in the mentally retarded or children, which are erroneously thought as FACTUAL. Faith as we know it is always inverselly proportional to the knowledge and informatin of the person experiencing this psychosis trigger of faith. We know prayers are INNEFECTIVE and the utterances of mal adjusted people with mental problems. My JETS ( jesus Existence Tests) clearly prove it.
One must realize that EXTRAORDINARY claims require extraordinary EVIDENCE...and the Christ-psychotics can NOT produce them and they NEVER will!!....

[Rayado]

(From that Email that JP got:)
do not shackle the incredible power of God's inspired words in the Bible by minimizing the accuracy of these documents that have come to us over a period of about 3,500 years (Moses' times to 2006)

:lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

"Calpurnpiso" of RavingAtheist's forums for his support of the Jesus = Caesar story. He also seems to believe that all Christians are infected with a disease known as "Christ-psychosis," and asserts that the persecution of Christians by Nero never happened because Christians didn't exist at that time.

This is funniest when you read it with an egotistical French accent. :lol:



And...
Linky Linky

[P-Dunn]

Linky Linky
Linky. (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=4266&p=5) Whoops. Just scroll down a bit. The thread originally started out as having praise for The God Who Wasn't There. Ha.

[RumTumTugger]

Linky. (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=4266&p=5) Whoops. Just scroll down a bit. The thread originally started out as having praise for The God Who Wasn't There. Ha.
P. Dunn you might want to read and link calpurnpiso to J.P.holding's article Off the Edge of the Lunatic Fringe (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/pisocake.html) it answers the question you asked Calpurnpiso in a nutshell, he's part of the idiot group that believes that all we know about History is made up.

addenum: should have checked the forum you linked to first you did show them JPs work. good job btw answering everyone there.

[P-Dunn]

P. Dunn you might want to read and link calpurnpiso to J.P.holding's article Off the Edge of the Lunatic Fringe (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/pisocake.html) it answers the question you asked Calpurnpiso in a nutshell, he's part of the idiot group that believes that all we know about History is made up.

addenum: should have checked the forum you linked to first you did show them JPs work. good job btw answering everyone there.
Unfortunately, he ignored the link, like practically everything else I've said. Because, according to him, all true historians believe his story. Only Christians would assert Jesus existed as a historical figure!

Thanks...I didn't think I was doing very well. It seems like every single member there is a Christ-myther. :argh:

[jpholding]

Dimbo (Brooks Trubee) wins Gold for this update on the anointed-one.com Holding Hate Site on the subject of "business". Before it said little more than this:

Today [Holding]'s apologetics-for-money business is going well-and getting better. In a post on the Theology Web discussion boards, Mr. [Holding] revealed the amount of income he had received from donors from 2000 to 2002. As you can see, his home-business grew by leaps and bounds.


Originally the deal was that I was a money grubbing televangelist sort; but now it's a little different, as this has been added:

Based on his comments on Theology Web, [Holding] wants to keep the donations to Tektonics Apologetic Ministries, Inc. below $25,000. If the donations get to $25,000, of course, [Holding] would be obligated to make Tektonics Inc.'s income statements public...

One can surmise that [Holding] wants to keep the donations below $25,000 so that he does not have to publically reveal exactly what the money is used for, which probably includes groceries and mortgage payments.

So I want your money, but not TOO much of it, thanks. :lolo: :lmbo:

(By the way, yeah...it DOES include groceries and mortgage payments...that's what a "salary" is usually for, when a non-profit pays its workers...) :ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Dimbo (Brooks Trubee) wins Gold for this update on the anointed-one.com Holding Hate Site on the subject of "business". Before it said little more than this:



Originally the deal was that I was a money grubbing televangelist sort; but now it's a little different, as this has been added:





So I want your money, but not TOO much of it, thanks. :lolo: :lmbo:

(By the way, yeah...it DOES include groceries and mortgage payments...that's what a "salary" is usually for, when a non-profit pays its workers...) :ahem:
I wonder if he's paid his F.F.R.F. dues lately. :hehe:

[Cynic Sage]

Thumper:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78906 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78906)

You cannot escape you own attitudes, for they will form the very nature of your reality; we see what we wish to see. We must change our attitudes first as they will remain, however changes bring consciousness.

Does religion provide attitudes about life, yes it does.

Your thoughts creat reality, en mass we form what we wish to see, feel and hear; our closed system of beliefs form what little reality we see.

As best we can, we make things "beleavable" as in our world things must have some "credibility"; a God is made into the form of a man and religions sprout like weeds. Most, if not the majority of religions creat a battle of "good v. evil" and the good guy in the white hat always wins; sound familiar?

We creat what we want, always have, always will.

Our telepathy operates constantly, we creat by thought and the physical follows. Consciousness, the thoughts, come first beofre anything else. Before we had a body, we were "us", the individule. If one thinks about another in a suggestive -negative way the results, to some extent, will act upon them in a negative way. What projections you send have validity in our reality. The more the numbers of "beleavers" the more solid this reality becomes. We are now focused in this time, this space, this earth as we created it and believe in it.

What you see in others is the materialization-the projection of what you see in yourself. If a person seems decietful to you, then you decieve yourself. A projection and interpretation of oneself. It all goes around to each.

We are all multi dimensional-personalities, and within you lies all the knoweldege of yourself that you will ever need to know.

Ideas generate emotion, like attracts like, so simalar ideas group around you (religions) and this fits your particular system of ideas-reality.

Ideas represent your psychic intent. They generate emotion and imagination. They are the motive force of action. This is the creative force from which all realities spring. Imagination is the most concentrated form of energy that you possess as a physical creature; more power exist in simple imagination than the power it takes to send a rocket to the moon. Evrything we see today in this world was once simple imagination, yet, imagination started it all from the blueprints to physical form.

Limiting ideas (religions) therefore predispose you to accept ideas of a simalar nature. Exuberant ideas, freedom, spontaneity and joy automatically collect others of thier kind also. There is a conscious interplay between yourself and others in the exchange of ideas, both telepathecally and on a conscious level. You react to this exchange based on your ideas about yourself and your reality.

Religion can indeed provide the very "demons" you seek as your beliefs are so strong in them they will gain some validity. A demon may have no power over you as it is not grounded in reality as you are; however, many times persons of religion have passed on and met thier fate based on thier expectations and system of belief. In time ( and time is a facade) such persons were taught the "hellish" reality they find themselves in isen't real enough to hold them. And it will fall away and reality will spring forward. Be carefull what you wish for. A demon can only hold you if you allow it.

All times, all percieved-space, all things exist at once in a fraction of a heartbeat, perceptions limit what we experience, nothing starts or ends as this is not the nature of reality, only perception. Deja-vu is an example of expanded consciousness, we see -feel or sense something that may have occurd prior, or did it? It occured now, we simply bumped into it as maybe our eyes were open at that time. :)

Telepathic communication is constant at the unconscious level merly because the conscious mind is in a state of becoming...as an example
if your thoughts are relatively positive you will react to thoughts of the same or simalar nature; anyone can think negative about you without effect on you as you do not buy into thier ideas.

You make your reality. You get what you concentrate on-there is no other main rule.

You may also react to inner information at an uncounscious level collected under your organization of your conscious concepts. So you are locked into physical situations that are corroborated by the greater psychic consciousness of others. Like being at a dance, sometimes others want a certain song you don't like, and the song plays while others dance, you sit, this is your preception, so it is valid.

You form your reality directly. You react consciously and uncounsciously your beliefs. You collect from the physical universe (you created), and the interior one, data that seems to corroborate your beliefs and that forms your perceptive reality.

You must become aware of your own structures (beliefs). Build them, or tear them down, but don't yourself become blind to the furniture (beliefs) of your mind, it will help you, in fact, furniture can be rearranged, changed, renewed, thrown out ect. Pick what furniture you like. See what is inside the drawers or how well your end tables fit together.

Bad ideas, like furniture, will ramin together unless you elect to place them elsewhere..

The conscious mind is the vehicle for the expression of the soul in corporeal terms. Your made up in body by your beleafs. Consciousness creats reality, it's not the other way around.

The first important step to realize your beliefs about reality are just that-beliefs about oneself , they do not neccesarily make up reality without the ability to change it. What you wish-imagine-think can all be changed with imagination and thought.

The very nature of reality has it's complexities; this is wide open for discussion. Truley having an open mind to contemplate information must exist, absent that, this Webpage is useless.

In closing I must say I do not wish to offend religious ones. We think and therefore we are.

He posted this in PoliSci. :lol:

[Leonhard]

Here's a nut.

The St. Petersburg times - New - Lion Kills Man in Kiev (http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=17804)

KIEV — A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in the Kiev Zoo after he crept into an enclosure, a zoo official said Monday.

“The man shouted ‘God will save me, if he exists,’ lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions,” the official said.

So this is not the way of testing the existance of God.

[RumTumTugger]

Unfortunately, he ignored the link, like practically everything else I've said. Because, according to him, all true historians believe his story. Only Christians would assert Jesus existed as a historical figure!

That's the nature of the Piso Conspiricy Nuts anyone that doesn't agree with them is not a true historian because only those who belong or have belonged to the piso family have the true history.

Thanks...I didn't think I was doing very well. It seems like every single member there is a Christ-myther. :argh:

P-Dunn you answered all their objections clearly and respectfully where required. It's a case this tiem of the horse not being a horse but a stubborn mule so you aren't even able to lead them to the water much less make them drink it. Dont worry about it I'm sure there are those reading it that have listened.

[Teallaura]

Here's a nut.

The St. Petersburg times - New - Lion Kills Man in Kiev (http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=17804)



So this is not the way of testing the existance of God.Well, if the object of the game is to find out for certain - yeah, it worked. Now, if you're trying to prove it to your buddy and/or would rather not explain to God why you were testing Him, then it stinks.

[Sparko]

(By the way, yeah...it DOES include groceries and mortgage payments...that's what a "salary" is usually for, when a non-profit pays its workers...) :ahem:

What? No air-conditioned dog houses, golden thrones, giant pink wigs for your wife or junkets to Las Vegas to inspect strip clubs?

I demand an accounting!

[Darth Executor]

Adam:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1527351&postcount=59


6. Pope Pius XII, up for sainthood, actually had a monstrous impact on 20th Century Europe. He was the primary architect of centralization of Vatican power in consolidating all past papal decrees. He caused both World War I and World War II. See Hitler's Pope by Cornwell. (As Pope he got better, and he is unjustly portrayed as a tool of Hitler in the war.)

[Sparko]

The Biblewheel ranting has been split to the locker room here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78962

Please keep all discussion to and from Biblewheel there. Further derailments will just be deleted here.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

You modded you own post?

[Sparko]

i just made a new post to put my notice in about the split so people would know where to go to.

It takes quite a bit to derail a screwball thread so congratulations to all involved. Nice job, but take it elsewhere.

LOL.

[Leonhard]

Do the screwballs have to have to be contemporary? How about three decadeish?

Here's something I dug out of the positive atheist site!

http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/gora21.htm

The slave-mind, contained in theistic faith, abetted inequality. By meek submission, slaves permitted capitalists, autocrats and aristocrats to ride roughshod and made tyrants of their brothers. Tyranny does not end until slavery is abolished, and slavery does not go until theism is abolished. So freedom-loving, honest persons naturally spread atheism in order to rouse the masses against tyranny of any kind. Among such stalwarts were Moses, the Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, Jesus, Mohammad, Voltaire, Marx and Gandhi.

Jesus, Buddha (which is a titel and not a name!) and Mohammed as atheists!!!

I goes on and on like this...

Jesus was crucified for uttering "blasphemy." And here I he was convicted of causing civil disorder... The atheistic method of understanding requires, of course, the freedom of the individual to imagine as well as to verify the inferences. But theists go so far as to consider the freedom itself an illusion. I thought it was othen the other way around?

He rambles on and on about atheistic philosophy being superior to theistic philosophy. Him even talking about an atheistic philosophy is in itself absurd, since atheism is about not believing in god/s and not about a whole point of view at the great whole whatever.

Several savants are known to be eminently scientific in laboratories but conventionally superstitious in their personal life. Some of them use charms omens and amulets, repose belief in miracles, and attend to prayers in obedience to custom. Obviously such scientists do not have the scientific mind. So dishonest theists and greedy politicians easily use their talents for prosecuting wars and establishing dictatorships.So only religious scientist are pursuing war efforts? Science is essentially atheistic. No, atheism is not about science But, without the avowed adoption of atheism, scientific progress is liable to be misused. So if get rid of all these supersticious jerks we will have no more nukes and guns

Check it out if you want to see a raving indien philosopher make broad generalisations and hapstac assumptions about virtually everything!

*note text in bold is my own

[Jnthn]

The perpetual flat tyre that is BibleWheel:

As for TWeb not being cached ... gee, I wonder why not? Oh, I know! Its because of the that tag you put in all the headers in the hope of hiding your corruption.
TheologyWeb Campus - powered by swamp fever!

<meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache" />




What ever could you be hiding?
Proof positive that correct HTML is of the Devil.

J

[Teallaura]

You just hadda do it, didn't ya, Jnthn? :eh:


:argh: Here we go again!

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Oh boy have I found a screwball:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/ChristianCursing.html


Christian Cursing



"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mat. 12:36-37)

"In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you." (Titus 2:7-8)

According to these verses of Scripture, we, as Christians, need to be very careful with our mouths because we will one day give account to God. Most Christians are aware of the fact that God expects them to live holy lives. Likewise, most God-fearing Christians have learned to abstain from swearing and from the use of common profanity. I haven't met many faithful Christians who have a problem with worldly cursing. However, I have met MANY Christians who have stumbled into the Devil's trap and taken up a whole different kind of cursing. Keep reading, friend, because you just might need to "tune up" your vocabulary!

Are You Taking God's Name in Vain?

You say, "Well, my word! I wouldn't take God's name in vain!" You just did! John 1:1 says that "the Word" was GOD! Satan tricked you, didn't he? You need to CONFESS to God that you've been taking His name in vain, and you need to REPENT of this sin!

"Well, my goodness!", you say. If you are saved then your "goodness" is none other than God Himself (Psalm 144:2). You just took His name in vain again. You have no goodness of your own (Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:23; Psa. 39:5), so "my goodness" is a reference to God!

"Good grief! I had no idea!" There you go again! Jesus Christ was a man of sorrows and acquainted with GRIEF (Isa. 53:3). His grief was "good" grief because He bore your sins. You should show more reverence and respect for your Saviour and quit throwing God's word around too loosely.

"For crying out loud! Can't I say anything?" How about reading your Bible for a change?! Matthew 27:46 says that when your Saviour was suffering on the cross He "cried with a loud voice." What's your logic in using such speech? Could it be that Satan is just having a good laugh at your ignorance and disrespect of God's word?

"Well, geeeeeeee!" Did you say "G", as in "GOD"? Yes, you certainly did! You've also said "Gosh" and "Good Golly"! You've also said "Jeepers Creepers" when you really wanted to say "Jesus Christ" (JC!). You've also played around with the letters "G" and "D" together. You said "dad gum" and "dog gone" when you really wanted to say "God" and then follow with the word "damn". Think about it, Christian! Is God pleased with this kind of speech?

Those Four-Letter Words!

You probably wouldn't think of using the word "damn" too loosely, but what about "darn" and "dang"? Do they not serve the same purpose? Is Satan not pleased to fill your mouth with such speech?

"Why, heck!" Look out there! God knows your heart, and he knows you really wanted to say "hell".

Down south folks say, "Ah, shoot!" This is nothing more than a cheap way of saying "s " Again I ask, is God pleased with this sort of speech? Is this "sound speech, that cannot be condemned"? I think not!

Swear Not!

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Mat. 5:34-37)

Jesus said "swear not," yet God's people swear all the time! Such expressions as "for Heaven's sake", "for Pete's sake", and "Heavens to Betsy" are attempts to swear by Bible subjects, which shows disrespect toward God. God's word is PURE and HOLY! We should HONOR His words, not throw them around like a dirty dish rag!

Truth Is All the Authority You Need

Why do people curse and swear? There's only one reason: authority. People want to sound forceful and authoritative when they speak, so they spice their speech up with all sorts of catchy little "power words". Unfortunately, such words often dishonor God, the Bible, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Friend, TRUTH is all of the authority you need. Just speak the truth as it is revealed in God's word and you'll have no use for "Christian cursing". Remember: "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Mat. 12:36)

Gee whiz. Oh wait, I'm going to hell for that.:lol:

[jpholding]

Do the screwballs have to have to be contemporary? How about three decadeish?

No problem. I rank that as a discovery within the time period allotted.

[jpholding]

Email:


I was searching for information on the Bible and came across your "book review' of McKinsey's "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy". I was so intrigued by the vituperative energy you displayed that I decided that anything that would elicit such vitriol probably had to have some merit to it. So I bought a copy, and am writing to personally thank you for inadvertently putting me on the path to enlightenment. It is a fascinating book, and although I am not a theologian (by any stretch of the imagination) I am a curious seeker of information, pro and con, about the book that many consider the greatest book ever written. Now I have both the Bible and another reference work to compare it with.

I am a psychologist and am intrigued by your ad hominem comments about Mr. Mckinsey. I would think that it would require scholarship in human behavior or a Ph.D. in psychology in order to be fair about challenging someone's mental and/or emotional condition. In addition, a personal meeting or interview would be in order, especially when using phrases like, "obsessive personality", a "massive ego" and other derogatory and evaluative descriptions of someone you apparently do not know.

Nevertheless, as someone who does see value in various Biblical concepts, especially ideas like some of those expressed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, e.g., what is commonly called the "Golden Rule", I wonder how your attitude and treatment of others squares with the teachings that you apparently revere. I get the impression of great hatred, contempt, arrogance and desire to degrade and insult from your writing, and wonder if I were to continue seeking information about this subject (The Bible) that I am most interested in, that I could expect to repeatedly encounter such loathing, venom and toxic malevolence from other defenders of Christian ethics and morality. If so, I would be, as to a great extent you have already made me, most disappointed, and would be tempted to conclude that the only way to continue my search for information would be seek it from those who are not so strongly committed to the defense of that which needs no defense, that they would inflict such calumny on another innocent human being.



I've never seen a longer way of saying, "Never mind the facts, did you make me feel good?"

[Cynic Sage]

Stephen Goswami, in a thread on The Davinci Code movie, on Christians reading works of fiction:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1532613&postcount=35

Fiction reading Christians are already spiritually dead like the pagans and atheists. All falsehood leads to the father of falsehood. We may use imagination, parable way to understand some real phenomenon. But their objective is elevating truths not exciting our perverted emotions which often pass in the name of entertainment. I, after becoming a believer have acquired repugnance to arts, novels, fictions and cinemas. Preaching by love of men and God is my sole enjoyment. Saving souls in this extermination camp of the devils(worse than nazi camps) takes all the strength I have. I find the same in other sincere Christians. Let the dead bury the dead which also means, let the dead kill the dead. So let Dan kill entertainment motivated people, his rightful victims.

[Leonhard]

Stephen Goswami, in a thread on The Davinci Code movie, on Christians reading works of fiction:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1532613&postcount=35

Oh and here I thought I was a diciple of our Lord, guess those novels have ruined my salvation.


Now excuse me, as I have to burn all my literature!!!

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I'm being accused of being a 'meat puppet' for JP Holding on the other forum.

http://thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1671&page=2

(page includes definition..it's related to 'sock puppet')

[Christy]

I'm being accused of being a 'meat puppet' for JP Holding on the other forum.

http://thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1671&page=2

(page includes definition..it's related to 'sock puppet')

I'm beginning to see Taoist as a creep.

[Darth Executor]

Creep or not, he is a retard.

[dizzle]

I like taoist. It doesn't mean I agree with everything, heck I don't agree with everything here from any of my friends, Christian or nonChristian, but I like taoist. Definite NON-creep in my book.

[dizzle]

I'm being accused of being a 'meat puppet' for JP Holding on the other forum.

http://thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1671&page=2

(page includes definition..it's related to 'sock puppet')

I don't agree with the whole hoo ha over JP signing up as advertised joke, I wouldn't even debate about it Punkish, it just isn't worth arguing over. I obviously don't think you are a "meat puppet" but I have a long-standing personal relationship wtih you as a friend, so I can draw upon information that others who don't know you as well could not. I really wouldn't debate about it, the whole issue is really silly IMHO. (plus fair warning: taoist is a VERY good jouster and satiricist, he went one for one with JP regarding C.S. Lewis)

[Darth Executor]

I like him too but I still think he's dumb.

[dizzle]

I like him too but I still think he's dumb.

He went one for one with JP in a riposte session. No one could be dumb and do that.

[Darth Executor]

He went one for one with JP in a riposte session. No one could be dumb and do that.

I can go one on one with De La Hoya but when I come out of the ring with a fist shaped hole in my face I can't claim to be a good boxer. :tongue:

Although to be honest I didn't follow the entire conversation.

[dizzle]

Ah well, I don't get into long debates over who is cool or not, but generally when someone I like is mentioned, I like to throw in my word of support. I have done so, so mission accomplished. I really do have a genuine liking for taoist. I think he is a great TWebber.

[Teallaura]

Wait 'til you have a real run in with him. Definitely creepy.

[dizzle]

:shrug: I have read a great many of his exchanges here, and have nothing but liking for the guy, even when he is dead wrong. Of course I like him even more when he agrees with me and is therefore right. I don't agree with him on this whole sock puppet/meat puppet thing, but I think the whole issue is totally silly.

[One Bad Pig]

He went one for one with JP in a riposte session. No one could be dumb and do that.
Taoist got through nuke school. He's no dummy.

[Christy]

I don't think that he's dumb, but he is a fool

[Teallaura]

Never thought he was dumb; not sure about fool; did like the guy; now very convinced he's creepy - in the worst sense of the term.

He's on my 'scroll past' list - and that's a very short list (all of three).

[dizzle]

I've never seen anything that even remotely qualifies as creepy.

Ah well, we've both said our opinions, I count him as a friend, maybe we drop the subject now and agree to disagree?

[Teallaura]

Fine by me.

[Cynic Sage]

Jude3b quotes from the Catechism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78637 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78637)

The Bible tells Christians that they can know whether or not they are saved:

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (I John 5:13)

Contrary to what the Bible states, Roman Catholicism states that someone is committing the sin of presumption, when they claim to be saved!!

Listen to the words of the Roman Catholic Catechism:

"There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)." (Page 507, #2092)

The Bible states that those who receive Christ by faith can know that they have eternal life. Romanism calls that knowledge sin.

Questions:

1) Who is right? Rome or God?

2) Is it actually presumptious to believe God and take Him at His Word, as Romanism would have us believe?

3) Are there any dear Roman Cathoics or anyone else for that matter, that right here and right now, would like to receive Christ as personal Lord and Savior and receive the assurance of eternity in heaven? (If yes, please see John 14:3; John 3:16; Romans 16:30 & 31; Psalm 37:28).

"Hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't us Protestants also believe that you are wrong if you claim to be saved w/out converting. :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Cbro, for his "screw logic" explanation of the Trinity:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78997 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78997)

In that a square circle is as impossible for us to conceive of, let lone explain, as is the true understanding of the Trinity. So that there will always be a problem in how we try to explain it. However that does not change the fact, of that aspect, of God's existence. It would be like knowing we have an object, and knowing that we could not describe its shape. So we put it in a square hole and see it fits, but then we put it in a round hole are surprized to see it fits just as well as in the square hole. Then what we do depends on what kind of person we are. We can be like most people, who at first, refused to accept that light had a speed and was not instantaneous. Or today, they refuse to accept the idea that the speed is changing. Or we can be people who drop the old ideas and start to explain what it means for us to have such an object. Who's shape we have no chance of explaining.

Oy!

[jpholding]

Wait 'til you have a real run in with him. Definitely creepy.

He reminds me of a religion teacher I once had. He's like jello you have to try to nail to the wall, but the bad news for him is that he so often screws up his facts that it doesn't help him.

He'd do better if he stayed out of topics he knows nothing about. :hehe:

[Teallaura]

Source Thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1537779#post1537779)

And in the invincible stupidity catagory:

Invincible ignorance suggests that natural selection is not the directing force.Obviously , some do not want to understand my posts as they are threatening . Anwer them anyone who has understanding. Nicky ,I gor and I understand about natural selection . We use reason, not the cesspool of faith.Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism . We the heirs of Voltaire ,Darwin and Sydney Hook have won!


:rofl: If that's reasoning, I'm really Mary Poppins!

[Cynic Sage]

Source Thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1537779#post1537779)

And in the invincible stupidity catagory:

Invincible ignorance suggests that natural selection is not the directing force.Obviously , some do not want to understand my posts as they are threatening . Anwer them anyone who has understanding. Nicky ,I gor and I understand about natural selection . We use reason, not the cesspool of faith.Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism . We the heirs of Voltaire ,Darwin and Sydney Hook have won!


:rofl: If that's reasoning, I'm really Mary Poppins!
Griggsy, eh?

[Cynic Sage]

Stormrunner responds to this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1519267&postcount=58) where Arthur responds to his argument that the view of Homosexual relations as sinful is a result of poor hermeneutics:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59152&page=4&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59152&page=4&pp=16)

I'm sorry you remain an egotistic, homophobic, close-minded, ignorant bigot. If you were the representation of Christianity, I'd turn away. But I'm thankful that I have the message of Christ in my heart - and a brain that can accept science and common sense and reasonable intercourse.

God will judge us both. I hope that love, caring, and tolerance will beat out arrogance, smugness, and meanness of spirit.

You don't want to discuss theology or even have a fair Socratic debate - all you want to do is to out shout any other voice. So I leave this site to you and your kind and look to find fellowship and intelligent discussion elsewhere.

Regards,

Bill Garnett

http://www.predict-the-future.com/index2 (http://www.predict-the-future.com/index2)


I later went on his site he linked to, and look what I found:

http://www.predict-the-future.com/01.html

[attachment] Hello . . . welcome to my homepage. My name is Bill and I am presently living in Richmond, Virginia, USA. Richmond is the capitol of the state of Virginia and is located about 160 km south of Washington, DC.

I am a WASP - white anglo-saxon protestant - male. This is not to set myself apart so much as just to describe who I am. I was raised a Baptist, however, like many in my generation, I have grown less religious while developing a deeper spiritual facet. I am in pretty good shape - I walk a brisk 15 km route through Richmond frequently in two and a half hours, and can still run a mile at the local track. I still have all my hair on top of my head and much of my boyish good looks.

My education includes a B.S. in chemistry from the University of Richmond and an MBA from Purdue University.

My career has spanned years with DuPont, Raytheon and the start-up of a small manufacturing company (Dekland Manufacturing Company).

The purpose of this website is to introduce myself and to to give you a litle insight into who I am.

He refutes an argument with this?

Another tidbit from his site:

http://www.predict-the-future.com/fundamentalists.html

Perhaps at some future Judgment Day, we will be called on to answer for our actions and perhaps then we will not be able to justify those actions as being the way we were taught or told – the clear message of unconditional love and non-judgmental behavior may overrule. Perhaps the ability God gave humans to independently think, reason, and question, is both a way we are related to God; and the use of that gift, the criteria on which we will be judged.

Now I believe that homosexuals should have the rights the heterosexuals have under civil law, but it's like he's like the result of a fundy-xtian and a fundy-atheist getting drunk in a science lab, "Accept Homosexuality or you will burn in HAY-UL!"

And when asked to back up his argument and intepretations of scripture, he responds with this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59152&page=5&pp=16

Today there are millions of AIDS babies in the world suffering unbelievable pain, and this is in many ways a direct result of the homophobia that existed when AIDS first arose in the American gay community in the 1980’s and was not given the compassionate and crisis response that a similar new disease would have been given if the victims were white Christian heterosexual men. I say this, as I want to convey that the attitude toward gays does matter. And that much of the attitude towards gays is a result of an interpretation of scripture taken out of context, colored by individual bias, exaggerated relative to the overriding message of Jesus, and devoid of an intuitive reasoning that love is the most important message of all.

Translation:

"I can't back up my claim that the Church teaching that homosexual-relations are sinful is a result of Bible-passages being mistranslated and/or taken out of context. So insteead I'm going to rape the tragedy of people suffering from AIDS in order to make a fallacious appeal to emotion (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html)."

[Teallaura]

Griggsy, eh?:yes:

[Cynic Sage]

Another post from Stormrunner:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1538374&postcount=76

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual" does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"!

...

The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.

...

"Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated "effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The word is translated as "soft" in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or stability." The translation of malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect, ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient usage compared to the meaning of "effeminate" today.

This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual people. This mistaken translation has enlisted a mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against homosexual people and has turned many Lesbians and Gays against the Bible, which holds for them as for all people the good news of God's love in Christ.
Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three: Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex who love each other. None of these passages refer to people of the same sex who love each other. None originally were aimed at homosexuals

Now in your wonderful Christian and loving manner, why don't you begin to defend your homophobic interpretation of scripture?

I cited some of your essays in my reponse, JP. I wonder how he'll react to the refrence you made to Josephus describing the ancient Jewish attitude towards homosexuality.

[jpholding]

Another post from Stormrunner:


I cited some of your essays in my reponse, JP. I wonder how he'll react to the refrence you made to Josephus describing the ancient Jewish attitude towards homosexuality.

Josephus was a homophobe and so are you and me and everyone else in the world, so there.




Johnny, your name is next up to be used in a Hearthstone story. You'll be the foreman of the construction crew that's building the new Range Patrol HQ.

[Leonhard]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html#herosavior


"If God exists, then it necessarily follows that a fully functional mind can exist without a body--and if that is true, God would have no reason to give us brains."

Personally I'm starting to suspect that Richard Carrier is lacking a brain.

[Bill the Cat]

Minnesota with the single worst case of brain-fart I have EVER seen...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1539257&postcount=26


No, just the part that said "Despite the benefits of the vaccine, conservative organizations began to rally against it last year. One of the most vocal opponents was the Family Research Council."

The FRC did not "rally against" the vaccine. Mr. Perkins simply put it in its proper context that it is not a license to jump every horny toad in sight. The FRC is for the vaccine as a voluntary measure, so the quote from the writer of the piece was highly misleading.


It could be misleading depending on one's reading.


Considering that the FRC was not identified as one of the "conservative organizations [that] began to rally against it last year," it's unfair to assume they were. The "conservative organization" remark was followed by a period, after which it was said that, "One of the most vocal opponents was the Family Research Council." Being one of the most vocal opponents does not mean it was one of the conservative organizations that rallied against the vaccine. I know the proximity of the two statements may lead one to assume the FRC was included; however, considering the punctuation, it is an unwarranted assumption. Now, was the FRC a "vocal opponent"? I tend to think so.

[Cynic Sage]

Snarf, on Paul and the Ressurection of Christ:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1539369&postcount=126

The whole resurrection thing could have been a form of ancient science fiction, with Paul in the role of L. Ron Hubbard; he probably said to himself "I wonder how many are gullible enough to buy this stuff?" and that for centuries countless millions have been wasting umpteen numbers of hours praying and spending money on someone's fictional creation

DEAR SWEET BOB IN CLEAVELAND THAT IS SO TRUE!

L. Ron Hubbard is EXACTLY like St Paul.















Except that instead of living a life of luxury while "propogating the faith" and then dying of a stroke laying on a big pile of money, Paul got rocks thrown at him during his ministry and then his head chopped off in a Roman arena.

But other than that he's real spot-on. :thumb:

[Darth Executor]

:lol:

[Cynic Sage]

This deserved a mention (source not a screwball):

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4242

COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/15/06)-The 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today passed a resolution essentially condemning the Bible as an "anti-Jewish" document. Not only does the resolution aim to address perceptions of anti-Jewish prejudice in the Bible and Episcopal liturgy, but it suggests that such prejudice is actually "expressed in...Christian Scriptures and liturgical texts."

Originated in the Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music, Resolution C001 directs the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to "collect and develop materials to assist members of the Church to address anti-Jewish prejudice expressed in and stirred by portions of Christian scriptures and liturgical texts, with suggestions for preaching, congregational education, and lectionary use, and to report to the 76th General Convention."

Both houses of the Episcopal Church Convention passed the resolution, including a 68 percent approval in the House of Deputies on Thursday.

The Rev. Ruth A Meyers of the Diocese of Chicago, Secretary of the Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music, explained to the House of Deputies why her committee had expanded the wording in the language to include not only prejudice in "liturgical texts," but also in "Christian scriptures."

"We did have a question about whether Scripture itself uses anti-Jewish prejudice," Meyers said. Referring specifically to the Gospel account of the crucifixion, she added, "That scriptural text...has in fact stirred anti-Jewish prejudice and resulted in significant violence toward Jewish people."


The New Testament is inherently ant-semitic. Sure, it was written by Jews. But they were self-hating Jews.

[Darth Executor]

This deserved a mention (source not a screwball):

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4242

COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/15/06)-The 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today passed a resolution essentially condemning the Bible as an "anti-Jewish" document. Not only does the resolution aim to address perceptions of anti-Jewish prejudice in the Bible and Episcopal liturgy, but it suggests that such prejudice is actually "expressed in...Christian Scriptures and liturgical texts."

Originated in the Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music, Resolution C001 directs the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to "collect and develop materials to assist members of the Church to address anti-Jewish prejudice expressed in and stirred by portions of Christian scriptures and liturgical texts, with suggestions for preaching, congregational education, and lectionary use, and to report to the 76th General Convention."

Both houses of the Episcopal Church Convention passed the resolution, including a 68 percent approval in the House of Deputies on Thursday.

The Rev. Ruth A Meyers of the Diocese of Chicago, Secretary of the Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music, explained to the House of Deputies why her committee had expanded the wording in the language to include not only prejudice in "liturgical texts," but also in "Christian scriptures."

"We did have a question about whether Scripture itself uses anti-Jewish prejudice," Meyers said. Referring specifically to the Gospel account of the crucifixion, she added, "That scriptural text...has in fact stirred anti-Jewish prejudice and resulted in significant violence toward Jewish people."


The New Testament is inherently ant-semitic. Sure, it was written by Jews. But they were self-hating Jews.


:hrm:

[One Bad Pig]

They're certainly making a good case for the World Anglican Communion to disfellowship them. :duh:

[Sparko]

wow.

wow.

I can't believe they did that.


wow.

Let's see. what's the scorecard now?

:check: Gay Bishop
:check: supports abortion
:check: says NT is Antisemetic
:check: promotes pagan druidic sex rituals

What's next?

[Teallaura]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html#herosavior


"If God exists, then it necessarily follows that a fully functional mind can exist without a body--and if that is true, God would have no reason to give us brains."

Personally I'm starting to suspect that Richard Carrier is lacking a brain.

:twitch: The word 'interface' not in the boy's vocabulary?

[Teallaura]

wow.

wow.

I can't believe they did that.


wow.

Let's see. what's the scorecard now?

:check: Gay Bishop
:check: supports abortion
:check: says NT is Antisemetic
:check: promotes pagan druidic sex rituals

What's next?


Worships Buddha? :shrug:



















































:twitch:

[Cynic Sage]

Another nugget from the news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/04/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/04/ixnews.html

In a bizarre example of Iraq's creeping "Talibanisation", militants visited falafel vendors a fortnight ago, telling them to pack up their stalls by today or be killed.

...

"They came telling us, 'You have 14 days to end this job' and I asked them what was the problem," said Abu Zeinab, 32, who was packing up his stall for good yesterday in the suburb of al Dora, a hardline Sunni neighbourhood.

"I said I was just feeding the people, but they said there were no falafels in Mohammed the prophet's time, so we shouldn't have them either.

"I felt like telling them there were no Kalashnikovs in Mohammed's time either, but I wanted to keep my life."

Why Baghdad's falafel vendors should be blacklisted while their colleagues are allowed to continue selling kebabs or Western-style pizzas and burgers remains a mystery.


Dangit! If you're going to be a Islamo-fascist terrorist that goes around killing people for stupid reasons, you should at least be consistent. :doh:

[Darth Executor]

"I felt like telling them there were no Kalashnikovs in Mohammed's time either, but I wanted to keep my life."

:lol:

[Sparko]

Mickey appears to think that Satan is literally incarnated as a lion who goes around eating men:

Well,my point was made clear.And I asked you a question in regard to the point that I made:

Now answer a question for me.Do you also believe that Satan was bound and shut up in a bottomless pit at the resurrection,but he is still able to walk around seeking those he might devour?:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour"(1Pet.5:8).

To which you answered:
No of course not. Not in a literal sense anyway.
If he could not walk around and devour men "in a literal" sense,then in what other sense could he do such a thing?

In Christ,
Mickey

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1537151&postcount=130 (showpost.php?p=1537151&postcount=130)

[RumTumTugger]

Johnny, your name is next up to be used in a Hearthstone story. You'll be the foreman of the construction crew that's building the new Range Patrol HQ.

Have you used my Name yet?

[Teallaura]

Mickey appears to think that Satan is literally incarnated as a lion who goes around eating men:

Well,my point was made clear.And I asked you a question in regard to the point that I made:



To which you answered:

If he could not walk around and devour men "in a literal" sense,then in what other sense could he do such a thing?

In Christ,
Mickey

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1537151&postcount=130 (http://showpost.php?p=1537151&postcount=130)


Aww, come on, Sparko -you know that all Christians are hyperliteralists who believe that a camel really went through the eye of a needle so wealthy people had a shot at going to Heaven, too....


:twitch:

[Teallaura]

Have you used my Name yet?In or out of vein?














:grin:

[Cynic Sage]

TGWWT has made Brian Flemming the Uwe Boll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Boll#Response_to_criticism) of documentary filmmaking.:

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002204.html

Dear Christian apologist, As you know, the standard Christian attacks on The God Who Wasn't There (http://www.thegodmovie.com/) are designed to keep the Christian flock from even viewing the documentary. Brian Flemming is just a bitter ex-Christian who nobody should pay any attention to, you say, helpfully guiding your sheep away from thought crimes.

Well, good job, soldier. Jesus is no doubt thrilled that you have kept so many vulnerable minds from being confused by facts and other dangerous things.

But you should know that there's an improved version of this critical technique being invented in Texas. It turns out that you can actually "screen" the movie and still get away with an almost exclusively ad hominem attack. By "screening" the movie, you can make it look like you were actually open to the ideas contained in it. This pose goes over gangbusters with people in the reality-based community.

Here's how you can give the illusion of open-mindedness and intellectual honesty while not actually incurring the risks for which those values are notorious:

1. Announce a "screening" of The God Who Wasn't There. Claim that you're going to show the "meat" of the film and just censor some minor "mocking" material out of concern for delicate sensibilities. (Breathe easy -- this isn't actually true.)

2. At the event, show one brief clip from the beginning of the film. Then stop the film and use Apologetic Arguments 4a, 7c, 102f and 235d. At this point, you are done dealing with substance. Whew.

3. Now skip ahead in the film past all of those parts that are heavy with evidence and argument (scary!). Go to the part where Brian Flemming talks about his own childhood experiences with Christianity. Show all of this stuff in full. Just let it run. When this part is over, attack Brian Flemming as a bitter ex-Christian who nobody should pay any attention to.

See how easy this is? Now you've "screened" the film and "courageously" taken it on! Congratulate yourself on a job well done (http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/06/god-that-wasnt-at-church.html).

Love,
Brian





So let me get this straight, Brian Fleming, when making TGWWT, skips over parts of Richard Carrier's work that can refute his video-essay. He also goes and does "man-on-the-street" interviews with lay Christians instead of interviewing Historians and Bible-scholars who contend for a historical Christ "to show the other side". Yet if we show part of his video in a Church, we are the one's being the "thought police". :lolo:

I, on the other hand, agree with Brian that xtians should have to watch that movie, better fire up the ol' Satellite of Love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_of_Love_%28MST3K%29)...

On thebeastmovie.com forums-
Last Sunday, A.D.-
Brian Fleming was upset at a Christian Apologist,
For refuting his DVD.
He thought to himself "Well Gosh-Dangit,
I thought he was an actual talking rabbit!"
They really wanted JP out of that place,
So the moderators banned him
And they shot him into space.

We'll send him cheesy arguments,
The worst we can find (la la la).
He'll have to sit and listen to them all
And we'll monitor his mind (la la la).
Brian wants a "Statement of Belief" signed
Because he is an insecure dip,
JP will have to keep his sanity
With the help of some sound scholarship.

Bible-Scholar roll-call-
Wright
Malina
Witherington
Rohrbaaaaaaaaaaaugh!

You're probably wonder how Brian can ignore the work of Bible-Scholars
Not to mention historical facts,
He's Atheist yet still a Fundy,
And should really just relax
For Mystery Christ-Myth Theater 3000.

[jpholding]

Have you used my Name yet?

No, but I still got 20 or so more to use.

Email this morning....


You obviously believe in witches (that is, evil humans with supernatural
powers, not Wiccans), but can you tell me how to identify these witches? It
seems "God" neglected to mention that part. Thus, many misguided Christians
have taken it upon themselves to persecute innocent people (innocent of
witchcraft at least) and condemn them to painful deaths. Thre's no question
that Exodus 22:18 has had a direct influence on the perpetuation of this
evil. Christians are supposed to be living in the New Covenant of Jesus, but
they still refer to the 10 Commandments and various other laws from the old
covenants . . . it seems they willingly "pick and choose" which laws from
"God" they will acknowledge and obey.

Once again, can you please tell me how one identifies witches?

Let's see...

1) he fixes pipes
2) he's got a big butt crack showing

No way I can figure out we have a plumber...

I'm moving SAB stuff over to Tektoonics soon. There'll be one little extra surprise with it....

[Cynic Sage]

A nomination for "broken irony-meter" award goes to the "Goosing the Antithesis" blog contributor Francois Tremblay:

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/01/christian-pollution-of-public.html

Most of us agree that an individual should be free to think, or believe, whatever he wants in the privacy of his own mind. For example, one is absolutely free to fantasize about mass murder (although this may be very unhealthy). But to take that fantasy into public life, and commit mass murder, is criminal. What is acceptable in one's private arena, is not necessarily desirable or even acceptable in the social arena.

Should Christianity have a presence in public discourse ? The influence of Christianity is not only in the obvious - such as Creationist propaganda, anti-choice propaganda, or organized gay-bashing - but also hidden in more subtle forms. The ideas of "human dignity" or "playing God" as arguments against scientific progress have evolved from Christian attitudes. ...

In short, as I've also discussed in "Christians are our cultural enemies (http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/09/debate-conclusion-christians-are-our.html)", the Christian moral, teleological and anti-scientific ideas are totally opposed to secular science and Western values. Christianity is therefore polluting public discourse with premises which have no place in the 21st century, regardless of whether they are obvious propaganda or subtle semantics. These premises have been wholly discredited by both the success of science and the choices of the vast majority of people living in Western countries.

To even allow Christian voices or premises in a non-religious conversation is inherent treason to everything we stand for as modern upright human beings. Christian beliefs are Middle Eastern canards declaimed furiously by pompous asses.

It is also equally obvious that Christians have no incentive to change their ways. To have faith that one's beliefs are the right ones, despite all evidence, is praised as the highest virtue. Christians, by the nature of religion itself, can have no goal but to strenghten and propagate their belief system. There is no virtue of truth-seeking, honesty or progress in Christianity.

...

So what's the difference between me and a Christian evangelist ? He wants to enslave minds and institutions so they perpetuate his belief system. I'm fighting for people to be free to express their personal values and choose freedom or, if they must, a belief system, as long as they don't hurt anyone. I am morally responsible for my actions and the principles I espouse, and I promote moral responsibility for all. He preaches total irresponsibility. That's what makes me morally superior.

Part of our Western values considers us to be on equal grounds, but on that point I have to disagree. As long as there are people who actively seek to destroy our Western way of life, it remains self-destructive to place them on a pedestal of "equal time". True equality can only exist when all collectivist power is destroyed. This is one lesson that has not reached modernity yet.

What must be done ? All Christian strategems must be exposed and rendered impotent. All Christian rhetoric must be publically ridiculed, persecuted, censored. All Christian politicians should be forcibly outed as followers of a foreign belief system that sanctions genocide, slavery and communism. Christian brainwashers, child abusers, must be jailed. Churches must be taxed until they drop, and their bells must be torn down from their high places. Only the end of the lax attitude of atheistic organizations and communities can bring this about.

I have done my best to fight against this attitude, but I am alone, and there's not much I can do about it. If you want to help, then the next time you see a Christian spout his rhetoric on an atheist message board or in an atheist discussion, speak up against the religion and the premises of the rhetoric. Make it clear that Christianity is not wanted. Maybe they'll get the message.

[attachment]

"Evil Christians want to brainwash people. I am a Moral Atheist and I say we should censor their literature and send them to re-education camps."

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/05/lovey-dovey-christianity-vs-reality.html


1. "Love Thy Neighbour As Yourself"

LDCers lash on to Romans 13:9, which says :
The commandments (...) are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
It then goes on to say :
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
That's fine. Few people want to do harm to others, unless it's necessary. So this principle, while not original to Christianity, is not so bad. But what about "love" ? One thing which Paul does not examine at all is the nature of "love". What is "love" and why should we express it towards everyone ?

Love is, according to humanist psychology, a spontaneous affective movement towards beings or things which satisfy our values. While love is very complex, perhaps the most complex emotional phenomena, it has one thing in common : the feeling of well-being and happiness that the loved brings us, because we perceive it as being able to satisfy our values.

So how can we feel love towards all people ? There are people in the world whose value systems are quite opposed to ours, and some who even wish us harm. How do these people satisfy or fulfill our values ? If they do not, then how can we possibly love them ? It is impossible for anyone to love someone who wishes them harm. Even LDCers do not feel that way.

"Let's see, I'm reading a translation of a book written in the ancient near-east, I better use the modern, westernized definition of a word I found in there to better understand it."


2. The Golden Rule

In the Sermon on the Mount - perhaps one of the most evil moral discourses ever written - "Jesus" says :
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
(Matthew 7:12)

Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Francois: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! YOU SICK MONSTER!

The first problem with this principle is that it is wholly incompatible with other parts of Christianity, such as the God-believer relationship, the priest-believer relationship, the saved-unsaved relationship, the husband-wife relationship, the parent-child relationship... basically every power relation prescribed in the Bible. But LDCs probably profess not to subscribe to those anyway, so let's continue.

The main problem of the Golden Rule is the same as for "Love Thy Neighbour" : it is a regressive, childish rule. It assumes that every single individual in the world has the same values. Otherwise, how can I know that I should do to them what I would want ? What I want depends on my values. What they want depends on their values. Therefore, by asking us to assume uniformity, the Golden Rule is a golden ticket to total social warfare.

...

So what is the general problem with LDC ? Its problem is that it is still working within the framework of Christianity, which is amoral. Therefore, the only way it can be Lovey-Dovey is by starting from the premise that everyone is the same. The only rational position - that everyone has different values but exist in the same world with the same moral principles - is completely outside of the limited amoral framework of Christianity. To be a moral person, you have to completely leave Christianity.


Wow, we appear to have here the Gene Scott of Atheism.

[Darth Executor]

Oh man that guy should get screwball of the year. :lmbo:

[jpholding]

Oh man that guy should get screwball of the year. :lmbo:

Just offhand I can tell you he'll definitely be in the running for the Platinum. But we still have 6 months to go.

[Darth Executor]

George Blaisdell is not the screwball, Bishop Schori is:

This from: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4318

COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/21/06)-While addressing a morning Eucharist at the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop-elect Katherine Jefferts Schori declared, "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation. And you and I are His children."

With Jefferts Schori as the leader-to-be of the Episcopal Chuch, it seems that the church will move beyond gender-inclusive language to transgender-inclusive language.

[Sparko]

wow.

wow.

I can't believe they did that.


wow.

Let's see. what's the scorecard now?

:check: Gay Bishop
:check: supports abortion
:check: says NT is Antisemetic
:check: promotes pagan druidic sex rituals

What's next?

Well that didn't take long... as reported by Crusader in another thread.. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1539044)

:check: Rejects Jesus as the only way to salvation

By Hans Zeiger
VirtueOnline Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org (http://www.virtueonline.org/)

COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/20/06)-The House of Deputies of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today overwhelmingly refused to even consider a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved."

"This type of language was used in 1920s and 1930s to alienate the type of people who were executed. It was called the Holocaust. I understand the intent, but I ask you to allow the discharge to stay," said the Rev. Eugene C. McDowell, a graduate of Yale Divinity School and Canon Theologian for the Diocese of North Carolina."


And

:check: Has a transgendered Jesus

COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/21/06)-While addressing a morning Eucharist at the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop-elect Katherine Jefferts Schori declared, "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation. And you and I are His children."
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4318

[Cynic Sage]

George Blaisdell is not the screwball, Bishop Schori is:

Is he just saying that to be PC, or is he referencing Wisdom Theology?

[dizzle]

She.

[Darth Executor]

Is he just saying that to be PC, or is he referencing Wisdom Theology?

:lol: (I'm assuming you're joking. The odds of her knowing Wisdom Theology are close to the odds of me building a nuke out of toilet paper)

[TuckEverlasting]

:lol: (I'm assuming you're joking. The odds of her knowing Wisdom Theology are close to the odds of me building a nuke out of toilet paper)
That's what I thought. :yes:

[Cynic Sage]

She.

Hey! If a priest like him can get away with it, so can I. :hehe:

[Cynic Sage]

Iason:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1535773&postcount=34


The attack of Celsus on the Gospels was so damaging to Christians that they BURNED all the copies - all we have now is frgaments. Celsus claimed the Gospels were based on MYTHS.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1535988&postcount=42


Well,
let's consider the evidence of the early Christian writings in chronological order :

50
1 Thess.
1 Cor.
2 Cor.
Romans
Phillipians
Philemon
70
1 John
James
90
Ephesians
2 Thess.
1 Peter
1 Clement
100
Didakhe
Oxy1224
Jude
120
2,3 John
apocPeter
secretJames
gThomas
preachPeter
Quadratus
Aristides
130
2 Peter
Pastorals
gPeter
Hermas - !

The first few dozen Christian writers make NO mention of the empty tomb.
The very FIRST Christian document to even mention the Tomb in any way is Hermas c.130.
How do you explain that Adam?

Sure, it's mentioned in the Gospels, but they also were unknown until early-mid 2nd century. If the Gospels had been known to early Christians, they would have mentioned them and their contents, like later writers did.


He seems to have forgotten that in 1 Corinthians Paul mentions the Ressurection. :lol:

And The Unassumed:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1541076&postcount=65


And, as I have already commented, suffering and shame was seen as a mark of honor in many strands of Judaism - as in the suffering servant motif, and that of Israel's persecution followed by eventual favorable judgment. In such a mindset, where suffering and persecution are so tied up with eventual glory and judgment, the "stigma of crucifixion" carries with it the boast of future glorification. That is, the crucifixion of Jesus was already a part of a bundle of ideas that also provided honor to those who believed in it. It already carried within it the promise of glorification, which is more than enough to overcome any "stigma".


"1st century Christianity didn't need a physical Ressurection to cancel the shame of Christ's crucifixion, because being hung on a wooden t-frame by Gentile-Dogs to die impotent and soiling himself was good enough to convince first century Jews that he was the Lord's annointed."

[Darth Executor]

Minnesota quotes the SAB:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1543164&postcount=2

Gen.7:21-22
God drowns all children (except for Noah's) in a flood.

Gen.19:24
God kills all the children of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Gen.22:2
God tells Abraham to kill his son for a burnt offering.

Ex.12:30
God murders the Egyptian firstborn children.

Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21
Children who are disobedient, or who curse or strike their parents are to be killed.

Dt.20:16, Jos.10:40
God ordered the Israelites to kill all of the children in the cities that they invaded.

1 Sam.15:2-3
God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekite children.

2 Sam.12:15, 18
To punish David for having Uriah killed, God kills David's newborn son.

2 Kg.2:23-24
God sends bears to kill 42 little boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head.

Jer.13:13-14
God will make everyone drunk and then "dash the fathers and the sons together." He vows to "not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."

Jer.19:9
God will make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other.

Ps.135:8, 136:10
God is praised for slaughtering little babies.

Ps.137:9
Happiness is smashing your little children against rocks.

Ezek.5:10
God will cause fathers to eat their sons and sons to eat their fathers.

Hos.9:16
God assures Hosea that he will "slay even the beloved fruit of the womb."

Hos.13:16
God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and "their women with child shall be ripped up."

Zech.13:3
A prophet must be killed by his own parents by "thrusting him through when he prophesieth."
Taking a clue from god's little regard for children, I think a fairly good argument could be made for abortion by using the Bible.

He also wins an invitation to my ignore list.

[RumTumTugger]

In or out of vein?





:grin:

I was just interested in how he will use it. :shy:

[jpholding]

Email this morning...


Little man, how sad that you continue to think you know the mind of a god,
let alone its name. You make your own opinion and sell it to the
ignorant--how noble does that make you?
You dismiss all challenges, yet are caught in the trap of dogmatic folly.
You spend your life dedicated to a fairy tale while dressing your pitiful
ego in ornaments of false knowledge.
Wake up! It's a big universe and it's waiting for you to grow up.

Remember the lesson: Dogma is never Faith and reality is always available,

Wishing you awareness,

****

:twitch:

[TuckEverlasting]

Sevivon sez:

Israel... is an advanced superpower... The USA is not a "world super power". It is a declining minor world power... I assure you, the USA is about as much of a super power as New Zealand is.

I assure you, the ellipses do not alter the context.

[jpholding]

Minnesota farts again with this OP (as is):


English Bible Translations

Gutenberg Bible 1456
Tyndale Bible 1535 (NT - 1525)
Douay-Rheims Bible 1610
King James Version 1611
Webster Bible 1833
Young's Literal Translation 1862 (Revised 1887, 1898)
English Revised Version 1885 (NT - 1881)
American Standard Version 1901
Moffatt's New Translation 1924 (NT - 1920)
Goodspeed Version 1927 (NT - 1923)
Wycliffe Bible c1934?
Williams New Testament in the Language of the People 1937
Revised Standard Version 1952 (NT - 1946; NT revised 1971)
Modern Language Bible (New Berkley Version) 1959 (NT - 1945; NT revised 1969)
New World Translation 1961
Beck Bible 1963 (Revised 1976)
The Amplified Bible 1964 (NT - 1958; Revised 1987)
Bible in Basic English 1965
New English Bible 1970 (NT - 1961)
Cotton Patch Version 1970
New American Bible (NAB) 1970 (NT revised 1986)
The Living Bible 1971 (NT - 1962)
New American Standard Bible (NASB) 1971 (NT - 1963; Revised 1996)
Today's English Version 1974 (NT - 1966; Revised 1993)
Good News Bible 1974 (NT - 1966; Revised 1993)
New International Version 1978 (NT - 1973)
Simple English Bible 1980
New King James Version 1982
New Jerusalem Bible 1985
New Life Bible 1986 (NT - 1969)
Century Version 1986 (NT - 1978)
Revised English Bible 1989
Clear Word Bible 1992
God's Word 1995 (NT - 1988)
New Revised Standard Version 1990
Twenty-First Century King James Version 1994 (NT - 1992)
Contemporary English Version 1995 (NT - 1991)
New Living Translation 1996
New International Reader's Version (NIrV) 1996
Good as New 2004
Today's New International Version 2005



New Testament Only

Darby Translation (NT - 1871)
Weymouth New Testament in Modern Language 1890 (Revised 1912)
J.B. Phillips New Testament in Modern English 1958 (Revised 1972)
Jewish New Testament 1989
The Message (New Testament only) 1993
Godbey's Translation of the New Testament ?



..under the subject heading asking if God's Word will ever be translated right.


He's right. With nearly 200 translations or editions of Tacitus' Annals out there, it's time to fire those people who do translations. :hehe:

[attachment=1]

[Teallaura]

Sevivon sez (http://sez/):



I assure you, the ellipses do not alter the context.


:lmbo:

He believes in the worldwide Jewish conspiracy and the tooth fairy, doesn't he?

[TuckEverlasting]

Sevivon again (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1544987&postcount=51):

YOUR LACK OF RESPECT FOR NOAM CHOMSKY PROVES YOUR STUPIDITY.

Well, he's young... we'll cut him some slack. :wink:

[Teallaura]

Rather than comment on the "From Nothing Comes Nothing" thread, let me state why I think this universe came from nothing, minus the arguments that led me to this conclusion.

Our existence cannot be figured out because this universe came about as the result of chance. It came “from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” This best explains why we cannot figure it all out. When we seek for a cause of it all we run into absurdities, precisely because blind chancistic events cannot be figured out! Chance events can produce order. We know this. Even if the odds are extremely unlikely for this universe to exist, once there is some order in the universe and someone to look upon the order that’s there, it cries out for an explanation. So we try to explain it, but fail time and again. Pascal is right when he says, “I look on all sides and see nothing but obscurity; nature offers me nothing but matter for doubt.”

When we reflect on why we can’t figure it all out, the best reason I can offer is that random chance events can’t be figured out hindsight. Nature is ultimate. According to the late Carl Sagan, “the cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be.” According to Bertrand Russell the universe is simply “a brute fact.” I am an atheist. There is no God. And there is at least one reason for me not to believe in God, and that is because this universe is absurd when we try to figure it out. Any attempt I know of to figure it out fails, except the conclusion that it arose because of chance. According to Jacques Monad, “our number came up in a Monte Carlo game.”

Even Christians are atheists, in that they don't believe in the other gods and goddesses of other religions. I just deny one more god than they do. I agree with Christian criticisms of other religions and I agree with the other religions criticisms of Christianity.

My wife is an atheist. While she’s not an intellectual, her argument is quite simple. She asks a very simple question: “If God exists, then why doesn’t he show me?” It can be developed into a sophisticated argument, however, and it does have some force to it. Surely if God exists, he would give us reasons to believe that he does, but I find no incontrovertible argument to show this, even though apologists would love to find such an argument to defend their God.

Michael Scriven claims, “if we take arguments for the existence of something to include all the evidence which supports the existence claim to any significant degree, i.e. makes it at all probable, then the absence of such evidence means there is no likelihood of the existence of the entity. And this, of course, is a complete justification for the claim that the entity does not exist, provided that the entity is not one which might leave no traces (a God who is impotent or who does not care for us) and provided we have comprehensively examined the area where evidence would appear if there was any.” [Primary Philosophy (McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 102].

What I have examined extensively leads me to the conclusion that a Divine Being does not exist, as the following progression of thought demonstrates:
1) No rational conclusion can be deduced from the existence of this universe, based on the assumption that it was ordered by a Supreme Being for a purpose.
2) Based on this assumption all attempts that I have studied fail.
3) I have studied it extensively, and maybe even comprehensively.
4) It's plausible for me to conclude that since I have studied it extensively, all attempts to arrive at a rational conclusion based on this assumption fail.
5) Therefore a better rational explanation for the existence of this universe is based upon a non-purposeful assumption, which lacks a Supreme Being.
6) Chance is a non-purposeful assumption, which lacks a Supreme Being.
7) By process of elimination chance alone is left as the rational explanation for the existence of this universe.
8) Therefore I'm rational to believe that chance is the best deduction when I’m looking for an answer to the riddle of the existence of this universe. This conclusion is only as good as my research, but I'm comfortable with my research.

Source (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1545019#post1545019)




:twitch:

[One Bad Pig]

English Bible Translations

Gutenberg Bible 1456
a printing of the LATIN Vulgate :doh:
Wycliffe Bible c1934?
No, c. 1385 :duh:

Where did he get this list?

[Rayado]

OBP, he also listed:

New World Translation 1961

:ahem:

[One Bad Pig]

Tercel:
Consider church doctrines, teachings, or practices such as:
* The authority of the bible
* The depiction of the saints as great heroes of the faith
* The power and knowledge of God

These sorts of things sit on a continuum. We can argue over whether the bible has more or less authority. We can ignore the saints, or we can pray to them daily, depict them and kiss the depictions. We can say God is totally all knowing and all powerful or we can believe that God isn't quite so omni-everything.

In practice, in church and religious situations, believers feel guilty if they are being "less spiritual" than someone else they see. In religious contexts we tolerate and encourage people to be more spiritual, more enthusiastic, more believing. Whereas we censure, often explicitly, people who don't have enough faith, or don't do spiritual practices to the same level.

As a result, with any doctrine, teaching or practice, there is a tendency for it to move in one direction along its continuum over time.

Take Mary, as an example. Christians started off considering Mary a great saint who had been faithful to God's purposes and got the priviledge of being an instrumental part of how God brought salvation to the world. Over the centuries, honour turned to reverence, which turned to worship and Mary was slowly exalted to just about the level of co-saviour and fourth member of the Trinity. It takes something totally revolutionary (like the Reformation) to restore sanity.

Or take the Bible's truth. No Christian really feels inclined to get up in Church and look at all the errors in the Bible and preach a sermon on how full of errors the bible is. It wouldn't really be that spiritually edifying! But lots of Christians do feel inclined to get up and announce how full of truth the bible is. As a result, Christian doctrine inevitably moves one way - over time churches get more and more convinced of the truth of the Bible. It becomes completely inerrant.

My point is that well-meaning pious faith inevitable sends doctrines and practices sliding down their continuum over time until they hit the most pious and religious end of the continuum. No one likes to be a party pooper, everyone tolerates the "more spiritual" people, so pious faith inevitable causes ultra pious doctrine. Note that the final doctrines are therefore not logically or rationally derived, but rather the result of irrational processes acting on doctrines that were once rational.

What brought this to my attention was a thread in this forum in which a person stated outright that they would reject the Open View if it required that God be a God who "learns" things. They considered it an absolute article of faith that God doesn't need to learn anything.

I thought that was very pious of them. (ie I thought it was extremely irrational) It's not like the Bible is full of statements saying "I the Lord, never 'learn' anything". The Bible has virtually nothing to say regarding the precise levels of God's knowledge and power. Yet here is this poster who is absolutely determined that come what may, they won't accept any idea that implies that God "learns". It was as if God not learning was the central tenet of Christianity or something. Really, it's just pious faith gone wrong.

Anyway, I think we need to be careful in our churches that pious faith doesn't cause us to slide down a continuum toward stupidity. I have seen it cause serious problems with people's faith when the issue was a "relationship with God". Churches like to get the people with the best relationship with God to speak about it. Everyone else gets guilt tripped for not having such a good relationship with God, and led to expect more from a relationship with God than they currently have. Due to the pious faith effect, the doctrine morphs into "every true Christian talks to God and he talks back on a regular basis". At that point, people who aren't experiencing can have serious faith issues as a result as they try and have more faith, or blame themselves for their failure to experience a relationship with God.

Source (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=79640)

[jpholding]

Email....


I read the article on Marcus Borg, and I was profoundly disturbed the way his work was treated. Panentheism, a perfectly orthodox postiton since it neither robs God of transcendence or immanance, was treated as a heresey. Acts 17 tells us plainly that St. Paul said "we live and move and have our being in God." Psalm 139 is another example of the inexscapable presence of God. This points to a panentheistic theology.
Borg's New Testament work is cutting edge. Fundamentalism is slowly being defeated by modernity. Get with the program. And please look to Jesus--a liberal who challenged the Hebrew scriptures time and again. Think it over, PLEASE.


:eww:

[Cynic Sage]

Tercel:
Consider church doctrines, teachings, or practices such as:
* The authority of the bible
* The depiction of the saints as great heroes of the faith
* The power and knowledge of God

These sorts of things sit on a continuum. We can argue over whether the bible has more or less authority. We can ignore the saints, or we can pray to them daily, depict them and kiss the depictions. We can say God is totally all knowing and all powerful or we can believe that God isn't quite so omni-everything.

In practice, in church and religious situations, believers feel guilty if they are being "less spiritual" than someone else they see. In religious contexts we tolerate and encourage people to be more spiritual, more enthusiastic, more believing. Whereas we censure, often explicitly, people who don't have enough faith, or don't do spiritual practices to the same level.

As a result, with any doctrine, teaching or practice, there is a tendency for it to move in one direction along its continuum over time.

Take Mary, as an example. Christians started off considering Mary a great saint who had been faithful to God's purposes and got the priviledge of being an instrumental part of how God brought salvation to the world. Over the centuries, honour turned to reverence, which turned to worship and Mary was slowly exalted to just about the level of co-saviour and fourth member of the Trinity. It takes something totally revolutionary (like the Reformation) to restore sanity.

Or take the Bible's truth. No Christian really feels inclined to get up in Church and look at all the errors in the Bible and preach a sermon on how full of errors the bible is. It wouldn't really be that spiritually edifying! But lots of Christians do feel inclined to get up and announce how full of truth the bible is. As a result, Christian doctrine inevitably moves one way - over time churches get more and more convinced of the truth of the Bible. It becomes completely inerrant.

My point is that well-meaning pious faith inevitable sends doctrines and practices sliding down their continuum over time until they hit the most pious and religious end of the continuum. No one likes to be a party pooper, everyone tolerates the "more spiritual" people, so pious faith inevitable causes ultra pious doctrine. Note that the final doctrines are therefore not logically or rationally derived, but rather the result of irrational processes acting on doctrines that were once rational.

What brought this to my attention was a thread in this forum in which a person stated outright that they would reject the Open View if it required that God be a God who "learns" things. They considered it an absolute article of faith that God doesn't need to learn anything.

I thought that was very pious of them. (ie I thought it was extremely irrational) It's not like the Bible is full of statements saying "I the Lord, never 'learn' anything". The Bible has virtually nothing to say regarding the precise levels of God's knowledge and power. Yet here is this poster who is absolutely determined that come what may, they won't accept any idea that implies that God "learns". It was as if God not learning was the central tenet of Christianity or something. Really, it's just pious faith gone wrong.

Anyway, I think we need to be careful in our churches that pious faith doesn't cause us to slide down a continuum toward stupidity. I have seen it cause serious problems with people's faith when the issue was a "relationship with God". Churches like to get the people with the best relationship with God to speak about it. Everyone else gets guilt tripped for not having such a good relationship with God, and led to expect more from a relationship with God than they currently have. Due to the pious faith effect, the doctrine morphs into "every true Christian talks to God and he talks back on a regular basis". At that point, people who aren't experiencing can have serious faith issues as a result as they try and have more faith, or blame themselves for their failure to experience a relationship with God.

Source (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=79640)

I agree with the third paragraph, but then things just get nuts.

[Cynic Sage]

Lost:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=79093&page=7

Many tried to debunk the origens of christianity - gnostics very early on.
They were exterminated by the holy roman church of "God".
That extermination and what followed totally removes all reason to believe the things that that church wrote and "kept" for us.
I simply don't trust those early "fathers" one bit.
I don't believe that "God" expects us to trust those early accounts either - not if he was real and as kind as he is supposed to be.