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

Cynic Sage

June 30th 2006, 06:21 PM

Biblischism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=79844

More proof the OT was written by merciless male dominators and not the inspired hands of holy men who loved children and pleaded for the lives of male suckings when God ordered them shish-kebobbed is found in Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Apparently, fighting among the Hebrew guerillas was quite a common thing. This fighting often led to the wives of these men entering the fray to defend their husbands. Since testes are the most sensitive part of male anatomy, it is no surprise that a woman would target that particular region on her husband’s attacker in order to bring a swift end to the melee.

Sounds logical, no?

To Moses it didn’t:

“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity [her].” (KJV)

There’s your topic. Talk amongst yourselves.

What, is he pro-"fighting dirty"?

Procreation is vital for a tribe/nation. Such actions can cause sterility, which would be counterproductive to a nation trying to establish itself.

You think I didn't anticipate that lame counterargument, don't you?

Let me ask you this: was the survival of their tribes of utmost importance to the Israelites?

Think carefully. Think really carefully.

Because they don't want their bloodline to become extinct, just like every other nation of people on earth. Yeesh, does he post stoned or something?

And again on Paul and Women:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=79743

One of the aspects of Christianity that has always disturbed me so is blind acceptance of Paul's non sequiters. Let’s start by examining two instances:

In 1 Timothy 2:12-14, Paul states that a woman should be quiet in church and, moreover, should never teach her male counterpart. According to Paul, the order of the human Falls makes this an evidential fact:

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (KJV)

Is this not infantile logic? I anticipate that some will counterargue that Paul was speaking specifically to the loud Corinthian sluts who had yet to shed their pagan habits. But this is no answer, since the logic given to justify the gender hierarchy still doesn’t make a lick of sense. In other words, how would Eve’s sinning before Adam affect the quality of her descendants’ instruction?

I understand the concept of original sin and that it extends to all of humanity; what I can’t get my mind around is the additional heaping of shame that Paul dispenses on man’s counterpart in order to make some half-baked point about women having the lesser intellect. It is an astounding claim to make--a classic non sequiter.

It has been used throughout the years to manipulate a woman into thinking that she is more prone to error and obnoxious volume than her male counterpart. The order of the human Falls has proven this to be so.

If anyone has qualms with my objection and claims that I am overemphasizing the importance that Paul puts on gender hierarchy, consider the following verse:

I Corinthians 14:34
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” (KJV)

As also saith the law.

Another example of insane Pauline logic is found in Romans 9:20-23. Here Paul compares the highest species to clay in order to convey the terrifying authority of God:

“Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory” (KJV)

Quite aside from the fact that Calvin and his creepy future adherents have used this verse to support their monstrous theology, we must also consider the inherent idiocy of comparing two completely different things. This is called false analogy, and it’s right there in one of the most famous epistle passages in the New Testament. Inerrantists will argue that this was the best analogy available to Paul at the time while concurrently failing to recognize the ridiculousness of a speaking pot or the implications of parents using the same nothing logic to justify crimes against their offspring.

Anyone else have a problem with Pauline logic? Provide examples, please. I want to see if they are in harmony with mine.

And Lost:

Don't worry about Paul - the early cathoilc church invented all that tripe to confuse the peasants who they wanted to keep in ignorance so they could wield their power over them.
Paul's tripe is just useful for preachers who can pretend to interpret it for the peasants.

FrankWalton

June 30th 2006, 06:50 PM

Sparko

June 30th 2006, 08:16 PM

Another Biblischism:

Quote: Originally posted by WaterOfOblivion
It's not logic, it's an assertion.

Logic is woven into assertions, genius.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1550450&postcount=42

Cynic Sage

July 1st 2006, 02:25 AM

jason

July 1st 2006, 03:36 AM

I nominate Griggsy, i'll find some specific examples a bit later, but she is completely off the deepend.

Jason

jordanriver

July 1st 2006, 07:17 AM

i nombinate Johnny EC for replyin to my letters from some other forum to this forum to nomonate me (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1547541&postcount=255) and its a wonder i found out .

now i know i can reply to people i dont want to argue with me by replying to their letters in some other forum. thats a neat trick too.

i accept this nommanation and would like to thank everybody for there support.

JR :bravo:

jpholding

July 1st 2006, 08:48 AM

Does the screwball have to come from the Theologyweb website? If not, I nominate Daniel Morgan (http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/06/my-time-with-daniel-morgan-and-john-w.html). My friends at Triablogue (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/frank-waltons-shocking-scandalous.html) saw how wacko he is. Apparently, if you write anything that upsets ol' Morgan he'll sue you. Like he tried with me :lol:

It can come from wherever you like but it would be best to fill things out a bit so that I don't have to create the narrative myself. :hehe:

I have an article on that thing Spaz was on about. The attack by the woman was an intentional way of trying to make the man sterile.

A Cup of No

July 1st 2006, 05:54 PM

Sevivion in the Isaiah 53:5 thread in Judaism says,

The passages is MESSIANIC. It is a prophecy of the messianic age. But it is not a passage about the Messiah. However, even if it WAS, it doesn't prove Jesus, who was a heretic. I like how you quote an anti-jewish source who then pretends to quote a Jewish source. Invariably he will have been selective at best. But again, even if it did refer to the messiah, it doesn't refer to Jesus because Jesus was not the messiah.

That's rich.

RumTumTugger

July 1st 2006, 09:36 PM

I'd like to Nominate Cal-Minian.

Neither you nor Sparko have proved my straw-man argument incorrect and the statement from a previous post still waits the both of you:

Found here. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1551251&postcount=51

Does he even know what a strawman argument is? Or is he saying that Sparko and Nick dont' know what they believe? :lmbo:

Sparko

July 1st 2006, 09:38 PM

Same thread... Dark Knight:

No, there is no such thing as time and space. You can more show me an inch than you can an hour.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1551318&postcount=57

Dark Knight

July 1st 2006, 09:46 PM

Same thread... Dark Knight:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1551318&postcount=57And yet, you fail to provide a shred of evidence. Is everyone else on this forum as ignorant as you, or are you the village idiot?

Sparko

July 1st 2006, 09:48 PM

And yet, you fail to provide a shred of evidence. Is everyone else on this forum as ignorant as you, or are you the village idiot?

No apparently you already hold that position. Oh wait, a 'position' would imply "space" wouldn't it?

Dark Knight

July 1st 2006, 09:53 PM

No apparently you already hold that position. Oh wait, a 'position' would imply "space" wouldn't it?Based on that comment alone solidifies your understanding of space, and proves my point. Thank you! Perhaps you will win screwball post. Good luck!

Sparko

July 1st 2006, 09:58 PM

Based on that comment alone solidifies your understanding of space, and proves my point. Thank you! Perhaps you will win screwball post. Good luck!

Thanks! I wonder WHEN it will happen?

:lmbo:

Dark Knight

July 1st 2006, 10:00 PM

Thanks! I wonder WHEN it will happen?

:lmbo:
Some measurement between then and now which we call time. You really are stupid aren't you?

Sparko

July 1st 2006, 10:05 PM

Some measurement between then and now which we call time. You really are stupid aren't you?

You were the one who said time didn't exist. Now you appeal to it?

Stop. Please. My sides are hurting from laughing so hard. :rofl:

OK I will let you have the last word and wont reply cuz I dont want to hijack this thread. But thanks for the laughs!

Dark Knight

July 1st 2006, 10:11 PM

You were the one who said time didn't exist. Now you appeal to it?

Stop. Please. My sides are hurting from laughing so hard. :rofl:

OK I will let you have the last word and wont reply cuz I dont want to hijack this thread. But thanks for the laughs!

I said there is no such "thing" as time and space, you fool, and there isn't, and you cannot prove that there is. Time and space are NOT "things".

Now, go back to makin' out with your cousin, you trailer park hick.

Sexual references and overtly inflamatory language are not permitted.

gharfish

July 1st 2006, 11:07 PM

Great day in the morning, man ! Down a handful of nicotine gum, ya sourpuss !

Cynic Sage

July 2nd 2006, 06:20 PM

Another from Nobeliefs.com, this one by a Jim Walker:

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

How many Christians realize that when they eat that wafer and drink the wine during communion service that they, in effect, practice cannibalism by the partaking in the eating of human flesh and blood?

I certainly did not know that when I underwent communion in my religious days. It sounds so innocent and benign; "Communion" imparts the concept of sharing thoughts and feelings, or so I thought. Oh how the priests fooled me. They used other obscure terms too, like "Eucharist" and "Sacrament of the Last Supper." At no time did a priest or deacon explain to me that I would share in the communal eating of the human flesh and blood of Jesus.

Cannibal: A person who eats the flesh of human beings.

Since Jesus represents an actual human being, and I ate him, that made me a cannibal. And if you have ever undergone communion, then you too fall into that category.

The Church tricked me and turned me into a cannibal!

Not only did I drink blood and eat flesh, but they made me do it in front of a statue of a bloody corpse hanging by nails on two pieces of lumber, a representation of the human whom I had just eaten. (Imagine eating a hamburger in front of an image of a freshly slain cow.)

When I discovered the shocking realization that I had eaten human flesh, and drank human blood I felt like vomiting. Where in the world did this morbid practice begin, I wondered. I reread the Bible for clues. Could that explain the mystery of the empty tomb of Jesus (Luke 24:3)? Did the disciples eat him?

Several Christians tried to console me by explaining that Communion only represents the symbolic eating of flesh, not the real thing (I later discovered that many Protestant Christians don't believe in the literal eating of Jesus, although some do). I felt relieved for awhile until other Christians told me otherwise (virtually all Catholics and Episcopalians believe in the literal interpretation). I began to do a bit of research for myself from the Catholic Church's own position. My stomach began to churn again as I discovered what communion and the Eucharist really means.

Communion

Communion, or "Holy Communion" as the Church officially calls it, means the actual reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, "For real reception of the Blessed Eucharist it is required that the sacred species be received into the stomach. For this alone is the eating referred to by our Lord (John 6:58)."

So you can't just put it in your mouth and spit it out. Oh no. You have to make sure you swallow it into your stomach!

I looked up the Biblical chapter in John 6 and found this diabolical revelation:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:53-55)

Egads, I thought. Jesus really wants them to EAT HIM! It would make perfect sense if the disciples did eat his dead corpse. Of course you wouldn't want to admit your cannibalism to the unbelievers and you'd have to explain the missing body to the authorities. You might say something like, "He is not here, but is risen..." (Luke 24:6). Yeah, right, that's the ticket.

...

Vampirism

Not only did I eat human flesh in my communion sacraments, but I also drank the "actual" blood of Jesus. Doesn't this make me a vampire also? Although vampires supposedly suck blood instead of drinking it, this seems an insignificant distinction. On the contrary, the drinking and the whole swallowing of blood as opposed to sucking seems to me a bit more bloodthirsty if you ask me.

If you consider the folklore surrounding vampire stories and compare them with the beliefs of Christianity, the claims appear similar. Vampire myths (see Dracula) and Christianity both believe that by drinking human blood, you will live forever. Actually Christianity goes one step further by requiring the eating of human flesh along with the blood (John 6:53-55). And of course you're also eating the penis of Jesus (does that make one gay, I wonder?) and the small and large intestines of Jesus, and the bladder of Jesus, etc. Only by this cannibalistic act can you achieve "eternal life."

Consider also that vampirism and their drinking of blood and immortality represent fiction, whereas Christians actually believe their communal drinking of blood and eating of Jesus' corpse will earn them eternal life. Doesn't this, at the very least, put Christian vampirism in a more deleterious light than fictional vampirism?

Note that the actual Dracula (not the fictional one) lived as a Christian. Click here (http://www.nobeliefs.com/facts.htm#anchor197450) for more information. No doubt the real Dracula thoroughly enjoyed his communal ingesting of human blood.

Addiction?

Now I don't know why just one eating of flesh and drinking of blood won't get you to heaven, but I've yet to get a good explanation of why Christians need to eat flesh and blood every week. This continual practice of ritual cannibalism and vampirism brings up even more pressing questions about this gruesome practice. Does the act of communion lead to habitual use or an addictive need for more flesh and blood? Consider that Christians have done more to promote bloody wars throughout history than any other group, and their insistence on evangelizing every human on earth to their faith, should non-believers fear that the Christians might turn them into human flesh eaters too?

Another concern involves the length of time of transubstantiated bread and wine. Just how long does this conversion last? We now know that you must swallow it for its effect to work, but at what stage does it turn back into naturally digested bread and wine? Does it remain transubstantiated even after digestion? Does it ever reconvert? If not, consider what this means as we move our bowels. Should we not treat the remains of Christ as sacred, just as we do the remains of the bodies of dead saints? Perhaps we might consider a better form of elimination of the excrement made from our Redeemer than just thoughtlessly flushing Him down the toilet.

I find the practice of sacred cannibalism disturbing and potentially life threatening, regardless of how many of the addicted faithful tell us it will give us everlasting life. I humbly make the following proposal: that the FDA and the CDC get involved in the study of the composition of theTransubstantiated bread and wine and the narcotic or addictive effects they may impose on the human body.

I hope that I have alarmed you enough to contact your local law enforcement office and state representative about this pressing matter. If you and I don't do it, who will?

Conclusion

Even if you still stubbornly cling to the belief that the Eucharist represents only a symbol of eating flesh and drinking blood, that still makes you a cannibal, if only a symbolic cannibal. If you partake in communion as a metaphorical representation of eating Christ's body, then that still makes you a metaphorical cannibal. You simply have no easy out of this predicament as a symbolic cannibal sits as a subset of cannibalism.

You might also want to question the metaphorical or symbolic stance because if the Eucharist presents metaphor, then what does that say for Jesus himself and what Jesus directly says from the Bible about eating his meat? Metaphorical also? How do you distinguish between metaphor and reality in the Bible when it treats all doctrines equally as the inspired words of God? Would you object to the title of Symbolic Christian or Metaphorical Christian? If you consider yourself a metaphorical or symbolic Christian, then you still fall under the label of Christian just as a symbolic cannibal falls under the label of cannibal. There simply exists no way out for a Christian to escape the cannibal label, except of course to exit Christianity entirely. I did just that and by doing so, I escaped cannibalism along with all the other nonsense. I wrote this article as satire but if you live as one of the millions of faithful that believe in the Bible and the doctrines of Christianity then you must take this article as a serious argument. :lolo:

lilpixieofterror

July 2nd 2006, 06:47 PM

Again, since I don't know if or when I can be on this weekend, I'll start it now. Happy hunting.

http://www.christianityisevil.com/

This web site here should earn a golden screwball award.

Crystal

You can't link to pornographic sites!

Cynic Sage

July 2nd 2006, 11:49 PM

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

This web site here should earn a golden screwball award.

Crystal
Dude, can you even link to that?

jason

July 3rd 2006, 03:25 AM

I f in Heaven there is free will ,yet no evil, why not on earth?Why the tests as even John Hick acknowledges in " The Encyclopedia of Philosophy?"If Yeshua was perfect man andhad free will, why not the rest of us?If his father has free will, why not we. Anyway, there is too much evil to play the Hick's soul-making game, his all or nothing fallacy.We atheists do not play that straw man of HIck. But if if Heaven is Heavenly, then it is the theist who makes the all paradise play and so, again I ask, why not heaven on earth in the first place and not all these evils?[Hick also make s the straw man play when he asserts we atheists would contradictorily die for others, in that his strw man is egotism.] Michael Martin composed this argument and Fr. Meslier long ago. I merely emphasize it as the definitive refutation of the free will argument. [See all of Martin's books on atheism and religion even if they require close attention.] Per haps, this god has free will and does commit evil in that it allows evil on earth an d perhaps on other planets.Zorathrstra surely will respond in force as he is the atheologist here!I just try to give others ideas to respond to , not as final answers necessarily. Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.

Here is an example of Griggsy's unabomber-esq posting style.

I think he should just get a general mention.

Jason

lilpixieofterror

July 3rd 2006, 06:11 PM

Dude, can you even link to that?

Guess not, now I know.

Crystal

lilpixieofterror

July 3rd 2006, 06:15 PM

A note to some theists who write to us:

We insist on the right to insist on truthfulness in all discussions.

Positive Atheism is for atheists. Here we learn of the joys and hardships of being truthful about our own religion. We study our heritage as unbelievers, often finding that atheism is no big deal. Still, there exists a class of meddlers who seem unable to resist any opportunity to “tell those atheists a thing or two!”
If you wish to hold us accountable for what we think, do, or say, then you best be certain that we actually thought it, did it, or said it before launching your salvos against us. If you lie to us or about us, we will call you on it, because we insist on truthfulness. So please, think about what you say first. If nothing else, consider the fact that we like to post unreasonable and untruthful letters for comic relief. This way, atheists who visit get a glimpse of what conversion to theism could be like for us.

If you think you have a truly original argument to present to us, we will do our best to give it a fair look. Who knows? Everyone might learn something!

We’ve heard the rot they feed you in the “Refuting Atheists” videos shown at seminars with names like “Headlong Discipleship: Hook, Line, and Surrender,” staged in venues such as The Tambourine Bangin Fundamentalist Revival Temple.

Some of that stuff we’ve seen time and time again, actually, hundreds, or even thousands of times. “Apologetics” books and videos are spun with an eye toward keeping you from wandering astray from the fold; your leaders know better than to think any of it would affect a thinking atheist. The handful of us who do convert to theism do so as the result of an emotional fluctuation of some sort, not because of the cribbed arrogance sent to this Forum and others like it.

So lay off the Lee Strobel books, the C S Lewis commentaries, the Philip Johnson videos, and those insipid little comic tracts. This is not to disparage those authors (except the last one): we just want you, as a writer to our Forum, to speak for yourself. Send your own original thoughts: do not parrot the ideas of others.

To submit Letters and other material, be sure to read the game rules first.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/

It does seem pretty intresting that they automaticly say that, "Send your own original thoughts: do not parrot the ideas of others." While they quote Dan Barker and give dozens of soundbites.

jason

July 3rd 2006, 07:05 PM

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 3rd 2006, 07:41 PM

The handful of us who do convert to theism do so as the result of an emotional fluctuation of some sort"

Thats a pretty convenient out. I guess they would not object to christians characterising their "deconversions" in a similar manner and dismissing any evidence offered out of hand.

Jason

Yes, its a very nice cop out. Too bad I'm living proof of the falseness inherent in that statement. I was an athiest for most of my young life(largly because I was raised in an athiestic household) and now I'm a Christian because, quite frankly, the evidence for the truth of Christianity is convincing.

TuckEverlasting

July 3rd 2006, 08:19 PM

they quote Dan Barker

:stunned:

jason

July 3rd 2006, 08:37 PM

Yes, its a very nice cop out. Too bad I'm living proof of the falseness inherent in that statement. I was an athiest for most of my young life(largly because I was raised in an athiestic household) and now I'm a Christian because, quite frankly, the evidence for the truth of Christianity is convincing.
No no, you just think that because you are emotionally confused. Me too. :wink:

Jason

jason

July 3rd 2006, 08:38 PM

Oh, i'd like to second Dark Knight for a screwball award as he is claiming that being a YEC is required for salvation.

Jason

Cynic Sage

July 3rd 2006, 08:46 PM

Oh, i'd like to second Dark Knight for a screwball award as he is claiming that being a YEC is required for salvation.

Jason

Link and Quote please.

Cynic Sage

July 3rd 2006, 11:49 PM

A new Christian board game that is sure to win lost souls for Christ

http://www.mission316.com/html/video_intro.asp

:lol:

lilpixieofterror

July 4th 2006, 11:31 AM

The handful of us who do convert to theism do so as the result of an emotional fluctuation of some sort"

Thats a pretty convenient out. I guess they would not object to christians characterising their "deconversions" in a similar manner and dismissing any evidence offered out of hand.

Jason

Isn't that the truth? I was agnostic before. I because a Christian, because quite frankly, I could either accept the evidence that Jesus was everything that the Bible claims or I could deny it and contuine to live in blissful ignorance. I have found that many atheist often do this. They seem to think people like Lee Strobel or CS Lewis were 'converted as the result of an emotional fluctuation'. Sounds like a way of trying to play the intellectual bully, a rather sad game I doubt they could win.

Crystal

Cynic Sage

July 4th 2006, 08:24 PM

N0rstar again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1553148&postcount=118

First I'd like to apologise for mistaken "Source" as a statement and not a question.

Secondly, Some of the details of the storys according to greek myth might be diffrent then what I said, cause in the latter of my 2 posts I was going by memory of a book I read awhile ago. "The Greek Myths: 1" by Robert Graves. This is also considered as a reference book for students. I just moved and managed to dig some books out to make refrences, as soon as I'm done unpacking my library I'll be able to make more "sourceful" accusations.

Since some of you prefer just the facts or quotes and not a lesson in Greek Mythology I'll cut the storys down to the fluential portions while trying to maintain a means of understanding for those who are not familiar with the Greek Myths.

The Ressurection of Zagreus:
Son of Zeus and Persephone.

(GM:1 p. 118. b) "Athene interrupted this grisly banquet shortly befor its end and, rescuing Zagreus's heart, enclosed it in a gypsum figure, into which she breathed life; so that Zagreus became immortal. His bones were collected and buried at delphi, and Zeus struck the Titans dead with thinderbolts. ¹"

(GM:1 p. 119. 3) "The uncanonical tiger in the last of Zagreus's transformations is explained by his idntity with Dionysus, of whose death and resurrection the same story is told, although with cooked flesh instead of raw, and Rheas name instead of Athene's. ²"

The Ressurection of Dionysus:
Son of Zeus and Semele.

(GM:1 p. 56. c) "But the common story runs as follows. Zeus, disguised as a mortal, had a secret love affair with Seneke ('moon'), daughter of King Cadamus of Thebes, and jealous Hera, disguising hersemf as an old neighbour, advised Semele, then already six months with child, to make her mysterious lover a request: that he would no longer deceive her, but revealhimself in his true nature and form. How, otherwise, could she knowthat he was not a monster? Semele followed this advice and, when Zeus refused her plea, denied him further access to her bed. THen, in anger, he a[[eared as thinder and lightning, and she was consumed, But Hermes saved her six-months son; sewed him up inside Zeus's thigh, to mature there for three months longer; and in due course of time, delivered him. Thus Dionysus is called 'twice-born', or 'The Child of the double door'. ²"

(GM:1 p. 57. 4) "Dionysus began, probably, as a type of sacred king whom the goddess ritually killed with a thunderbolt in the seventh month from the winter solstice, and whom her priestesses devoured..........The story of Semele, daughter of Cadmus, seems to record the summary action taken by Hellenese of Boeotia in ending the tradition of royal sacrafice: Olympian Zeus asserts his power, takes the doomed king under his own protection, and destroys the goddess with her own thunderbolt. Dionysus thus becomes a immortal, after rebirth from his immortal father.

Footnotes:
¹ Diodorus Siculus: v. 75. 4; Nonnus: Dionysiaca vi. 296 and xxvii. 228; Harpocration sub apomatton; Tzetzes: On Lycophron 355; Eustathius on Homers Iiad ii. 735; Firmicus Maternus: Concerning the errors of Profane Religions vi; Euripides: The Cretans Fragment 475. Orphic Fragments (Kern, 34)

² Appollodorus: iii. 4. 3; Apollonius Rhodius: iv. 1137.

Though I don't have the sources available for the Follow examples of striking simularities of other "Dietys" compaired to Jesus, You can cross refrence them with your resources and if there's a discrepencey, then when I dig out the rest of my books I will supply my exact resources with their crudencials.

I have a hard time articulating my thoughts so bare with me and don't jump straight to insults to endulge your superiority complexes. thanks.

Horus.

Born of the Virgin Mery* in the Annu (Place of Bread)
Mery, Egyptian for Beloved was frequently applied to Neith. Annu was referred to as the 'Place of Bread' cause grain was stored in Heliopolis for the winter months
Bethlehem in Hebrew means 'house of bread'
Horus was Ra who incarnated himself on Earth.
According to the Trinity Doctrine, Jesus was YHWH who incarnated himself on Earth.)
Horus Raised from the dead.
"Isis retreated to the marshes in the Delta, and there she brought forth Horus. In order to avoid the persecution of Set, who on one occasion succeeded in killing Horus by the sting of a scorpion, she fled from place to place in the Delta, and lived a very unhappy life for some years. But Thoth helped her in all her difficulties and provided her with the words of power which restored Horus to life," - The Egyptian Book of the Dead, by E. A. Wallis Budge. p. 19

Buddah.

"The Sanskrit manuscripts prove without a shadow of doubt:
Everything that Jesus says or does was already said or done by the Buddha.
Jesus, therefore, is a mere literary fiction." - Dr. Christian Lindtner

According to Dr. Burkhard Scherer, a "classical Philologist, Indologist and Lecturer in Religious Studies (Buddhist and Hindu Studies)" at Canterbury Christ Church University, the fact that there is "massive" Buddhist influence in the gospels has long been well known among the elite scholars. Says Dr. Scherer:

"...it is very important to draw attention on the fact that there is (massive) Buddhist influence in the Gospels....

"Since more than hundred years Buddhist influence in the Gospels has been known and acknowledged by scholars from both sides. Just recently, Duncan McDerret published his excellent The Bible and the Buddhist (Sardini, Bornato [Italy] 2001). With McDerret, I am convinced that there are many Buddhist narratives in the Gospels." - Dr. Burkhard Scherer

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

the point I'm trying to make here, is not so much the mirror similarities of Jesus to other mythotical deitys, (Like some Freethinkers like to) rather that the conceptions and ideas of Ressurection, Virgin Birth, God in Human form are all very old. (Points that are factual) If it were the world I wish to live in, then I would not care what people thought of god or the divine word of whom. However, when I learned the history of religion, I can't help but ask Why? Why do Religious fanatics slaughter so many thousands, they place themselves on pedistools above other people cause of "THEIR GOD" and in turn slaughter countless people in their Christian Cruesades; THe Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch hunts, Muslims slaughtering Christians, Muslims and Jews constantly slaughtering each other. What is going on in their heads, and what is going on with God, Frankly I wouldn't care if you could prove without a shadow of a doubt that the God in the bible is Actual (which you can't), I would still hate him, I would still despise him and He would still be a Hypocrite. The bible has always been a convience for the time, Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder. Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36) Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13) Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33) Don't kill unless Jerusalem is being overthrown then you can kill, Don't steal unless Egyptian Doctrines tell the same story as the Hebrew Canon, then burn it. Just like Muhammad, Lets preach peace love and happiness, until I begin getting power and money, then lets start raiding caravans and overthrow another society, oh and by the way My God said its cool, so I mean, no hard feelings, k?

Religion is a mockery of human evolution, it's a retardent on social evolutions, and if you can prove to me that the Bible has created more good then bad, I'll become a glorified televangelist spreading the good word of the Evangelical Church, drive up in my new Jag I got from the churches tithers and shake your hand. But since there is no possible way for you to prove that the bible has created more good for the earth then bad, I'll be going about my humble life of doing floors to pay the bills.

Yes, he cited Robert Graves as a source. :hehe:

Cynic Sage

July 4th 2006, 09:29 PM

Reader, in response to Tercel's OP on Client-Patron Theology (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1551430&postcount=1):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1551445&postcount=2

One of the keys to understanding the New Testament (Paul in particular) is to understand the ancient Favour system. This is often also known as the “Patron-Client” system (though that is really a subset of the wider favour system). A risk of sounding like JP Holding, let me say that the importance of understanding the ancient Favour system can hardly be overstated. It affects our understanding of both the overall ideas involved in the New Testament, and our definitions of individual key words.

It is only relatively recently (the last few decades) that classical and biblical scholarship has really come to grips with understanding what the ancient favour system was all about. So it is still a very fresh area, with a lot of study still to be done in order to completely re-evalute the New Testament in light of the ancient favour system.

The basics
In our western society today we pay for everything by money, and value everything with money. We consider things like bribery, nepotism, and using your professional job to help out friends and family to be indicative of corruption, and they are frowned upon and/or illegal. Furthermore, we don’t care much about “honour” in the historical sense. We consider it a bit of an antiquated word from medieval times where knights were riding off to rescue damsels in distress, and where lords went to war at the drop of a hat using perceived slights to their honour as excuses. We don’t really care if someone calls us a coward, and would generally prefer to gain a million dollars and be thought a fool than to lose it and be thought wise.

So, firstly imagine a society where money was uncommon, where your average person didn’t actually have any money, simply because there wasn’t enough money minted to go around. Secondly, imagine that in this society, those things like bribery were viewed positively. This is a society where “I’ll use my influence to help you, if you use your influence to help me” was how things worked. Using your job in a position of authority as a chance to help your friends and family was totally expected – in fact if you didn’t do so you were behaving badly. Thirdly, imagine a society that really really cares about honour and shame as perceived by the public. Public opinion is all important. If you are considered honourable and powerful, people will deal with you. If you are perceived as shamed or shameless then people will not.

Effectively, the whole Favour system is about loans where no money is involved. It is about doing someone a favour, doing something that benefits them. Then at a later date they will return the favour, helping you back in some way. Therefore it’s really important that you have a good “credit rating” – it’s really important that you are publicly believed to be a person who is both capable and willing to return favours done for you. Because if you are not, then no one will deal with you. And if no one deals with you, how can you live? (Remember there is little/no money) Thus, the secret of success is to become renowned as an honourable man who pays back your debts twofold. Then everyone will be willing to do you favours and help you out in the sure knowledge that they will receive even more in return.

So what might an average transaction look like? Perhaps say you would like a job in the government, and your friend just happens to work in another government department. So you go to your friend and see if he can help you out, and he goes to his friend higher up the chain and asks a favour for you. His friend grants you the job, and now you are in their debt. So at a future date, you pay them both back.

Now since the all important currency is the “credit rating” of their honour in the public eye, one of the best ways to pay someone back is by increasing their credit rating. Thus if you have no other way of repaying their favour, the default way is by honouring them. You could do this by extolling their virtues in front of others, of telling people how honourable the man is, of bowing low to them when you meet in public, of following them around when they are doing business (the more people accompanying a man in his entourage, the more honourable and powerful he is perceived to be).

Thus, it was not unknown for people to spend all their time just accompanying one powerful person around. They formed part of the entourage of this person, thereby honouring them. The larger and more filled with powerful people someone’s entourage is, them more public prestige and honour they gain. In turn the powerful person rewards members of his entourage with favours.

In modern day scholarly terminology, the more powerful person is known as a “Patron” and the seeker of the favour is known as a “Client” – hence “Patron-Client system”. A patron in one relationship can in turn be a client of someone else, thus a web of Patron-Client relationship ran in a huge pyramid shaped structure which ran right up to the Emperor (or perhaps God) at the top, who was the ultimate patron. The Favour system overall is composed of both the Patron-Client system as well as peer-to-peer transactions.

Key words
There were several words used in this Favour system which are effectively technical terms for certain things. Because we did not understand the Favour system until recently, many of these words have historically been misunderstood.

“Favour,” charis: It should be relatively obvious what “favour” means in the context of the favour system described above. But there are two subtly different meanings. You can do a favour for someone / return a favour. (Note that doing someone a favour implies an obligation to return the favour) Or alternatively, you can have someone’s favour, in the sense of being in their good books. Eg If you “have the Kings’ favour” then you are effectively his client – he will do favours for you. This word has historically been mistranslated as “grace”.

“Faithfulness,” pistis: This is a person’s publicly recognised level of commitment to the relationships that they are involved in. Imagine if someone did you a favour and you then betrayed them by doing a favour to their enemy rather than returning the favour – that would be extreme unfaithfulness. Whereas if you returned the favour with interest, and continued the relationship indefinitely, doing them new favours and returning further ones they did for you, that would be the height of faithfulness. Faithfulness is the quality that makes people happy to do you favours, and keen to do business with you – it is your honesty and integrity played out in the fact that you will help your friends and repay their favours. This word can also mean “follow,” as faithful clients often followed their patron around, and similarly faithful soldiers followed their commander. A “faithful servant” is of course a servant who is loyal to the master and does the master’s will. “Faithfulness” was generally considered to be one of the greatest virtues, or even the greatest of all virtues, to the point of even been a summary of virtue in general. This word has historically been mistranslated as “belief”, “faith” or “trust”.

“Expectation”/ “Hope,” elpis: This denotes the expectation/hope of future favours. If you are serving your patron faithfully, or have done someone a favour, then you can reasonably expect a future favour in return from them. This word has historically been translated “hope”.

“Gift”: There are a variety of Greek words that denote different types of gifts involved in the favour system. Scholars are still trying to distinguish between the nuances implied in the different types of words used to describe these various gifts. These words have historically been (mis?)translated “free gift”.

Biblical usage
The most heavy usage of these words occurs in the New Testament occurs in Paul’s letters. He often uses the analogy of the Favour system to discuss salvation in terms that his readers would have been familiar with. The technical terms involved in the favour system above turn up time after time in Paul’s letters, usually in groups, to illustrate his concept with reference to the commonly used favour system.

It has occasionally been wondered over the centuries why Paul talks so much about salvation using these words of “faith” and “grace” when other books in the bible barely use the words at all. Was there a huge split in the early church, some who believed in salvation by faith through grace, and others who believed and taught salvation by works? Where did Paul get this word “faith” from and what on earth made him think that salvation was all about “faith”? Having a grasp of the Favour system we are in a position to answer such questions. Namely that Paul has gotten the word “faithfulness” from the Favour system which he is using as an analogy to describe salvation. There is no huge split in the New Testament church between faith and works, rather Paul is simply using the Favour system to describe the salvation process that the rest of the church talks about with using words from the favour system.

Now note that in the ancient works both favour-based and money-based systems were used (and on occasion they could cross-link with favours being done or repaid using money, especially where royalty was involved). The difference between the two systems was a far more subtle one than people today tend to assume. It needs to be stressed that the Favour system you don’t get things for free, you just pay for them in a different way. In the money system you give a service and get paid money, in the favour system you get given a service and repay it in kind. They are similar but different. Paul talks about the difference between the employment and favour systems and uses this as an analogy for salvation through Christ versus salvation through the Mosaic Law (Romans 4:4). A lot more subtlety is needed in the analysis than how people often read it, which is “Paul’s saying salvation is free and we don’t have to do anything”.

Finally, let me look at Hebrews 11:1 to give an example of how understanding the ancient favour system helps in Biblical exegesis.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (NRSV)
A lot of people take this verse as meaning that faith is about believing in things without evidence.

This verse has historically been considered one of the most difficult in the Bible to translate. Check any good commentary and it will give you about ten alternative versions and half a dozen different issues with understanding how the words are interacting. But now we understand the Favour system we are in a position to translate it easily.

Firstly, we observe that the words “faith” and “hope” appear above, two of our technical terms for the favour system. (“Faithfulness” was a relatively common word, so if it just appeared on its own it wouldn’t necessarily imply a connection to the favour system, but the fact that it appears in the same sentence as “hope” is a bit of a giveaway that the favour system is being deliberately referenced.)

So with regard to the favour system, what do we make of the statement that “faithfulness is the assurance of future favours expected”? Just looking at our word definitions earlier will tell us this is a trivially true statement. “Yes,” we can say, “a person who was faithful was justified in having an expectation of future favours.” Having worked that bit out, it is pretty easy to see (if you know a bit of greek) that the second half of the sentence is just a reiterating of the first half:
“the conviction of things not seen”.
That word “conviction” also means “evidence” or “testimony” or “proof”, and “things not seen” is a euphemism for “the future”. In other words “evidence about what will happen in the future”. Namely, as it has just been noted, we know the future will contain favours being repaid to us. The point of the entire verse being that it is a fact of everyday experience that if we are faithful we will get rewarded for it. The rest of Hebrews 11 gives examples from Israel’s history of people being faithful to God and rewarded by him, thus proving the point further. The whole idea of the section in Hebrews is to encourage enduring faithfulness to God that carries on even when the going gets difficult.

Some recommended reading:
Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Hanson & Oakman, 1998
The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, James S. Jeffers, 1999
Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, David A. Desilva, 2000
The New Testament World, Bruce Malina, 3rd Ed 2001
The social setting of Jesus and the Gospels, Stegemann, Malina & Theissen, 2002

FALSE GOSPEL ALERT!

This is simply a sinful humanistic preaching of another false gospel promoting works-righteousness in opposition to the true Gospel of Grace, according to Holy Scripture.

This false "religionist" claims:

" . .we know the future will contain favours being repaid to us. The point of the entire verse being that it is a fact of everyday experience that if we are faithful we will get rewarded for it."

Bah!

Disregard please, and continue to trust in God for all righteousness.

Faith is a gift of God, not a means to earn any kind of reward or merit with God.

That is the free FAITH that saves. Faith in the works and righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone.

:ahem:

Cynic Sage

July 4th 2006, 09:56 PM

N0rstar again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1553148&postcount=118

Yes, he cited Robert Graves as a source. :hehe:

Oh, another thing to add about the N0rstar nomination.

You know the soundbite he gave of a Dr Christian Lindtner? Well, that guy's work has a very interesting history:

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw97-8/denmark.html

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE HOLOCAUST AND THE NAZI ERA

Denial of the Holocaust made its first appearance in the Danish mainstream press when Kristeligt Dagblad of September 4, 1997 printed a feature article by Dr. Christian Lindtner, an historian of religion and science and former lecturer at Copenhagen University. Lindtner claimed that the truth of the Holocaust was "incomprehensible," because it was doubtful that it had actually taken place. However, if such a "terrible tragedy" had occurred, its origins lay in Zionism, not Nazism. According to him, as early as 1919, American Zionists predicted "a holocaust victimizing 6,000,000 Jews," and they worked actively to fulfil this prophesy, eventually declaring war on Germany.

He also put out a book called "The Exactitude" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591480043/sr=8-4/qid=1152063383/ref=sr_1_4/104-3597910-0365556?ie=UTF8).

As all good Christ-Mythers like N0rstar know, if there's one place to get accurate historical information from, it's Holocaust deniers.

jpholding

July 5th 2006, 09:03 AM

From an email today...

What your faith won't allow you to comprehend is that cultural and historical considerations are moot.

Like the Bible, the Constitution is another vague piece of crap in desperate need of an update.

One thing I guess you'll never learn is that you don't get to add information to the Bible to explain or justify it.

:lolo:

lilpixieofterror

July 5th 2006, 01:13 PM

From an email today...

:lolo:

:twitch: That guy/girl needs a golden screwball award. I think i'm still in shock from that one.

lilpixieofterror

July 5th 2006, 01:18 PM

This one I ran into the Yahoo message boards. I thought it could at least be a runner up for the Golden Screwball award.

How come mary fogot about the supposed visit by the wise men? And Joseph he didn't remember mary being ****ed by bible god who told him he was bible gods son?

Just click here (http://beta.messages.yahoo.com/Religion_%26_Beliefs/Christianity/threadview?m=tm&bn=17926138%23prayerdoesntwork&tid=6030&mid=6154&tof=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1&p=QMhPgSjAWsR7ceTJsrdBQXYpVg1q2GYGahgPIy_cDRdXFwQKYrKO4yI-) and see it for yourself.

NOTE I eddited it to remove the sexual refrence.

Crystal

jpholding

July 5th 2006, 02:06 PM

Email just now from a reader (NOT a Screwball) who sent me this:

...thought
you'd like this bulletin that has been circulating on myspace, from the
"rational response squad" (brian sapient, rook hawkins):

"$666 to first person to prove Jesus existed! PASS IT ON!

Body: The Rational Response Squad is proud to announce that we are giving
believers of Jesus Christ a chance (again) to provide sufficient proof
that he existed.

We are offering two prizes! One prize for contemporary evidence of his
existence, a second prize if you can set a precedent that contemporary
evidence might be unnecessary.

PRIZE 1: Provide one single reference that originated during the supposed
lifetime of Jesus Christ. This means a single person who wrote about him
while he was alive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and
for Jesus: a man who walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the
crippled, then died and came back to life to fly into the sky, the proof
just isn't there. Our listeners are well aware that there is no
contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ, and because of this, Jesus likely
never existed. This is your chance (again) to shut us up! Not only will
you win $666, but we'll be forced to tell our audience that evidence
exists, and our friend Brian Flemming will be forced to completely
overhaul his movie.

Notice how they shift the matter from Jesus merely existing as a person to Jesus existing AND doing miracles.

AWARD FOR CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE: $666
The evidence must reconcile well with what we know of the time from Roman
records and other writers of the day. They must also not conflict with
cities, governments, places and people we know who actually lived during
the time. Keep in mind the New Testament was written well after Jesus
died, and serves as no proof of his existence.

What doesn't count as "CONTEMPORARY" evidence? Lucian, The Talmud, Pliny
the Younger, Thallus, Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Those are
the most common proofs, none of which were written while Jesus was alive.

PRIZE 2: Inevitably when we ask for contemporary evidence of Jesus Christ,
some unintellectual spouts off... "You'd have to be a fool to ignore the
thousands of writings, evidences, blah blah blah." Yet, none of the
evidences provided arise from the lifetime of Jesus. People actually want
us to believe a man walked on water, rose from the dead, yada yada yada,
and NOBODY wrote it down! Give us a break! However... we are not above
being wrong. So, with that in mind. We are offering a $100 reward and an
appearance on our radio show where we will admit we we're wrong to the
person who can set a precedent that other important historical figures
exist without contemporary evidence. Provide us with the names of five
important historical figures that were not written about until at least 25
years after they died (like Jesus). Keep in mind, if you do this you
haven't proved Jesus existed, merely a good precedent.

Same bait and switch. It would be easy to provide as many as 10 or 20 such figures (especially if you define "important" any way you want to -- what about Roman Senators?) but they shimmy between simple existence and performance of amazing deeds.

I can think offhand of Gamaliel (especially if you date Acts late, as they would), Honi the Circle-Drawer, and Hillel and Shammai as not being mentioned until more than 25 years after their deaths.

To sum up once again, provide us with the names of five important
historical figures that nobody wrote about until 25 years after
afforementioned historical figure died. If you can do this you have set a
precedent that other historical figures exist without contemporary proof.

AWARD FOR SETTING PRECEDENT: $100 and appearance on our show when we put
our foots in our mouths.

Never mind the foot in their mouth...they've already got their heads in their... :hehe:

ALL RESPONSES MUST BE POSTED ON RATIONAL RESPONDERS MESSAGE BOARD FOR
PUBLIC VIEWING, NONE OTHERS WILL BE CONSIDERED.

PASS IT ON!!! PASS IT ON!! PASS IT ON!!!

Of course in none of this do they explain what magic requires a reference to come from someone who lived at the exact same time.

lilpixieofterror

July 5th 2006, 02:34 PM

Of course in none of this do they explain what magic requires a reference to come from someone who lived at the exact same time.

It is amazing how they stack the deck, than claim people like Alexander the Great existed with even less evidence for his existance, existed. Never mind that historians say Jesus existed, after all, they only have what? Degrees in history, why does their opinion matter?

Crystal

LilPunkishOfTerror

July 5th 2006, 03:03 PM

What I don't understand is why they want to offer money for such proof. Especially THAT amount.

jpholding

July 5th 2006, 05:41 PM

Memo to self...Tercel:

But I'm not happy to say that the thing called a broker really exists.

I get enough of this silliness from atheists as is.

Leonhard

July 5th 2006, 09:41 PM

Here is another screwy from the cold north...

http://www.whothefuckcares.dk/religion/kristendom/den-romerske-korsfaestelse-kristendom.htm

"Korsfæstelse var på Kristus tid, indenfor romersk kultur ikke en grotesk eller bestialsk måde at blive henrettet på. Tværtimod. Det var nåde. Korset som et symbol skulle skræmme de onde ånder væk der ville tage forbryderens sjæl.Derfor kan man objektivt heller ikke sige at Kristus led en grusom død som martyr. Henrettelsen var netop ikke grusom set udfra kulturen det foregik i. Den var nåde."

And translated as best as I could,

"Crucifiction was at the time of the Christ, within Roman culture not a grotesque or brutal way to executed. Quite the contrary. It was mercy. The cross, as a symbol would scare off the evil spirits who wanted to take the soul of the criminal. Thats why you cannot objectively say that Christ died a cruel death as a martyr. The execution was exactly not cruel seen from the culture which it took place in. It was mercy."

I don't know, did the romans believe evil spirits where trying to snatch souls of the dead? Cuz otherwise I don't think there is hold on anything here!!!

sorry I had to edit out the link because it contained a profane word as part of the address. JP will have to PM you if he wants the link

P-Dunn

July 5th 2006, 10:36 PM

It does seem pretty intresting that they automaticly say that, "Send your own original thoughts: do not parrot the ideas of others." While they quote Dan Barker and give dozens of soundbites.
Indeed, I thought of that too when I was reading that. They're basically saying that they don't even want scholarly arguments from Christians.

Cynic Sage

July 5th 2006, 11:19 PM

Email just now from a reader (NOT a Screwball) who sent me this:

Notice how they shift the matter from Jesus merely existing as a person to Jesus existing AND doing miracles.

Same bait and switch. It would be easy to provide as many as 10 or 20 such figures (especially if you define "important" any way you want to -- what about Roman Senators?) but they shimmy between simple existence and performance of amazing deeds.

I can think offhand of Gamaliel (especially if you date Acts late, as they would), Honi the Circle-Drawer, and Hillel and Shammai as not being mentioned until more than 25 years after their deaths.

Never mind the foot in their mouth...they've already got their heads in their... :hehe:

Of course in none of this do they explain what magic requires a reference to come from someone who lived at the exact same time.

Crap man, rationalresponders.com are to history what drdino.com is to science. :twitch:

lilpixieofterror

July 5th 2006, 11:46 PM

Indeed, I thought of that too when I was reading that. They're basically saying that they don't even want scholarly arguments from Christians.

My thoughts too. If they really thought that, why do they have a link with all of these atheist quotes? Why do they say that all atheist who became Christians were due to emotional reasons? While they make an emotional argument like this below:

I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive:

You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil—you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself.
Dan Barker, from his book, Losing Faith in Faith

Is this not an emotional appeal such as the one they rejected in their letter above by saying, "The handful of us who do convert to theism do so as the result of an emotional fluctuation of some sort..." Sounds like to me they are trying to stack the deck, than watching while your amazed when they pull out four aces. Such ignorance and hyprocricy like above make me reject many web sites such as this.

Crystal

jpholding

July 6th 2006, 09:29 AM

sorry I had to edit out the link because it contained a profane word as part of the address. JP will have to PM you if he wants the link

You can still see it if you hold your cursor over the "edited by a mod" words, Sparko. It shows up in the bar at the bottom of the browser (at least in Mozilla). Plus it was in the reply quotation.

Not that I care myself, since I've heard and yawned at a lot worse from prison inmates. :teeth:

That said, it sure was a funny claim.

TuckEverlasting

July 6th 2006, 10:03 AM

I found a potential gold mine, but I can't post the link 'cause of language:

I came up with a thought experiment last night that proves there is no god, at least in the judeo-christian-islamic sense.

If every single human in the world was killed, doesn't matter how, the earth and the universe would still be here.

If there was a god in the judeo-christian-islamic sense, the universe and all other things would cease to be, because "God" would have no further use for it.

I also think that if we were ever to find extraterrestrial life, doesn't even have to be "intelligent," that would disprove the existence of god as well.

:shrug:

Cynic Sage

July 6th 2006, 08:18 PM

I found a potential gold mine, but I can't post the link 'cause of language:

:shrug:
Can you PM me the link?

Cynic Sage

July 6th 2006, 08:46 PM

N0rstar again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1555283&postcount=132

What can I say, I quoted a Neo-Nazi for claiming the Sanskirt Manuscripts without a doubt proves that the Gospels of Jesus is a direcet plageory of Buddha. I guess I should have checked my source before I quoted him, my mistake. I don't intend to learn enough about Dr. Christian Lindtner to write an autobiography about him, there for I'll chalk it up as a lose with one of my Sources. It's not like I don't have many more resources to prove my claims that Jesus was simply an elevated man, or even a non existent man, I'm still researching that for myself.

What I do know is no greater good has come from Churches. I've yet to be in one, or hear of one that hasn't been engulfed with Greed & Envy. Every church I've gone to consists of abunch of snakes who will smile in your face then stab you in the back. I can not beleave a Divine being as exhaulted as YHWH or Jesus would allow such things. And it's nothing new, it's been like this for centureys.

Religion has always been a catalyst for political favor. Which gives it its ultimate foothold on societys. Every society held an unseeable, all powerful being over many with only a very select few able to talk to this omnipotent being. Most often then non someone who was a right hand man of the King, Pharoah or Dynasty.

In a sense, Christianity is no better then what Hitler done. If anything, Hitlers diobolical reign pales in comparisson to the history of christianity. Even when trying to decided on which books to canonize into the New Testament there were riots and blood baths. I understand people need a crutch or something to beleave in to break away from the mundane, but it's the fanatics that ruin it. Beleaving they are the chosen person to invade another country, eradicate another race, or slaughter another person as a messenger. I almost pitty those who are actually humble in their beliefs cause the fanatics are going to bring the demise of what once could have been a good thing. However as we become wiser as an evolving society people like me feel compelled to bring evidences forward to dispell the bible. Even when someone brings forth concrete proof that the Gospels are forgeries, that the religion as you know it today is nothing more then centureys of evolution through penmenship; skeptics rise up to place a sheild infront of their power. Priests, Revruns, Preachers, Bishops, Witch Doctors, Rabbis, etc.. They would be nothing without the bible, they wouldn't have their powers and authoritys over major major political matters, over societys, they would lose their glamerous lifestyles and have to revert to *gasp* work.

what I beleave in is simple mathmatics, Numberology, and in my mind I think that if all orginized religions was abolished, if it was all thrown to the wind, we would live better lives, not just solely, but worldly.

Numberology?

DesertBerean

July 6th 2006, 09:32 PM

Jim Eisele (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1556061#post1556061) on Christianity in "Argue against the Resurrection, please" :

Some people still take Christianity seriously. I am beginning to think of these people as prescientific third worlders. Christianity is hardly the first or last fraud.

:stunned:

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 6th 2006, 11:53 PM

Can you PM me the link?

Actually I wouldnt mind either.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 6th 2006, 11:54 PM

Can you PM me the link?

Actually I wouldnt mind either. Dont worry about

lilpixieofterror

July 7th 2006, 04:32 AM

N0rstar again:

.....

Numberology?

Oh yeah.. this guy needs a screwball award.

Crystal

gharfish

July 7th 2006, 09:58 AM

Wasn't this man a Jehovah's Witness ? (I know he was.)

So...why in the world do y'all think he has he gone straight from that admitted "deconversion" to angrily tearing up on Christianity one side and down the other ?

A weird twist of passions... I don't get it !

Darth Executor

July 7th 2006, 10:04 AM

Tearing up Christianity? :lol: Actually, he reminds me of these old fairy tales I used to read where the hero is off on some quest and runs into a steep mountain made out of glass and no matter how hard he tries, he can barely get a few inches off the ground before he slides back down.

Bill the Cat

July 7th 2006, 10:12 AM

master_mormon, Joseph Smith, and Mormonism in general win a bronze for stupidity:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1556814#post1556814
I know what I will say next is not found in the Bible but LDS don't care about that since we don't limit our knowledge to just the Bible but the event being describe in this passage has reference to the Council of Adam-Ondi-Ahman that will occur in Jackson County Missouri before Christ comes in glory. Jesus will leave the presence of the Father and come come to Adam, Michael, or the Ancient of Days.

Jackson County, MO... :rofl: Will it be at the Lazy Days Trailer park?

RumTumTugger

July 8th 2006, 12:00 PM

master_mormon, Joseph Smith, and Mormonism in general win a bronze for stupidity:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1556814#post1556814

Jackson County, MO... :rofl: Will it be at the Lazy Days Trailer park?

Uh this links ot your post do get to the post with the quote you have ot go up 2 posts.

jpholding

July 8th 2006, 12:06 PM

Memo to self: Gold for Rational Responders for their recent contest -- documented on http://www.tektonics.org/newstuff.html the last couple of days.

RumTumTugger

July 8th 2006, 12:17 PM

More from Cal when questioned on what he thinks a Strawman agrument is.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1552977&postcount=101

Cal is making less and less sense. I think his brain imploded.

Cal can you explain what a "straw-man" is for us? I don't think you know what it is by the way you use it.

he said this

I am not using the term as in the fallacy of the straw-man argument. I am using like a theory that one puts up that is meant to be burnt up, or to use another metaphor, a trial balloon that is meant to be shot down.

I am just amazed that this trial balloon is still floating. It is actually not that bad of an argument, evidently.

Regards,
Cal Minian

and not being content to with that lack of intelligence he goes on to show does not have the brains of a "jenny" by repeating his same fallacious attempt to change the definition in an attempt to say he won again. Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1555870&postcount=62)

:lmbo:

Sparko

July 8th 2006, 12:26 PM

What do you expect? JWs are trained in how to redefine words.

lilpixieofterror

July 8th 2006, 01:51 PM

This nut case I ran into on the Yahoo! Boards.

Every intelligent American is satisfied that the mythology of India, of Egypt, of Greece and Rome, of the Aztecs, were and are false, and that all the miracles on which they stand are mistakes. Our mythology [Christinsanity] alone is excepted. Every intelligent Hindoo discards all myths and all miracles except his own. The question is: When will people see the defects in their own mythology as clearly as they see the same defects in every other?"

If they thought hard and honestly about why they dismiss those myths, they would understand why I dismiss theirs. I only disbelieve in one more god than they do."

I don't care what people believe, if it doesn't infringe on others rights, but christinsanity does. [Ohio banned abortions even for rape victims, Georgia will allow classes for Bible study in their public schools.]
I find it difficult to believe why, when confronted with the evidence, people can still believe in the supernatural.

James Gould says evolution is not uniform, that not all people have evolved to the degree which allows them to comprehrend facts from fantasy..

Never mind that there are reasons given to doubt the mythlogies of India, of Egypt, of Greece and Rome. Click here (http://beta.messages.yahoo.com/Religion_%26_Beliefs/Christianity/threadview?m=tm&bn=17926138%23prayerdoesntwork&tid=6203&mid=6203&tof=5&frt=2) to see thing thing for yourself.

Cynic Sage

July 8th 2006, 02:18 PM

Norstar:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=79093&page=9

Numerology is the parascience that studies the purported mystical or esoteric relationship between numbers and the character or action of physical objects and living things.

It's nothing I base my entire life around, but it's something that helps me to understand things.

I use to be a JW, and I'm all too familier with the tyranny titled 'The Watch Tower'. I am anti-church, but more so anti-orginized religion. Every orginized religion has a specific dogma. And frankly, beleaven whole heartedly in someone elses interpretation of what seems to me to be simply the greatest fictional book ever written would be degrading of myself.

I've studied with various religions, and studied other religions. Every time I try to make a point, someones sources contridicts my sources, or whatever. That's because the bible is of human thought and like human thought it has errors, People all the time take passages out of context, or make a book say what they want it to say by gathering a coalition of these passages and given them a title "The Trinity, Once Saved Always Saved, Born Again" even such indulgences to primitive natures as murdering another man for the sake of your opinion over theirs "God 'sWord".

The bible to my knowledge was still being decided by the middle of the 6th century, the new testament was still undecisive, and wasn't being recognized or universally acknowledged. The first published New Testiment was by Maricon around 145 A.D. who's Gospel is very similar to Luke, only Maricons is much shorter. In the first centuries there were dozens of Gospels, some which were canonical or considered geniune, were later deemed apocryphal or spurious.

What I do understand is, the forgery of the Gospels and several books in the Pauline is well documented through historical documents of these early christians. The fanatic Christian "doctor" & Saint Augustine (354-430), admitted, "I should not believe in the truth of the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church forced me to do so" - Rudolf Steiner, Christianity as Mystical Fact, p 168.

The 4 gospels were unkown to early christian fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writtings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. Rev. Giles says: "The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him (Justin)- do not occur once in all his writtings" - Tim Leedom, The Book Your Church doesn't want You to Read 173.

:ahem:

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 8th 2006, 09:54 PM

I don't care what people believe, if it doesn't infringe on others rights, but christinsanity does. [Georgia will allow classes for Bible study in their public schools.]

I'm not sure how allowing classes for Bible study infringes on anyones rights. Especially if the class is volontary(which it most likely is).

lilpixieofterror

July 9th 2006, 12:37 PM

I'm not sure how allowing classes for Bible study infringes on anyones rights. Especially if the class is volontary(which it most likely is).

I can agree there. I think that is the major problem with our schools in america. How can you really understand history without knowing religion? I wouldn't have a problem with have classes for ALL of the major religions of the world. Why do some atheist mind if there is a volontary Bible study class?

Crystal

TuckEverlasting

July 9th 2006, 12:58 PM

How can you really understand history without knowing religion?

I agree, Crystal. :thumb: A couple of years ago, I was in a history class on the Renaissance & Reformation. We talked a lot about Christianity, and even got fairly extensively into some doctrinal issues. I remember thinking that this was probably boring the other, non-Christian students to death, but, you know... it's important if you want to understand why certain things happened!

lilpixieofterror

July 9th 2006, 01:09 PM

I agree, Crystal. :thumb: A couple of years ago, I was in a history class on the Renaissance & Reformation. We talked a lot about Christianity, and even got fairly extensively into some doctrinal issues. I remember thinking that this was probably boring the other, non-Christian students to death, but, you know... it's important if you want to understand why certain things happened!

Oh I would have to agree there. How can you really understand an event without knowing the beliefs that are part of the event? I don't see the big deal about having a Bible study class any more than I would about a Quran study class, a Buddha one, or a Hindu one. Why make such a big deal about it?

Than again, the idiot does quote this kind of nonsense:

Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth.
-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141

Yep, as if there were people sitting at Jerusalem's city gates writing down the names of everyone who entered or exited the city...

Crystal

Darth Executor

July 9th 2006, 01:53 PM

What are you talking about, Earl Doherty doesn't exist. I admit I made him up and wrote books in his name as a joke. I didn't think people would take it seriously but I find the fact that I'm going on luxury cruises with atheists' money deliciously ironic.

lilpixieofterror

July 9th 2006, 02:18 PM

Crow

July 9th 2006, 02:26 PM

Well, there's always this. (http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/)

Now, click on the link to his ministry. (http://throughthecracks.org/) Yup, that's the name he gave it. I ain't making it up.

Not on this site, but good for a chuckle. Check out the fashion pages.

jpholding

July 10th 2006, 09:23 AM

Email from the Fundy Atheist Front:

So, I have another, more manageable question, in that it does not
require a considerable apparatus of prior philosophical learning to
answer: in Matt. 3:17 God is quoted as saying "This is My beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased," while in Luke 3:22 God is quoted as saying "You
are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased" (I use the New King James
Version - my italics, of course). Isn't it unbelievable to you that
someone misquoted God! It sounds to me like whoever is responsible is
going to spend a very long time in hell, thinking about his mistake!
(Really, what could be worse than misquoting God?!?)

I have come across so many quotes, especially in the synoptic
gospels, that do not match ad verbum, when quite clearly they should -- I
wonder how they are overlooked.

:lolo:

TuckEverlasting

July 10th 2006, 09:25 AM

Email from the Fundy Atheist Front:

Yeah, um. JP? That one was me. Gotcha! :haha:

:outtie:

jpholding

July 10th 2006, 09:43 AM

Yeah, um. JP? That one was me. Gotcha! :haha:

:huh: You're sending me fake emails posing as a fundy atheist? What, are you feeling unusually masochistic these days? Or did you just want a screwball award? I'd have been glad to give you one free. :flowers:

TuckEverlasting

July 10th 2006, 09:50 AM

Or did you just want a screwball award? I'd have been glad to give you one free. :flowers:

Aw, shucks - I created my own webpage (http://www.truthbeknown.com/) and everything.

Maybe instead of the usual 'gold, silver and bronze' categories you can give me an honourary 'nickel-plated' award. :blush:

jpholding

July 10th 2006, 09:53 AM

Aw, shucks - I created my own webpage (http://www.truthbeknown.com/) and everything.

Maybe instead of the usual 'gold, silver and bronze' categories you can give me an honourary 'nickel-plated' award. :blush:

Snort...I knew it. You're probably John Loftus and Farrell Till, too. :glare:

Darth Executor

July 10th 2006, 01:15 PM

He's not Till. I am.

jpholding

July 10th 2006, 01:36 PM

He's not Till. I am.

No, you're not dumb enough. :rasberry:

lilpixieofterror

July 10th 2006, 06:58 PM

He's not Till. I am.

Can I be Acharya S than?

Crystal

lilpixieofterror

July 10th 2006, 07:36 PM

I am a former Christian but after many years in the church, I have come to the disheartening conclusion that there is no man named Jesus. Trust me, if I had even a shred of hope that Jesus truly was the Christ and existed, I would continue believing that with all of my heart and soul. The point of this page is to introduce the facts that have brought me out of Christianity and has shown me the truth. I will be posting various articles and it is not my intention to make you believe whatever I say. The words I write on here are not to be taken as inspired scripture as Christianity would have you believe in that man-made book called the bible. I beg you to do the research yourself because ultimate truth is what we all should be aspiring to attain in life. All I ask is for you to have an open mind and I am sure the evidence will speak for itself.

This guy needs to get a screwball award for this great load of junk along with his entire web site here (http://www.jesusneverexisted.freewebspace.com/).

jason

July 10th 2006, 09:03 PM

Can we nominate DJ for his new "God has a body" lunacy ?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80301

Jason

Teallaura

July 10th 2006, 09:09 PM

Can we nominate DJ for his new "God has a body" lunacy ?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80301

JasonIs he going for the lifetime achievement award or something? :hrm:

(Do not look at the link... do not look at the link... Arrrggghhhhh!!!!! :argh:)

JSDileo

July 10th 2006, 09:16 PM

Is he going for the lifetime achievement award or something? :hrm:

(Do not look at the link... do not look at the link... Arrrggghhhhh!!!!! :argh:)

It's stupid. That's all you need to know about it.

jason

July 10th 2006, 09:52 PM

He pretty much failed to address the divine chicken objection to his argument.

He can't really be as stupid as his posts suggests can he ?

After JP's recent colum about the "Rational Responders" (:lol:) I have to wonder if apostasy doesn't automatically subtract 40 IQ points from a person.

Jason

lilpixieofterror

July 10th 2006, 10:30 PM

Can we nominate DJ for his new "God has a body" lunacy ?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80301

Jason

Why are stupid people allowed to breed? Has anyone figured this out?

Crystal

JSDileo

July 10th 2006, 10:38 PM

Somebody please nominate me for a screwball! I just wasted an hour of my life responding to DJ on that "Does God have a body" thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1560386&postcount=12

I should have found a better way to waste my time. :sigh:

lilpixieofterror

July 10th 2006, 10:42 PM

JSDileo

July 10th 2006, 10:43 PM

Aww don't worry, we still love ya :teeth:

Crystal

Aww. Thank you! :teeth: :hug:

lilpixieofterror

July 10th 2006, 10:48 PM

Aww. Thank you! :teeth: :hug:

You're welcome, you showed the idiot for what he really was. You should check out my latest screwball I dug up. He spent half the night avoiding a debate with me in chat :lol: . When I asked him if he wanted to debate anything on his web site here on theologyweb. He just simply ignored me. Guess I dug up a real fundy atheist tonight.

Crystal

Darth Executor

July 11th 2006, 09:25 AM

Can I be Acharya S than?

Crystal

Sure. Acharya S is pretty hot. ;:)

BronzeArcher

July 11th 2006, 09:38 AM

Guest writer Leonard Ridge, on Loren Rosson's blog (http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/07/shame-on-rosson-and-context-group.html), for arguing that the Context Group agenda of implementing proper hermeneutics leads to ethical relativism, hypertolerance, and racism. He makes an interesting argument, though if it's clear in your mind that the CG is about interpretation, I doubt he'll have much force...

jpholding

July 11th 2006, 10:04 AM

Can I be Acharya S than?

You'd best think about it. Her website has turned into a virtual beg-a-thon since the last time I looked at it. Brooks Trubee needs to know about this.

Darth, trust me....you'd rather go out with Det. Tyra than Acharya.

Darth Executor

July 11th 2006, 10:09 AM

Darth, trust me....you'd rather go out with Det. Tyra than Acharya.

I'd rather not go out with either one. :teeth:

TuckEverlasting

July 11th 2006, 10:11 AM

I'd rather not go out with either one. :teeth:
More for me, then? :metro:

Darth Executor

July 11th 2006, 10:18 AM

I believe Tyra was yours to begin with.

jpholding

July 11th 2006, 11:21 AM

I believe Tyra was yours to begin with.

He wanted Sheila, but word is now he tried to put off McDonald's as a romantic date. :glare:

jpholding

July 11th 2006, 04:30 PM

Oh my. Look what happened to Johnny Skeptic:

http://www.askepticalapproach.com/

He's selling airplane tickets! :hehe:

TuckEverlasting

July 11th 2006, 04:31 PM

Oh my. Look what happened to Johnny Skeptic:

http://www.askepticalapproach.com/

He's selling airplane tickets! :hehe:
:stunned: Maybe he converted! :b_woot:

Leonhard

July 11th 2006, 04:56 PM

Here's a funny one, a quiz!

Think you know a few things about the origins of the Bible and Christianity? Then why not take the Christian Origins Quiz? Answer just twenty quick multiple-choice questions and see how you rate. This is not a joke quiz – it’s for real! The actual answers and explanations/evidence are provided after each question. The answers may surprise you!

The Christian Origins Quiz (http://exchristian.net/1/)

Or how about this,

Below is a prayer of praise written in 240 B.C to OSIRIS, god of the Egyptians. The prayer is presented here verbatim without any alterations to the original text. As you read the words, replace the various names of deity with Christian terms and see how unique Christianity really is when compared to the competing religions thriving 2000 years ago.

"Companies of the GODs" in this prayer and the like could be "Heavenly Host" or "Angels". "Thou are the Soul of Ra" could be reworded as "Thou art the bright and morning star" or perhaps, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Anyway, I am sure you get the idea.

Like saying "Here is a recipe for chocolate mousse and if you substitute the words you get a recipe for tuna casserole. See how close those are!"

lilpixieofterror

July 11th 2006, 06:04 PM

You'd best think about it. Her website has turned into a virtual beg-a-thon since the last time I looked at it. Brooks Trubee needs to know about this.

Darth, trust me....you'd rather go out with Det. Tyra than Acharya.

Are there other fundy atheist I can pretend to be?

Terror

lilpixieofterror

July 11th 2006, 07:56 PM

Here's a funny one, a quiz!

That has to be funny :lol:

"People waste their times writing quizes of BS like that? The scholars are in agreement that the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek."

I did think this was funny since it was incorrect.

Crystal.

Darth Executor

July 11th 2006, 10:36 PM

Below is a prayer of praise written in 240 B.C to OSIRIS, god of the Egyptians. The prayer is presented here verbatim without any alterations to the original text. As you read the words, replace the various names of deity with Christian terms and see how unique Christianity really is when compared to the competing religions thriving 2000 years ago.

"Companies of the GODs" in this prayer and the like could be "Heavenly Host" or "Angels". "Thou are the Soul of Ra" could be reworded as "Thou art the bright and morning star" or perhaps, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Anyway, I am sure you get the idea.

Like saying "Here is a recipe for chocolate mousse and if you substitute the words you get a recipe for tuna casserole. See how close those are!"

Do you have the text of the actual prayer?

Leonhard

July 12th 2006, 05:08 AM

Do you have the text of the actual prayer?

Here is the link to his article The Uniqueness of Christianity (http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2003/04/uniqueness-of-christianity.php)

Its a bit too sparce, but substituting "are" with "art" got me this.

"Homage to thee, Osiris, Lord of eternity, King of the Gods, whose names are manifold, whose forms are holy... Thou art Tem, the feeder of Kau (Doubles), the Governor of the Companies of the gods. Thou art the beneficent Spirit among the spirits. The god of the Celestial Ocean (Nu) draweth from thee his waters... Thou art the Soul of Ra, his own body, and hast thy place of rest in Henensu (Herakleopolis). Thou art the beneficent one, and art praised in Nart. Thou makest thy soul to be raised up.

Here's a link Hymn to Osiris (http://www.touregypt.net/bod1.htm)

Darth Executor

July 12th 2006, 08:05 AM

As suspected, the dude is borderline retarded. :lolo:\

As a side note, I was watching a moive the other day when I found irrifutible proof that Jesus is not original:

One, two, Freddy's coming for you. Three, four, better lock your door. Five, six, grab your crucifix. Seven, eight, gonna stay up late. Nine, ten, never sleep again. This is a clear reference to the rapture. Notice the presence of a crucifix as well.

jason

July 12th 2006, 08:53 AM

Cynic Sage

July 12th 2006, 12:42 PM

jpholding

July 12th 2006, 12:49 PM

Hey JP, I noticed that in last month's "screwballs of the month" on your cite you quote excerpts from news articles on the web (such as the one from the LA Times dealing with the the upcoming left-behind game) but you forgot to link to the original articles.

Do I need to for a piece like this one?

Are there other fundy atheist I can pretend to be?

I'd like to see a Dan Barker imitation. The one with the big wooden mallet.

*** I should probably note here that I'll be away between the 18th and the 25th for the No Other Gods conference. No idea what my Net access will be like so I'm putting Darth in charge. :rasberry: :wink:

Darth Executor

July 12th 2006, 02:56 PM

Alright, party at Holding's place! His treat (even if he doesnt know it).

jpholding

July 12th 2006, 03:05 PM

Alright, party at Holding's place! His treat (even if he doesnt know it).

You can help yourself to the packet of duck sauce we got from the Chinese place 3 weeks ago. It'll be all that's left in the fridge. :rasberry:

TuckEverlasting

July 12th 2006, 03:12 PM

It'll be all that's left in the fridge.

Toby's going with you? :huh:

jpholding

July 12th 2006, 03:15 PM

Toby's going with you? :huh:

Of course. You don't think I'd leave the little guy with a stranger, do you?

Besides, the people we're visiting with have dogs too.

lilpixieofterror

July 12th 2006, 11:24 PM

This is another screwball I ran into on the Yahoo chat rooms who seems to think Jesusneverexisted.com is a valid source of information.

"from experience I find it far more likely that all of the jesus myth traces back to one CONviNcED man, Paul, who preached his desert hallucination as fact and made a religion...the joseph smith of his day...then to believe that a real magical jesus existed and rose from the dead."

This was said before I quoted, Michael Grant, Rudolf Bultmann, Will Durant, NT Wright, and Craig Bloomberg upon their opinions on this 'Jesus myth' nonsense. Here is what they said when I quoted these historians.

lil, you are a brainwashed pathetic believer who holds to lies and pretends they are evidence

I only quote historians, some who have no axe to grind for Jesus. Yet I'm a 'brainwashed pathetic believer'. Hummm...

Crystal

jpholding

July 13th 2006, 07:03 AM

Website award:

http://www.2012.com.au/unlimited.html

Darth Executor

July 13th 2006, 08:03 AM

Website award:

http://www.2012.com.au/unlimited.html

I can't wait until 2012 comes and nothing happens. The last time I got to feel so smug was when the pope died and my friend who thought he was the anti-christ got shut up for good.

Leonhard

July 13th 2006, 08:33 AM

I can't wait until 2012 comes and nothing happens. The last time I got to feel so smug was when the pope died and my friend who thought he was the anti-christ got shut up for good.
I wanna know what these guys have been smoking!

Sparko

July 13th 2006, 10:30 AM

Website award:

http://www.2012.com.au/unlimited.html

It never stopped Nancy Lieder and her 'planet X is going to destroy earth' conspiracy when her date failed. She is still going on...

http://www.zetatalk.com/index/psdate2.htm

She just claimed the date she was given (May 2003) was a white lie to trick the governments into revealing their true colors or some nonsense.

:lolo:

Sparko

July 13th 2006, 10:34 AM

Well I think he has been nominated before, but his latest post is hilarious.

Michael Cadry claims Jesus is "the man in the moon." Literally.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1564068&postcount=1008

You will have to look at the moon when it's full and see if you see a face there, one with two eyes and a nose, and a mouth. For those whom He will reveal to, fine. If you're among those whom He doesn't reveal it to, fine. I have certain close friends who know I'm telling the truth. Don't you think it ingenious that He circles His Children every 24 hours? What else do you think is the purpose of the moon---to shed light in the night only?? For half a month?? It is written in Daniel 12:4, "Those who are wise shall SHINE like the brightness of Heaven, and those who turn many to righteousness, shall BE as the STARS forever and ever." I was told that when each of us is ready to go to heaven, that we shall leave our earthly body, and our energy/spirit shall go to live in a HEAVENLY body. And that we shall be able to travel at the speed of light, with no earthly body inhibiting us. It is also written that "the stars are the warehouses of angels."

I'm sorry, but I can't ignore what I've been told by the Lord, so you believe what you want.

God Be Your Savng Grace,

MichaelCadry

jpholding

July 13th 2006, 10:42 AM

Email:

As a christian it gives me no joy to say this, but you are missing the point re Egyptian myth and Christianity. The version of the myths the four evangelists were those which had been absorbed into Greek religion by the first century AD.

That was all it said.

JSDileo

July 13th 2006, 10:44 AM

Email:

That was all it said.

:lmbo:

I have to scour the internet for screwballs...*heads over to the internet infidels*:tongue:

JSDileo

July 13th 2006, 10:47 AM

:lmbo:

I have to scour the internet for screwballs...*heads over to the internet infidels*:tongue:
A screwball nomination to FormerFundy, for needing proof for the idea that Christians sin:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80406

I was not sure where to put this so I opted for the Locker Room.

Bob Gray was for many years Pastor of one of the largest churches in Jacksonville, FL. Trinity Baptist Church. In addition to the church of several thousand, he also had a K-12 Christian school and a 4 year Bible college (with several hundred students). Gray was recognized as a leader in the Independent Baptist movement (close friend of Jerry Falwell).

Recently several victims now in their 30's and 40's have come forward saying that Gray molested them as children. In the state of FL, capital sexual battery has no statue of limitations, so he has been arrested and charged with multiple accounts of the same.

It appears that the church (deacons and current pastor) have covered up for him. In 1992, he resigned and went to Germany as a missionary. When he returned recently to speak at the church, he was arrested.

Why am I posting this? It doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other about the truth of Christianity but I think it does show that people who appear to be "godly" and "devout" may in fact be leading a double life.

JSDileo

July 13th 2006, 10:49 AM

Nomination to LGM for this idiotic post:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1562577&postcount=3

Not to worry...all he has to do is repent before god...and all will be forgiven.

Christianity really is the best system to be in for pedophiles. You can intimidate children with your god given authority, you know others will cover for you instead of risking scandal, and you'll always be forgiven by yer psersonal god if you're caught. What could be better?

Meanwhile, I don't need to remind you, that your sin of unbelief in the mythology of ancient Hebrews, and the messianic saviour of a first century Jewish sect, is unforgivable.

BronzeArcher

July 13th 2006, 11:44 AM

Darth Executor

July 13th 2006, 11:47 AM

Fundy again (I find the "former" innacurate)

If someone could wave a magic wand and eliminate religion completely from the earth, I think the problem in the Middle East would largely dissolve.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1564356#post1564356

I'm sure middle easterners are arguing over whose god is better, just like I'm sure Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism has something to do with it. :ahem:

Cynic Sage

July 14th 2006, 02:13 PM

Biblischism starts yet another thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80391 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80391)

Behold the origin of religion:

"More than 60 percent of volunteers given capsules of psilocybin derived from mushrooms said they had a 'full mystical experience.'"

Article here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2178527

:ahem:

BronzeArcher

July 14th 2006, 03:21 PM

:lmbo:

I have to scour the internet for screwballs...*heads over to the internet infidels*:tongue:

Go to the christianforums.com General Apologetics forum. From here (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25165697&postcount=13)

Craig is such a mixed bag.

On the one hand, he is right in saying that there is evidence for Jesus's resurrection: the bible, and some weak and scattered writings decades later. He is right that it is the interpretation of this evidence and deciding upon the best explaination of this evidence which is controversial.

He is absolutely wrong when he says:

(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:
o Jesus’ burial
o the discovery of his empty tomb
o his post-mortem appearances
o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Not a single one of these are facts, and none of these are evidence. The evidence which needs an explaination are the writings that we have, and other physical evidence. Nothing more. The best explaination for these might be that there was a Jesus who was burried, but he's grossly mistaken when he says that it is a fact that Jesus was burried. (Even if it is a commonly accepted interpretation, it still isn't a fact.)

I can't tell if he is lying or if he is genuinely ignorant. Anyone want to speculate?

"The evidence which needs an explaination are the writings that we have" so like... the physical existence of documents needs to be explained, but not what they say. Right.

JSDileo

July 15th 2006, 04:34 PM

A screwball nomination for chickenhawkx3 of IMDB boards (you have to be registered to see the posts):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/board/thread/48291764

I'm going to start a new thread about this. It's an exercise in insanity when you try to talk with Christians, because they have re-defined so many common words that now mean something entirely different.

"Jesus is alive." Oh really. Then bring him to my house, 'kay?

"Jesus is real." Oh really. In what sense of "real" would that be? "Real" the same way that everything else that isn't real is real?

"The Bible is true." Oh really. Well, Jesus made a whole lot of empty promises, then, didn't he? Move any mountains lately, churchie? Done any miracles? Done MORE than Jesus did, as he promised you'd be able to?

Sheesh. In the Bible, it says that ALL believers' prayers will be answered. Yet that isn't true, is it? How many devout parents have prayed desperately for their dying child to be healed, only to see that child die? Where's the God love for them? And it doesn't say, "If it's God's will" or "When God is good and ready" or anything like that. It's utterly unqualified - your prayers will be answered. But we all know that isn't the case.

Go ahead and list other common words that are used in Christianity-specific ways by Christians. There are a bunch.

:lmbo:

JSDileo

July 16th 2006, 03:26 PM

A nomination goes to Secular Web writer Frederick Sparks for this pathetic essay about Biblical morality in relation to incest and homosexuality:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=696

:ahem:

Leonhard

July 17th 2006, 12:19 PM

[Christian writes: Firstly, even the experts will acknowledge that there is virtually no literary evidence as to the beliefs of Mirthraism (please refer to "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" by David Ulansey).]

The experts? Experts are a dime a dozen. The experts at the Christian Institute for Creation Research declare that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. For every Christian "expert" on pagan religions, I can cite one who isn't a Christian and establishes that Mithra was a savior God who was worshipped prior to Jesus and whose origins date long before Jesus was supposed to have been born.

The real problem is that if some parts of the Jesus story were patterned after "pagan" Gods, then the validity of the New Testament as the word of God is in jeopardy and Christians can't allow that."

My expat sez diffent so me true, ebil craetio... eh creatitinio... the young earth peple saz bad things so me true!

(Apperently one establishes a fact by quoting a scholar that says otherwise)

This Christian can sing and dance and quote any number of books he wants.
Here's what the Encarta online research source says about Mithra:

"Mithraism, one of the major religions of the Roman Empire, the cult of Mithra, the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. In the Avesta, the sacred Zoroastrian writings (see Zoroastrianism) of the ancient Persians, Mithra appears as the chief yazata (Avestan, 'beneficent one'), or good spirit, and ruler of the world. He was supposed to have slain the divine bull, from whose dying body sprang all plants and animals beneficial to humanity. After the conquest of Assyria in the 7th century BC and of Babylonia in the 6th century BC, Mithra became the god of the sun, which was worshipped in his name (see Sun Worship). The Greeks of Asia Minor, by identifying Mithra with Helios, the Greek god of the sun, helped to spread the cult. It was brought to Rome about 68 BC by Cilician pirates whom the Roman general Pompey the Great had captured, and during the early empire it spread rapidly throughout Italy and the Roman provinces. It was a rival to Christianity in the Roman world.""

Me no give no hooty abawt wat scalaship sez, dis wat da encycolopadaya sez...

aikidoka

July 17th 2006, 09:51 PM

Does someone making an argument like this count?

1. Creation of the All is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality and (b) the ability of its creator

3. The measurement of the greatness of an act is taken by juxtaposing the accomplishment to the disability or handicap of the actor; the more handicapped the creator the more impressive the event of creation.

4. Non-existence is the most formidable handicap of a creator.

5. Thus, if we suppose that the All is the product a creator, then we must concieve of the greatest being-- namely, a being which created the All while not existing.

6. Therefore, God does not exist

That come from this kid (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=20114182&blogID=136222613&MyToken=8e216480-67d9-47ec-b049-a9f040305441)

Sparko

July 17th 2006, 10:23 PM

oh yeah. that counts :hehe:

Darth Executor

July 18th 2006, 09:56 AM

Pity the irony is lost on him:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80609&page=1&pp=16

Now that’s not to say there isn’t plenty of room to cherry pick these ancient people’s beliefs, and rationalize away the ones that you’re not comfortable with, or that might inconvenience your modern, suburban, philosopher lifestyle.

Sparko

July 18th 2006, 10:14 AM

Speaking of Irony...

Michael Cadry who thinks that the great white throne is the moon, says this:

Don't feel upset if you can't believe that God's Throne is NOT a Great White Chair in heaven. I used to believe that until He revealed Himself to me. He told my I was pure in my heart and that's why He revealed Himself to me. He also told me that He had revealed Himself to a few others in the past and they were called Lunatics.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1570030&postcount=1026

:irony:

TuckEverlasting

July 18th 2006, 10:21 AM

Speaking of Irony...

Michael Cadry who thinks that the great white throne is the moon, says this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1570030&postcount=1026

:irony:
:lmbo:

Cynic Sage

July 18th 2006, 12:40 PM

My expat sez diffent so me true, ebil craetio... eh creatitinio... the young earth peple saz bad things so me true!

(Apperently one establishes a fact by quoting a scholar that says otherwise)

Me no give no hooty abawt wat scalaship sez, dis wat da encycolopadaya sez...
Wasn't that same article nominated a month or two ago?

jpholding

July 18th 2006, 01:26 PM

Wasn't that same article nominated a month or two ago?

It did look familiar. I think I posted it for nomination but I can't recall just now.

Leonhard

July 18th 2006, 02:38 PM

It did look familiar. I think I posted it for nomination but I can't recall just now.
Now that you guys mention it, it does look somewhat famillier, if this is so its not intentional, I just found what I thought was a good screwball. In the future I shall check to make the screwball candidate hasn't already been picked.

lilpixieofterror

July 18th 2006, 09:28 PM

This essay here desearves a screwball award:

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/163437715.html

This guy here is about the biggest screwball I've ever known.

---Ready folks?

Let's get something clear first: are ALL of you Christians agreed that 'God' is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? Is that in the bible?

Let's assume that all the dolts who keep telling us that 'God' is all of the above, really DO know what they are talking about when they tell us that those attributes are in the bible.

1)))) So first of all, can 'God' be omnipotent?

No,.... not possible, and I can PROVE it, using the bible.

To be omnipotent would be to be ALL POWER. There could be NO other
power of ANY sort in the universe (or elsewhere), because 'God' is
ALL-powerful. So what does that mean? That means that 'God' HAS to
be everything. Stars, plants, grass, planets, galaxies, fleas, humans, chickens.... ALL would have to be 'God' for him to be ALL- powerful.

All things CANNOT be 'God', because we are told that 'God' cannot
sin. We are also told that we DO sin. Therefore, according to the bible, 'God' CANNOT be all powerful. He CAN be VERY powerful....
but if he is, his power is NOT perfect,.... which means there are SOME places wherein he lacks power.

If 'God' is ALL-powerful, then EVERYTHING is 'God', and we don't have to WORRY about sinning or not sinning, since NOTHING could
take place without it being 'God's' will. 'God' done it! So if he is ALL-powerful he cannot exist, according to the bible, and if he is VERY powerful, he cannot exist, according to the bible,because he would be IMperfect.

Now, maybe you will understand WHY the Christian god, as described
CANNOT exist.

With this ONE refutation, he is proven NOT to exist.

2)))))Secondly..... omniscience.
Can 'God' know EVERYTHING? If 'God' knows EVERYTHING.... then he
MUST know the future. If he DOESN'T know the future, then he
doesn't know EVERYTHING..... and he SURELY doesn't know what's going to
happen next. If he KNOWS the future, it CANNOT be changed by us,
OR that would make what he knows, wrong.
Therefore, free will cannot exist, which means 'God', not us, is
sinning. We get ACCUSED of sinning, but we CAN'T be sinning,
because we can't CHANGE our actions..... as Judas proved when he was
actually INFORMED that he would betray Jesus, and he STILL could
not change it, or he would have proved Jesus wrong. So if WE aren't sinning... then it is 'GOD' who has planned our ins and gives us NO option but to sin.... therefore,.... since 'God' CANNOT sin, according to the bible..... 'God' CANNOT exist.

ANOTHER proof that the Christian god does NOT exist.

3)))) Thirdly.... omnipresence.

If 'God' is EVERYWHERE... then he MUST be EVERYTHING. If 'God' is
EVERYTHING... then it is HIM that is sinning, not us. Since the
bible says 'God' CAN'T sin (poor [non-existent] bastard!), then
the Christian god CAN NOT exist.

ANOTHER proof that the Christian god does NOT exist.

4)))
FINALLY.... and of course the MOST important proof of the NON-
existence of 'God'.... is the Perfect Atheist.

The Perfect Atheist knows EVERYTHING there is to know... and tse
remains an Atheist...... so even if he never TOLD us so.... we
KNOW that there can NOT be any gods, because the Perfect Atheist is an
Atheist. If there were gods, tse would NOT be an Atheist now,
would tse! How do we know that we can trust the Perfect Atheist? Because tse SAYS we can.... and TSE should know... tse is PERFECT!!!

From THIS point in time, the NEXT time some Christian says 'Oh
yeah,let's see you prove that 'God' DOESN'T exist!', point tse to this
post number... and make sure you let tse know that this is
BIBLICAL proof.

I mean... it's the word of 'GOD' that 'GOD' doesn't exist. If you can't believe HIM... who the hell CAN you believe!!!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/achristianvsatheistclub/message/283969

Anyone else find it as ironic that he did not cite a single source or Verse?

Crystal

Spheniscine

July 19th 2006, 12:43 AM

Oh my. I think he's a shoo-in for Platinum. :lmbo:

Darth Executor

July 19th 2006, 07:47 AM

It has to be a troll. Nobody is that stupid.

lilpixieofterror

July 19th 2006, 07:34 PM

So you guys also found the irony in the fact he never gave a single refrence or posted a single verse to prove any of his claims? If nothing else... I had a blast in making him look stupid.

Crystal

Spheniscine

July 19th 2006, 07:47 PM

Well, the whole "perfect atheist" thing really did it for me. :lmbo: Is he referring to himself? :lmbo:

lilpixieofterror

July 19th 2006, 08:26 PM

Well, the whole "perfect atheist" thing really did it for me. :lmbo: Is he referring to himself? :lmbo:

I don't know, I think the guy is being serious, which is the sad thing. I guess that is what happens when people are not given their proper meds.

Crystal

Leonhard

July 19th 2006, 10:27 PM

:twitch: Okay he takes the cake...

Here's another one though not as off as that guy,

No ex-atheists (http://mwillett.org/atheism/exatheists.htm)

"I've never met one, really. By that I mean people I have known to be real atheists with a coherent set of beliefs who later swallow the Christian message. (I.e no true atheist has ever converted) Of course there are countless examples of Christian authors... who claim they once were atheists... but they mysteriously have left not one word in the public domain from that mythical time of their own atheism. (and I can assure you that all christians lie, its part of the conspiracy people!!!) The best that can be seen is a bit of early journalism that doesn't betray much evidence of belief one way or another. There are precisely zero famously atheist people who are now famously Christian... (There are famous converts in scientology, now I see the light...)

Don't give me any more accounts of these people who claim they used to be atheists. I know lots of atheists. They stay atheist. (Hmm, do I sound like those who says you where never a believer? Nah...)"

So is he saying that the only real atheists that exists are the ones that are famous? Or, is he only saying that he believes all christian converts to liers?

BTW, Do you guys know of a famous atheist (didn't have to be vocal about his or her atheism) that has converted?

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 19th 2006, 10:42 PM

I know lots of atheists. They stay atheist.

And I know lots of Christians who stay Christian. Whats you point?

BTW, Do you guys know of a famous atheist (didn't have to be vocal about his or her atheism) that has converted?

I used to be an athiest, but I'm that famous(yet). Lee Strobel used to be an athiest, and later on wrote Case For Christ. But I'm sure you can find a better spokesperson than that.

Leonhard

July 19th 2006, 11:39 PM

I used to be an athiest, but I'm that famous(yet).

Ditto here :teeth:

Lee Strobel used to be an athiest, and later on wrote Case For Christ. But I'm sure you can find a better spokesperson than that.

Yeah, but I'm thinking of something that would satisfied his stated accusation (no famous atheist has ever converted). It would of course be impossible to satisfy him!

Sparko

July 20th 2006, 12:21 AM

Ditto here :teeth:

Yeah, but I'm thinking of something that would satisfied his stated accusation (no famous atheist has ever converted). It would of course be impossible to satisfy him!

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/atheist_believes_in_god.htm

lilpixieofterror

July 20th 2006, 12:26 AM

Yeah, but I'm thinking of something that would satisfied his stated accusation (no famous atheist has ever converted). It would of course be impossible to satisfy him!

I used to be agnostic myself :smile: You can always use CS Lewis for a refrence.

Crystal

lilpixieofterror

July 20th 2006, 02:12 AM

I found this halfwit site when I was looking at someone's profile on yahoo...

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.php

Darth Executor

July 20th 2006, 09:08 AM

I found this halfwit site when I was looking at someone's profile on yahoo...

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.php

Didn't JP make a parody of that already?

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 20th 2006, 10:47 AM

Yeah, but I'm thinking of something that would satisfied his stated accusation (no famous atheist has ever converted). It would of course be impossible to satisfy him!

I just thought of something: The former lead guitarist for Korn quit the band when he became a Christian. I dunno if he was an athiest before that though.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 20th 2006, 10:50 AM

Didn't JP make a parody of that already?

Yea here:

http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/hankwhine.htm

lilpixieofterror

July 20th 2006, 12:14 PM

Didn't JP make a parody of that already?

I don't know, I've read a few of his paradies... he didn't make a Parody I was aware of, but thanks for pointing it out :smile:

Crystal

Cynic Sage

July 20th 2006, 12:48 PM

Leonhard

July 20th 2006, 02:34 PM

You added the text that's in bold, right?
Of course I did, I have a thing for sarcastic comments!

lilpixieofterror

July 20th 2006, 09:08 PM

Here's another one though not as off as that guy,

I think that guy is quite odd, did you see this part:

I have found it. After years of searching in entirely the wrong places I have found the meaning of life.

It was where I should always have looked for it. In that small book with thin pages that I keep by my side, in that wonderful book that I should always treasure. It was there all along.

I long to share it with you.

Here it is, from page 308 of the Collins Little Gem Dictionary, 1985 edition :-

LIFE
noun active principle of existence in animals and plants, animate existence; time of its lasting; history of such existence; way of living; vigour, vivacity. (plural lives)

There it is in all its glory. The meaning of life.
http://mwillett.org/atheism/life1.htm

Oh yeah... didn't you guys all know, 4,000 years of philosphy can be sumed up in a single sentence from a dictionary...

Crystal

One Bad Pig

July 20th 2006, 09:13 PM

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 20th 2006, 09:22 PM

I think that guy is quite odd, did you see this part:

I have found it. After years of searching in entirely the wrong places I have found the meaning of life.

It was where I should always have looked for it. In that small book with thin pages that I keep by my side, in that wonderful book that I should always treasure. It was there all along.

I long to share it with you.

Here it is, from page 308 of the Collins Little Gem Dictionary, 1985 edition :-

LIFE
noun active principle of existence in animals and plants, animate existence; time of its lasting; history of such existence; way of living; vigour, vivacity. (plural lives)

There it is in all its glory. The meaning of life.
http://mwillett.org/atheism/life1.htm

Oh yeah... didn't you guys all know, 4,000 years of philosphy can be sumed up in a single sentence from a dictionary...

Crystal

I'm 99.99999% positive that was intented as a joke.

lilpixieofterror

July 21st 2006, 01:22 AM

I'm 99.99999% positive that was intented as a joke.

That's what i thought about my screwball quote too... but he was being serious... so you never know.

Crystal

Darth Executor

July 21st 2006, 07:29 PM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1575345

Meanwhile, you suggest that prostitution is some kind of new phenomena coming out of the 60s when it's clearly recognized as common behavior, and not even criminal behavior, in the old testament. Where are the commandments against prostitution in the Mosaic law? Sex is only regulated in the context of women already married. The penalty for sex with an otherwise marriageable woman is marriage.

Anthem

July 24th 2006, 12:41 AM

been a couple of days since anyone was nominated. anyway, here is one from Luigi Cascioli, that italian suing over the existance of Jesus. I'm sure the entire article is a potential gold mine, but this part jumped out at me.
emphasis mine.
Simon the apostle has three appellatives: Barjona, Canaanite, and Cephas (Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine). The meaning of these names is the following: Barjona (ßa????a )is the Greek translation of a word in Aramaic (a language spoken in Palestine during the Roman occupation) that meant "fugitive from justice" or "wanted". Canaanite is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "qanana" which corresponds to zealot, i.e. a revolutionary extremist. Cephas was given to him because of his stocky and muscular build that made him resemble a rock.source: http://www.luigicascioli.it/prove1_eng.php

Leonhard

July 24th 2006, 06:11 PM

been a couple of days since anyone was nominated. anyway, here is one from Luigi Cascioli, that italian suing over the existance of Jesus. I'm sure the entire article is a potential gold mine, but this part jumped out at me.
emphasis mine.
source: http://www.luigicascioli.it/prove1_eng.php

[/left]
I read the site, he really needs to improve his grammar cuz I can't understand anything he says!

lilpixieofterror

July 24th 2006, 07:55 PM

This is from a few months ago. I was having a debate with somebody about Genesis 2:17 and Matthew 16:27,28 (how it's a 'failed prophecy) this is how It went....

God told Adam that on the day he ate of the tree he would surely die. That was a lie. God Jr. said that his 2nd coming would be during the generation that then existed, and, he also told some people they would not die before his coming; two lies.

Here is how I responded back:

God told Adam that on the day he ate of the tree he would surely die. That was a lie."

He did die, he lost his immorality and became sinful. That is the bases of Christian thelogy:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men." Romans 5:12, NIV

If you can't even understand that very basic concept. Why should I expect you to have any more truth in anything you say?

"...he also told some people they would not die before his coming; two lies."

Once again you have proven you have not read the Bible very much. I shall not prove that you are mistaken:

"There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light." Matthew 17:12, NIV...

If you believe that I am wrong in my conclusion. Here is a refrence you can read that will destroy your case:
Click here (http://www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/MatthewHenryConcise/mhc-con.cgi?book=mt&chapter=17#Mt17_1)

His response went like this:

"Once again you have proven you have not read the Bible very much. I shall not prove that you are mistaken:"

I know the buy bull better than you, and you cannot show that I am mistaken, and I challenge you to show that I am mistaken, and to either put up or shut up. So far all you have done is say that I am mistaken; you have gave presemted nothing to prove that I am, so as I said, either put up or shut up.

"There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light." Matthew 17:12, NIV..."

And what does this mean? I do know the buy bull better than you. The above is from Matt. 17:2 and I'm not even looking at the book to know that.

"If you believe that I am wrong in my conclusion. Here is a refrence you can read that will destroy your case:
http://tinyurl.com/ecsj9...

And how does that stupid web site destroy my case? You can no more prove the buy bull by what the buy bull says that you can prove what you say by what you say.

Am I the only one who thinks this guy is a screwball (and a fundy atheist)? Did I find another Jimbo?
Full text here. (http://beta.messages.yahoo.com/Religion_%26_Beliefs/Christianity/threadview?m=tm&bn=14121542%23illworshipgodmyway&tid=4&mid=1189&tof=7&rt=2&frt=2&off=1)

Crystal

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 24th 2006, 09:37 PM

Am I the only one who thinks this guy is a screwball (and a fundy atheist)? Did I find another Jimbo?
Full text here.

This guy doesnt need a screwball. He need to be struck with a hammer(or other heavy blunt object).

Cynic Sage

July 24th 2006, 11:17 PM

Michael Cadry again:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=47631&page=2&pp=16

...And the angel explained to me about this Israeli psychic named Uri Geller, and that he was doing simple miracles by using his right hand to rub on and bend silverware and using his mind to concentrate on moving watch hands and compasses, etc.

Michael, you need to understand that any "angel" that spoke of Uri Geller performing miracles is not an angel from God. Uri Geller performs simple sleight-of-hand tricks that any stage magician can duplicate without any assistance from Satan. For that matter, any person once clued into the trick can duplicate it.

The "angel" lied to you, Michael. There's only one "angel" (not counting his flunkies) that lies, that one called by Jesus "the Father of Lies". Satan.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

The (talk about your basic red flags) Curtmudgeon

Curtmudgeon,

Don't blaspheme against the angels that have helped give me my testimony. You are in great error. I happen to know the difference between bad angels and good, and know that it was a good angel of God who told me about Uri Geller. No, he is not doing his miracles by sleight-of-hand. How about you coming up with some FACTS to PROVE that he is. Also some PROOF TRULY about the angel who spoke to me about it. I will not have you bad-mouthing the Lord's angels, and you are speaking wrongly about things you do not know of.

Later in the thread, Sparko unveils the smoking gun:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=47631&page=65&pp=16

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.darat.org/~dimossi/James.Randi.debunking.on.Tonight.Show.wmv (http://www.darat.org/%7Edimossi/James.Randi.debunking.on.Tonight.Show.wmv)

(James Randi exposes Geller. bonus: Popoff faith healer exposed in second half of video)

To which MC responds with:

Dear All,

How easy it is that Satan has deceived most of you. I say that you shall find my words and testimony to be true with very little passing of time. Then what will you say?? We should have given him more of a chance???? I know who deceives you and even where his seat is, but I'll tell you nothing, for you don't believe what I say anyway. There's so much more left for you to know and you are held guiltless by me that you can't fight the deceiver. He has deceived many more who are greater than you all here. I'm not worried that I'm telling the truth, so you should reconsider me. But it is one of me and so many of you that I have to answer. It's much easier to pick on one person, I guess. I say you SHALL SEE the Lord God sitting on His throne in heaven very soon, just as I have described it. I am very sure of what I speak or I would not risk God's wrath against me for speaking an untruth.

No one believed the man who thought the earth was round instead of flat. It seemed preposterous to them. But the man was correct anyway, though he had many against him. Most of you are that way,,,the disbelievers in something you can't yet comprehend. Men have been put to death because of the truths they believe in, all because of the naysayers and the blind. I'm not worried about being wrong, cause I know I am telling the truth. Can you say for CERTAIN that you are correct?? I can!!

Praise God for the beauty of the flower, so many different varieties. And praise Him for the miracle of His imagination and expertise to make a human being. He is AWESOME. So very much He has done, He OVERWHELM'S me. This is how you know a spirit is true or false. If a man says that Jesus is the Lord God come down to earth in human form, that is truth and he is a true prophet. If you accept that God is your TRUE FATHER, that is good. If you LOVE your true FATHER with all your heart, mind and soul, you are not on the wrong track. And I also feel that Jesus is my older brother, and I love Him deeply and revere Him, and I also know He is my true Saviour and is certainly worthy to hold the keys to hell and death.

I will close for now. You all don't know me as well as you think. And the arguments you've given to me so far don't make a dent. I could address each of your arguments, and show you why they are not true, but you wouldn't believe even after that. So why waste my energy and time for now. You shall see what I've claimed come to be soon. That saves me time and energy.

God Bless and Keep You All From Being Deceived,

MichaelCadry
:wink:

and:

Dear All,

You may DISCERN the spirit coming from a man, but Jesus told us, "Do not JUDGE unless ye be judged." You have all judged me instead of Discerning the spirit by the words I say. Be careful what you do.

:lolo:

lilpixieofterror

July 24th 2006, 11:52 PM

This guy doesnt need a screwball. He need to be struck with a hammer(or other heavy blunt object).

I think so. He goes all over the yahoo message boards telling everyone that i 'know no logic' or 'have yet to disprove his arguments'. I think I might have my own Jimbo :lol:

Crystal

lilpixieofterror

July 24th 2006, 11:54 PM

:lolo:

Yep, couldn't of put it better myself :teeth:

Crystal

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 25th 2006, 02:55 PM

I think Darwin Bedford, a self proclaimed 'Athiestic Messiah' definetly deserves a nomination. http://www.atheists.net/

Espeically amusing is his 'Questionare' for religious believers found here: http://www.atheists.net/pages/questionnaire.html

Cynic Sage

July 25th 2006, 03:02 PM

The Rat is back:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80927&page=1&pp=16

In response to the thread "What does atheism have to offer", I suggest that the hope that atheism has to offer is a world without religion.

Can you imagine a world without the driving force behind the conflict in the middle east? Without the perpetual conflict between Islam and Christianity, or protestant and catholic Northern Ireland?

The tragedy of 9/11 can be lain at the feet of religous belief. It wasn't that the terrorists were islamic, or that they were arabs, or any other factor that made them capable of this sort of act. The fact that they were religious fanatics alone allowed them to turn human morality on it's head and turn an otherwise heinous act into a pious one. Without the sort of religious indoctrination (that most theists heartily approve of I would add) this sort of act could simply not have occured.

Religion is by no means the only source of fanaticism, but it is certainly the most prolific source, and it is the only source that seems to be above any sort of criticism.

The world simply can not afford to ignore religion as a dangerous source of conflict, particularly with the increasing availability of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass death and destruction which can be wielded by fanatics. Religious belief threatens our survival. It has to be recognized for what it is, an increasingly dangerous human vice.

"Can you imagine a world without the driving force behind the conflict in the middle east? Without the perpetual conflict between Islam and Christianity, or protestant and catholic Northern Ireland?"

A world without land?

[attachment]
click thumbnail

It's a hypothetical (meaningless) question.

I think the world would have been better off without Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot...

Religion is certainly not the only source of fanaticism.. but it's the most common source. The sort of indoctrination that leads to fanaticisim is actually actively encouraged by religion. And the record shows that ordinary people are only capable of committing gross crimes against humanity after they've been indoctrinated such that they see these crimes as serving some imaginary higher purpose.

But I would agree.. I would include all overarching utopian belief systems which operate similarly to religion.. this would include communism and Pol Pot's year zero neo-luddism.

It seems you can blame alot of bad in the world on religion if you define it to include atheistic ideologies as well. :hehe:

And a tidbit from our favorite "well-researched' freethinker:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1577957&postcount=44

You act as if Hospice is a WONDERFUL THING. WRONG.

YEA!!! Lets plug cancer patience up to machines and let the lie in bed waiting for when their family is going to come see them again. *KNOCK KNOCK* Who's there? The Grim Reaper, trying to get in but with these new machines the person will live another couple of months to be a guinnie pig.

I'm going to go the route and act as if you've actually BEEN inside a Hospice care unit. Isn't it GREAT how it smells of death, seeing all those old people staring at the T.V. or the picture of what they were as it lies just out of reach. Hoses cramed in every orfice, machines pumping you with oxygen cause you naturally should have died 2 weeks ago. Getting injected with morphine to ease the pain of the spreading, killing and uncureable cancer taking over your body that you so despratley want to leave.

No yea, Hospice is an awesome torture facility, Hitler would give it 2 thumbs up.

Yeah, Hitler was all for using resources to prolong the lives of the sick and weak.

Cynic Sage

July 25th 2006, 03:02 PM

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 25th 2006, 04:57 PM

He was nominated him a while back.
He was? I must have somehow missed that.

lilpixieofterror

July 25th 2006, 05:36 PM

Espeically amusing is his 'Questionare' for religious believers found here: http://www.atheists.net/pages/questionnaire.html

I find this part of his questionaire to be funny.

9. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for improving the quality of God's services? (Attach an additional sheet if
necessary):

Can I instead ask for improving the quality of his web site?

I want him to add into this 'question'

"4. What factors were relevant in your decision to acquire a deity?"

I want to ask him to add this:

'I came to the decision by studying the evidence'

Think he'll add it?

Crystal

Darth Executor

July 25th 2006, 08:41 PM

Not a screwball, but I found this hilarious. I was playing the demo for Prey and on a bathroom wall I found Jimbo's name written on it. :hehe:

lilpixieofterror

July 25th 2006, 11:36 PM

Not a screwball, but I found this hilarious. I was playing the demo for Prey and on a bathroom wall I found Jimbo's name written on it. :hehe:

Sounds like a great place for his name to be at. He post enough **** that he could back the New York Sewer system up for weeks.

Terror

Cynic Sage

July 26th 2006, 01:07 AM

Cynic Sage

July 26th 2006, 01:09 AM

Not a screwball, but I found this hilarious. I was playing the demo for Prey and on a bathroom wall I found Jimbo's name written on it. :hehe:

What? You mean in the game? Was it it real name or his Tweb handle?

Darth Executor

July 26th 2006, 10:02 AM

What? You mean in the game? Was it it real name or his Tweb handle?

Yes. The word "Jimbo" was on a wall. I think I took a screenshot but it's not on my dad's computer. I'll upload it later.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 26th 2006, 10:44 AM

What? You mean in the game? Was it it real name or his Tweb handle?

I'm fairly certain its a reference to something else.

Although, I could be wrong...

jpholding

July 26th 2006, 11:03 AM

And a new site of his:

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

It's the same stuff too. I was asked to look it over. I think he's just trying to get more readers for the same old junk since his traffic is declining.

Award for Kyle Williams for this:

(14-B) Another approach is to accept the contradictions and make excuses for them. Strobel – in (14-1), (14-2), (14-3), (14-4-3-3) and (14-4-3-4) – and some people on the forum take this approach. They assert that gospel standards are low because low standards were the norm in first century Jerusalem. It was a "high-context" or "collectivist" society.

Oh. Using scholarship is an “excuse”. :twitch: Other dumb comments he's made:

Remember: Outside the New Testament, we have absolutely no contemporary mention of Jesus, pro or con. This is more consistent with the gospel-as-myth hypothesis than the gospel-as-history hypothesis.

Considering the fact that the world is, and always has been, full of religious con artists, I think it wise to demand high standards of evidence before accepting a religious claim.

But before the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, there was no orthodoxy.

jpholding

July 26th 2006, 02:42 PM

Memo to self...

n0rstar, who I am discovering is even stupider than even I thought from his past Screwball nominations:

The eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79AD sent up an ash plume that could be seen for hundreds and possibly thousands of miles and obliterated two large cities--Pompeii and Herculaneum--resulting in the deaths of untold thousdands of people, yet the only surving reference to this event is in a pair of letters written by Pliny the Younger to his friend Cornelius Tacitus. It is recorded no where else in ancient writings.

Now if something as widely observable and catastrophic as the utter destruction of two large cities and countless thousands of its citizens by an erupting volcano whose plume of ash and smoke could be seen over a wide area is not given more than a passing mention in a couple of personal letters then why would you expect the events of the Bible you've pointed out to be widely reported?

Good point. BUT the volcano did kill 3,400 eye witness's ^_^ and the smoke plume at greater distances probly wouldn't have been considered much more then a cloud or at best smoke from a fire. Not nearly as note worthy as say; the sun stopping at high noon for several hours.

And atleast there are extant manuscripts of his writtings --not that his writtings are subject to controversy-- that are originals. Not something that is written in a diffrent language from his own and 150 years after the event.

So, um, a volcano buried Pompeii, and no one was ever any the wiser as to whether it was a fire or a cloud. :lolo:

And there are original mss. of Pliny around. Better let the pro classical scholars know that....

jpholding

July 26th 2006, 02:46 PM

Also memo ---

It seems that the implications are fairly staggering if it is a true fallacy. I say staggering because taken to it's logical conclusion there is no "true christianity" at all. No one is a christian in an objective sense at all rather just one based on their own subjective definition that is indeed worthless to everyone else.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

July 26th 2006, 03:24 PM

Brian Marshall is back and has some new stuff. For staters, his whywonttgodhealamputees.com site now has a video on it that says the exact same things he says on his website, but now with more redundancy.

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video.htm

He spends the entire time comparing Praying with belief in magic horseshoes. I sat through the entire thing waiting to hear something new I haven't read on his site. And his voice, it's like Ben Stein on codene impersonating Agent Smith.

Can I have the 20 minutes of my life back?

Also here:

Imagine that you are a soldier and your platoon is going into battle. If your commander were to say, "Dear lucky horseshoe, please protect these soldiers from harm." we would think he is an idiot for being so superstitious. A horseshoe does not protect anyone. It is exactly the same to pray for protection. Prayer does not protect anyone either.

Anybody who's actually been to war can tell you that everybody carries some kind of 'lucky charm' that they think will protect them. And nobody looks down on anyone for it. This only demonstrates that Brian Marshall has never been in the military, and probably doesnt know anyone who ever has been.

Darth Executor

July 26th 2006, 03:43 PM

Also memo ---

By the looks of it Bag Boy will be a permanent resident of my ignore list.

JSDileo

July 26th 2006, 03:56 PM

I have to ask, does this count for a screwball?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060724-073751-2948r

More 'Wank Week' programming leaked

LONDON, July 24 (UPI) -- Britain's Channel 4 will feature a documentary about people addicted to pleasuring themselves during its "Wank Week" block of programming.

Independent producer Spun Gold is still casting the one-hour show, but already has one subject -- a man who claims he masturbates 20 times a day, MediaGuardian.uk reported Monday.

Another show also confirmed by Channel 4 has the working title of "Wank-a-Thon." It will chronicle a charity fundraiser during which thousands of people are expected to gather in London to participate in the title theme, the Web site said.

:hrm:

jpholding

July 26th 2006, 03:59 PM

I have to ask, does this count for a screwball?

Yeah. Triply so.

JSDileo

July 26th 2006, 04:02 PM

Yeah. Triply so.

OOoooh! Triply so! YES! :yipee: Does this have the potential to win platinum? :teeth:

jpholding

July 26th 2006, 04:34 PM

OOoooh! Triply so! YES! :yipee: Does this have the potential to win platinum? :teeth:

Yes, though it depends on what category it is in and how many other entries there are. That would probably be put in my Web-based/instiutuional category, but we'll see.

Cynic Sage

July 26th 2006, 10:45 PM

I have to ask, does this count for a screwball?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060724-073751-2948r

More 'Wank Week' programming leaked

LONDON, July 24 (UPI) -- Britain's Channel 4 will feature a documentary about people addicted to pleasuring themselves during its "Wank Week" block of programming.

Independent producer Spun Gold is still casting the one-hour show, but already has one subject -- a man who claims he masturbates 20 times a day, MediaGuardian.uk reported Monday.

Must be a very popular guy at the office.

Another show also confirmed by Channel 4 has the working title of "Wank-a-Thon." It will chronicle a charity fundraiser during which thousands of people are expected to gather in London to participate in the title theme, the Web site said.

:hrm:

PLEASE, WON'T YOU PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! :eek:

Doesn't have much to do with Theology, but it's still pretty dang weird. :twitch:

Cynic Sage

July 26th 2006, 10:48 PM

Yes. The word "Jimbo" was on a wall. I think I took a screenshot but it's not on my dad's computer. I'll upload it later.

Meh, Jimbo's a common name. It has nothing to do with the Jimbo we know.

Cynic Sage

July 26th 2006, 11:04 PM

N0rstar, on the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1580634&postcount=108

Luther wasn't around before the Great Schism and the pope was one of the reasons why we split: we do not accept his authority.

It's still trickle down mythology. either way the root of the Orthodox religion lies in Rome and was once presided over by the pope. You also have many parallel beleifs to the RCC.

It's like pointing out the diffrences between a Honda Civic LX and a Honda Civic LS, the diffrences are so miniscule that all it does is give it a new appendix.

:lmbo:

Darth Executor

July 27th 2006, 12:00 AM

This is the same guy who thought that Orpheus descending to the underworld to get his dead girlfriend back is the base for Jesus's ressurection. What do you expect? :teeth:

Darth Executor

July 27th 2006, 12:01 AM

Meh, Jimbo's a common name. It has nothing to do with the Jimbo we know.

Thank you Captain Obvious. I just thought it was a funny coincidence.

jpholding

July 29th 2006, 11:06 AM

Email...

We have never read such rubbish in our lives. Your ramblings are pretty pathetic. Your are truly delusional about your scholarship, we fail to see any. It is pretty obviously have you have no academic standing. You like many others out there are free to continue your rantings. We highly recommend that you study up on what the Bible says about the plight of false teachers.

A Tiny sample

(2Pe 2:1 KJVR) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

(2Pe 2:17 KJVR) These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest: to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever.

(2Pe 2:18 KJVR) For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

(2Pe 2:19 KJVR) While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

(2Pe 2:20 KJVR) For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

(2Pe 2:21 KJVR) For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

(2Pe 2:22 KJVR) But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Sincerely
Lovers of the Word

aikidoka

July 29th 2006, 02:31 PM

Someone sent that to you??

jpholding

July 29th 2006, 02:34 PM

Someone sent that to you??

Yup. This morning. Neat, huh?

aikidoka

July 29th 2006, 02:38 PM

Yup. This morning. Neat, huh?

Dang! lol

I have been called an Oprahized, liberal, caring only to please non-Christians type Christian before. This guy doesnt like it when I try to tell him to raise his presentation up to the level of sarcasm, rather than just immediately start calling people God haters.

Cynic Sage

July 29th 2006, 03:39 PM

Beliefnet.com's Stephen Skelton does the whole "OMG SUPERMAN IS T3H JEEZUS"-thing:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/194/story_19418_1.html (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/194/story_19418_1.html)

And here's a link to Peter Chattaway's blog where he Royally pwns him:

http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-wacky-religious-takes-on-superman.html (http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-wacky-religious-takes-on-superman.html)

Note: The following is from Chattaway's blog, the italics are segments from Skelton's article:

For example -- and be warned, there are SPOILERS here:Moments later, we learn that Superman--our Christ figure--left Earth five years ago and ascended to the heavens, returning to his home planet Krypton to confirm that it was destroyed. The time he is away from Earth is reminiscent of the time between Christ's ascension and return. While gone, he finds that he is, in fact, the planet's only survivor--the Only Son.So he's the "only son" because everybody in the heavens died, and when he ascended, he found no Father whose right hand he could sit at. Uh-huh. There's a lot of Christ imagery in that, I suppose.When Superman comes back to Earth, he finds a world much worse off than when he left. Most upsetting to him personally, Lois Lane--our Mary figure, with resonances of both the Magdalene and Mary the mother--has moved on. She has a fiancé and a 5-year-old son named Jason (which is a derivation of the name Jesus).Say what!? Jason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason) was the name of an ancient hero in pagan Greek mythology. Not surprisingly, Skelton never acknowledges any of the other Greek myths that make their way into this film, either -- Lex Luthor as Prometheus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus), Superman as Atlas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_%28mythology%29), and so on.

Skelton and his ilk may not be the cause of Christian cultural illiteracy, but they sure aren't doing anything to put an end to it. I've already heard from several Christians upset at this plot point--Lois Lane having a child out of wedlock. But I don't think that's the only interpretation. Watch carefully, and you'll find suggestions of virgin birth--not surprising, given the heavy gospel allusions throughout the movie.Virgin birth!? Granted, Skelton's use of this term is probably a wee bit more accurate than Craig Detweiler (http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movieDetail.cfm?i=8E7DD8E2-C7B1-4A6E-CC9388EC3F4847CE&ia=DF462614-B951-059D-04D181A95977BA51)'s rather strange reference to "immaculate conception" a couple weeks ago. But it still makes no sense to me. Where, exactly, does this movie do anything to suggest that the sex scene in Superman II (http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/superman-ii-quarter-century-later.html) did not happen?

(Footnote for non-Catholics: The doctrine of the "immaculate conception" has nothing at all to do with the conception of Jesus -- rather, it refers to the conception of Mary, as understood by Catholicism -- and it has nothing at all to do with the presence or absence of sexual intercourse at Mary's conception; indeed, it is assumed that her parents did conceive her in the usual way.)

And if you think that's bad. Rick Warren is also jumping on the SuperJesus bandwagon too:

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/2006/06/superman_points.php (http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/2006/06/superman_points.php)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think saying "Jesus is like Superman" is a very good evangelistic strategy in the first-place. (http://www.superdickery.com/galleries.html)

Cynic Sage

July 29th 2006, 04:37 PM

Smitty, for his Filled with the Spirit Music music-video, that was featured as the opening video to this year's Purpose-Drive Church conference:

http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/Events/PurposeDrivenWorshipConference/06post-conference.htm

Filled With The Spirit

Did you miss out on the opening music video at this year's conference? Do you see it but have a burning desire to see it again? Do you want to share it with a friend? Click the link below and watch or share to your heart's content.

If you watch it you'll feel a burning, but it won't be desire in your heart, it will be agony in your eyes and ears:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeES0PUN78o

I hearby take back everything bad I said about any other Christian Rap artist. Yes, TobyMac, even what you did (http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/What%27s-Goin%27-Down-lyrics-tobyMac/970439715C0ED29F48256D2D0021ED5B) to Buffalo Springfield's For What it's Worth (http://people.clarkson.edu/%7Ewinklebh/vietnam2/buffalo.html) pales in comparison to this.:twitch:

The guy's music-vid has the whole " it's like it's satire but not" feel to it with regards to the whole PDL movement ("I worship Jesus even when I'm on Ebay").

lilpixieofterror

July 29th 2006, 05:19 PM

This fundy atheist I ran into this morning.

Than may I ask what is a 'nice guy'?"

You don't know?

"That's nice, why is he an extortionist?"

Because he holds your eternal soul over a pit of fire and says, "Love me or die".

"I bet you do and may not even think of it. Do you pay your taxes? If so you are dealing with an extortionists because if you do not pay your taxes the government sends you to jail. Do you think that extortion?"

Is not paying taxes a Capital Offense?
Do I get to vote on whether or not some of your god's laws should be in effect? Can I declare his stupid 'love me or die' rule to be unconstitutional and have it removed? Can I vote your god out of office and elect another one? Can I do all this and not DIE for it? If he sends me to 'hell', can I appeal to a higher court?

"When death is knocking at the door... that has a real tendancy to really test one's moral resolve."

Again, speak for yourself.

"Why is it not possible? Care you explain?"

It has to do with 'kharma' (in parantheses because I am using the commoly known term rather than the ones used in my belief system). Everything you do has a 'kharmic' effect; on you and on those around you and on those who follow. This is an unavoidable spiritual truth. No one can 'pay' for what you do but you.

"I guess that means that a person who pulls you out of a tight spot... is NOT doing the right think according to what you are telling me."

I am not sure how you got that. If someone helps you, that doesn't make you NOT responsible for what you did.
Let's look at it this way- if you drank and drove and killed someone, and your lawyer got you off with a slap on your wrist, are you any less responsible for that person's death? Is that person any less dead?
What about his loved ones? Is their pain any less?
No. In fact, their pain would likely be greater because you were not held properly responsible. You did not have the honor to see to it that you WERE held properly responsible. You took the low road, and that also becomes something you are accountable for.

I think you are confusing spiritual responsibility with man-devised punishment.

"In the military, a supervisor is RESPONSIBLE for the ACTIONS of his/her troop."

But the individuals in the troop are not absolved from their own responsibilities by that fact. In fact, that fact merely adds to the effects a troop member's actions have on others.

"When I got in trouble and had to see the commander guess who was standing there with me? My supervisor and those in my chain of command."

And who got in trouble? ONLY the supervisor? Were you absolved of any responsibility for what you did? No. In fact, your burden is GREATER because your supervisor is held partly responsible for what you do. You got him in trouble. The responsibility for him being in trouble belongs to you.
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=GN&action=m&board=17916956&tid=jesusdiedtosavesinners&sid=17916956&mid=1621

Notice how she is upset God Judges her for her sins, but get's upset when God gives her a while out. Guess this is a new fundy atheist joke!

You might be a fundy athiest if... You call God an extortionist for judging you for your sins, but than call God unreasonable for offering his son to forgive you for your sins.

Crystal

aikidoka

July 30th 2006, 07:48 PM

jpholding

July 31st 2006, 09:39 AM

Email today...best stuff in bold.

Dear Sir,

(biographical stuff left out)

In 1999 I happen to read 2Sam 12:31 in KJV where King David was
described as worse genocidal maniac then Hitler and then examined about
that verse in about 29 languages including the masoretic Codex
Leningradicus in post 1964 versions and translations which claimed that
David was a benevolent public works director as good as FDR. My
imprinted myth about impermutability of the Word of God was shattered.
But I still kept my Faith.

Then I had a misfortune to read Revelations in a Bible which I found
red by someone in the bathroom of an Amercian motel.
It was clear that none of the prophecies to the sister churches in Asia
were fulfilled and whoever wrote these phantasmagorias was a true
schizophrenic or stuffed with poison mushrooms. In Poland I have seen a
psychotic patients who surely never red New Testament because for one
reason such was there not available then and who have had nearly
identical delusions and hallucinations. In USA similar delusions were
created in minds of people using LSD but since the NT is widely
available, they could possibly triggered by the Revelations.

After reading the Revelations I lost my faith in the Bible and
Christianity but still belived that existance of historical Jesus was
possible. Then came the shock of the Israeli "James ossuary" fakery in
2003. Not that it broke in transport or that it was faked by some
greedy Jew. . The shock for me was that Christians claimed that this
was the First physical evidence of existance of Jesus.

Because I was very pious I never bothered with historicity of Jesus. I
simply assuemd that there must be a dozens of physical artefacts from
His time which proove his existance.

Since then I started to explore which archeological findings suggest
existance of Jesus. I was sorry for emarking on this quest. I realized
that the Cross and Crucifixion nor Christmas were celebrated for about
500 years. And I was baptized in the Church of the Holy Cross! What a
let down!!!! After six decades of being a pious Christian!

Then aobut six months ago while surfing on the internet I discovered
jesusneverexisted.com. Sure he writes like a fanatic, so being a
skeptic I routinely checked his 'outrageous' facts with Catholic
Encyclopedia and the like. He is strongly opinionated but he cites the
facts -generaly know to christian scholars but hidden from the flock -
clearly and correctly.

You are even more opinionated your citation of sources is extremely
confusing an apparent atempt at obfuscation in order to promote you
emotional baggage. Humphrey is far more convincing than you Mr. Holding.

Recently I red Mat 19;12 about the eunuchs . I have three bibles in my
house and each of them carries completely different verison of the
impermutable Word of God.!!! The verse is beloved by lesbians,
homosexuals (i.e. priests) and transgenders.

It is written in red letters in Protestan bibles. But these can not be
the words of Christ. The allknowing Christ should know medicine well.
Historically and medically it makes no sense. Now I understand why John
Tyndal was burned on the stake for translating the Bioble into English.

You as a bible scholar tell me who were the eunuchs at the begining of
Christ ministry who castrated themselve for the sake of the Havenly
Kingdom? Apostles? And if not Apostles then who at the time when very
few Jews belived in JC being the Messiah! Perhaps after three years
and by the time of Crucifixition there were a few thousand JC belivers
and among them a few selfcastrates. And who were the selfcastrates
after the Resurection? St Paul? Or some other outstandign priests or
deacons? Then some claim that Origen was the first to do it while
others claim it is not true. Acutally I do not care about this

From the medical point of view the KJV and virtually all versions and
translations prior to Nuremberg trials are idiotic and identical .
Cryptorchism is rare but happens, unilateral happens in about 1 in
1,000, bilateral ten times less. Most men with inborn undescended
testicle can have errections but usually are infertile. Hundreds of
thousands of men are castrated annually in USA as a one treatment for
the cancer of prostate and all can have sex as well as many
falssettos ( castraed boys singers) because the penile errec tion is
governed by nerual center in lumbar spine. Men with broken spines
have normal libido but can not have errection. Libido in men castrated
before puberty or after puberty have decreased libido but can consumate
sex.

So the Post Nurember tirals translations are even more crazy when they
translate eunuch as "some men do not marry for the sake of the HK"
while others translate some men refrein from sex for the sake of HK"

You are have MS in library sciences. You know how to look for
answeres. Look then for me and point me to the true Bible, and then I
will be Born Again. This is like looking for the true gas chamber in
Nazi concentration camps. One decade it is here and the other decade it
is there etc. Some of the more 'pious' survivors claim that they were
gassed six times vide Montreal Gazzette at ihr.org. They are like these
people who fall down on the stage on religeous TV after being touched
and cured by the God. Mass hyseria I am sure you will agree. Or
conversely you belive these shows of Faith are real???

What finally tipped the scales in me loosing my Faith was the Xmas Tsunami.

I understand war in Iraq Bush is greedy and loves Freedom so he kills
hundreds times more than Sadam to make Israel Arabs free. People are
bad and sinners. And stupid.

But God is Allknowing (makes no mistakes) and Allmighty so has
ultimate power to fix the world in benign manner, and is Merciful. So
why He makes the same mistake twice. He did not improve our race after
the Biblical flood. Do you think He will improve humanity by drawning
250,000 people young and old in five minutes? And why He (They i.e. the
Trininty) have done it?

It is funny how silly many man of cloth answer that question, while most
cringe when asked.

I wonder what was your facial expression when you red this question
about the Tsunami.

Greetings from Kamola.

PS Did you know that our Polish Pope was homosexual (his wife being
Rev Stanislaw Dziwisz now cardinal and Archbishop in Poland?

Did you know that the new Pope said to 23,000 pilgrims at the ST Peter
square on the occasion of commemorating the suffering of Jews in Babylon
that "the biblical faith is not necessary for salvation"??? Even to us
Catholics this sounds like heresy. It must sound even more terrible to
Baptists.

PSS

You better try to fix me up because at present I am an atheist or deist
at best. And I think that the Bible is a bull... and existance of
biblical Jesus is a Big Joke.

Why zealous St Paul botherd with such a small fish like St Stephan and
did not threw stones on Jesus who was alll over the Palestine. Why he
does not mention Crucifixicion or none of the Apostles bothere to
preserve the wood from the True Cross???? Why he wrote in Greek and not
in Hebrew?

How an illiterate Jewish girl Mary could remember 42 generations of her
ancestors while I with doctorate degree have no idea who were my
grand-grand-parents!

By this time I simply answered the last one: "Maybe it's because you're stupid and she wasn't?" :lolo: