February 2007 Screwballs [Archive]

One Bad Pig

February 1st 2007, 12:20 PM

Febble posted this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1833360&postcount=62):

Another clinger here! Except that I've been clinging for so long, it's come to seem like quite a comfortable position. Perhaps I'm really a bat.

I enjoyed your post. I've been thinking along some parallel lines. I work in the field of cognitive neuroscience, which poses some interesting questions regarding the nature of knowledge and belief.

Here's a slightly edited version of something I posted to the Infidels recently. I had been trying to express the idea that as far as I am concerned, "God" is something I postulate as a key component of the mental model I have regarding the way I relate to the rest of the universe.

So, OK, I'll take the bull by the horns and try and say what it is that makes me describe myself as a Christian theist.

I didn't actually say that God was a mental model - I said I had a mental model that included something I call God. Actually, all I have for anything is a mental model, including evolution, of course. So the issue isn't whether God is a mental model or not, but what kind of mental model something called God might be part of.

God fits into my model of moral responsibility - of free will. As I've said upthread, I do not consider that "free will" is something for which there is (or can be) objective evidence. I think our behaviour can probably be expressed by an equation something like this:

behaviour = f(inherited neural architecture) + f(developmental factors] + f(stuff that life threw at you) + f(stuff that life is throwing at you now) + f(some kind of quantum uncertainty).

or it could be expressed by this:

behaviour = f(inherited neural architecture) + f(developmental factors] + f(stuff that life threw at you) + f(stuff that life is throwing at you now) + f(some kind of quantum uncertainty) + f(W).

where W is something like Will (or it could of course be woo). And there is no way, nor can there be a way, in which we could ever know whether that last term is actually necessary. Neuroscience can certainly account for our behaviour, in principle at least, in terms of the other stuff.

But it isn't of course the way we actually perceive our own intentions and behaviour. We have such a strong impression that we ourselves exist that psychologists and neuroscientists end up tying themselves in knots, talking about "top down" and "bottom up" attentional processes, and trying not to talk about the Elephant in the Room, which is not in fact an Elephant but a little homunculus that is implicit in the model.

Which makes it a bad model for neuroscience, and one that has been overtaken of late by "salience" models of attention in which neural representations of ideas compete for dominance by means of what are essentially evolutionary algorithms.

But if the implicit homunculus is an embarassment for neuroscience it remains a useful model for living. We evolved (I assume) with a brain capable of the powerful illusion (if illusion it be) that we exist. My brain would work perfectly well without "me" in it, I presume - I'm not in yours, and yours seems to work fine without me in it. Trying even to think about oneself without a word for whatever that homunculus-for-which-there-is-no-evidence is pretty well impossible (well beyond my own capacity, anyway).

A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

So I suggest that postulating factor W is, at the minimum, useable, for life if not for neuroscience as it can be considered to act at the point at which the "I" that is me, the homunculus, my will, my soul, the woo, whatever, can put a thumb on the scales and tip the decision one way or another.

And there we could stop, with the notion that W may or may not be an illusion, but whether or not it is, it's a powerful one, and a useful one to play host to, as it allows us to internalise our locus of control, and to accept moral responsibility for what we do.

But we don't have to stop there, and I don't. I consider that the moral responsibility aspect of W is key, because, if we do not posit the existence of W, then ultimately, while our actions may be helpful or harmful, in the way that the actions of bacteria may be helpful or harmful, they have no actual moral value. Whereas if we do, then by definition, we regard ourselves as moral beings.

And you can see where I might be going with this - by positing W we posit the existence of the dreaded concept of "sin". "Original sin" even. Which doesn't happen to be a word I'm that keen on - way too much ugly baggage - I'm happier with terms like "moral responsibility" or "accountability", but the fact is that they translate pretty easily into conventional religious terminology.

Anyway - in my "model" (which is pretty well straight from Aquinas, so it has a fairly orthodox heritage), "W" is good. Failure to invoke W (let it assume a small or zero value in the equation) is neutral. Suppressing W is bad. And "W" is what I call God.

So that's the third person of the Trinity in place, just about.

The first person is relatively easy too - Once I've posited W as an extra parameter in my behavioural model, I see no problem in positing W as an extra parameter in my model of the entire universe. Our minds work by means of evolutionary algorithms. So does the whole of biology. So does the entire universe. Once I've posited W, the rot has set in (if you see it as rot, which of course I don't) and W can be the "I" of the entire universe, of which I am merely a thought.

OK, one more to go:

The above is why I call myself a theist - I call myself a Christian theist, because I like Jesus. It's the bit I am least sure of, and I'm certainly not going to the stake for the virgin birth, which seems quite unnecessary in modern terms, and seems much more likely to have been a bit of clumsy inference by some well-meaning story teller to indicate the identity of Jesus with God. But in John's gospel, at least, Jesus is reported as saying that there is nothing blasphemous in that, and quotes a psalm that says "you are gods". Which is just fine, according to my W model. And I am happy to regard Jesus as an example of a human being in whom W was fully expressed. And therefore to take seriously his message that love is what God is about.

So there you are. It's a work in progress, and always will be. But it's enough to let me call myself a theist, and a Christian theist in particular. If it crumbles I'll let you know.

But as far as I am concerned, it does not conflict with science (although it is not, and cannot, be supported by it) and it is useable. I use it.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4120532#post4120532

jpholding

February 1st 2007, 01:23 PM

Farrell Till is really packing 'em in over at his new forum. :hehe: 13 registered users, less than 30 posts in the last 6 months, and now check this latest message:

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/vboard/viewtopic.php?p=33&sid=42fc61fa00bd2ddddb236165019ece96#33

I like the design of www.theskepticalreview.com

has anyone ever heard of these credit repair guides?
help to fix peoples credit

credit
credit-repair
bad credit repair
credit-repair
myspace
cheap viagra
Free Video
viagra information
myspace
viagra sample
Free Video
viagra retail discount
myspace
female viagra
myspace
womens viagra
myspace
discount viagra
myspace
viagra cialis
viagra uk
womens viagra
myspace
viagra info
viagra pill
Free Video
cialis generic viagra
viagra sample
myspace
viagra price
herbal viagra

supposedly this credit report repair information are the best
I was searching through google for as much as 2 hours to research for it

thanks everyone at www.theskepticalreview.com I hope it helped someone. I tried.
Night

Watch out, TWeb. Pretty soon Farrell's gonna be a lot bigger than you are... :lmbo:

Darth Executor

February 1st 2007, 01:36 PM

:rofl:

lilpixieofterror

February 1st 2007, 02:34 PM

Alot bigger as in ego wise or member wise? I think he already gots us beat when it comes to huge egos...

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 1st 2007, 08:02 PM

Sev when I told that the Mayans were long gone before the Europians ever set foot in America(and acknowldgeing that they did massicure the Aztecs and Incans) he responded with

Long gone?! You're nothing but a holocaust-denier. This is revisionst history if ever I've known. I suppose the Jews had "long gone" from Europe before Hitler took over too :lmbo: Fact is: 90 million indigenous south americans were massacred by Christians. South America was more heavily populated than Europe when the Christians got there.

Yea Mr. Historian cant even tell the difference between 3 vastly differnt cultures.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1839064#post1839064

jpholding

February 2nd 2007, 12:44 PM

Alot bigger as in ego wise or member wise? I think he already gots us beat when it comes to huge egos...

It just gets worse -- this just appeared too:

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/vboard/viewtopic.php?t=27

I appriciate www.theskepticalreview.com

has anyone ever tried of these credit repair books?
I need advice quick to fix my credit report

www.theskepticalreview.com is very nice.. I LIKE

buy viagra
myspace
viagra
Free Video
buy viagra
myspace
viagra
Free Video
buy viagra
myspace
viagra
myspace
buy viagra
viagra
myspace
buy viagra
myspace
myspace layouts
viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra
free credit repair
consumer credit repair
myspace
buy viagra
viagra
Free Video
viagra
credit
buy viagra
myspace
viagra
buy viagra
Free credit repair

8956471521

http://mantis.cs.colorado.edu/tikiwiki/tiki-download_forum_attachment.php?attId=83&buy=viagra

http://mantis.cs.colorado.edu/tikiwiki/tiki-download_forum_attachment.php?attId=85&buy=viagra

http://mantis.cs.colorado.edu/tikiwiki/tiki-download_forum_attachment.php?attId=86&myspace=myspace-layouts

consumer credit repair
Free credit repair
car insurance quotes
auto insurance quote
auto insurance quote
auto insurance quotes
car insurance quotes

Wow! Viagra, car insurance, and credit repair -- all from your friendly neighborhood Till! :lolo: I see now though that there are about a dozen threads just like this over at TSR's forum. Whatsamatter with the poor guy? Can't he moderate? :lmbo:

Mountain Man

February 2nd 2007, 01:12 PM

Wow...that forum appears to be infested with spam bots. I hope it's not contagious!

Whatsamatter with the poor guy? Can't he moderate?
I'd be surprised if he even bothers to visit his forums any more. Probably finds it too depressing.

One Bad Pig

February 2nd 2007, 03:09 PM

ageeagee is looking for real bible believers (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1840685&postcount=9):

floor still open

no hater God my witness. no phony either so that will offend phonies only.
okay here's the deal im not mad at anybody.
i keep it real all the time and never carry grudges for perfect people ever nor do i carry grudges for the wittiest people all the time.
simply finding out with the book on whether you phony or not. cant be a lier if the bible talks about tare and about the urgency for equally yoked fellowship of people only.
you a unbeliever in 10 or 15% of the bible im not mad at you at all. Just saving my time for folks that 100% bible believing people only.
just tell your reaction to these bible verses and where we stand to do unity in Christ correctly and completely:

you a amos 3:3 bible believer if i test your response to 1 timothy 2:9-14 ?
you a psalms 133:1 bible believer if i test your response to 1 timothy 2:9-14?
you a galations 1:8-9 bible believer if i test your response to romans 7:2-3?
you a 2 corinthians 6:14-17 bible believer if i test your response to romans 7:2-3?
you a 2 peter 1:20-21 bible believer if i test your response to 2 timothy 3:16?
you a matthew 5:18-20 bible believer if i test your response to romans 6:1?
i know folks believe bible verses on loving. thats good except you cant filter out the phonies.
the spirit of God or the Word encourages Christ unity correctly and completely as we find out in the above information thats in the book.

you know you not a phony with anything in this book then we can go on and be real with God and do this unity effort in Christ correctly and completely. Certainly 2 timothy 3:16 encourages unphony people to acknowledge this book correctly and completely verse for verse with the book and the book only. certainly we have motivational people and lovers enough but more than likely were getting phonies that are unbelievers in 10 or 20% of the bible somewhere. filtering out the phonies is the ultimate job of a real believer. certainly its a real believer's business to know how real confessing people are with the book verse for verse or all over. the above verses bring this out. i got nothing to give you but the book. our 2cents with comments and philosophy dont mean anything to make it to heaven.

Conductor42

February 2nd 2007, 03:54 PM

Okieshowedem & Carico.

One Bad Pig

February 2nd 2007, 04:17 PM

Okieshowedem & Carico.

You need to quote examples here, Yoshi. I already nominated Okie for one above.

lilpixieofterror

February 2nd 2007, 07:32 PM

I think this one from Gaytheist is screwballish:

(non-screwball)
1. The Bible is a compendium of different genres... What should it read like if it was inspired by God?

Who knows? Since God isn't real, His advocates can accept any form of literature and ascribe it to His inspiration, no matter how barbaric, explicit, nonsensical, incomprehensible, obviously fictional, contradictory, etc. After all, God's ways are not knowable to us.

Here that... God couldn't write because he doesn't exist! What a refuting argument! :bow: Read the rest of the insane post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1827457&postcount=22). Notice that she does not cite specific examples and uses subjective standards to judge by...

Crystal

Nordic Kid

February 2nd 2007, 08:20 PM

I think this one from Gaytheist is screwballish:

Here that... God couldn't write because he doesn't exist! What a refuting argument! :bow: Read the rest of the insane post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1827457&postcount=22). Notice that she does not cite specific examples and uses subjective standards to judge by...

Crystal

This is unbeliebably sad. I mean, how lazy these people are. They don't have to prove anything affirmative as long as they already KNOW that the alternative position is false. But I'm sure you all are much more used to this stuff by now.

lilpixieofterror

February 3rd 2007, 12:09 AM

This is unbeliebably sad. I mean, how lazy these people are. They don't have to prove anything affirmative as long as they already KNOW that the alternative position is false. But I'm sure you all are much more used to this stuff by now.
Unfortionally... that's one of the things you run into when you debate religion. Sometimes I wish people would open their eyes to their own double standards. :frown:

jpholding

February 3rd 2007, 11:07 AM

http://rapturealert.blogspot.com/2007/02/quartet-meets-and-us-takes-beating.html

Yet another misuse of Genesis 12:3. Yes, the storms near me were a sign of the rapture. :lolo:

Meta Knight

February 3rd 2007, 11:30 AM

nickcopernicus (again) for this bit:

In the book of Luke, chapter 19, Jesus say's this.

“BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”
39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.” 40 But Jesus answered, “I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!”
http://bible.cc/luke/19-1.htm

Does God want attention that much? is he that full of himself, or insecure?
Emphasis mine.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1841491&postcount=5

Darth Executor

February 3rd 2007, 08:43 PM

I know some of you guys don't come out of this section so I'm just posting here to remind you to vote for me in the current alumnus race. Campaign headquarters is here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=91820

and link is in my sig banner.

Conductor42

February 3rd 2007, 11:08 PM

You mean I actually have to read their horrendous posts again and quote them here? :sad:

One Bad Pig

February 3rd 2007, 11:49 PM

You mean I actually have to read their horrendous posts again and quote them here? :sad:

:yes:

DawnBat

February 4th 2007, 12:55 AM

So, since I argued about whether the Screwball thing was appropriate or not, I figured I'd stop in and take a look.

And...

ageeagee is looking for real bible believers (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1840685&postcount=9):

floor still open

no hater God my witness. no phony either so that will offend phonies only.
okay here's the deal im not mad at anybody.
i keep it real all the time and never carry grudges for perfect people ever nor do i carry grudges for the wittiest people all the time.
simply finding out with the book on whether you phony or not. cant be a lier if the bible talks about tare and about the urgency for equally yoked fellowship of people only.
you a unbeliever in 10 or 15% of the bible im not mad at you at all. Just saving my time for folks that 100% bible believing people only.
just tell your reaction to these bible verses and where we stand to do unity in Christ correctly and completely:

you a amos 3:3 bible believer if i test your response to 1 timothy 2:9-14 ?
you a psalms 133:1 bible believer if i test your response to 1 timothy 2:9-14?
you a galations 1:8-9 bible believer if i test your response to romans 7:2-3?
you a 2 corinthians 6:14-17 bible believer if i test your response to romans 7:2-3?
you a 2 peter 1:20-21 bible believer if i test your response to 2 timothy 3:16?
you a matthew 5:18-20 bible believer if i test your response to romans 6:1?
i know folks believe bible verses on loving. thats good except you cant filter out the phonies.
the spirit of God or the Word encourages Christ unity correctly and completely as we find out in the above information thats in the book.

you know you not a phony with anything in this book then we can go on and be real with God and do this unity effort in Christ correctly and completely. Certainly 2 timothy 3:16 encourages unphony people to acknowledge this book correctly and completely verse for verse with the book and the book only. certainly we have motivational people and lovers enough but more than likely were getting phonies that are unbelievers in 10 or 20% of the bible somewhere. filtering out the phonies is the ultimate job of a real believer. certainly its a real believer's business to know how real confessing people are with the book verse for verse or all over. the above verses bring this out. i got nothing to give you but the book. our 2cents with comments and philosophy dont mean anything to make it to heaven.

:hrm:

This is not the best example of what I'm talking about (I looked at Tektoonics first, and there are better examples there,) but you give out awards for incomprehensibility?

Why bother to hold things up for ridicule if nobody can understand 'em anyway?

Just a question.

Little Shepherd

February 4th 2007, 03:27 AM

I nominate patman for yet another "pistis in the wind" award, and possibly more -- you be the judge:

Weeeeell I'm not going to win any popularity contests around here....

But that's ok.

I reject evolution, I reject an old earth, and I reject the big bang. I don't do this because science has convinced me to, but rather because I have faith in the Bible's literal account of creation.

This theory closely matches the Flood account of water coming out from under ground fountains, and what comes up must come down as rain. A world wide flood would destroy the land underneath. Why couldn't it start the continental drift?

The mountains of today are much to high to have been under the available water on earth. If the continental drift happened after the flood and that caused mountains to form, then the flood waters would go down. The drift would create the atlantic ocean and that explains where the water went.

There would be little to no water under the earth as before because it is all now in the Atlantic Ocean.

If water did come from under the earth, It would shoot rocks in the air. If any of those left earth's gravity, the moon would get hit by some. It doesn't matter about the moon, but if all conditions were met, who knows?

I think the theory is on to something.

I always thought the evolution theories were nuts. A mars sized solar body hitting earth to create the moon? Elements creating themselves out of nothing, and all of the energy of the world coming from a several billion year old spark?

All the scientists who are looking back to figure out how things happened to get us to where we are are guessing with the information available to them. When it comes to explaining the Genesis Flood, this theory seems good to me.

I'll take that the flood happened on faith, but this theory is interesting take on things beyond faith.

Frogwarrior

February 4th 2007, 06:15 AM

So, since I argued about whether the Screwball thing was appropriate or not, I figured I'd stop in and take a look.

And...

:hrm:

This is not the best example of what I'm talking about (I looked at Tektoonics first, and there are better examples there,) but you give out awards for incomprehensibility?

Why bother to hold things up for ridicule if nobody can understand 'em anyway?

Just a question.

The Screwball Awards cover a large sphere of... well, screwballishness. Incomprehensible arguments, blatant ignorance of scholarship, refusal to retreat from a defeated position... if it's really screwy, it's game.

Cynic Sage

February 4th 2007, 08:56 PM

http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/

FUJIBEHWUHH!? :twitch:

The thrust of Harris's best-sellers is that with the world so crazed by religion, it's high time Americans stopped tolerating faith in the Rapture, the Resurrection and anything else not grounded in evidence. Only trouble is, our country's foremost promoter of "reason" is also supportive of ESP, reincarnation and other unscientific concepts. Not all of it is harmless yoga class hokum -- he's also a proponent of waterboarding and other forms of torture."We know [torture] works. It has worked. It's just a lie to say that it has never worked," he says. "Accidentally torturing a few innocent people" is no big deal next to bombing them, he continues. Why sweat it?
I wanted to interview Harris to find out why a man sold to the American public as the voice of scientific reason is promoting Hindu gods and mind reading in his writing. But we spend much of our time discussing his call for torture and his Buddhist perspectives on "compassionately killing the bad guy."
In 2004, Sam Harris' award-winning first book said society should demote Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief to an embarrassment that "disgraces anyone who would claim it," in doing so catapulting him from obscure UCLA grad student -- the son of a Quaker father -- to national voice of atheism.

'''

Legendary for his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial, American attorney Clarence Darrow wrote of his admiration for his forbearer Voltaire, the original 18th-century renegade against the church. He thanked Voltaire for dealing superstition a "mortal wound" -- and for an end to torture. "Among the illustrious heroes who have banished this sort of cruelty from the Western world, no other name will stand so high and shine so bright."
And then among those who want to bring it back, there stands Sam Harris.
"They're not talking," Harris is telling me, imagining a torture scenario where the captives clam up, "quite amused at our unwillingness to make them uncomfortable."
No, it's not the sticky (and real) case of Jose Padilla, the detainee who may have been reduced by his treatment to mind mush, possibly ruining his trial. Instead he's sketching out a kind of Steven Seagal action movie scenario in which we lasso Osama or his gang, maybe on the eve of a terror plot. What to do?
"We should say we don't do it," Harris says of torture. "We should say it's reprehensible." And then do it anyway, he says.
So there it is. In Harris's vision of future America, we will pursue "personal transformation" and gaze into our personal "I-we" riddles, while the distant gurgles of Arabs, terrified by the threat of drowning, will drift into our Eastern-influenced sacred space, the government's press releases no more than soothing Zen koans.

Cynic Sage

February 4th 2007, 09:07 PM

Cynic Sage

February 4th 2007, 09:27 PM

Oh crap there's more! :lmbo: (note: I deleted the spam links and replaced them with bold underlined text):

You guys at www.theskepticalreview.com (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/) are just a little 2 serious.
Here Are some jokes to lighten the mood.
...

Joke # 2

DEAR DIARY

Day 1.
Just celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary with not much to celebrate.
When it came time to re-enact our wedding night, he locked himself in
the bathroom and cried.

Day 2.
Today, he says he has a big secret to tell me. He's impotent, he says,
and he wants me to be the first to know. Why doesn't he tell me
something I don't know! I mean, he actually thinks I haven't noticed.

...

Day 4.
A miracle has happened! There's a new drug on the market that will fix
his 'problem.' It's called Viagra. I told him that if he takes Viagra,
things will be just like they were on our wedding night. I think this
will work. I replaced his Prozac with the Viagra, hoping to lift
something other than his mood.

...

It goes on and on like that until.

If this wasn't enough viagra for you, you can read some more about it @ this Viagra blog I found.
Enjoy

Reply with good jokes if you know any.

Thanks

I'm actually beginning to pity that forum.

Cynic Sage

February 4th 2007, 09:34 PM

A new Achyra S rant:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm (http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm)

The disreputable and untrustworthy Christian apologist 'James Patrick Holding' has been receiving and releasing malicious, false and libelous information about me, provided to him by a mentally ill fugitive wanted on three felonies, including child abduction. In his typically vicious, unprofessional, unethical and immoral manner, Holding first revealed my name--also gained from this felonious source and now posted all over the internet--and then passed along the false and libelous material to his fanatic followers, who have since threatened me with further exposure of personal information and lies received from this deranged criminal, who committed violent crimes against me and my small son. Because of this despicable behavior, it is obvious that this man, JP Holding, has no integrity, and that his writings should not be given credibility.

"His name is Mr. Reil E. Egzists".

DawnBat

February 4th 2007, 10:35 PM

A new Achyra S rant...

Yikes.

lilpixieofterror

February 5th 2007, 12:20 AM

Gosh, where do these morons come from? You can find her real name out... if you really wanted to look... :shrug:

Sparko

February 5th 2007, 11:16 AM

I went to Archyra's website and watched her video. She's kinda cute for a complete nutjob.

Mountain Man

February 5th 2007, 12:30 PM

Just in time for Valentines Day, nickcopernicus gives us this wonderfully romantic description of love:

Love is an emotion; as such it is a chemical reaction in the brain. It stems from reproductive urges onset by genetic programming. Parents don’t “love” their children. Rather they feel a strong attachment to their own genes. “romantic” love stems from the need to reproduce. When copulation or the possibility of it occurs, the need to reproduce is also an element. Of course you don’t have to take my word for it.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1843734&postcount=25

Apparently nickopernicus could wear that t-shirt that says, "Of course I love you, baby. I have an erection don't I?" without the slightest hint of irony.

jpholding

February 5th 2007, 12:31 PM

A new Achyra S rant:

It's been around for a while. The background is that this guy wrote me claiming to be a former lover of hers and offering to dish up some dirt on her, such as claims that she was engaged in credit card fraud, child abuse, etc. I declined any of it except anything he could tell me about her educational background/credentials.

A little later she wrote me claiming he was some kind of criminal, blah blah blah. I told her in essence that I didn't care about either one of their personal lives.

I don't consider either of them credible sources on anything whatsoever.

Beyond that, she seems to have forgotten that it was Robert Price, not me, who revealed her name first. Hmm wait a minute....

Could it be that Price himself is her felonious ex-lover? :glare: And that they've made up? And that Earl Doherty is their love child?

Stay tuned for the next episode of...."As the Christ Myther Spurns".....

jpholding

February 5th 2007, 03:13 PM

Email from the Department of PC Arrogance:

I read your articles on "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Pagan Christ" and I'm going to have to disagree with what you say about both authors and the literary works. First off, as a Christian which you saw you are? You should not be trying to discredit others work or sources of information they used regardless of how blaspheming you believe there work to be. That would make you the antagonist, and the one who can not follow in Christ's footsteps let alone be an example for others that would like to follow in His footsteps.

By stating your obvious believe and discrediting a fellow mans work you are neither treated other as you would have them treat you nor turning the other cheek, which are two rules that any man of any faith can abide. In fact, by doing this outright and letting the public know about it you are turning your back on Christ and doing exactly what you has taught us not to do. I am a Christian and I have read both those books, Pagan Christ was (because it is supposedly based on fact) blasphemous but nonetheless a good read. It is just one more mans view of Christ and the Christian faith. Da Vinci code on the other hand, was a fantastic novel and should be read by everyone just based on the imagination and ideas of the author Dan Brown. But, Da Vinci code had caused an uproar with people like you, even though Dan Brown claims no fact to the story and indeed says it is a work of fiction. So why men in your position around the world become irate and upset with the stories by some authors is beyond me. Could you not just read the book and take it for what it is. A piece of extraordinary fiction.

So what comes next on you spiritual chopping block? The Holy Koran? The Torah? I suppose you should write an article to the leaders of the Islamic and Jewish faith, and tell them how there books are "toxic waste". Because the ideals of both the Islamic and Jewish faith is that Jesus Christ was not the messiah or in fact God himself but just a powerful profit. So I look forward to reading you essays on these two subject to see how much courage you have to call out an entire religion and not just one man with some research and a book. It doesn't take a lot to fill the heads of your followers and readers with the garbage you spew, but I'm guessing it would take a lot of fortitude to stand up against an entire religion. So before you go on bashing another book for ideals that don't belong to you start by bashing religions that do not have the same faith that you have.

Now, I don't want to come off as a bad person, because I truly did enjoy what you had to write about both authors and their books, and how you used your own research and information, to support your own ideals. But from reading your work, and how you did not turn the other cheek, you yourself did not take the bible literally and allowed you rage to show through you exterior. Instead of showing your rage to another person because of there work, simply disagree and leave it at that, Freedom of Press, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are all rights that we have as Canadians and Americans two countries built on Christian Values.

Thanks for your time, I'll understand if you don't reply, being bested by a 21 year old is hard to take. If you do reply I would love to debate these two topics with you, and see what your stand point is on the Basic Rights of Humans.

It takes courage to state one's opinion, it takes honour to keep it to themselves.

:twitch:

Sparko

February 5th 2007, 03:39 PM

huh??

First off, as a Christian which you saw you are? You should not be trying to discredit others work or sources of information they used regardless of how blaspheming you believe there work to be. That would make you the antagonist, and the one who can not follow in Christ's footsteps let alone be an example for others that would like to follow in His footsteps.

Isn't that what he is doing to you?

:lmbo:

Mountain Man

February 5th 2007, 03:58 PM

Yeah, he contradicted himself a few times in that rant, like when he characterized Pagan Christ as "blasphemous" which is basically an attempt to discredit the work, something he claims a good Christian like he would never do.

DawnBat

February 5th 2007, 04:32 PM

It takes courage to state one's opinion, it takes honour to keep it to themselves.

So I have to be honorable, or else be a coward.

I was under the impression that my cowardice was a dishonor. Well, I guess I'm off the hook.

Xerxes

February 5th 2007, 06:24 PM

Even better, that statement itself is a statement of his opinion. So apparently he has no honor. :lol:

Nordic Kid

February 5th 2007, 09:14 PM

Let's hear it for the old ethical rigamaroll with http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-452-FAQ_Objectivist_Position_Morality_Ethics.aspx

"Objectivism holds that the purpose of morality is to define a code of values in support of one's own life, a human life. The values of Objectivism are the means to a happy life. They include such things as wealth, love, satisfaction in work, education, artistic inspiration, and much more. We choose many of our values, such as what work we enjoy and who are our friends and lovers. But we cannot choose the need for material goods or for friendship, if a happy life is what we seek. The ultimate choice open to us is whether we want life or not. Life is a choice we must make consciously and seriously, argues Rand, or else we may find that, by default, we have chosen the alternative: suffering and death."

Ah, I see- if I'm not an objectivist I'll be wallowing in death and decay in several weeks. Well that explains why my consistant bathing hasn't eliminated that odious smell hanging around me...

DawnBat

February 5th 2007, 11:21 PM

So I have to be honorable, or else be a coward.

I was under the impression that my cowardice was a dishonor. Well, I guess I'm off the hook.

Eheh. I miswrote that. I meant if I want to be honorable, I have to be a coward.

But you got that.

jpholding

February 6th 2007, 12:10 PM

Prior emailer sends me another:

Unfortunately, I don't believe I gave you permission to post my email on your website, and since it was a personal email to you and not to be put up on your blog to be picked apart by brain washed God loving evangelicals like yourself, i would strongly suggest it's removal immediately.

You honestly have no morals and a are a sad sad human being.

I'm sorry you had to take the dishonourable route.

But, please take it off the website immediately.

Cheers,

Whattya say, guys? Take it down now? :lmbo: After all, he's a dangerous 21 year old. :rofl:

One Bad Pig

February 6th 2007, 01:24 PM

:huh: How would a brainwashed individual be able to pick *anything* apart?

jpholding

February 6th 2007, 01:50 PM

He has now sent a message suggesting that we all perform a specific act associated with male homosexuality. :hehe: Let's hear it for having morals! :thumb:

Sparko

February 6th 2007, 01:59 PM

if he didnt want to be picked apart he should not have emailed you. ask him if he is embarrassed that his idiocy was exposed? Is he ashamed of what he said?

jpholding

February 6th 2007, 03:20 PM

Very likely. Like many recent victims here (Patrick Navas, for example) he no doubt thought he possessed unchallengeable genius and was shocked when it wasn't immediately recognized. :lolo:

lilpixieofterror

February 6th 2007, 06:28 PM

He has now sent a message suggesting that we all perform a specific act associated with male homosexuality. :hehe: Let's hear it for having morals! :thumb:

Even us girls? :hehe: Gosh, invite him here for a smack down...

Cynic Sage

February 6th 2007, 08:47 PM

Lindstrom, on medicine:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=27673154

I got a personal grudge agaist medical science.

Think about it they use nitroglycerine to prevent heart attacks.

It is nitroglycerine.

I can make bombs out of it.

I don't like that idea.

They cure cancer with radiation which comes from substances similar to the active ingreidence of a atombomb.

And when they do not manage to heal a person, which most often are made bacause of the placebo effect togather with the treatment. And the person dies.

All the doctors say... opps they died.

Jesus can for sure treat illness.

He can cure.

A doctor is a modern sorcerer... Nothing else

Dee Dee Warren

February 6th 2007, 08:57 PM

Gosh, where do these morons come from? You can find her real name out... if you really wanted to look... :shrug:

No reason not to respect her privacy.

Meta Knight

February 6th 2007, 09:01 PM

What I find odd, though, is that she complains that JP doesn't use his real name, and then complains that he used hers. Double standard, anyone?

Dee Dee Warren

February 6th 2007, 09:02 PM

What I find odd, though, is that she complains that JP doesn't use his real name, and then complains that he used hers. Double standard, anyone?

If she does that, that is wrong, but I personally would still not violate her privacy.

Dee Dee Warren

February 6th 2007, 09:03 PM

Lindstrom, on medicine:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=27673154

Wow.

Just Wow.

Meta Knight

February 6th 2007, 09:05 PM

If she does that, that is wrong, but I personally would still not violate her privacy.

And neither would I. It just strikes me as rather comical that she whines when her name is used, and then whines when JP doesn't use his real name.

Cynic Sage

February 6th 2007, 09:33 PM

Website nomination:

http://demonbuster.com/

HOW YOU CAN, AND DO, HAVE DEMONS

When you are Born Again as a Christian/Believer/True Worshipper, JESUS/Holy Spirit comes to abide in your SPIRIT. Demons CANNOT get INTO your Spirit.
You are a tri-une being - BODY, SOUL and SPIRIT. Your SOUL is your MIND, WILL and EMOTIONS.
First is your BODY. Christians can have a sickness/disease just like the unSaved. That's caused by demons (if not caused by other factors).
Second is your SOUL. Do you have a bad temper? That's a demon. Is there mental illness in your family background? That is a demon. Do you have trouble serving God? That's a demon. Do you have problems with bad thoughts? That is a demon.
Third is your SPIRIT. Demons cannot get into your SPIRIT, but, the demons surround your SPIRIT like a glass jar surrounds its contents, and you have trouble serving the Lord JESUS the way the bible tells you to do or that you want. The contents of the jar cannot get out until you remove the lid (demons). Deliverance can get rid of the demons.

...

BOYCE and BOICE are two demons that interfere with any electronic equipment, i.e., phone, computer, printer, automobile. If something malfunctions, command these two demons to leave your equipment, in the name of Jesus.

Apparently "BOYCE" and "BOICE" are right up there on the list of terrifiying demon names, somewhere above "Captain Howdy" and below "Pennywise".

In the Bible, God used a donkey to talk and give a message.

So, if you came here from a link that said our site is "funny", or anything but Godly, know this - Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, loves you and wants to help you. Since you are reading this, Jesus has brought you here to offer Supernatural help. This site shows you how to get that help, free of charge. As for the person that is mocking us, the Judgment of God is on them. In the Bible, Acts 9, Saul was mocking and tormenting Christians. Jesus made Saul blind, and said to him, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest... When you make fun of any Christian, you are making fun of Jesus.

...

Know this - EVERYONE has demons, ESPECIALLY CHRISTIANS.

There is no Scripture that says this. It is just a matter of FACT.

There is no Scripture that says you do NOT have demons.

Jesus said the demons are living INSIDE of you, not OUTSIDE.

Jesus also said the demons call your body their "house".

Do you live OUTSIDE of your house? Neither do your demons!

Wow! I have demons and Iraq has WMDs.

Would you like help from being Depressed? Abused? Afraid? Tormented? Suicidal? Sick? Alcoholic? Addict? Obese? Homosexual (gay, lesbian)? Witch? Satanist? Brotherhood? Want out of the occult or a cult? Hooked on porno? Dying? Diseased? Molester? Self-Abuse? Bi-polar? Etc.? Get Saved, then cast out these demons!

"Billy, stop going into my room and messing with my stuff or I'm gonna sic Jesus on you!"

CAUTION - If you are EXPOSING the devil in any way, you better be doing DAILY Spiritual Warfare, Deliverance, breaking and RETURNING all evil being sent your way.

If you can hear the "Oh the Blood of Jesus" midi file, and it gets under your skin, don't turn your speakers off. The demons absolutely hate this song or any song that is about the Blood of Jesus. The more this bothers you, the more demon infested you are. You actually could get some Deliverance by having this tune play in the background, and some demons may actually leave your home or apartment too. Tape the song and play it in your home over and over.

Because if you find the sound of a website's midi file irritating, you must be demon posessed.:ahem:

Did you know that apple cider or white vinegar is an effective deodorant? You may not believe it, but it is true, and actually works. You must try it to see for yourself.

Everything you read here about Deliverance is also true, and actually works.

You must try it to see for yourself.

OMG I AM STRUCK SILENT BY THESE POWERS OF REASONING!

spl_cadet

February 6th 2007, 10:34 PM

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=103768

Religion starts with hallucination. I've been convinced for many years that religious leaders spring from listening to someone babble while hallucinating wildly. If you look into the origins of circumcision, you find a mushroom. Yes the origin of dick mutalation was to make it look like mushroom the early hebrew people ingested as a holy hallucinagen.

Dee Dee Warren

February 6th 2007, 10:35 PM

A big avatar!

:woohoo:

Sevivon1913

February 6th 2007, 10:50 PM

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=103768
Sigmund Freud reckoned circumcision was the father trying to warn the son that "the women are mine, stay away"; and the circumcision is basically a warning: stay away from the women or you lose the rest of it. Apparently, Christianity is the son's victory over the father, the rejection of circumcision.

I'm serious, read his book "Moses and Monotheism".

Frogwarrior

February 7th 2007, 07:25 AM

jpholding

February 7th 2007, 10:51 AM

Even us girls? :hehe: Gosh, invite him here for a smack down...

I did. :thumb:

jpholding

February 7th 2007, 11:30 AM

http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/jan07scr.html

January feature is up, with the Platinum Awards.

Sparko

February 7th 2007, 11:32 AM

Mountain Man

February 7th 2007, 11:58 AM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=92057

In this thread (a split from Apo 301) nickopernicus and Powell rip into LAoT (or try, anyway) because she doesn't spell way. Read the thread if you want your blood pressure to rise a lil'.

For example, this quote from Powell on page 1:

A person who does not understand the intricacies of their native language is not in a good position to argue concerning the intricacies of a foreign language. Someone who frequently errs in their own writing is not in a good position to debate Biblical inerrancy.

If a poster doesn't take care what she writes, why should people carefully read and respond to her?
John Powell is one to talk. He insists that it is proper to interpret the Bible based on nothing but a "plain reading" of English translations, and that if the passage doesn't make perfect sense in a 21st century Western context then the original writer must have screwed up. (Check out this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=90693) if want to see his arguments for yourself).

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 7th 2007, 04:04 PM

January feature is up, with the Platinum Awards.

Is it just me or do the platinum awards this year seem slightly less screwy than last year?

Although to be fair, it's kinda hard to beat teh Jesuit lizards.

Meta Knight

February 7th 2007, 04:10 PM

Is it just me or do the platinum awards this year seem slightly less screwy than last year?

Although to be fair, it's kinda hard to beat teh Jesuit lizards.

I dunno...I think this years were pretty screwy. But that's just me. I wasn't around for the '05s (I've read them..but I suspect they would've been funnier had I been around when they first came out.)

Cynic Sage

February 7th 2007, 04:34 PM

Some more form Demonbuster.com:

http://www.demonbuster.com/so.html

Anyone in a DELIVERANCE MINISTRY will tell you that no matter what country you are in, demons always have the same lines.

1. "Christians can't have demons" is the one used the most.

2. "Light and darkness cannot dwell in the same temple.", or words to that effect, I think is the next most used. You will not be able to find that statement in the Bible, because it was invented by a demon.

3. "Turn off that music." When playing "Oh the Blood of JESUS" out loud is one.

4. "Oppressed" by demons is a term that is thrown around in the Charismatic circles because they don't believe Christians can have demons INSIDE.

5. "Show me in the Bible..." is another. Since we are not to argue the Bible (and I do not), I would say, "show me in the Bible where it says Christians CANNOT have demons".

6. "You must have a covering." We have an article on this one.

7. "TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED." We have an article on this one.

If there's one thing a demon would want to encourage, it's bible-study.:ahem:

http://www.demonbuster.com/diabetic.html (http://www.demonbuster.com/diabetic.html)

The word DIABETES means: running through, as if a spirit is running through your body.
Now a squid has ten (10) arms and an octopus has eight (8) arms. In the study of mind control we found out there was an octopus type spirit with 8 arms. With a squid type spirit it has 10 arms and such is the case with the spirit of DIABETES.

He is centered in the pancreas, which is right behind the stomach which is where the insulin is developed. This is where he seats himself. And then with the arms and the spirits that are working with him he touches the 1/BRAIN. This is a spirit named migraine and a spirit named headache that works with him that touches the brain (one part of the body). Another part of the body he touches is the 2/KIDNEYS. He will also touch the 3/EYES. There is a particular spirit that works on the eyes. It reduces your vision first, blurs it, then diminishes it, then eliminates it completely!

Another spirit that works with him on the arms of DIABETES is the 4/LIVER. He touches into the liver area to damage the area that is supposed to cleanse the blood. This spirit has an arm and there's usually a spirit called canker that touches down into the 5/FEET. This is why many people with type II DIABETES develop feet problems over the years. In some cases it leads to amputation.
Another area that he touches is down into the 6/BLADDER. This spirit causes the people to have the constant problem of running to the bathroom with excessive urination.

...

What are you going to do when you cannot buy or sell without the mark of the beast when it comes to getting insulin?

...

DIABETIC spirits can cause you to be cutoff from your brothers and sisters, destroy, consume and hewed down into nothing less. That comes from a curse of eating and drinking blood! Read Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:15 and Acts 21:25. The curse of eating and drinking blood and how many of our relatives, living and dead, make and use blood meal, blood sausage and blood flour? There is a curse that comes with that and they may not get it , you get it.

Many nationalities use blood meal, blood flour, and blood sausage. Sins of the fathers, you should read up on it sometimes. Our fathers, great grandfathers, and great, great grandfathers did a lot of things out of ignorance. Read Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Leviticus 26:39; Numbers 14:18; and Deuteronomy 5:9. If they worshiped idols, they opened the door for the DIABETIC spirits to come in.

...

As a little footnote: Type I DIABETIC - you have to take insulin injections. There's a curse for breaking the skin of your body. Leviticus 19:28 and 21:5 "You should not break or cut your body in the worship of the dead. Priests should not put any cut on their body."

Galatians said we are called to be kings and priests. If you break that skin - there's a curse. Same thing happens when you break that earlobe and put that pierced earring in there. Well you say "I'm not wearing this earring to worship the dead" - I know you're not but, the roots say "I am a slave when I put that pierced earring in there and when I punctured that skin, it goes back to the roots." Now God should have realized that [today] we were gonna need insulin and shouldn't have put that in there (the Bible). But He never intended for us to keep the demons in us and curses on us, but break the skin and you have a problem.

There is also a problem in the Bible that if you seek the aid of a physician and not God: II Chronicles 16:12 "And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign."

:twitch:

And a List of O'Fishal Demon Names (http://www.demonbuster.com/demonlist.html), including such gems as:

INEPTNESS
DAYDREAMING
FANTASY
FUNK
HEAVINESS
NERVOUSNESS
NERVOUS HABITS
SELF AWARENESS ("Good thing that I don't know I exist")
SENSITIVENESS
INDECISION
FORGETFULNESS
SELF SEDUCTION ("I couldn't help myself! I'm just so darn sexy!")
INTELLECTUALISM
IMPORTANCE
PLAYACTING
THEATRICS
DRIVING
EMBARRASSMENT
UNITY
PENDULUM ("Burn your Grandfather Clocks NOW!")
VAGABOND ("HOBOS ARE THE DEVIL!!")
DEJAVU
FREQUENCIES
IN HAIR ("Wash those demons out with Blood&Soulers demon-binding shampoo")
MEIBOMINITIS-OIL GLANDS
MUSIC CLASSICAL
MUSIC HEAVY METAL
MUSIC ROCK and ROLL
MUSIC RAP
MUSIC COUNTRY (I beleive that this actually does belong here)
MUSIC WRONG CHRISTIAN (I always stay out of the "Wrong Christian"-genre section at HMV anyways)
OBESITY ("Satan made me fat!")
SKIN WALKING (I hate when that happens!) Demons that Jesus apparently had:

ANGER
GRIEF
CRYING
HEARTACHE
SADNESS
SORROW OF HEART
FATIGUE
TIREDNESS
WEARINESS
WEEPING
Some that break the irony meter:

MENTAL ILLNESS
HALLUCINATIONS
INSANITY
MADNESS
MANIA
PARANOIA
RETARDATION
SCHIZOPHRENIA
HEARING VOICES
INCOHERENCE
HYSTERIA
FEAR OF DEMONS (There's actually a "Fear of Demons" Demon :rofl:)
SPIRITISM
FEAR OF SATAN Not to mention the best of the Lot:

The Spoiler (http://www.demonbuster.com/spoiler.html) (I bet this is the demon that ruins movies by telling you how they end)
Boid and Boyce (http://www.demonbuster.com/boyce.html) (apparently these demon will have trouble attacking you if you use Linux and Firefox)
THE TERMINATOR! (http://www.demonbuster.com/terminator.html)(You cast him out, but he'll be back.)

Ishmael

February 7th 2007, 04:50 PM

http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/

interesting article... looks like you and Harris have some things in common...

Meta Knight

February 7th 2007, 04:59 PM

interesting article... looks like you and Harris have some things in common...

Might I be so bold as to ask what?

Ishmael

February 7th 2007, 05:04 PM

Might I be so bold as to ask what?

Sure, that would be a need to posit myth when something is otherwise inexplainable.

jpholding

February 7th 2007, 06:00 PM

Is it just me or do the platinum awards this year seem slightly less screwy than last year?

Although to be fair, it's kinda hard to beat teh Jesuit lizards.

I'd say that they're less screwy. There just weren't any real standouts this past year like Eisele's "atheists who believe in God" comment. Screwiness was broad but not deep. It comes of having too many like member11491 whose main argument is to yell loud and call opponents brainwashed and/or deluded.

interesting article... looks like you and Harris have some things in common...

As do you and he....neither one of you knows how to answer arguments against your positions coherently. :lmbo:

Ishmael

February 7th 2007, 06:25 PM

As do you and he....neither one of you knows how to answer arguments against your positions coherently. :lmbo:

That's what you've told me.. :lol:

Gideon Brown

February 7th 2007, 07:21 PM

Frogwarrior

February 7th 2007, 08:20 PM

l'ilangel doesn't spell 'way'? :huh:

D'oh!

And, for some strange reason, I can't edit that post. Maybe because I'm on a different computer? I dunno.

lilpixieofterror

February 7th 2007, 08:55 PM

D'oh!

And, for some strange reason, I can't edit that post. Maybe because I'm on a different computer? I dunno.
Edits only stay open on certian threads for so long, but we get your point. I figure... I'll just let Powell rant if he wants. If he can give an actual answer to anything else I said, we'll try again, for now I'll let him be.

Frogwarrior

February 7th 2007, 10:04 PM

Only one spelling error! :thumb:

:eek:

lilpixieofterror

February 7th 2007, 10:09 PM

Only one spelling error! :thumb:

:eek:
And no logical errors... gosh... does spelling skills have a link to a person being able to create an argument? More research required...

Sevivon1913

February 7th 2007, 10:20 PM

Actually, dyslexia is no excuse for spelling mistakes; and dyslexia is perfectly curable.

CURE IT.

DawnBat

February 7th 2007, 11:04 PM

And no logical errors... gosh... does spelling skills have a link to a person being able to create an argument? More research required...
Imagine...

English is a brutish hodgepodge of languages smashed togethor and ground into sausage that frequently violates its own rules. And yet, somehow mastery of this self-contradictory morass is neccesary for logical victory?

I vote we all start debating in Finnish.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 7th 2007, 11:25 PM

Sparko

February 8th 2007, 12:35 AM

Imagine...

English is a brutish hodgepodge of languages smashed togethor and ground into sausage that frequently violates its own rules. And yet, somehow mastery of this self-contradictory morass is neccesary for logical victory?

I vote we all start debating in Finnish.

I take it you already know of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Some may stumble, but not you, on hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?
So now you are ready, perhaps, to learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word, that looks like beard, but sounds like bird.
And dead, it's said like bed, not bead; for goodness' sake, don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat. (They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.)
A moth is not a moth in mother, nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there, nor dear and fear, for bear and pear.
And then there's dose and rose and lose - just look them up - and goose and choose
And cork and work and card and ward and font and front and word and sword
And do and go, then thwart and cart, come, come! I've hardly made a start.
A dreadful language? Why man alive! I've learned to talk it when I was five.
And yet to write it, the more I tried, I hadn't learned it at fifty-five.

-anonymous.

jpholding

February 8th 2007, 12:42 PM

Reader submits this. While of course I am no fan of LaHaye-Jenkins, there's plenty of idiocy (note highlights) to go around from this "rational" person:

Christian intolerance, Wal-Mart and the anti-Christ
How's that for an attention-grabbing title? Well, the main piece of news is actually old (as in last December), but I've had some additional thoughts about the topic since starting to read Dawkins' “The God Delusion,” so here we go.

The controversial news item is that Wal-Mart and several other retailers have been selling a video game called “Left Behind: Eternal Forces,” based on the apparently popular series of novels by the same title authored by nutcases Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. The goal of the game is, of course, to not be left behind, but ascend instead to Heaven and be reunited with Jesus (this all happens in an apocalyptic, after-the-Rapture, New York City – where else?).

In order to win, the “good guys” need to either convert or kill (yes, you read correctly, kill) their opponents, many of whom have Muslim-sounding names. When asked about the latter detail, Jeffrey Frichner, the President of “Left Behind Games” said that the game doesn't endorse prejudice, but, you know, “Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ. That is so obvious.” Indeed. He added that players who battle the anti-Christ (whose character is also, interestingly, the fictional Secretary General of the United Nations) are “freedom fighters” (I wonder were he got that catchy phrase...).

Wal-Mart, meanwhile, defended its decision to stock the video games on its shelves because there is a market for them, and they are in the business of selling. Never mind that this is the same company that refused to sell Jon Stewart's “America (The Book)” (despite a huge market for it) because it may have been “offensive” to some customers. Not to mention that if economic considerations were truly the only guiding principle, Wal-Mart should be selling crack cocaine.

But what makes all of this fascinating, as I mentioned, is some reading from Dawkins' book, in particular the chapter on the so-called moral foundations of the badly mislabeled “good book.” It turns out that, if one reads the Bible carefully, not only are LaHaye and Jenkins right, but in fact they really don't go far enough! The book of Revelation in fact mentions only 144,000 slots for people to go to Heaven, as the Jehovah' Witnesses claim, and – moreover – it's clear that those slots are for Jews only (12,000 for each of the 12 original tribes), not for American Christians (or, a fortiori, Muslims). Not only that, but since Revelation specifically states that the lucky ones will be those who “did not defile themselves with women,” only virgin men (and, obviously, no women) will be let in. I wonder if this sort of information is to be found in the instructions on how to play Left Behind.

A review of the game appeared – not surprisingly – in “Plugged In,” published by that insane group known as “Focus on the Family” (as a bumper sticker popular in Colorado, where the group is headquartered, says: “Focus on your own ****ing family”). The reviewer comments that this is “the kind of game that Mom and Dad can actually play with Junior – and use to raise some interesting questions along the way.” Yes, questions like: how will Junior feel when neither Mom (because she is a woman) nor Dad (because he defiled himself with at least one woman, namely, Mom) will join Junior in Heaven? Assuming, of course, that Junior belongs to one of the 12 tribes, and that the corresponding 12,000 slots are not already sold out.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/02/christian-intolerance-wal-mart-and.html

Cynic Sage

February 8th 2007, 04:18 PM

Oy vey! :twitch:

http://www.kerusso.com/detail.taf?listing_id=3&r=1134919094

Mountain Man

February 8th 2007, 04:31 PM

A quote I once read:

"What would Jesus do? He certainly wouldn't sell cheap crap with his name on it!"

Meta Knight

February 8th 2007, 07:58 PM

Oy vey! :twitch:

http://www.kerusso.com/detail.taf?listing_id=3&r=1134919094

:twitch::twitch::twitch:

P-Dunn

February 8th 2007, 08:44 PM

http://atheismsucks-sucks.blogspot.com/2007/01/frank-waltons-friend-p-dunn.html

Shows how low atheists have come when they debate me. All he can do, instead of answering my arguments, is post pictures off of my Myspace page, make stupid insults, and mention the fact that I've never had a "real" girlfriend. (And he says that without knowing my history...I had a year and a half-long relationship that was never "titled")

Oh, and this other gem from FreeThinkingTeens (http://www.freethinkingteens.com/forum/freethinking_teens_community/freethinkers_debate/2624)...Emphasis is mine.

One, The Second Law of Thermo Dynamics says all energy goes to heat eventually. Just because we do not know a way of turning heat back into energy does not mean it's not possible. Perhaps the very high pressures present at the Big Bang(at the infinitith Big Bang, which is our current one) can convert it back. Regardless, until we see the evidence, we should not conclude.

Secondly, the definition of life... is iffy. There is no full comprehensive definition. In fact, for all we know, there is nothing that sets apart a rock from a person(in terms of life)
Yep. We certainly have the same moral reaction when a person is murdered as when we pave a road...

Meta Knight

February 8th 2007, 08:56 PM

My goodness P-Dunn, you're still over there? I had to leave. I thought my brain would dribble out my ears reading them. You're a more enduring man then I.

lilpixieofterror

February 8th 2007, 09:01 PM

Ever want me to come and help, just ask P-Dunn... :wink: Meanwhile... I think I'll play with the idiots who think "I've never had a GF" is a real argument. :hehe:

Crystal

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 8th 2007, 10:44 PM

My goodness P-Dunn, you're still over there? I had to leave. I thought my brain would dribble out my ears reading them. You're a more enduring man then I.

I'm still there too.

Btw I read Godless just a little less than a week ago.

Meta Knight

February 8th 2007, 10:45 PM

I'm still there too.
Then you are a more enduring man than I as well.

Btw I read Godless just a little less than a week ago.
Really? What'd you think of it?

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 8th 2007, 10:53 PM

Really? What'd you think of it?

Actually it reminded me of Sam Harris, but with somewhat more ammusing insults.

A lot of her information was good, but she tended to exagerate issues to make things seem better(or worse) than they really are. She also misrepresented her opponets a lot.

I cant remember a lot of spacifics, I returned it to the library. But I think overall I was rightfully bashing her.

Meta Knight

February 8th 2007, 10:58 PM

Hmm...maybe. It's been awhile since I read it. I remember her chapter(s) on evolution were strawman-ish, but then, she is a layman in that field. I dunno. I think How to Talk to a Liberal would've been a better first choice, since it's newspaper columns, but that's just me.

Anyway, I can't really say if you're right or wrong, since I've not actually checked things myself as of yet. If and when I decide to, I'll get back to you.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 9th 2007, 12:02 AM

Hres a nice incomprehensible rant someone gave when crystal told them that cussing made them sound stupid https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5788937402466064891&postID=5465461796037549198

You sound as if you have your head shoved up your ***. Your crusty eyes must be talking to your turds about how better it is to look at them than you

Did anybody understand a word of that?

P-Dunn

February 9th 2007, 12:57 AM

The most amazing part of this is that this blog was written by the kid that I whipped when he was comparing Jesus with Horus...The kid who couldn't respond to what I said, so he got Rook Hawkins to do it. And how, he thinks he's in some sort of position to be making fun of someone.

I'm still waiting on Rook's second response...Should be quite a while, while he concocts his rationalizations. I had JP check a reference for me, and I caught Rook in a blatant act of hypocrisy that will sure to be fuel for Frank Walton's websites. When I used Holding's example of Poimandes using the word "hate" in a non-literal way, he accused me of misspelling Poemandres (something completely different), and then says there was no author called "Poimandes" and the document must not exist, so Holding completely made it up. Well, as it turns out, Poimandes is a written document, not an author, and it is cited by not just Holding, but several sources.

The irony of the situation is that he accused me of not doing research. All he did was type Poimandes in Google, notice that it gets spell-corrected to Poemandres, and assumes that's what I meant. :lol: HYPOCRICY.

My goodness P-Dunn, you're still over there? I had to leave. I thought my brain would dribble out my ears reading them. You're a more enduring man then I.
Yes, I'm still there. I find it amusing, actually.

Ever want me to come and help, just ask P-Dunn... Meanwhile... I think I'll play with the idiots who think "I've never had a GF" is a real argument.

Crystal
Crystal, you can come over whenever it pleases you. Just go sparingly...You don't want to overwhelm them. They're a funny bunch...

jpholding

February 9th 2007, 07:39 AM

On that note, PDunn, I'll be up in the neck of the woods of the seminary librarty today and will be able to recheck that reference from Fitzmeyer.

jpholding

February 9th 2007, 01:25 PM

Reader submits this response he got from a Skeptic he directed to Tekton. Loads of laughs.

I'm not like any "Skeptic" you have met or been given description of - I HAVE BROKEN MANY PEOPLE'S FAITHS.

I have looked at (Tekton) before even sending you that response message. That website follows the same old tactics any religion has performed to protect their ideals, but instead of grounding their belief with [blind] faith, this website for apologetics "apologizes" for the SUPPOSED mistaken views society has incurred upon them and tries to formulate it so that society may NOT criticise it as badly as it potentially could be.

Examples of "apologizing":
1) Article called "Leading Christian Myths" is "apologizing" or trying to change nostalgic christian tradition to something more suitable for today's current standard of acceptability in effect not having christianity die out or have as much influence. The changes would be due to the susceptibility of old traditional ideals to criticism, i.e. in the article it says, "OT prophecy fulfillment is a good apologetic. It actually isn't useful in the way it was at first. We need to understand (as do Skeptics) Jewish exegesis of the first century. It is not so much that the OT predicted the NT events as that the NT writers looked at history and sought OT passages that echoed what they had seen. This does not mean that there is not actual predictive prophecy at all (for even then God may have orchestrated the pattern) but rather that we cannot present an apologetic on this basis as we normally have; or else we are forced into a corner of explaining ie, why the NT allegedly uses OT passages out of context," it tells the apologetic to explain the similar events reoccuring between the OT and the NT when traditional christians would explain it by saying, "godditit," content with a sigh of leap faith.

2) Article called, "Why Johnny can't Believe," apologizes for old chrisitian doctrines and practices and explains what changes to them "need" to be done in order to not be criticized.

3) Article called, "Why Critics of the bible do not Deserve Benefit of the Doubt" and "Tutorial of Logical Errors," tries to finessely fit it into society. This is done by explaining why critics should not even be listened to and the second article tries to add logic to a school of thought that does not coordinate well with logic, FOR IT IS THE IDEA OF A GOD THAT BREAKS THE FIRST THREE LAWS OF LOGIC.

** NOTE WHY I HAVE PUT THESE THREE IN THE SPECIFIC ORDER THEY ARE IN. POINT 1 ADDRESS OLD TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IS WRONG AND CALLS FOR CHANGE. POINT 2 ADDRESSES CHANGES. POINT 3 ADDRESSES WHY IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.

** NOTE: Your site is written mostly by ONE individual and that individual is skewed in thought - religion and tries to argue against skeptics who each have individual ways of arguing with the religious whereas the religious have much fewer arguments to implement b/c they are spoonfed words.

This individual who manages the site is not even considered an expert in the field of religion; he has a masters in library science - he looks up information, so what? He doesn't have a theology major, etc. etc.

You wrote: Now I've found a website whose scholarship surpasses mine in key fields like Exegesis, Literary Criticism, and Theology. It is inefficient to do anything but refer to this website to those who seek concise (and humorous) answers to their questions or "contradictions"

My response: Why do you refer to a site, like a dictionary, where all it is, is feeding you faith junk? The site even tries to coherently gather each piece of the pie so that they conform to logic. FAITH AND LOGIC DON'T MIX - THE GOD IDEALISM HAS GOD TO DO WHAT HE INFINITELY CAN WANT TO DO. CAN GOD MAKE A SQUARISH CIRCLE? THIS BREAKS THE THIRD LAW OF LOGIC: THE LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION. A SQUARE IS SHAPED AS A SQUARE AND A CIRCLE IS SHAPED AS A CIRCLE OTHERWISE THEY WILL NOT BE THEIR RESPECTIVE SHAPES. Why do you think that in your earlier years of growing up, religion is not a class in school? So that they can choose? If so, then why didn't any child's parents let them choose? Most parents wouldn't. So if choice is not the answer, well then.

You wrote: If you have any arguments against the tektonics website--with evidence--and it is not found on that website, then I'll be elated to discuss them with you! You should know that I don't have time for lengthy internet debates--the cost/benefit ratio is skewed to high-costs to spend a lot of time with one individual when I can help many (who are also open-minded).

My response: First, You have the burden of proof and opening statement of the debate so I do not have to propose anything. Second, what does it mean when you say, "high-cost to spend a lot of time with one indivdual when I can help many"? You make it sound like I am wrong or deluded so that you have to help those who don't have the same views as you. EVEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN ANSWERED MY QUESTION IN THE FACEBOOK GROUP. Trying to do "traditional missionary" work to convert the heathens on this Earth? America's past is haunted by those conversions as it was being populated. So was Spain's past with the Spanish Inquisition.

You wrote: But surely you would agree it foolish to dismiss the website without giving it an *honest* looking-over?

My response: I didn't dismiss the site upon receiving the URL address, but when I looked it over. You're trying to pass this one-sided trash as a 5 star gourmet meal. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to say more than, "the apologetics' site proves it" and "god says so."

You're not willing to waste time to defend something you live for, but you waste time trying to convert others. How sad.

You also stated, “Then he goes on to argue that most Christian leaders don’t actually know what the Bible is saying because of a lack of exegesis and because they “read back into” the Bible! Given that these are the “most influential Christians”, does attacking their abilities to minister seem like a way to help “change nostalgic christian tradition to something more suitable for today's current standard of acceptability”, as you said? JP Holding is certainly going against the popular consensus of “Christians.” No, no, no. Where are you in life and where is JP Holding in life? You are in (expletive) college and JP Holding is doing this website, whereas the pope or any other religious leader are in their positions for a reason. You don’t have the credentials they have, do you? Does JP Holding? Again, no, he has a masters in library science and not theology. Library science and theology don’t sound the same, do they? From the looks of this, he is not an expert is he? Not being an expert, he puts his thoughts and interpretations down on his little website for you non-theology majors to look at. You both and many others similar to you think they are better than religious leaders [from the article he wrote], well in the words of my History Professor, “When you have the same professional degree as I do, then you can say, ‘(expletive)!”

:lolo:

Back later with that Fitz thing.

lilpixieofterror

February 9th 2007, 02:38 PM

Humm... I thought many Tektonics articles were written by other authors and you've revised many of your articles over the years. No real answers I've seen, just ranting.

Sparko

February 9th 2007, 02:41 PM

"I have broken the faith of many" -- gee sounds like Doubting John's claims. :hehe:

jpholding

February 9th 2007, 03:15 PM

I'm at the seminary....got that page from Fitzmyer. I'll scan it in when I get home and post it here for PDunn and all others interested.

Also, screwy email going for Christian Platinum....I've been threatened with hellfire by a passive-aggressive!

James,

How did the Apostles, and the martyrs for the faith, survive, without
you stellar instruction on how to properly render the commandments of
Christ null and void through the Semitic totality concept. I knew you
were an eternal securest since you consistently conclude the acts of
disobedience (sin) as common and unavoidable for anyone that is a
follower of Christ. Without the STC method, how do you interpret Jesus
conclusion of the sermon when He said,

(Mat 7:26) And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth
them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon
the sand:

According to the Lord of the universe, anyone that doesn't obey what He
just taught, by conforming his soul and life to it, and notwithstanding
is fully convinced of final blessedness, is a fool. I'm sure the STC
method can prove that the one who obeys what Jesus said with a "faith
that worketh by love" is the real fool, but we'll see whose word will
stand in the end, yours or Christ Jesus. Then it will be hopelessly to
late James. At least take heed to the Apostles warning,

Jam 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive
the greater condemnation.

If your doctrine is not according to godliness, and does not preserve
someone in the faith, you will receive a greater punishment than the
outright sinners. I apply the same warning to myself. Hold on to your
position of authority for your own glory James. You're going to lose
your soul in the wager friend. Your opposing Jesus doctrine which is
"according to godliness".

:twitch:

Mountain Man

February 9th 2007, 03:17 PM

Hmmm... did he have anything specific, or was it just a general condemnation?

Meta Knight

February 9th 2007, 04:08 PM

Yes, I'm still there. I find it amusing, actually.

I just went there again and read some of the posts I missed...I seriously thought I was gonna start seeing pink liquid flow out of my ears.

jpholding

February 9th 2007, 07:00 PM

. When I used Holding's example of Poimandes using the word "hate" in a non-literal way, he accused me of misspelling Poemandres (something completely different), and then says there was no author called "Poimandes" and the document must not exist, so Holding completely made it up. Well, as it turns out, Poimandes is a written document, not an author, and it is cited by not just Holding, but several sources..

Here's the page from Fitz. As it turns out, I did forget to type in an R, but it wouldn't matter as it seems that without the R is also a legit spelling....lucky me.

Feel free to use it to tell Dorky to do his homework.

jpholding

February 9th 2007, 07:51 PM

Follow up from last emailer....now you're all going to hell with me:

I'm confident your response comes strait from the heart of a true
prophet James. I feel so ashamed to discover that I don't meet your
approval. I'm sure you take much comfort in the empty flatteries of
your blind followers. Carry on James, it's glaringly clear that your
determined to stay in the ditch.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have
right to(authority over) the tree of life, and may enter in through the
gates into the city.

This scripture in no way applies in the literal sense of the meaning.
Certainly not to you James.

At least examine yourself while you still have breath. Just a
suggestion from the Apostle.

:lolo: Ya'll turn up the empty flattery, willya?

P-Dunn

February 9th 2007, 07:59 PM

Thanks for that, JP. You're the man! By the way, I'm making great progress on that Marshall Brain parody video...Finally. Haha...

Meta Knight

February 9th 2007, 08:02 PM

Hmm....hell with JP....heaven with that guy.....I'll take hell.

Frogwarrior

February 9th 2007, 09:50 PM

Yay Jp. You're the man. Yay.

Empty enough for ya? :hehe:

ApologiaPhoenix

February 9th 2007, 11:04 PM

Since NickCopernicus (Nick Spaced-Out as I prefer to call him now) has started going Powell mode, it'll be easy to follow this dialogue. My responses are in a later post in the thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=91728&page=4

My reply is in post 64. This came in post 63.

NIC:
I would rather have a discussion rather then an argument about this. But for now, let’s just say that I know that the world is round instead of flat. I know how seemingly insignificant we are compared to the size of the Universe. It is true that science has ever given us new tools to kill ourselves, but we have also learned a lot about the Universe. I don’t know if Science has killed or saved more lives. But every time I see a life saved thru science, I am glad I was born in this era.
Presuppositional apologetic:

These are supposed to be new discoveries? The Earth is round and the universe is large? Let's look!
Nic:
Before we have a “Look” You asked me what I knew that the ancients did not know. It was an absurd question. Let me tell you one of the myriad of things that I know that the “ancients” did not know.
The Colts won the Superbowl.

Aristotle in De Caelo (On The Heavens) in book 2, Chapter 14, concludes that the Earth is spherical in shape, but also in comparison with the stars, it is not of great size. He measures the Earth to be in circumference 400,000 stades. (That's 9,987 geographical miles. Our present measurements indicate 5,400 is correct.)

Nic:
Did he know that according to the Special Theory of relativity, nothing can accelerate past the speed of light?

Vergilius was a Christian missionary and astronomer who held that since the Earth was a sphere, the gospel should be brought to the Antipodes on the other side.

Nic:
Did he know that according to the Special Theory of relativity, nothing can accelerate past the speed of light?

Also, check Ptolemy's Almagest. It was the main astronomy textbook throughout the Middle Ages. Book 1 and chapter 5 has an interesting reference.

"The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point."
Nic:
Did he know that according to the Special Theory of relativity, nothing can accelerate past the speed of light?

Sorry Coperny. Your history teachers didn't really teach you about the people then.
Nic:

If you ever read a biology textbook then you would know that people don’t rise from the dead, humans are sexual, so Mary probably wasn’t a virgin after all.
Also. The world was not made in 6 days, and many of the other absurdities in the bible probably did not happen.

Since the ancients didn't know about Einstein's theory of relativity, then apparently they were all stupid. Oh yes. They also didn't know that dead people stay dead. (We know they all gathered uncle Bob in the living room waiting for him to come back.) and that humans are sexual. (Anybody wanna guess when THAT discovery was made?) Chalk this one up for a major "Ancient People Are Stupid" award.

Sparko

February 9th 2007, 11:16 PM

Hey Nick, the earth is 24,900 miles in circumference. 7,926 miles in diameter.

ApologiaPhoenix

February 9th 2007, 11:18 PM

Hey Nick, the earth is 24,900 miles in circumference. 7,926 miles in diameter.

Odd. My work listed differently. Thanks for the heads-up.

jpholding

February 10th 2007, 02:13 PM

Yay Jp. You're the man. Yay.

Empty enough for ya? :hehe:

Nah. More empty please. Mr. Self-Righteous sends me Turn or Burn #3:

Which text gets the award? Or is it my complete inability to uncover
the hidden license within the gospel? Mysteries that one can only
discover after a thorough study of the tekton analysis archives. You'll
fleece the flock despite any warning James. Your wisdom exceeds that of
the Apostles, since they weren't as logically "sound" in thier reasoning
as you pretend. You can't be bitter and unforgiving, yet still expect
to inherit eternal life James. You would fit right in with the
philosophers, whose folly is easily discovered in light of the
scriptures. I think they may have given out a similar "screwball award"
to anyone that disagreed with their vain imaginations. Don't forget
that Christ's words will judge you on that terrible day. I stumbled
onto your article via a google search. I witnessed the classic
Calvanistic foolishness, but he was more subtile than you. It's been
interesting James. I'll hold fast to what Jesus taught and walk
circumspectly. I hope you make it James. If your doctrine is wrong,
you'll be left speechless. Your pleas for the right to self worship
will be refuted in the presence of the holy assembly by the great and
righteous judge. Is it worth the risk to have a little bit of fleeting
glory in this world?

Wow. I'm a "Calvanist". :lolo: And the Apostles were illogical. Someone gimme a ticket to hell....

Cynic Sage

February 10th 2007, 03:36 PM

BurntOffering:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=13039&page=5

And what if Jesus refused to marry, until our father in heaven gave him a wife just like God provided Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and even Joseph his step father. I do not believe Jesus was married to Mary Mag, because of what Bathsheba's husband did. Knowing that He would die on the cross, I dont believe Jesus would have taken a wife. Of course that's not to say the Bridegroom to Come will not have a wife of his own.

Very good question! Which is why I said although the Bride is the Church, the Bride is also a Real Woman, Wife and Queen for the Son of God, Lord of Lord and King of Kings. Jesus had to wait until Our Father in Heaven gave him a wife; just like God provided Adam, Abraham, Moses, Joseph etc. I believe when Jesus died on the cross and the gruard opened his side with the spear, that the water and blood that fell to the ground, defeated the powers of Satan. Then just like with Adam God used the Earth, Water and Blood to make Jesus a Wife of His own, who is now Satan, Risen, Reborn, the Sister Spirit and Bride of Jesus Christ. :blush:

I am suggesting that God used the same principle to make Eve as S/He did with making a Wife suittible for Jesus. As Jesus slept on the cross, or died, God used the Water, Blood and Earth to create Jesus a wife. This is why his wife could not be Mary Mag.

The death of Jesus on the cross overcame Satan's powers, then Satan as the Queen like Jesibell was cast into a Bed, told to play dead for 1000 years until Jesus allowed Her to Rise, Speak, and send out the invitation to a Wedding designed to end all creation.

It is this marriage that was planned by God from the Start and these are the failthful and true sayings of God.

Goonerman

February 10th 2007, 06:30 PM

I wish to nominate Observer for these words of wisdom:

In relation to my mock debate with David Hume (which I also sent to JPH), he says:

"Nope, I believe it to be a soliloquy, born out desperation for a dogma; the true sign of insanity. "

In riposte to my riposte, he replies:

"You really don't get it, do you Gman? You are trying to attempt a rational case for an irrational dogma; that the vast majority in this self obsessed, materialistic world, simply won't buy into."

By doing so he admits that evidence has nothing to do with rejecting the Resurrection, but being self-obsessed and materialistic is, which is inept debating. I pointed out that the Christian pendulum has swung away from Europe and now is towards the Americas and the Third World. A mod on the site asked me was this genuine belief in God or escapism from the harsh life of poverty in the Third World. Although that was an incredibly ill-informed question, since it is a question and not a statement, I will not nominate the mod for a Screwball, but Observer is nominated for saying in reply,

"It's because, their plight is so desperate, they need to believe there is something better after this life! Hence "the opiate of the people"; it has the added advantage of keeping the poor in their place, and accepting their plight as "the will of god". "

In reply to my simulated debate with Antony Flew, based on his contribution to giving the case for the opposition in the book In Defence of Miracles co-edited by Gary Habermas, Observer claimed:

"Perhaps it's an inner struggle to preserve his own beliefs?!"

To which a non-Christian contributor replied in exasperation,

"Saints preserve us!!"- knowing full well what I was really up to.

When a teen teasingly wrote this posting to me, saying,

"Goonerman, go outside!
You are spending too much time writing fake debates...
It's actually kind of creepy

I tried reading this for the first time today, and at first I was hoping it would become a slanging match, but of course you weirdo well-read people love pulling out the sources and opinions of others.

Seriously though Gman, are you a writer?
What you've written so far could be turned into a play or something..."

Observer replied,

"Pls: don't encourage him - perhaps a cell on Mt Athos would be better?! "

Well at least that's an improvement on the padded variety he normally thinks I belong to!:lol:

He had started this thread off by referring to a TV programme he had watched, which he clearly naively thought would ffloor me in one fell swoop!

"Here's one for Gman to play with: interesting prog on TV the other night, which claimed that Jesus had a wider family (incl 3 brothers and 2 sisters). That John the Baptist created the Jewish faction, which Jesus was babtised into; and was the mentor of Jesus. That the family of Jesus would have regarded themselves as Jews, and Jesus as a profit. Following the crusifixion, a schism occured with the more gentile followers moving to Rome following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The "new" relion, led by Paul, then proceeded to deify Jesus; and in the process wrote out his family and humanity."

I demolished his view without going deeply into detail on Peter, James and Paul, though I did some basic work, I did more work on Jesus' Son of Man and Wisdom theology. After that I turned to do work on the evidence for the Resurrection, to which he replied (before my simulate debates began to replace Obbs as he was not capable of debating the points properly):

"Merely created a thread on a TV prog topic for a bit of rational discussion; unfortunately, one cannot expect a jesus freak to be rational."

And other gems were:

"Don't discount the history; merely the belief!" This was in response to my evidence.

"All you prove to me Gman, is that there can be a huge difference between Education and Intelligence; and that some forms of education are a complete waste of time and energy and of no practicle use to our wider society. "

And this guy's a politician and used to run an entire town?!:lol:

A Google powered ad on top of the last page of the thread has a screwballish look about it:

Miracles

Shocking & Inspiring True Story
Shares System to Create Miracles

www.OutrageousPower.com

I'm not going to waste my time checking the site out, though.

One Bad Pig

February 10th 2007, 06:45 PM

I'm impressed that he was able to whip out Mt Athos. :duh:

Goonerman

February 10th 2007, 11:22 PM

Another corker from him in relation to the evidence for the Resurrection:

"some folk know the history of horse racing etc: but is the info relevent to any practical purpose?! Ooops, bad choice horse racing; it may help win a bet!" :ahem: :whack:

P-Dunn

February 11th 2007, 04:22 PM

Here's a girl's YouTube biography (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ScienceChick) in her profile. She goes by "ScienceChick," and frequently comments on Brain's videos. It's unfortunate, because she's repeatedly ignored my TWeb invitation...You'd have a lot of fun with her, as you'll see:

"If the Bible isn't true, it should be rejected because it's false. If the Bible is true, it should be rejected because it's evil."

Hello. My name is Holly. I'm an ex-Christian who stopped wasting my mind on the Bible. I gave more than three decades of my life to that despicable baby killer called God. I actually defended the Bible. The same Christians who once nicknamed me Holly Holy and said my arguments were brilliant now call me Satan and say I'm stupid. Well, the word Satan means "accuser" so it actually applies. Stupid doesn't. Far from it. I'm thinking straighter now than ever before. If the biblical God is real, he's a psychopath and one of the greatest mass murderers in history. If he's imaginary, the biblical "prophets" were madmen who raped, stole, and slaughtered their way into power all under the guise of God's authority. At best, the Bible is the sick record of insane marauding rapists, murderers, slave owners, and thieves. At worst, the entire world is under the tyrannical thumbnail of the most evil, vile, and vicious ethereal monster.

As you may gather from my comments, I love children. I love them enough to fight for them. Even die for them if necessary. And I absolutely will not stop until the entire world knows of the detestable atrocities visited upon them in that horrendous murder book known as the Bible. I will not stop until the Bible is disgraced, discredited, and disregarded.

When I think of the innocent children that are mercilessly slaughtered in the Bible, I am enraged. Even more outrageous is the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish sanitization of these senseless slaughters. Following are the Christian apologetic reasons for the massacres of thousands upon thousands of children in the Bible:

1) Children are born bad people. Children are evil.

2) These children's parents were evil and it's justified to murder children for what their parents have done.

3) It's okay to kill children for what they might do in the future.

4) God did them a favor by killing them. He saved them from future problems.

5) God can kill anyone he wants and no one has the right to question it.

As anyone with any morals can see, these reasons are pure lunacy. And these are the very best excuses Christians can come up with. They are essentially the same excuses Jews and Muslims conjure. With these excuses, biblical based religionists seek to wipe these atrocities cleanly from the minds of their believers. They do not preach these atrocities in church and if a member asks about them directly, they will receive some sanitized version of one of the above excuses. In the meantime, the unheard voices of these innocent murdered children demand to be recognized. These injustices deserve to be examined and placed into the only proper perspective - the Bible is evil. We must expose this vile book for the atrocities contained therein and then eradicate it from all public discourse. We must take steps to permanently negate its vile messages and ensure this type of filth never again is allowed to enter and decay the conscious minds of humanity. Biblical based teachings are mind cancer. If we do not destroy religion - it will destroy us.

"One cannot be misled to the truth."

lilpixieofterror

February 11th 2007, 07:46 PM

Wow... you sure know where to dig them up...

jpholding

February 12th 2007, 10:10 AM

From the How Stupid Can You Get Department....

http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/muslyduh.html

This was a response I had written to Nadir Ahmed, a Muslim. Being that his replies were so stupid, I moved them to the toon site and let Annabelle be the one who answered.

Now the poor guy is confused, and sends me these emails:

as I understand it James, I debated you, not this other person. Please
confirm.

listen James, we have alot of witnesses which can testify that I debated you,
not this alleged woman. dont do what Im thinking you are doing.

:doh: :duh: Stupid with a capital S. :lmbo: Speaking of which, more from Mr. Self-Righteous:

Not outright James. Your conclusions are mixed with error or simply
unsound regardless. No wonder you're not very effective against the
pagans. No compassion James. When you're challenged, you morph into a
living /ad-hominem, /that displays how well you can live out the part of
the scarecrow, always building the strawman. James, tell me you don't
believe that the only Calvanist are the outspoken ones. You're right
there with them on their sacred cow doctrine of security in sin. You
boldly profess it in your opinion papers. I'm still looking for your
classic replies in the Scriptures. I am certain someone wise as
yourself would be trying to rescue my soul from error. Naturally out of
love. Almost forgot to add that in, and it's so obvious. Don't respond
James. Take your deluded opinions all the way to judgement. You're
100% correct in all your interpretations, and your worshippers are 99%
accurate (giving the master the higher esteem) in their conclusions. I
must be deceived for sure. You didn't try to convert me though James.
You gave me three awards in succession which could lead me into
idolatry. My T-shirt says "JPH still has time to turn". I don't
want any one to burn.

:lolo:

jpholding

February 12th 2007, 10:42 AM

Email from The Society for the Preservation and Use of the Caps Key:

SON OF GOD WAS AN EARLY TITLE. TO SHOW RESPECT TO THOSE MEN WHO WERE HOLY AND UPSTANDING . IT DIDN'T MEAN THAT THEY WERE REALLY SONS OF GOD THE FATHER IN HEAVEN. ALSO THERE WERE MANY CALLED MY FIRST BEGOTTEN SONS IN THE BIBLE , JESUS WAS NOT UNIQUE OR THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD !
MANY IN GREEK MYTHOLOGY WERE CALLED SONS OF GOD ALSO. ITS ALL SYMBOLIC & METAPHORICAL WHEN IT COMES TO JESUS CHRIST. AS AN EX CATHOLIC I HAVE SEEN HOW WRONG & CORRUPT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS IN ITS PAGAN DOCTRINES & DOGMAS .AND ALL OTHER CHRISTIAN DOMINATIONS ARE JUST A ROOT OF THE MOTHER CATHOLIC CHURCH. AND BELIEVE IN THE SAME PAGAN MYTHOLOGY. CHRIST DIEING ON A CROSS . OR A STAKE ( STUROOS ) JESUS ( YESHUA ) WAS NO MORE A GOD THEN MICKEY MOUSE. ( Enslave the minds of a Nation & You Own it through Ignorance & Fear !

:lolo:

London Chambers

February 12th 2007, 01:28 PM

Email from The Society for the Preservation and Use of the Caps Key:

:lolo:

I thought i was a screwball (see previous for my nomination) but the Society for Preservation guys is worse than I am. I was eventually converted to the Tektonics side after I saw the knowledge that the Twebbers possess. This Guy just goes on and on about how Jesus wasn;t the son of God. He just performed miracles and died on the cross for our sins because it sounded like fun, i guess.

And the part about Greek Mythology. It is called Mythology for a reason. I guess Hercules would have been called a Son of A God, Zeus. But not a son of The God, (Christian Faith). I put absolutely no faith in Greek Mythology or this person's Argument.

jpholding

February 12th 2007, 03:04 PM

I thought i was a screwball (see previous for my nomination) but the Society for Preservation guys is worse than I am. .

I'm withdrawing your nomination. :tongue: Sorry, no award for you. But you can have a year's supply of Rice a Roni as a parting gift.

jpholding

February 12th 2007, 03:32 PM

Wow, here's another email, this one from the God Kiss My Hiney Department:

Well laid out website you guys have! I linked to it from Skeptics Annotated Bible......In order to defeat Atheists you simply need to do objective demonstrations of the supernatural, e.g. putting arms, legs, and other missing body parts on Iraq veterans, or replacing the face of a burn victim, stop the sun, or cause the sun to go backwards, even causing an iron axehead to swim will suffice. How hard can that possibly be? Biblegod says he will do supernatural miracles in answer to prayer and the bible is filled with Biblegod's exploits. Matt 12:38-39 is easily refuted by thinking people, so humans making excuses for their gods inaction is unbecoming for an actual god......Christians don't "think" they "rationalize" They rationalize away the bibles errors, contradictions, and various inaccuracies, and it's not that difficult to demonstrate that apologists are intellectually dishonest. I'm an apologists worst nightmare, I was a highly committed born-again Christian for over 24yrs, and for 20 of those years I went through the OT 4 times a year and the NT 12 times a year. I am a lion amongst christian mice, and have deconverted MANY of them. Since all they have is words from an ancient errant book, and since there is no holy spirit to help them, and Biblegod is an obviously negligent parent, I have been able to restore Biblegod's blood-bought former children to a life free from bible mythology and superstition. Biblegod is unable to humble me or to bring the proud low - But!!!!! An actual demonstration of the supernatural would silence me! If Biblegod really cared about the ETERNAL souls of his own children he would OBEY his own word! But a "bookgod" is incapable of doing anything either good or bad, and such is the true nature of Biblegod, Korangod, Zeus or Shiva...

:lmbo: Maybe I''ll invite him here....

London Chambers

February 12th 2007, 03:42 PM

I love Rice a Roni, better than being a Screwball... Tastier Too

jpholding

February 12th 2007, 04:29 PM

I invited the prior emailer over, and got this reply:

Thanks for such a prompt return James! Your non-reply though has given me even more ammunition to use against Biblegods helpless children, my most devastating attacks on gullible christians is the responses I've gotten from apologists - Paul said that the gospel is not "word" only, but a "demonstration" of the spirits power! Is your god so impotent that he has to have man argue his case for him? That he has to have an army of intellectually dishonest apologists pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorent? Demonstrate the power of your bookgod James, and then and only then will Atheists be forced to bow.....

:twitch: :hehe:

DawnBat

February 12th 2007, 06:31 PM

And all other Christian dominations are just a root of the mother Catholic Church.

Emphasis mine, capitalization corrected to ease understanding of silliness. :teeth:

I still, for the record, don't understand why masses of garble are held up for Screwball Awards. It doesn't take too many brains to figure out that if you can't read something, you may as well dismiss it, and personally, I find meaningless clouds of letters more of a headache than an amusement.

But perhaps that is just me. :shrug:

Mountain Man

February 12th 2007, 08:31 PM

I agree. The Screwball nominees do seem to be getting dumber by the month. Perhaps that's because all the smarter nominees from the past have changed their ways? We can only hope.

Darth Executor

February 12th 2007, 11:08 PM

My T-shirt says "JPH still has time to turn". I don't
want any one to burn.
:rofl:

ApologiaPhoenix

February 13th 2007, 12:42 AM

jpholding

February 13th 2007, 01:21 PM

Three more screwy emails from "Duke Nukem," who's too chicken to come here:

James, are you a child? Your actions give you away as one. Are you ever honest enough, at least to yourself, to ask why Biblegod does nothing supernatural? Especially when he says he will? You have nothing but rationalizations on bible errors, mere words. Two friends of mine that I've deconverted came over to watch a movie with me tonight, I showed them your responses to my e-mails, my friend Tim asked: Is that the best he can do? How does someone who's so immature have an apologetics website? You do a disservice to your religion James....

(response to http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html)

Does anyone actually buy into your reasoning on this page? You have just established the Catholic Church's authority and reasoning during the Middle Ages on why the laity should not have the bible in their own languages - only the priests were trained and educated fully enough to "understand" the book, and they despised the masses as do you...So in other words, Biblegod was so incompetent when he inspired his bible writers that only the most educated and intelligent amongst the masses could understand the book and avoid the bibles Hell. That book has spawned over 30 thousand different sects throughout the ages all claiming to have exclusive rights to bible interpretation. That's the best a Biblegod can do, have 1000's of competing sects run by pious dictators who state that you're not saved unless you believe their interpretation? Is such a god even worth worshipping? Biblegod is but a piece of paper James, no more no less, and as childishly arrogant as you are, if you were a god you could do better than that book....

James, please tell me you're not one of those on the lunatic fringe that believe the Universe is only 6k years old? Have you lost all reason? Have you totally abdicated your responsibility to think? Dear Zeus, arrogance and all (that psycho-babble about INTJs is a real hoot) I was willing to give you your due for being a reasonably intelligent fellow - but young-earth creationism???? I don't know how else to say this, but only the most thoroughly brain washed have purchased that bill of goods...

:hehe: Folks....we have Johnny Skeptic's twin brother in da house... :rofl:

ApologiaPhoenix

February 13th 2007, 01:23 PM

Three more screwy emails from "Duke Nukem," who's too chicken to come here:

:hehe: Folks....we have Johnny Skeptic's twin brother in da house... :rofl:

I find it interesting that the skeptic says you ought not to think in an immature way and such. It's almost like there's a moral law they're referring to in the area of intellect. Could it be that there really is such a thing as.......NAH!

One Bad Pig

February 13th 2007, 06:48 PM

This (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1812017&postcount=1) is odd:

After 4.53 Billion years, Evolution had Not produced even 1 Human Civilization, which is confirmed by the fact that there are NO other Human Civilizations, older than Mesopotamia, just South of the mountains of Ararat.

Suddenly, some 10,000 + - years ago, Noah arrived on this Planet. Less than 100 miles south of the mountains of Ararat, the 1st evidences of Human Civilization are observed. NO man could have told us that our 1st Civilization is traceable to Noah and his grandsons, but God told us this more than 3,000 years ago.

For years, Evols have searched in vain for a Human Civilization older than that which is written in Scripture. There is NONE, because Noah brought Human Intelligence and Civilization to this "Planet of Apes", after their World was destroyed by Water.

It should be obvious that the "sons of God" (prehistoric mankind) , who were here when Noah arrived, were as highly evolved, in intelligence, as any animal, but they had Never written their name, had math, nor ever built a City, after millions of years of Evolution. Prehistoric Mankind was too ignorant to write his History until Noah arrived some 10,000 years ago.

This, of course, means that Macro is a Lie and God's Holy Word is the Truth. We did not Evolve our Human Intelligence. We inherited it from Adam, exactly as God told us we did.

If Noah had not left his world and came to this Planet, we would still be innocent Apes, because Evolution does NOT produce Humans. Human Intelligence must be inherited from another Human.

Sparko

February 13th 2007, 11:06 PM

linky obp

February 13th 2007, 11:18 PM

linky obp

He did provide a link... :poke:

Sparko

February 13th 2007, 11:46 PM

the stupid way links show up now make them hard to find.

jpholding

February 14th 2007, 12:12 PM

Email:

Give up !!! The Roman Catholic Church has been exposed for what it is; rampant slayers of the Truth. A conglomeration of licentious soddimites. Even if you manage to have your adherents whipped into a frenzy of opposition to all the books now being published about the Roman Catholic Church, you will not succede in portraying it in a better light. The history of the Popes is now in the open forum and nothing - nothing, will change the facts about them. It doesn't matter who said what to whom in the scriptures, it all boils down to the fact that the RCC is, was and always will be bogus. To defend it is to try and give credence to the lie. It is also pathetic to try.

:twitch: I'm not even Catholic.....

Meta Knight

February 14th 2007, 12:25 PM

Email:

:twitch: I'm not even Catholic.....
Yeah, but don't you know, JP? What the Catholics do is representative of the over 1.2 billion Protestants in the world also. Every single one of them.

jpholding

February 14th 2007, 02:34 PM

It occurred to me that the guy may have been reading my article on the Pope Leo X quote. To that extent you'd be right. :hehe:

Meta Knight

February 14th 2007, 02:45 PM

ah, actually, I hadn't thought of that. That probably is what he was reading.

Or he's just hopelessly stupid.

Or both.

One Bad Pig

February 14th 2007, 03:32 PM

Link (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1858402&postcount=146)

beloved57, arguing that TULIP is the gospel:

Tulip is the gospel so therefore

Mk 16 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Sparko

February 14th 2007, 03:49 PM

jpholding

February 14th 2007, 04:19 PM

Farrell Till should have gracefully retired years ago, but he keeps on making a fool of himself; here's an example, as he wins the Extra Dense to Satire Award:

I said:

And now to "cut off" at the pass. The word for "cut off" in Gen. 17:14 is (WARNING: Though I use Strong's as a source, this means I know Hebrew better than 10,000 Hebrew scholars)

Oblivious to sarcasm as a brick wall, Foo Foo replies:

This is a typically ambiguous (Holding)ism. I suspect that he meant to say that even though he uses Strong's as a source, this doesn't mean that he knows Hebrew better than 10,000 Hebrew scholars. If he didn't mean that, I don't know what he meant, except that as the statement reads, it doesn't make sense or else indicates that he is even more arrogant about his skills in biblical languages than I had previously thought.

:lolo: Yes, folks, there he is: Farrell Till....the original Too Stupid To Reply To. :lmbo:

The Curtmudgeon

February 14th 2007, 04:31 PM

:lolo: Yes, folks, there he is: Farrell Till....the original Too Stupid To Reply To. :lmbo:

:rant: Yeah, thanx, JPH. :glare: It's all (or at least, mostly -- okay, partly) your fault that there aren't any skeptics worth listening to anymore. Those you haven't just reasoned to death, you've scared off the range. All we've got left now are the dinosaurs: so big and :clueless: that their brains haven't gotten the message that they're dead yet. :hmph:

The (we need a Society to Protect Endangered Skeptics) Curtmudgeon

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 12:52 AM

A nomination for humorous purposes only:

http://www.onewaystreet.com/category/89

The International Festival of Christian Puppetry and Ventriloquism, or I-Fest, is a unique weeklong annual gathering, which celebrates and promotes the use of puppets in ministry. Over 100 workshops are offered in three areas of interest: puppetry, ventriloquism, and puppet ministry leadership. Some workshops offer hands-on experience in areas such as puppet building or prop making, and ventriloquists have the option of enrolling in the Ventriloquists in Training certification program for serious performers.

In addition to the workshops, there are excellent performances, competitions, and a hall of vendors offering ministry-enhancing products. Come share a week with fellow ministry performers from around the world, or come Thursday evening through Saturday afternoon only for an exciting "SuperFest." You won't want to miss this one-of-a-kind opportunity for learning, encouragement, inspiration, spiritual growth, and motivation! We hope to see you there!
Watch the I-Fest 2007 promo video (http://www.onewaystreet.com/downloads/Videos1/if07.wmv)

aikidoka

February 15th 2007, 12:53 AM

This blog post http://naturalskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/01/very-brief-dismissal-of-cosmological.html

In dismissing the cosmological argument he simply does not reference the actual argument and how it's conclusions are derived, either because of stupidity, laziness, dishonesty or all of the above.

This is the same twit that claimed to have communicated or perhaps debated Holding and only gotten stupid back and recently threw the plagiarism charge out there. He also said Glenn Miller quote mined an author and has yet to provide evidence of that, though I've asked for it three times now. He also likes Doherty droppings, but claims to have arrived at them independently and recently said William Lane Craig is a mediocre philosopher.

ApologiaPhoenix

February 15th 2007, 01:02 AM

ah, actually, I hadn't thought of that. That probably is what he was reading.

Or he's just hopelessly stupid.

Or both.

Sunflash. I hate to point out fallacies in the thoughts of other young apologists, but this could be a case of the either/or fallacy.

Meta Knight

February 15th 2007, 08:19 AM

Sunflash. I hate to point out fallacies in the thoughts of other young apologists, but this could be a case of the either/or fallacy.

Oops.:blush:

Darth Executor

February 15th 2007, 10:17 AM

Greetings godbags. The scandal I'm about to discuss has been around for a few days and it just occured to me that I should nominate some people for a screwball award because it's not just political, but religious as well.

First, let us introduce the stars of this circus. I'm not actually nominating them for a screwball award, I'm waiting for them to be eligible for a Darwin award. The two "culprits" are Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen.

http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar-pt-ii

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

http://pandagon.net/2006/09/01/stupid-people-drink-our-coffee-worship-in-our-church/

What I love about this is the Catholic church is doing the exact same thing as Starbucks. “Pope Ratz, our marketing research is showing that in America, the stupid market is choosing Protestant Bible-thumping churches 15-to-1 over the Catholic church. We’ve hung onto a large percentage of the *beep* market by reducing the focus on good works and upping the amount of bashing women and gay people, but stone cold morons are slipping from our grasp. {emphasis added} Focus groups reveal that a lot of stupid people are looking for a church that strokes their egos by telling them that they know better than those smarty-pants scientists with their education and evidence and testing whether or not grandpa was a monkey.”

It’s really hard for we outsiders to be convinced that someone really has the faith he professes to have when he makes his theological decisions with roughly the same logic that’s used to roll out a new ad campaign for Starbucks. Except Starbucks is more moral, since they slap a disclaimer on the cups, i.e. they’re honest with you that it’s a marketing campaign and not motivated by anything deeper than moving cups of coffee and making money.

I'd look for some of Melissa's posts too but I don't want to make this post too big. Their blogs (www.pandagon.net and http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/) are packed with this kind of crap. Which brings us to the first nomination of the day. Ladies and gentlemen, meet "John I'm a worse politician than Kerry" Edwards. Mr Edwards hired the above two in some lead position on his blog. Since Hillary, and to a lesser extent, Obama have the market cornered on centrist leaning liberals, Edwards figured he'd go for the extremists. This set the firmament of the Internet on fire, and Edwards was "pressured" to fire them He declines:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/8/113651/4503

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Either Edwards is as dumb as member*insertnumberhere*, or he thinks everybody else is (actually, I read a few of the comments on his blog and the latter seems more and more probable).

The second nomination goes to the Associated Press:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/14/edwards.blogger.ap/index.html

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, called Marcotte and McEwan "foul-mouthed bigots" for remarks he deemed anti-Catholic. Last week, Donohue called on Edwards to fire both bloggers.

In one posting, McEwan described Christian supporters of President Bush as his "wingnut Christofascist base." Marcotte once posed a mock question-and-answer session in which she speculated what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive.

"You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology," came the answer.

This reminds me of one of their article in which they mentioned that the Tamil Tigers have "hindu roots". :lmbo: It's kinda sad knowing people will read that article without actually knowing what the scandal is about. This immitation of Marcotte is good. (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/07/hot-air-theater-presentsamanda-marcotte-part-ii/)
And most of it is an actual blog entry. http://pandagon.net/2005/09/04/living-in-the-post-freedom-world/

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 04:00 PM

For Acheivement in Paranoia we have this forum nomination:

http://www.waroftheangels.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi

for gems such as these:

http://www.waroftheangels.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=5;t=208

Today when I was at my aunt's party my cousin who was looking out the window saw a dark man with a hat.She said he was scary and I think she said that he had a mask.I told her that it was probably some evil spirit or something.

"Zorro is the devil!"

http://www.waroftheangels.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=5;t=208;st=10

When the veil is "thinning" you are not supposed to see them. That is why they are usually seen quickly darting in your peripheral vision. Most people would not see them, but you are more accutely aware of your surroundings than most people.

Have you described them as best you can? I have seen strange looking creatures in the bottomless pit who are fallen angels that God has changed into ugliness.

Ugly Betty Angels.

They are very short, like dwarfs. They have color, but very feint color, some dirty brown (or tan) and some brownish-green. Their appearance is distorted with funny looking faces.

They are the fallen angels who "mingled" with humans. I don't know if this has anything to do with what you saw, so I am just asking for more details.

"Ugly Betty Angels" :rofl:

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 04:05 PM

Deontextualization award for saved4ever:

http://www.teens-4-christ.org/board/index.php?showtopic=1099

Here's a verse to think about:

"A companion of fools shall be destroyed." - Proverbs 13:20

If you get a group of 30 2nd graders together, what do you have? You have a companion of fools. The same thing works for the older ones. If you get a group of 20 - 30 10th graders together, more than likely there is going to be one or two kids who become the leaders and they are going to lead everyone. A group of 10th graders are going to want to get into trouble and have "fun", etc. They are also a companion of fools. If you do not want your children to be brought to either physical or spiritual destruction, I would recommend that you homeschool your kids!

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 04:19 PM

Another from t4c:

http://www.teens-4-christ.org/board/index.php?showtopic=246

My beleif is that it would be wrong for me to wear pants. I used to wear them, but the Lord convicted me about this and that is why I say that for me to wear pants would be wrong. I heard this idea presented and I went and began to study it for myself. The Bible tells us to be modest as women. I watched women pants-wearers closely for about two weeks. It didn't seem to matter what kind of pants they wore, tight, loose etc. ALL of them seemed to creep in places they shouldn't. So that is not modest.

Dee Dee Warren

February 15th 2007, 04:22 PM

Why is that screwball? She further went on to say

It is a decision you need to make between yourself and the Lord.

I assume this is a teen girl who is wanting to be obedient and modest, I wouldn't make fun of her for this.

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 05:16 PM

Some freaking out over the HPV vaccine:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3001

Gardasil is controversial because it has been recommended that girls become immunized—as early as age 9—before they have sex and put themselves at risk of infection. Some religious leaders are concerned that the vaccine could send a confusing message to girls that premarital sex and sexual promiscuity are acceptable (Pinto, 2006, emp. added).

Could send a confusing message? What message are we sending to our elementary students when we inoculate them for a sexually transmitted disease in the third grade? The “experts” maintain: “To reach maximum effectiveness, the drug should be administered at a young age—ideally between 9 and 14—to assure protection prior to sexual activity and to take advantage of the robust immune response among preteen girls” (Whelan, 2006). Has our country reached a point that we are admitting (or worried about) nine-year-olds contracting sexually transmitted diseases? If so, then let this be a pathetic failing report card of how we are doing as parents in raising our children.

...

If the handwriting on the wall is any indication, then it appears as if Merck will get its wish. Todd Zwillich commented:

A government panel today recommended that girls as young as 11 routinely get a new vaccine against cervical cancer. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the government on vaccine policies, unanimously backed widespread use of the vaccine in preadolescent girls in hopes of protecting them before most become sexually active (Zwillich, 2006, emp. added).
He continued: “If the panel’s recommendation is approved by the Bush administration, Gardasil would join vaccines against measles, whooping cough, chicken pox, and other diseases on the list of routine shots for all American children” (Zwillich, 2006). This means even Christian children who are brought up knowing that sexual activity before marriage is a sin would still be forced to be vaccinated against this STD. Otherwise they could not attend school.

This is bad how? It's not like the vaccine will turn our daughters into nymphos or anything. Wait, it gets worse:

Clearly, this is the marketing of evil to our nation. Diseases such as whooping cough, chicken pox, and measles can be passed through casual contact. HPV is passed through sexual contact (with the only exception being when an infected mother passes it to a child at birth). Thankfully, not everyone in the medical profession views mandatory HPV immunization as a good thing. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, questions the need for a mandatory HPV vaccine in the United States, noting that with annual Pap smears the probability of cervical cancer is greatly reduced. Fisher is strongly opposed to Merck’s proposals to inoculate girls at age nine, which is six years before the average age of first sexual experience in the United States. She noted: “It’s just profit-making on the backs of 9-year-old girls” (Simons, 2006).

"Those greedy, innoculating monsters! All that money going toward preventing the spread of disease when it can go towards more noble, humanitarian causes instead, like ipods for the homeless."

In defense of the vaccine, Dr. Denio Khabele, Meharry Medical College’s director of gynecologic oncology, observed: “We have to separate out moral issues and look at the public health standpoint. You could have one sexual encounter and be exposed to this virus” (Pinto, 2006). Separate out the moral issues? I would love to hear how to “separate out the moral issues” to a nine year old who is questioning why she needs such a vaccine. The laws and commands of God cannot and should not be “separated” for any reason. We have forgotten that He gave us laws and commands for our own good! Dr. Khabele failed to consider there would be little need for this vaccine if we taught biblical principles of sex.

Mark Huffman, vice-president of education and training for Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, also supports the use of the vaccine. He remarked, “It’s like saying, withhold seatbelts so people don’t drive recklessly. It just doesn’t work like that” (Pinto, 2006). Someone should remind Mr. Huffman that the way to prevent reckless driving is not through seatbelts, but rather by proper education, encouraging drivers to obey traffic laws, and punishment for violations. His argument is comparing apples and oranges. These “reckless drivers” (STDs) are totally preventable without seatbelts (vaccines).

Yep, it's also not like reckless drivers ever crash their cars into the good driver's car. "Rape, what's that?"

Dee Dee Warren

February 15th 2007, 05:20 PM

Sparko

February 15th 2007, 05:22 PM

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 05:27 PM

Why is that screwball? She further went on to say

I assume this is a teen girl who is wanting to be obedient and modest, I wouldn't make fun of her for this.

I just couldn't stop laughing at "I beleive it is wrong for me to wear pants" part.

Dee Dee Warren

February 15th 2007, 05:28 PM

I just couldn't stop laughing at "I beleive it is wrong for me to wear pants" part.

You laugh at a sincere teen girl who wishes to be modest in today's very challenging culture? Would you have also laughed at the weaker brothers in the first century who thought it was wrong to eat meat? Paul did not do so. :no:

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 05:47 PM

I agree with the opposition to the HPV vaccine and would not want my daughter if I had one to be involved

See

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/02-12-07.asp

It disturbs me a bit that we are so willing to call anything screwball here. I don't think JP would consider any of the two things I objected to as screwball either. I am not going to ask him to publicly say out of respect for our friendship but I feel he would consider these things ones of Christian conscience, not for us to make fun of.

The screwbish part would be viewing it as promoting consequence-free sex.

When I was innoculated against a strain of hepatitis in high school they expalined the differences between the strains in class and which ones the vaccine protected against. Tho' I admit, the article you linked makes an interesting case with regards to the pharmaceutical company Merck.

But I swear, if I hear or see the words "Christian Worldview" one more time I'm gonna lose my lunch.

Dee Dee Warren

February 15th 2007, 05:49 PM

The screwbish part would be viewing it as promoting consequence-free sex.

Count me in with the screwballs then. I believe in some respect it does. As do thousands of other Christians as well.

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 05:51 PM

Johnny EC is Canadian. Nuff said. :lolo:

Hey, American things are funnier when you're Canadian. Do you have any idea what it was like listening to you guys complain about your national anthem being sung in spanish a while back? :lol:

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 05:53 PM

Count me in with the screwballs then. I believe in some respect it does. As do thousands of other Christians as well.

Okeedokee.

Now if you excuse me, I just had my tetanus shot, so I'll be tobogganing at my local garbage dump later this afternoon.

Dee Dee Warren

February 15th 2007, 05:56 PM

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 05:59 PM

You laugh at a sincere teen girl who wishes to be modest in today's very challenging culture? Would you have also laughed at the weaker brothers in the first century who thought it was wrong to eat meat? Paul did not do so. :no:

:sigh:

Okay. I withdraw that nomination. But I'm keeping the other one for the poor reasoning involved.

VenomX

February 15th 2007, 06:24 PM

I could be the first person in history to contribute both a nomination, and write for an award winning site in the same month! GotQuestions.org won a Jan Screwball award, and I am a volunteer writer on the site. And I nominated italktogod.wordpress.com, which also won an award.

Do I win anything for that? :)

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 06:46 PM

And I would say you are quite screwy to not recognize that there is a vast world of difference between sexual behaviour and urges and other dangerous or immoral behaviour. Yet you look down your nose at your fellow Christians. I seriously doubt that this is what JP had in mind, in any event, I made my protest.

We are talking about the same JP, right?

Nobody get's the special treatment Xena, not from me. I spent my life seeing the biggest idiots get the special treatment just because they insert the right christian buzzword in at the right interval and hold a bible in their hand. Do you know how dangerous a person with a Bible in his hand and no brain in his head can be?

Okay Xena, here are my questions for you. If there was a vaccine that prevented all stds, would you oppose it's use? Why? What if they were thinking of making it mandatory for children?

What would your attitude be toward the HPV vaccine if it were made by a pharmaceutical company with a good reputation? Why?

Feel free to humor me if you so desire.

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 06:55 PM

I present to you the second coming of St Francis of Asissi:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31380096&postcount=5 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31380096&postcount=5)

Dolphins? Whales? Chimpanzees? Dogs? I have seen some YouTube videos that make me genuinely concerned about the vicious nature of their behavior, and it is definitely worthwhile to find out how we can annoint them with the justifying blood of Christ shed on Calvary. I think inter-species evangelism will be the next frontier in the Christian missions movement.

February 15th 2007, 06:56 PM

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 07:06 PM

A fundy atheist posted this on the fstdt forum:

http://www.fstdt.com/forums/thread.asp?t=25357

It only becomes "blasphemy" when you decide to turn a charlatan and a con man with a temper, prone to cursing and fits of pique, documented as a thief, into a "perfect" "god". There is no blasphemy, and obscenity is in the eye of the beholder - ergo YOU ARE REPRESSED!

He was an idiot. He thought he was special. He thought there was a global flood. He thought stars were stuck in the firmament. He cursed thousands of people to eternal hellfire because they didn't want to listen to his crap. He farted. He ****. He screwed guys - Mark was later edited to remove this. The church also systematically befouled Mary Magdelene and erased his relationship with her. He was a man. He lied. He cried. He admitted he came to start wars and cause division. He lied to the Pharisees. He thought epilepsy was caused my demons. He was arrogant. He was racist. He was a mysogynist. He condoned slavery. He was a complete hypocrite. He wanted to keep the Levitican Laws. He could only recite 6 of the 10 commandments and they were the revised set that matched Babylonian standards. He was a host to trillions of bacteria all over his skin, in his gut and mouth.

What part of this is your repressed pea brain having trouble with boy?

but the good news is that somebody went and nominated this guy as a fundie saying the darndest thing (http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=20227).

Cynic Sage

February 15th 2007, 07:16 PM

Last one for today, a nomination for Romans 15:

http://www.teens-4-christ.org/board/index.php?showtopic=6126

A new boy just moved into our church. Let's call him Bob. Bob is really really nice, and friendly, and funny. The Word of God is strong with him, and he always holds God's Word above all else. I try to do the same. I believe that the Bible is the final authority on what God believes.

Anyway, Bob wants to be my friend. The only problem is that Bob is overweight. While it might not be within my right to judge anyone, I've always seen being overweight as a form of sinful nature. Seeing overweight people (gluttons) in church tends to bother me. It bothers me like those people who smoke or drink, even get tattoos or piercings. In fact, the Bible associates gluttons with drunkards - "And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard" (Deut 21:20). What they do is mostly bad for them. There's no way it pleases God to treat our bodies that way. He made us in His perfect image. We weren't made gluttons.

This thread it weird because Bro Randy actually is the voice of reason in his first few posts here. I'm expecting the universe to blow up any minute now.

Dee Dee Warren

February 15th 2007, 07:41 PM

We are talking about the same JP, right?

Yes. Why would that surprise you?

Nobody get's the special treatment Xena, not from me. I spent my life seeing the biggest idiots get the special treatment just because they insert the right christian buzzword in at the right interval and hold a bible in their hand. Do you know how dangerous a person with a Bible in his hand and no brain in his head can be?

And I submit that is not what is going on in what you have chosen, but rather pretty mainstream Christian views. It is you who are marginalizing yourself in superiority from a great many brethren, not some fringe screwballs.

As far as "special treatment" I remind you once again of Paul's admonition with regard to the weaker brethren and further his admonition to think others better than yourself.

Okay Xena, here are my questions for you. If there was a vaccine that prevented all stds, would you oppose it's use? Why? What if they were thinking of making it mandatory for children?

You didn't answer my observation, and frankly, since you have shown zero respect for the opinion of thousands of Christians, I don't care to have the discussion, further, I am speaking of a real situation not a hypothetical one.

What would your attitude be toward the HPV vaccine if it were made by a pharmaceutical company with a good reputation? Why?

For the reasons already stated in that article that have nothing to do with the reputation of the company, though pharmaceutical company with a good reputation is oxymoronic.

Feel free to humor me if you so desire.

I don't. Continue to think yourself superior to us poor silly ones who think differently.

Darth Executor

February 15th 2007, 07:52 PM

Some freaking out over the HPV vaccine:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3001

Gardasil is controversial because it has been recommended that girls become immunized—as early as age 9—before they have sex and put themselves at risk of infection. Some religious leaders are concerned that the vaccine could send a confusing message to girls that premarital sex and sexual promiscuity are acceptable (Pinto, 2006, emp. added).

Could send a confusing message? What message are we sending to our elementary students when we inoculate them for a sexually transmitted disease in the third grade? The “experts” maintain: “To reach maximum effectiveness, the drug should be administered at a young age—ideally between 9 and 14—to assure protection prior to sexual activity and to take advantage of the robust immune response among preteen girls” (Whelan, 2006). Has our country reached a point that we are admitting (or worried about) nine-year-olds contracting sexually transmitted diseases? If so, then let this be a pathetic failing report card of how we are doing as parents in raising our children.

...

If the handwriting on the wall is any indication, then it appears as if Merck will get its wish. Todd Zwillich commented:
A government panel today recommended that girls as young as 11 routinely get a new vaccine against cervical cancer. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the government on vaccine policies, unanimously backed widespread use of the vaccine in preadolescent girls in hopes of protecting them before most become sexually active (Zwillich, 2006, emp. added).
He continued: “If the panel’s recommendation is approved by the Bush administration, Gardasil would join vaccines against measles, whooping cough, chicken pox, and other diseases on the list of routine shots for all American children” (Zwillich, 2006). This means even Christian children who are brought up knowing that sexual activity before marriage is a sin would still be forced to be vaccinated against this STD. Otherwise they could not attend school.

This is bad how? It's not like the vaccine will turn our daughters into nymphos or anything. Wait, it gets worse:

Clearly, this is the marketing of evil to our nation. Diseases such as whooping cough, chicken pox, and measles can be passed through casual contact. HPV is passed through sexual contact (with the only exception being when an infected mother passes it to a child at birth). Thankfully, not everyone in the medical profession views mandatory HPV immunization as a good thing. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, questions the need for a mandatory HPV vaccine in the United States, noting that with annual Pap smears the probability of cervical cancer is greatly reduced. Fisher is strongly opposed to Merck’s proposals to inoculate girls at age nine, which is six years before the average age of first sexual experience in the United States. She noted: “It’s just profit-making on the backs of 9-year-old girls” (Simons, 2006).

"Those greedy, innoculating monsters! All that money going toward preventing the spread of disease when it can go towards more noble, humanitarian causes instead, like ipods for the homeless."

In defense of the vaccine, Dr. Denio Khabele, Meharry Medical College’s director of gynecologic oncology, observed: “We have to separate out moral issues and look at the public health standpoint. You could have one sexual encounter and be exposed to this virus” (Pinto, 2006). Separate out the moral issues? I would love to hear how to “separate out the moral issues” to a nine year old who is questioning why she needs such a vaccine. The laws and commands of God cannot and should not be “separated” for any reason. We have forgotten that He gave us laws and commands for our own good! Dr. Khabele failed to consider there would be little need for this vaccine if we taught biblical principles of sex.

Mark Huffman, vice-president of education and training for Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, also supports the use of the vaccine. He remarked, “It’s like saying, withhold seatbelts so people don’t drive recklessly. It just doesn’t work like that” (Pinto, 2006). Someone should remind Mr. Huffman that the way to prevent reckless driving is not through seatbelts, but rather by proper education, encouraging drivers to obey traffic laws, and punishment for violations. His argument is comparing apples and oranges. These “reckless drivers” (STDs) are totally preventable without seatbelts (vaccines).

Johnny, that vaccine is a waste of money. Most 6th graders don't have sex and sure as heck don't get cancer. Ipods for the homeless really would be more useful.

Yep, it's also not like reckless drivers ever crash their cars into the good driver's car. "Rape, what's that?"

If people would listen to me and approve of concealed cameras all over the place rapes (and a lot of crime) would be reduced drastically. Instead they freak out over the Shrub wiretapping people who call Osama to ask him what he had for lunch.

Darth Executor

February 15th 2007, 09:13 PM

Do you know how dangerous a person with a Bible in his hand and no brain in his head can be?

Anybody in a position of power and no brain in his head is extremely dangerous.

ApologiaPhoenix

February 15th 2007, 09:19 PM

We are talking about the same JP, right?

Nobody get's the special treatment Xena, not from me. I spent my life seeing the biggest idiots get the special treatment just because they insert the right christian buzzword in at the right interval and hold a bible in their hand. Do you know how dangerous a person with a Bible in his hand and no brain in his head can be?

Okay Xena, here are my questions for you. If there was a vaccine that prevented all stds, would you oppose it's use? Why? What if they were thinking of making it mandatory for children?

What would your attitude be toward the HPV vaccine if it were made by a pharmaceutical company with a good reputation? Why?

Feel free to humor me if you so desire.

I agree with Xena and I'll go on and speak about my position on the STD vaccine.

My answer is that I would not want my children to get it if I had any. I speaking as a virgin wanting to marry would not get it either. Why?

It's really simple. I'm a virgin who wants to marry a virgin. If we're both virgins and we live our lives in faithful love to each other, I don't need to worry that much about STDs. Granted, some could spread other ways I don't know about, but I think those chances are slim. I do know that from being in High School just under a decade ago that if you told most of my class that they could have sex without fear of STDs and could have abortions if pregnancy took place, there would be a whole lot more of it going on.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 15th 2007, 09:25 PM

Heres one for a guy going by the name of Glaswegian at free from thinking teens. who's so bad that the regulars there are starting to jump on him:

http://www.freethinkingteens.com/forum/freethinking_teens_community/freethinkers_debate/2667

Lurking at the back of the Christian's mind is a terrible suspicion which must be blocked from his conscious awareness at all costs: namely, the suspicion that when he talks to Jesus he is only talking to another part of himself. The Christian's secret suspicion is correct. Let me explain...
When the Christian talks to Jesus he is really carrying out an internal dialogue with himself. That is, he splits one part of his self off, calls it 'Jesus', and then puts words into its mouth. The Christian's conversations with Jesus are really a form of religious ventriloquism: and deep down he knows this because, like every other ventriloquist's dummy, the Jesus dummy never answers the Christian back. The Christian must do its talking for it.
When the Christian talks to Jesus what he is actually doing is no different from what Norman Bates did in the film Psycho. Norman kept the mother he loved and worshipped 'alive' by pretending that one part of his personality was her. Thus, to make Jesus believable, to make this fantasy-figure seem real and plausible, the Christian's personality must undergo a form of schizophrenic splitting similar to Norman's in order to keep Jesus 'alive' in the fruit-cellar of his mind.
Another way to understand the Christian's 'relationship' with Jesus is to think of Jesus as the Christian's imaginary play-friend. As is well known, many children invent an imaginary play-friend - a play-friend whom no one else can see - when they feel lonely, abandoned, vulnerable, troubled and when no one in the world seems to understand or care about them. In the eyes of the child, as is also well known, the imaginary play-friend can do anything and is always there to talk to, to listen, and to share worries, sorrows and joys with, and even to lend advice. But there is a difference between the imaginary play-friend invented by the child and the one the Christian has called 'Jesus'. And the difference is this - Whereas the child is extraordinarily creative with regard to his imaginary play-friend inasmuch as he fashions the latter's mind and character all by himself using his own inner resources, the Christian is not so creative since the mind and character of his imaginary play-friend come ready-made for him by his religion. Needless to say, when the child matures and grows more confident and secure in himself his imaginary play-friend disappears from his life. But the Christian remains dependent on his imaginary play-friend even as an adult and never emerges from his infantile fantasy until he abandons his religion.
The schizophrenic splitting of the personality which underpins the Christian's 'relationship' with Jesus also underpins the Muslim's 'relationship' with Allah, the Jew's 'relationship' with Jehovah, the Catholic's 'relationship' with the Virgin Mary, etc. - but here I'm telling the rational person something he already knows.
Regards
James

And another topic: http://www.freethinkingteens.com/forum/freethinking_teens_community/freethinkers_debate/2669

When you hear the laughter of some Christians do you ever wonder why there is so much pain in it? Why it often has the effect of causing tiny alarm bells to start ringing inside of you? Why it can make you solemn and reflective in the way that a great tragedy does? Why you feel a little saddened in its aftermath? Perhaps on witnessing this kind of laughter issuing from the Christian's mouth you have been so shocked by it that you have turned away from him, lowered your head and whispered to yourself: 'My God. The pain in that laughter! Doesn't he realise how awful it sounds?'
No reasonable person would blame you for wondering how the Christian can be blind to the pain in his own laughter given that the pain which fills it is so stark in nature, so blatant and unmistakable, so flagrant as to be nakedly obvious. This is why even though one finds the Christian's laughter excruciating one cannot help but be intrigued by it at the same time. This laughter is so anguished in tone, so forced in its delivery, so hysterical in its outburst that one involuntarily shrinks from it as if from an exploding boil. One feels acutely embarrassed for the Christian on hearing his pained and desperate laughter. Indeed, one is even moved at times to pity him because of it. That said, the pain in the Christian's laughter is so uniquely awful that it demands an explanation.
The reason why the pain in the Christian's laughter creates such a strong impression on rational individuals, and makes them prick up their ears whenever they hear it, is because it reveals more about the Christian's inner being in an instant than a very large book could ever do. What this laughter reveals about the Christian in such an immediate and striking way is that he is an individual who suffers greatly from himself: more precisely, that he is someone to whom something terrible has been done, something shameful, and that the person who has done this terrible and shameful thing to him is none other than himself. How do we know this? Because the Christian's laughter is a laughter which resonates with deep and unrelenting guilt. It is the tortured laughter born of an individual who cannot live with himself, an individual who recognises at some level of his being that he is disgraceful and contemptible, an object to be despised. This is why on hearing it the man of finer feelings and good taste immediately averts his eyes from its source.
The terrible and shameful thing which the Christian has done to himself inwardly, and which fills his laughter with so much pain, is that he has murdered his freedom and integrity for the sake of his religion. The Christian is only too willing to perform this deplorable act of self-sabotage because he is a weakling who is terrified of assuming responsibility and control over his own life and decisions. Rather than determining for himself what kind of person he will become and how he will live, he pretends that a 'Divine Being' exists external to himself so that he can abandon himself to its will and authority. Thus, instead of taking charge of his own existence, instead of being the author of his own destiny, the Christian chooses to adopt an infantile orientation to life by clinging abjectly to his religion, by clinging to a childish delusion, by clinging to the apron strings of 'God'. As a consequence of choosing to be un-free and inauthentic in this way, by choosing to remain locked in a state of permanent infancy, the Christian allows his own existential possibilities to wither and die: so much so, that long before his body expires he becomes something false and vacuous, a shell of a man, a desiccated nonentity, the ghost of what might have been.
The pain in the Christian's laughter, then, should be understood as summarising all the anguish and guilt he feels at having betrayed himself, all the hurt and rage he feels at having neglected and disowned his true potentialities and goals, all his secret shame at having made a travesty of his life. His pained laughter announces to the whole world in a direct and emphatic way that he is a cowardly wretch who dreads his own freedom, that he is unnerved by the innumerable possibilities of existence, that he is so afraid of thinking and acting for himself that he is willing to forgo the possibility of his own self-creation.
Given that what the Christian thinks, says and does are done in almost total compliance and conformity with the directives of a fantasised power which lies outside himself (viz. 'God') this means that he is not really in his own thoughts, not really in his own words, not really in his own actions. This accounts for why he is prey to recurring feelings of emptiness, depersonalization and unreality - and the horrible suspicion that he is merely going through the motions of being alive. The Christian is necessarily divorced from his whole inner life and experience because what he thinks, says and does are informed by, or are done in accordance with, a 'Divine Power' which is perceived as other than himself. The Christian, in effect, exists only in absentia for he is a person who has absconded from himself. His self-being is really a form of death-in-life.
Having considered the above it is hardly surprising, then, that the pain in the Christian's laughter leaves the rational person who has the misfortune to hear it somewhat depressed. For it signifies a human tragedy - the tragedy of an individual who, out of weakness and fear, has failed to achieve an authentic mode of being, who has never grown up, and who has wantonly sacrificed two of the most precious things a human being can possess: viz. his own freedom and integrity.
Regards
James

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 15th 2007, 09:36 PM

Mr Frank Zitto for his 'case against prayer.' http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=92540

One of the most perplexing elements of religious faith is prayer—the notion that, by pleading with God, one actually can cause changes for the better in the world. Of course, we see this strange practice in a great many of the world’s thousands of faiths, meaning multitudes of God characters all are being bombarded with requests great and small. The natural question, of course, is whether prayer actually does anything. In truth, I think most people already know the answer to that question; I make this judgment not based on what people do pray for, but based on what they do not.

There is a tremendously interesting website called “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?”, which hits upon an oft-ignored, yet universal, phenomenon: People do not pray for “impossible” things, but rather only things that possibly could happen by natural means. Essentially never do you see somebody pray for an amputee’s lost limb to grow back spontaneously. It is an incredibly rare occurrence for a grieving widow to pray that her deceased husband rise from the grave to rejoin her in matrimony. It is exceedingly uncommon for parents who wanted a baby girl, but got a baby boy, to pray that the infant’s gender changes. Why are flat-out impossible things hardly ever prayed for, when most God conceptions seem not to be limited by the natural principles under which we live?

Earlier I asked if prayer actually works, and said I have a tentative hypothesis with regard to what people truly believe about this. In the conscious mind, those infected with religious fervor are fully confident that their prayers are heard, and occasionally answered. In the subconscious, people realize that prayer suffers from the ultimate limit: It is bounded by what is possible through natural means, and pure chance. Essentially automatically and unbeknownst to them, people filter out the impossible requests and amass those that might be able to reinforce the illusion of prayer’s efficacy. A man prays that he gets a job, so he can support his family. A woman prays that her father recovers from a serious illness. Parents pray that their baby is born healthy. A community prays that an approaching storm does not wreak havoc. These are good things for which to pray; nature can do the job where God does not exist.

My dwindling religious readers might object at this point: “God can do anything, and my prayers are not limited to the mundane! Nothing is impossible for God, and thus, prayer potentially is capable of delivering any desired result!” OK, although this is a metaphysical proposition, it certainly could be tested by scientific means. Invite Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Sam Brownback and 200-some other Christians to put their money where their mouth is and board an airplane. At 38,000 feet, the pilot and co-pilot will dive into the sky, with only parachutes to potentially save their lives. Autopilot will not be turned on at any point. Precisely three minutes before that happens, every Christian onboard the flight will begin to pray for the plane’s safe landing and every passenger’s survival. The prayer will continue until one minute after the pilots dive out. If God’s hands guide the aircraft to a safe, smooth landing, prayer’s efficacy will be proved. If the plane crashes, prayer will be disproved. I wonder if Pat Robertson’s confidence in prayer reaches that level.

My guess would be no, since prayer already has been tested scientifically. The Harvard Medical School Office of Public Affairs issued a news release entitled "Largest Study of Third-Party Prayer Suggests Such Prayer Not Effective In Reducing Complications Following Heart Surgery" on March 31, 2006. See selected passages below.

“For those facing surgery or battling disease, the prayers of others can be a comfort. Researchers in the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP), the largest study to examine the effects of intercessory prayer--prayer provided by others--evaluated the impact of such prayer on patients recovering from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

“The STEP team, composed of investigators at six academic medical centers, including Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota; St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Florida; Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C; and the Mind/Body Medical Institute, found that intercessory prayer had no effect on recovery from surgery without complications. The study also found that patients who knew they were receiving intercessory prayer fared worse. The paper appears in the April issue of American Heart Journal.”

…

“STEP investigators enrolled 1,802 bypass surgery patients from six hospitals and randomly assigned each to one of three groups: 604 patients received intercessory prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayers (Group 1); 597 patients did not receive prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayer (Group 2); and 601 patients received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive it (Group 3).

“Caregivers and independent auditors comparing case reports to medical records were unaware of the patients' assignments throughout the study. The study enlisted members of three Christian groups, two Catholic and one Protestant, to provide prayer throughout the multi-year study.

“Some patients were told they may or may not receive intercessory prayer: complications occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1) versus 51 percent of those who did not receive prayer (Group 2). Complications occurred in 59 percent of patients who were told they would receive prayer (Group 3) versus 52 percent, who also received prayer, but were uncertain of receiving it (Group 1). Major complications and thirty-day mortality were similar across the three groups.”

Now, granted, this study explicitly was limited to intercessory prayer. However, I think it is reasonable to draw a powerful overall conclusion: Prayer is nothing more than a (wildly inconsistent) form of the placebo effect. It provides some measure of comfort to the desperate…but simply cannot supersede natural scientific principles.

One Bad Pig

February 15th 2007, 10:12 PM

I thought JPH might appreciate this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1860654&postcount=171):

Well, I suppose when one has no decent rebuttal of his own, parody is one's last resort.

Nang
:hehe:

Meta Knight

February 16th 2007, 12:14 AM

Ugh...nickcopernicus, for his "God should do what I want for me to believe in Him"

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1860860&postcount=18

Of course the issue with prayer is faith. That's what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 17:20 right?

Don't you want me to be saved? Would you like me to scream in horror until the end of time, and beyond? Would it make you that happy to see the skeptical atheist laid low? My upper lip trembling before the might of the ineffable?

Please pray for Jesus to appear to me like he did to Paul*
If I become a Christain again

And ask him to tell me something that it would be impossible for me to know without god's help. Not something like "It's going to rain in Bagdad tommorrow" How about "Actually, cold fussion is really simple. Here's a DVD showing how to do it"
I will give god the glory, for ever and ever.

jpholding

February 16th 2007, 10:07 AM

Email:

"Tom Harpur doesn't have the courage to reply to this article."

You flatter yourself. Anyone who says anything countering Christian dogma gets flooded with email. Yours likely just got lost in the shuffle.

It requires no courage at all to respond to email, just time.

The poor sap wasn't aware that Harpur has acknowledged the existence of my crituque, and declined to answer. :lolo:

jpholding

February 16th 2007, 10:15 AM

It disturbs me a bit that we are so willing to call anything screwball here. I don't think JP would consider any of the two things I objected to as screwball either.

I know you said you won't ask, but since the question will be in the air anyway....

1) The girl with the pants I'd rate a bronze only because she thinks God talks to her about her wardrobe. The part about modesty isn't screwy though.

2) I don't know enough about the other issue to comment. I can only say that I can't grasp the logic behind thinking a vaccination will bend behavior either way....because I just don't think like that. Maybe others do.

Dee Dee Warren

February 16th 2007, 10:21 AM

1) The girl with the pants I'd rate a bronze only because she thinks God talks to her about her wardrobe. The part about modesty isn't screwy though.

We have to take into consideration the context. This is a "teens 4 Christ" forum. I question the propriety of nominating anything from such a forum for a screwball award, these are children to be mentored, not made fun of. I don't think as Christian adults we should be looking for teens to make fun of for the most part. I think the young girl meant that she was convicted by the Spirit, and that is what she was defining as God speaking to her - in that respect I have been spoken to by God about very mundane things of my life as well - there is a conviction upon my life. I would hope that if I were wearing hot pants or dressing immodestly that God would speak to me loudly and clearly - we are know we are not talking about a theophany here - it is curious to me that we don't grant this girl more grace in what she said, she is speaking in a friendly enviroment with peers, not to be subjected to precise theological examination at a forum of adults.

2) I don't know enough about the other issue to comment. I can only say that I can't grasp the logic behind thinking a vaccination will bend behavior either way....because I just don't think like that. Maybe others do.

It isn't quite as simple as that, and there were other issues involving the profiteering off of children and parental choice and things like that. But what you just said is what I thought you would - you may not agree, but you recognize that this is not some fringe lunactic Christian opinion, many hold it, and as such, not a "screwball" thing. Something is not a screwball just because we don't agree or understand. So you commented just as I expected you would.

jpholding

February 16th 2007, 10:34 AM

We have to take into consideration the context. This is a "teens 4 Christ" forum. I question the propriety of nominating anything from such a forum for a screwball award, these are children to be mentored, not made fun of.

I can grok that. Of course the forum does include certain adults like Bro. "Rape is What You Deserve" Randy that deserve regular nomination....

I think the young girl meant that she was convicted by the Spirit, and that is what she was defining as God speaking to her - in that respect I have been spoken to by God about very mundane things of my life as well - there is a conviction upon my life.

I hope for her sake that you're right and that she's not speaking of some sort of theophanic experience. I wish I didn't know of many examples (personally) that would say otherwise, even when using mild language like "convicted".

In the end, it has enough room for doubt that I will probably end up not using it.

Besides, I want to save room for when Bro Randy discovers my toons and declares them to be of the devil. :hehe:

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 16th 2007, 11:39 AM

Glasweigen again for a thread entitled 'Why religion is for big infants.' http://freethinkingteens.com/forum/freethinking_teens_community/freethinkers_debate/2671

It is generally agreed by rational individuals that Religion is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception. But Religion has a further source which is in no way reprehensible like the three just mentioned: namely, a powerful metaphysical need. This metaphysical need is a natural consequence of simply being alive in the world. The need is tied to a momentous awareness which comes to all thinking creatures sooner or later concerning themselves and their situation, and it usually expresses itself in the form of a question - the most fundamental question: viz. Why is there such a thing as existence as opposed to complete nothingness? Why does the universe exist, along with myself, and all these other living things that I see around me? Instead of nothing, why is there anything at all?
The German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, depicts this profound metaphysical awakening as follows:
'In endless space countless luminous spheres, round each of which some dozen smaller illuminated ones revolve, hot at the core and covered over with a hard cold crust; on this crust a mouldy film has produced living and knowing beings: this is empirical truth, the real, the world. Yet for a being who thinks, it is a precarious position to stand on one of those numberless spheres freely floating in boundless space, without knowing whence or whither, and to be only one of innumerable similar beings that throng, press, and toil, restlessly and rapidly arising and passing away in beginningless and endless time.'
Within every human being, then, there is an enduring need to obtain an answer to the mystery of existence. But what is tragic from the point of view of humanity is that throughout the ages Religion has hijacked and perverted this need by falsely claiming to know the answer to the metaphysical mystery. As Schopenhauer notes:
'The fundamental, secret and primal piece of astuteness of all priests, everywhere and at all times is as follows. They have recognised and grasped the enormous strength and the ineradicability of the metaphysical need of man: then they pretend to possess the means of satisfying it, in that the solution to the great enigma has, by extraordinary channels, been directly communicated to them. Once they have persuaded men of the truth of this, they can lead and dominate them to their heart's content.'
Unfortunately, there are many individuals who find submission to Religion extremely seductive and they are only too ready to be dominated and mentally enslaved by it. One of the reasons why these individuals are happy to surrender control over their life and mind to Religion is because this allows them to escape the responsibility of having to think and act for themselves. It is evident that at some level within the religious believer the prospect of taking charge of his own life arouses a feeling of dread (angst). Therefore, the believer's surrender of his personal autonomy to Religion is an attempt on his part to eliminate the occurrence of this unpleasant affective state. However, making Religion (and 'God') the master and regulator of one's life has a detrimental effect on one's development as a human being for it results in psychological weakness and dependency. This becomes clear if we look at how religious mental enslavement works in general. Viz....
The type of religious attitude fostered by all authoritarian religions is characterised by submission to an external authority or power. Under the direction of monotheistic creeds like Christianity and Islam, the sense of power and value which individuals feel in themselves are projected onto a 'Deity'. The more steadily individuals remove power and value from themselves and accord them to a 'Deity' the more impoverished they become: so much so, that their centre of gravity shifts from within themselves and they cease to be the active propellant in their own life. Thus, the general effect of authoritarian religion is to remove any autonomy which an individual might possess and replace it with a state of dependency. In other words, authoritarian religion seeks to turn its adherents into Big Infants, or as its velvet-tongued spokesmen put it: 'little children of God'.
As was noted above, the hijacking and perversion of the metaphysical need by Religion has been tragic for humanity historically. For instead of this need being allowed to manifest itself naturally - that is, as the fundamental driving force behind every attempt to understand the universe and increase human knowledge - it was channelled by Religion into myriad worthless endeavours (e.g., endless pilgrimages), preposterous theological speculation (e.g., 'How many angels can stand on the end of a pin?'), and some of the vilest conflicts on record (e.g., the Crusades)...among other lunacies. And this tragedy continues in the present day under new forms (e.g., the rise of the Religious Right in America).
The sabotaging of the metaphysical need by Religion has been harmful not just for humanity but, paradoxically, for Religion itself. Thus, Carl Sagan is correct when he writes:
'How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My God is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.'
Regards
James

I think I'v discovered another dimbo. I invited him over here.

jpholding

February 16th 2007, 01:44 PM

Doubting John adds another useful idiot to his stable:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/02/can-we-trust-new-testament-we-have.html

:lol: Yep. Another uncritical Ehrman stoolie-fanboy.

Mountain Man

February 16th 2007, 03:24 PM

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 16th 2007, 03:42 PM

Doubting John adds another useful idiot to his stable:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/02/can-we-trust-new-testament-we-have.html

:lol: Yep. Another uncritical Ehrman stoolie-fanboy.

Yea and he still has to show where these sorts of issues are considered problematic in regards to any other writing of antiquity. Historians would be jumping for joy if we had 5000 manuscripts of Homer or Beowulf.

jpholding

February 16th 2007, 04:18 PM

Haven't these idiots ever heard of textual criticism? :doh:

Only as Ehrman presents it, in his distorted way. :thumbd: They have no idea that he's been torn up by scholars like Wallace.

Doubting John

February 16th 2007, 04:31 PM

Only as Ehrman presents it, in his distorted way. :thumbd: They have no idea that he's been torn up by scholars like Wallace.

Hmmmm. You still don't get it, do you? Take a Philosophy of History 101 class sometime. Just one.

February 16th 2007, 04:38 PM

Hmmmm. You still don't get it, do you? Take a Philosophy of History 101 class sometime. Just one.

Hey, you're still around after all. :poke:

VenomX

February 16th 2007, 04:59 PM

Haven't these idiots ever heard of textual criticism? :doh:

Basically, DJ went from uncritically quoting McDowell to uncritically quoting Ehrman :lol:

I'd love for these so-called critics to point out where doctrine is actually affected by the difference in reading. I have yet to see a single critical doctrine that can be called into question by a variant reading, and no atheist/agnostic/skeptic has ever produced coherent arguments in this regard. They always make the same ambiguious statements, something in the family of "And some of the differences even affect doctrine!" Never do they seem to back up this claim. DJ cites a variant reading, but fails to explain why this would change anything that we believe about Jesus, or how the change materially affects the passage.

:pray: Heavenly Father, I pray stupidity isn't contagious.

VenomX

February 16th 2007, 05:07 PM

Do we have to nominate only things said on the web, or are conversations had at work fair game? Because if so, I nominate Ryan for this philosophical wonderment about pantheism:

ME: Creation is an effect, right?

RYAN: Yes.

ME: Effects require a cause, right?

RYAN: Yes.

ME: Logically, a cause is independent of its effect. When the pool cue hits the cue ball, the energy is transferred to the cue ball; the stick isn't absorbed. The pool cue is still its own entity, even though it created an effect. Same with God. God can't be part of the earth He created.

RYAN: Yes, but you forget that once you strike the cue ball, you STILL have the pool stick.

ME: Right. It remains its own entity. That's exactly my point. You're not furthering YOUR argument, you're PROVING mine.

RYAN: [thinks for a long moment] Oh, yeah, SHOOT! I just understood what you said!

Mountain Man

February 16th 2007, 05:09 PM

Yea and he still has to show where these sorts of issues are considered problematic in regards to any other writing of antiquity. Historians would be jumping for joy if we had 5000 manuscripts of Homer or Beowulf.
That's the problem with skeptical arguments against the historicity of the Bible. If we were to apply their arguments consistently, we'd have to toss out all historical writings, even those composed relatively recently (pretty much anything that describes events for which there are no living eyewitnesses). It's a self-defeating position as far as I'm concerned.

February 16th 2007, 05:12 PM

VenomX

February 16th 2007, 05:18 PM

And further, I nominate my boss, Angie, for the worst theology from a professed Christian I have heard in a long time:

We were speculating about the potential of close familial ties between the parents of a particular employee, and I made some sarcastic comment about how unfathomable it is that God creates people like that to essential be utter wastes of time and space. Angie pipes up with this gem: "God only created Adam and Eve. After that, we were on our own. We create people like that, not God."

I wonder if this so-called Christian realizes 1) her philosphy leaves no reason for Christ's substitutionary atonement--the reason for her faith--and 2) reeks so pathetically of deism that I needed a gas mask and steel tongs to dispose of it.

Each day I understand why the need for basic education in matters of faith is extremely necessary.

VenomX

February 16th 2007, 05:21 PM

:hehe: At least he was sharp enough to realize eventually what was going on. Many would probably have just ignored you.

That is very true.

jpholding

February 16th 2007, 05:24 PM

Hmmmm. You still don't get it, do you? Take a Philosophy of History 101 class sometime. Just one.

And you're still short on actual answers, aren't you? :lol: Give us one. Just one.

Better yet, see if your new stool pigeon wants to debate me one on one on the virtues of Ehrman. We'll double post it here and at your blarg.....I mean, blog. Boooyah! :rasberry:

OU812

February 16th 2007, 09:05 PM

I wonder if this so-called Christian realizes 1) her philosphy leaves no reason for Christ's substitutionary atonement--the reason for her faith--

Me? I don't think this really affects matters of Christian soteriology any more than the fact that Jesus was human, but not quite in the 'same way' that we are , renders salvation 'pointless' or what have you.

aikidoka

February 17th 2007, 01:49 AM

This guy:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=113171924

For responding to my saying - Your use of John 1 and Genesis 1:3 are pathetic uses of scripture in attempting to deny the divinity of Christ - with this:

They were adequate as only one example of how Trinity is based on one false claim after another.

John 1:14 And the WORD (GOD'S WORD) WAS MADE (BECAME) FLESH (THE CREATION), and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, ) full of grace and truth.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, LET THERE BE LIGHT (GOD'S WORD): and THERE WAS (BECAME) LIGHT (THE CREATION).

GOD'S WORD BECAME THE CREATION

in this myspace group thread http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=1&EntryID=31168154&CategoryID=0&get=1&adTopicId=0&lastpagesent=0&Mytoken=F8471C97-96F4-4635-BD505A331B61F8D539430686

aikidoka

February 17th 2007, 01:54 AM

Hmmmm. You still don't get it, do you? Take a Philosophy of History 101 class sometime. Just one.

ha, you're one to talk. Someone posted an article from your blog in a comment on mine and you showed a serious lack of understanding of the Bible and ANE history.

Cynic Sage

February 17th 2007, 08:21 PM

And I submit that is not what is going on in what you have chosen, but rather pretty mainstream Christian views. It is you who are marginalizing yourself in superiority from a great many brethren, not some fringe screwballs.

As far as "special treatment" I remind you once again of Paul's admonition with regard to the weaker brethren and further his admonition to think others better than yourself.

You know what. You're right. I was being a jerk.
I apologize. :bow:

You didn't answer my observation, and frankly, since you have shown zero respect for the opinion of thousands of Christians, I don't care to have the discussion, further, I am speaking of a real situation not a hypothetical one.

For staters. I don't care how many people hold to a position. If I think it's stupid and harmful, it's gonna be heard.

My hypothetical situation had to do with opposing making the HPV vaccine mandatory for the reason that "it promotes sexual immorality" as opposed to "It'll cost the taxpayer lots of money for no reason, Merck is rather shady, and more testing needs to be done."

For the reasons already stated in that article that have nothing to do with the reputation of the company, though pharmaceutical company with a good reputation is oxymoronic.

:lol: Good one. :thumb:

Dee Dee Warren

February 17th 2007, 09:51 PM

Thanks Johnny, it's all cool. :hug:

Darth Executor

February 18th 2007, 12:09 PM

Awww. :barf:

jpholding

February 18th 2007, 05:40 PM

Email:

Dear Mr James/ "Pea-Brain" Holding,

Having just read rest your - let's be generous - "article" concerning
the
so-called trilemma, after being pointed to your site by a Christian (alas, a
naive victim to the lie) onTheologyWeb, I was forced to conclude that you
are completely and purposefully ignorant. Your entire article can be
disproven by the fact that the overwhelming majority of human beings
consider YESHU neither to have been a liar nor a lunatic; and the notion
that they must, by default (as the only remaining possibility), beleive he
is Lord is idiotic at best. The matter of YESHU's identity is far more
complex than your simpleton mind is capable of grasping; in other words,
your entire approach is based on the HUGE ASSUMPTION that the "Gospels"
and
the letters of Saul the Apostate actually wrote the true words of YESHU.
Thus, you must add to your little cliche: "Lord, Linar, Lunatic, OR Lied
about".

Also, you fail to address the traditional Jewish view of YESHU in your
section addressing the people who considered YESHU to be a liar. Basically,
you assume that everyone who considers YESHU to be a liar also considers him
to have been a good person; RUBBISH. I must inform you that many Jews -
myself included - consider YESHU to have been an EVIL DEMON-POSSESSED LIAR,
the MAMZER son of an ADULTERESS. This is also the view of the Talmud. You
may disagree, but I'd recommend you try to include people of that opinion
into your little paradigm. Outside of the view that YESHU was Lord, I think
the idea that he was an EVIL (as opposed to "good") LIAR is the best
alternative: and when the REAL King-Messiah arrives, EVERYONE on the Earth
will realize what a rotton BEAST your YESHU idol [and the other 77.7% of the
three-headed-God-head] was.

And darn it, I also forgot to address the "Jesus is a space alien" option. :lolo: :rofl:

P-Dunn

February 18th 2007, 07:08 PM

At this point I'm not even sure I have to nominate Marshall Brain anymore, since he's so much of a Screwball already...But here's his newest video. It's his attempt at answering the question, "Where did the universe come from?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGKVj0chYGE

What's interesting is that he first says, "We don't know where the universe came from," and then he asserts, "Nature did it, not God." He also makes stupid comments like, "All of history and science supports God being imaginary."

I really don't get tired of this stuff. It's hilarious.

VenomX

February 18th 2007, 07:09 PM

Email:

And darn it, I also forgot to address the "Jesus is a space alien" option. :lolo: :rofl:

:lol: Ha ha ha ha ha ha :lol:

I forgot to nominate my boss Angie for the better of her two off the wall comments. The better one was said in response to "Why did God create us?" I started to say, "To demonstrate His glory by redeeming us from our sins."

Before I could expound, she said, "Where did you get that? God created us because He was bored."

BLAST! Refuted again by a well-thought out, Scripturally sound argument! :sigh:

Sparko

February 18th 2007, 07:19 PM

Email:

And darn it, I also forgot to address the "Jesus is a space alien" option. :lolo: :rofl:

Dang was that an email from Sevivon? It sounds exactly like him.

lilpixieofterror

February 18th 2007, 07:50 PM

And darn it, I also forgot to address the "Jesus is a space alien" option. :lolo: :rofl:

If Jesus was a space alien, wouldn't that mean he lied about the son of God, thus the liar, lunatic, lord is still valid? :ahem:

Dang was that an email from Sevivon? It sounds exactly like him.

My thoughts exactly!

Crystal

Meta Knight

February 18th 2007, 11:11 PM

Dang was that an email from Sevivon? It sounds exactly like him.
He's the only person I know who calls Jesus Yeshu.....

Oh, and his math is off. 33.3% + 77.7% is 111%.....

jpholding

February 19th 2007, 10:20 AM

Dang was that an email from Sevivon? It sounds exactly like him.

If it is, he's using a really weird name. I invited him over after he sent this reply to his Screwball Award:

I don't want an award; but I do welcome an explanation for how you counter
the argument of those that consider Yeshu to have been a wicked liar, as
opposed to a "good" liar. It's an infallible view; and infact, it's the only
view other than that Jesus was God (because, let's be fair to the
chronology, the Gospels are pretty much an accurate account of Jesus' own
delusions about himself).

LOL - your entire argument is based on the assertion that Jesus Christ was
good. Maybe you could write an article which actually deals with the
opposition posed to Christianity by Traditional Judaism, instead of by
crackpot atheists and fruitloop cultists. Could you have won the Debate at
Barcelona in 1263, James; how about you answer all the points raised by
Ramban, instead of the points raised by hair-brained pseudo-intellectual
"skeptics"? Well, it's just an idea for your website; and I'd certainly read
it. Here's the primary source material :
http://medspains.stanford.edu/demo/barcelona/disputation.html

Yep. Some "debate" 1200 years later is an authoritative source on the subject. :lolo:

jpholding

February 19th 2007, 10:32 AM

Site award for prior emailer re Harpur, who referred me to his site:

http://mindprod.com/religion/biblestudy.html

which offers such idiotic gems in his "Bible Study" as:

http://mindprod.com/religion/biblestudy.html#NEWTESTAMENT

Luke 2:23 Male obstetricians who do Caesarians are holy.

Luke 20:28-32 God forces women to marry dead husband's brothers

Luke :21:1-4 Widow's mite (tiny contribution) considered worthy because it was all she had. First recorded example of evangelist taking advantage of gullible, poor, old lady.

Acts 4:32-35 The Communist phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was lifted from this verse. It is amazing how the religious right imagines the bible condemns sharing as a sin. Perhaps they have never read it.

1 Cor 1:14:34-35 Women must keep silent in church

1 Cor. 1:15:18 Jesus warns sex partners not to fall asleep without withdrawing.

Hebrews 11:35 Woman tortured for rejecting Christianity

Note that that last refers rather to Jews of the pre-NT era tortured by Hellenizers under Antiochus.

It's like SAB...only more stupider. :lol:

Darth Executor

February 19th 2007, 11:43 AM

Sevivon was asking about articles regarding christian/jewish issues on your site earlier JP, so it's a very good chance that it really is him.

Sparko

February 19th 2007, 12:08 PM

If it is, he's using a really weird name. I invited him over after he sent this reply to his Screwball Award:

Yep. Some "debate" 1200 years later is an authoritative source on the subject. :lolo:

He likes using weird names like Bijoorthorkyll

What name did he use in the email? It sounds just like something sevivon would say. He likes calling Jesus "Yeshu" because that is some insult word in yiddish. And the whole "three headed God" strawman sounds like him too.

I would hate to think there are more out there like him.

One Bad Pig

February 19th 2007, 12:16 PM

1 Cor. 1:15:18 Jesus warns sex partners not to fall asleep without withdrawing.
:rofl: :twitch:

jpholding

February 19th 2007, 12:51 PM

He likes using weird names like Bijoorthorkyll

DANG!!! That's the very name. :rant: I guess he uses that because he can't spell, "Idiotic Jerk".

Isn't he matrixed right now? Whether he is or not, I'm extracting a pound fo flesh -- mods, please ban him from the tektonics.org section from now on.

Sparko

February 19th 2007, 01:06 PM

DANG!!! That's the very name. :rant: I guess he uses that because he can't spell, "Idiotic Jerk".

Isn't he matrixed right now? Whether he is or not, I'm extracting a pound fo flesh -- mods, please ban him from the tektonics.org section from now on.

he is on two months suspension right now. You will have to take it up with your direct moderator about banning him from this section. probably have to report him a few times.

Then again, if he signs up as another sockpuppet account, he will most likely be permantly banned from tweb itself.

jpholding

February 19th 2007, 02:00 PM

Well, he just sent me this, after I told him I was going to have him kicked out of hereL

JPH,

That has about the same implication for me as a 3-yr old telling me I'm not
allowed on his side of the playground - i.e. none.

Bijoor Thorkyll

P.S. Please remove my name from your Tektonics thread; I don't want any
paedophiles looking me up, thanks.

Hmm. I asked why, does he have enough of those looking him up already...?. :lmbo:

jpholding

February 19th 2007, 02:40 PM

Now this email I got IS screwy where HPV is concerned:

I was Googling around looking for examples of religious individuals
reacting negatively to the Human Papillomavirus vaccine, and came
across your quote in response to "Letter to a Christian Nation": "Why
have you misled your readers by saying that Christians 'want to
preserve cervical cancer as an incentive towards abstinence'? That is
false. The reasoning is rather than[sic] such a vaccine would
encourage more wanton behavior, thereby increasing the risks."

I fail to see any substantive difference between the two statements.
Casual sex is a problem even if one of the potentially fatal
consequences is removed; there are certainly plenty of other
consequences to worry about. Let's illustrate this with a thought
experiment. Imagine someone came up with a vaccine that prevented
tooth decay. Would you oppose such vaccination because, without the
threat of cavities, they might eat more sweets, leading to obesity? I
have to admit I find it hard to believe anyone would.

So: There's no difference between describing your opponents' views in terms of them wanting people to become deathly sick and wanting them to have better health. :lolo: That's screwy no matter which side of that debate you're on.

jpholding

February 19th 2007, 03:07 PM

Sev sends us another love letter: :whistle:

JPH childishly goes and posts my name AGAIN; but what would YOSHKE do? If
Yoshke was God, and not the illegitimate demon-possessed mamzer that he
really was, I think he's going to send you to ROT IN HELL for being such an
*******. However in reality you're actually going to be sent - by Hashem -
to ROT IN HELL for being such an ******* Christian, LOL. You're screwed!

Wow. He's a fundy after all. :hehe:

OU812

February 19th 2007, 03:23 PM

I forgot to nominate my boss Angie for the better of her two off the wall comments. The better one was said in response to "Why did God create us?" I started to say, "To demonstrate His glory by redeeming us from our sins."

Before I could expound, she said, "Where did you get that? God created us because He was bored."

BLAST! Refuted again by a well-thought out, Scripturally sound argument! :sigh:

To me, what's more worthy of a 'Screwball Award' is you pointing out the 'absurdities' - i.e. "lack of any systematic theology" - found in a casual conversation, as if the people involved were actually trying to make an 'argument'...

It's as 'screwball' as it would be of me to then say "how disingenuous of you it is to sarcastically point out the faults of a colleague just so that you can attempt to make a statement about God." This is in reference to below:

And further, I nominate my boss, Angie, for the worst theology from a professed Christian I have heard in a long time:

We were speculating about the potential of close familial ties between the parents of a particular employee, and I made some sarcastic comment about how unfathomable it is that God creates people like that to essential be utter wastes of time and space. Angie pipes up with this gem: "God only created Adam and Eve. After that, we were on our own. We create people like that, not God."

I wonder if this so-called Christian realizes 1) her philosphy leaves no reason for Christ's substitutionary atonement--the reason for her faith--and 2) reeks so pathetically of deism that I needed a gas mask and steel tongs to dispose of it.

Each day I understand why the need for basic education in matters of faith is extremely necessary.

To which I had answered:

"Me? I don't think this really affects matters of Christian soteriology any more than the fact that Jesus was human, but not quite in the 'same way' that we are human, somehow renders salvation 'pointless' , 'half-hearted', or what have you."

:wink:

jpholding

February 19th 2007, 10:26 PM

Website award:

http://isbushantichrist.blogspot.com/

Sparko

February 19th 2007, 11:24 PM

VenomX

February 19th 2007, 11:30 PM

To me, what's more worthy of a 'Screwball Award' is you pointing out the 'absurdities' - i.e. "lack of any systematic theology" - found in a casual conversation, as if the people involved were actually trying to make an 'argument'...

It's as 'screwball' as it would be of me to then say "how disingenuous of you it is to sarcastically point out the faults of a colleague just so that you can attempt to make a statement about God." This is in reference to below:

To which I had answered:

"Me? I don't think this really affects matters of Christian soteriology any more than the fact that Jesus was human, but not quite in the 'same way' that we are human, somehow renders salvation 'pointless' , 'half-hearted', or what have you."

:wink:

This wasn't a "casual conversation." My co-worker (Ryan) and I were having a theological discussion, during which he was formulating arguments for polytheism or pantheism vs. Christian monotheism. Angie is a busybody who always has to be right, and thus was chiming in her two cents.

This is the same thing that everone else here does with people's posts, the only difference is that the conversations occured at work as opposed to TWeb. The context of our conversation WAS formulating and defending positions.

Therefore I see nothing wrong with the nominations. :tongue:

Mountain Man

February 20th 2007, 09:49 AM

I nominate Wyzaard for his rather novel attempt at refuting legal apologetics:

Problem is, who has established the "standards of legal evidence" as an authoritative justificational methodology? Again, you're on that ladder...

Oh, and you're misapplying the standards anyways: Jesus is not, as Lee Strobel and other hacks would have it, on the stand being accused of being or not being the 'son of god' with the 'facts' of the resurrection being the established parameters of 'guilt'. Problem:

Frist, it is not Jesus on the stand... reality is the one on trial for being a chistian cosmology! You and others put forth evidence (resurections and so forth) as to convict reality of being christian. Note that by this more accurate formulation, reality is presumed innocent of being christian until proven guilty; unless you can definitively show that reality is as the christian faith describes it, then it is free of your accusations.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1860188&postcount=83

Darth Executor

February 20th 2007, 10:10 AM

he is on two months suspension right now. You will have to take it up with your direct moderator about banning him from this section. probably have to report him a few times.

Then again, if he signs up as another sockpuppet account, he will most likely be permantly banned from tweb itself.

He requested the two month suspension IIRC.

jpholding

February 20th 2007, 12:00 PM

JP check out the guy in the article that Justin links to in this thread.

he claims to be God, the Antichrist, and him and his followers are tatooing 666 on themselves.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=92777

Yeah, I've had someome write to me on that guy. :lolo:

Speaking of nuts, TWO emails this morning....

#1

You seem to be like most other Christians I have met in my lifetime. Most who have never read the bible, but believe purely because their parents believe.
You NEED to believe for some reason that it is a book of fact and prophecy,not just a fiction novel written by one of the world's first authors. Like an Alcoholic needs alcohol, you need the bible.
If you had studied Constantine and Theodosius vigilantly, you would realise that the bible was written in about 400 AD.
Constantines influence was huge.
Did you know that there is not one single shred of proof to the existence of any of the characters in the bible?
Find me one grave and some DNA. You can't and won't because it doesn't exist. What about the Dead Sea Scrolls??
Are you so naive as to believe that forgery only exists in recent times? Explain the Sumerian tablets!!
Short list of biblical mistakes. English version.
day 2, let there be light.
day 4, sun and moon were created. where did the light come from on day 2?
If the universe is only 6000 years old, explain dinosaurs. You can't be a true Christian and believe in dinosaurs without being a hypocrite. After all, the ice age was supposed to be over 40 million years ago.
Adam would have to have been blood type O, and Eve was created from one of his ribs so she would share the same blood type.
Explain the variants of today, because O only produces O.
Incest would have been running wild, as there was only Adam and Eve and their sons and Daughters.
Adam named all the animals, who named all the fish??
The ages in the bible conflict with the population growth of that era. If each lived to 900 years or so, there would have been very few generations between the creation of man and the birth of Christ.
Talking snakes, canes turning into snakes and then back again, women turning into a pile of salt, talking donkeys.
MY FAVOURITE. Noah's Ark.
Now there's a bedtime story for you. Here we have a man and wife team with their 3 sons and wives to tend to over 800,000 different species of life on the planet. (The figure is closer to 2 million, but I'm being generous.)
40 days and 40 nights of rain. Global flooding. Animals like Kangaroos and Koala bears with specialised diets.
8 people to tend to the feeding, segregation of meat eaters and the cleaning of stalls. FOR 11 MONTHS.
A boat that took 120 years to build. A boat with the total size of a small football field and only 3 levels.
How do you fit 800,000 species of animals and enough food to sustain them for 11 months on a vessel that size??
Eight people leave the ark. How did we end up with so many different skin colours and languages. (And the children were naughty, so God made them speak in tongues.) Why are the tongues specific to colour and race, and why are the races specific to certain regions of the planet??
God is explained as being Omniscient. He knows all that has been and all that ever will be.
Therefore we don't have free will. How so you say. Easy, for the bible to be written and Adam and Eve to be expelled from the garden of Eden and all of the other happenings in the bible to take place, the sequence of events had to happen in a given order.
Adam had to be created, Eve also. Eve had to eat from the tree of knowledge to be expelled from the garden of Eden.
Cain had to murder Abel. If any of these events did not take place in a sequence, the bible could not be written as it was.
Therefore God had to make it happen as it reads. If God exists, he knows that I am typing this email right now and he knows you will receive and read it. He also would know if you did not read it. You believe that your destiny is in your own hands. Crap.
If you truly believe in God the way you say you do, you do not have 1 choice to make in your life because control is all his.
Judgement day. God already knows who the people to be judged are if he is truly omniscient. So for these people to pass judgment and others to fail, they must enact their lives in a certain way. Do yourself a favour. Pull your head out of your bum, look around at the world we live in and try to heal it with something other than a fiction novel. Criticise people like Dr. Long if you wish, but have some believable and credible proof when you do. I haven't read his book, but have had some email correspondence with him. His mission is to dispel the biblical nonsense.
Mine isn't. I believe there is a creator. I just don't know what our purpose is. Did you know that the female human being is the only female animal on the planet with a clitoris and the ability to orgasm? The only one. Why??
By the way, it is interesting to note the number of different authors of the bible and the corrections they supposedly made to Moses first writings. 77 authors?? Theodosius collated all of these writings and combined them into one single document creating the Christian religion. About 400 AD. Effectively, Christianity did not exist before this time. Do your groundwork properly before you open up a website which is so critically and predictably one-sided. Every child that has died or been abused, every disease that exists, every murder that has taken place is all his work if you truly believe he is omniscient.
Some say that the snake that spoke to Eve was possessed by Satan. Problem with that theory is that the heaven's were newly created and Satan had not yet been cast down. I can put a hole in any biblical story you wish to throw at me.
Try me out. The gauntlet is on the table. Or you could go and hide in a corner with your bible and pray that I'll go away.
Fat chance mate. Gravity ane Relativity are your biggest enemies, along with Science and Genetics.

:twitch:

I invited him here for humilation. Then, #2:

Can I suggest that you change the cartoons/pictures on your home page? Not because they are insulting or whatever--they just look so amateurish! I'm sure that people are discouraged from taking the site as seriously as they ought to because of those cartoons.

Just my insignificant two pence...

Well, let's see....I have two pro cartoonists in my consult...one is a major league animator, and the other went to the prestigious Kubert school for cartoonists....both give my work thumbs up...who do I believe?....hmmm.....hmmm....

He got the "insignificant" part right.... :lol:

OU812

February 20th 2007, 01:33 PM

Angie is a busybody who always has to be right, and thus was chiming in her two cents.

Oh, the irony......especially in light of these remarks:

And further, I nominate my boss, Angie, for the worst theology from a professed Christian I have heard in a long time:

I forgot to nominate my boss Angie for the better of her two off the wall comments. The better one was said in response to "Why did God create us?" I started to say, "To demonstrate His glory by redeeming us from our sins."

BLAST! Refuted again by a well-thought out, Scripturally sound argument! :sigh:

:lol:

That's to start with.....then:

I wonder if this so-called Christian realizes 1) her philosphy leaves no reason for Christ's substitutionary atonement --the reason for her faith--

Me?
I don't think this really affects matters of Christian salvation any more than the fact that Jesus was human, but not quite in the 'same way' that we are human, makes salvation 'pointless', 'half-hearted', or what have you.

To which you didn't answer.

Now, if your argument for God being the 'direct', literal creator of everyone can only be 'true'/'factual' because Christ's substitutionary atonement -- or at least as you understand it -- would be otherwise in 'jeopardy' if the former were not true, then you need to get a better argument. The problem is with your argument. Not that that puts you at more of a 'disadvantage' than the other people involved in that workplace theological discussion/debate, but you certainly aren't any better with your arguments than they are with theirs....:wink:

lilpixieofterror

February 20th 2007, 01:47 PM

Gosh... the screwist people write you, don't they? I'd like him/her to explain how the Bible could of been written in 400 AD by Constantine and Theodosius when:

1. We have NT copies dated (by non Christians) to the 2nd and 3rd century AD.
2. We have people quoting the NT in the late 1st and thoughout the 2nd and 3rd century AD.
3. How could Constantine be the author of a book from 400 AD when he died in 337 AD?
4. Theodosius died in 395 AD, so again how could he author a book in 400AD, when he was dead?
5. And last, how could the two of them write the Bible together when there's over 30 years between Constantine's death and Theodosius birth?

Gosh... I hope he/she comes here... we can use a new troll to slap around since we broke our old one. :frown:

Crystal

ApologiaPhoenix

February 20th 2007, 01:53 PM

Yeah, I've had someome write to me on that guy. :lolo:

Speaking of nuts, TWO emails this morning....

#1

:twitch:

I invited him here for humilation. Then, #2:

Well, let's see....I have two pro cartoonists in my consult...one is a major league animator, and the other went to the prestigious Kubert school for cartoonists....both give my work thumbs up...who do I believe?....hmmm.....hmmm....

He got the "insignificant" part right.... :lol:

Last I checked, the light was created on day one also......

I hope he comes here. He looks like fun.

Cynic Sage

February 20th 2007, 02:11 PM

Website award:

http://isbushantichrist.blogspot.com/

And here I was thinking that the antichrist was supposed to be eloquent.

jpholding

February 20th 2007, 03:47 PM

Gosh... the screwist people write you, don't they? I'd like him/her to explain how the Bible could of been written in 400 AD by Constantine and Theodosius when:

1. We have NT copies dated (by non Christians) to the 2nd and 3rd century AD.

Obviously, there's a huge conspiracy in the paleographic industry. The copies actually date to 1732 AD. Booyah! :smug:

2. We have people quoting the NT in the late 1st and thoughout the 2nd and 3rd century AD.

It's all either 1) just floating oral tradition; 2) actually quotes of lost Hindoo scriptures the Christians stole from, then burned all the copies of; 3) the works of those people quoting it are forged, too! BOOYAH! :tongue:

3. How could Constantine be the author of a book from 400 AD when he died in 337 AD?

Duh....you never heard of automatic writing? BOOyah! :bonk:

4. Theodosius died in 395 AD, so again how could he author a book in 400AD, when he was dead?

He wasn't QUITE dead. And they left a pad and a pencil by his gravesite. BoOyah! :rasberry:

5. And last, how could the two of them write the Bible together when there's over 30 years between Constantine's death and Theodosius birth?

Obvious! They were both zombies. :blush: Boooooyah!

Gosh... I hope he/she comes here... we can use a new troll to slap around since we broke our old one. :frown:

Shhhhhhhh....don't scare 'em.... :hehe:

The Curtmudgeon

February 20th 2007, 03:49 PM

Mountain Man

February 20th 2007, 04:28 PM

Crys, like the old saw about the Irish, Biblical skeptics don't see a need to let the facts get in the way of a good story. Don't expect to confound him with facts: Since his arguments don't depend on facts, you won't get anywhere by throwing them at him.

The (he's arguing from the "I'm right because I say I'm right" position) Curtmudgeon
As I see it, the whole point behind throwing facts at blockheads like that is to show others that his arguments are worthless. You're not going to change his mind, obviously, but you could very well prevent someone else from getting tangled in his web of lies.

Goonerman

February 20th 2007, 05:00 PM

Don't forget the time machine that Constantine and Eusebius built with blueprints supplied by Bill and Ted and translated by Socrates. :lol:

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 20th 2007, 08:43 PM

Obvious! They were both zombies. :blush: Boooooyah!

Yep, in fact they were infected with the same strain of the T-virus that the ressurected saints in Matthew were...

lilpixieofterror

February 20th 2007, 11:46 PM

Gosh, looks like everyone had fun making fun of the moron on that one. :hehe:

Darth Executor

February 21st 2007, 01:14 AM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=92632

"Jesus of Nazareth lived Circa 100 BC; the Gospel-Writers transplanted the biography of Jesus into the First Century AD, by changing some historic details (like names and places) in the texts."

Hello,

However seemingly absurd the above statement sounds, I’m going to predict that you can’t actually prove – without a doubt - that it’s wrong; and my point is that the true origins of Christianity are a "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Accepted orthodoxy is baseless.

AKH

And JP, that video on the Dawkins Delusion on tektonics was hilarious. Yeah, it's beeen there for two weeks, I know. I've been kinda slow on the updates lately. :shifty:

Thedonhopeless

February 21st 2007, 04:00 AM

hope im never on this list =/

jpholding

February 21st 2007, 07:34 AM

Follow up email from prior moron -- highlights noted by me:

Firstly, I never said YOUR parents were Christians, obviously they were sensible people.
Have YOU ever read the bible from cover to cover??
Explain:- 1) General incoherence.
Definition:- Speech or thinking that is essentially incomprehensible to others because words or phrases are joined together without a logical or meaningful connection.
This one sentence describes the bible. Glad you pointed it out.
The items that you have supposedly refuted, have you used logical scientific answers or more Christian mythology??
Etc is an easy way to express the inability to continue a debate in a sensible and meaningful way.
I suppose you still believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus too.
Happy to go to theologyweb.com and have a laugh at those who are so blinded by their need to believe that they cannot see.
Unfortunately religion is a very dangerous and deceptive tool. It has been used in the past and is still used today to justify all types of atrocities. Almost every war has been held because of it. If you wish to carry out an action, there is a passage in there that you can use to justify it.
The questions you are unable to answer fit into your dot point 4, because you have no answers.
Explain the blood types without evolution.
Explain the different races of people from 2 supposedly white (or coloured people).
Explain how the ark worked.
Explain dinosaurs and the true age of the universe.
Explain free will.
The will to make conscious decisions to control our own destiny.
I said it before and I'll say it again. Omniscience is what throws any of your arguments out the door.
Explain the 2600 or so different religions and branches thereof.

It's people like you who stuff up all week, insulting people and thinking evil things and then go to church on Sunday, get on your knees and confess your sins and then do it all again the next week that are the problem. Bloody hypocrites.
The way I see it is that I don't need to humiliate you, your doing a fine job of that all on your own.
And whilst you think you can humiliate me, I have had experts try, let alone amateurs like yourself.
I can insult you all day long and you can do the same to me, but it doesn't solve any puzzles or answer any questions.
For the record, I thought Christians were supposed to be tolerant and understanding people, you obviously don't hold those values.
The big question which you can't answer is what makes your religion the right one when the original scriptures weren't even written in English?? It's convenient every piece of hard evidence to prove the bibles authenticity has been destroyed or lost.
You think I'm a screwball, look in the mirror mate. I'm not the one running around with a book in my hand that only covers a minute part of our history and believing it to be the answer to everything. You've taken the lazy and easy way out.
Why is every natural disaster in the bible attributed to God, but now they are exactly that, NATURAL DISASTERS.
Maybe people were more gullible back then, surely not. The Earth was flat, until science disproved this.
The Sun and all the other planets revolved around the Earth, until science disproved this. Interesting thing is that the Bible has had no additions since about 80 AD. Has God decided that there is no-one on the planet worth talking to so that more psalms can be added to it?? Who examined the Virgin Mary to make sure she was actually a virgin??
Since by scientific records the hymen wasn't discovered until around 550 AD. Do you know what Etymology is??
Word study. It's a fascinating science because it alone proves the bible could not have been written by anyone prior to 400 AD.
Most of our words and their history have only been developed in the last 1600 years.
For the record, I attended Sunday school when I was a child of about 5 years of age. After hearing the stories it contained,
at that age I was clever enough to see the wool was pulled over my eyes. Obviously you are not yet.
I look forward to browsing your website and knocking over your Christian mythology piece by piece.

:lolo: Oh man....I didn't think it was possible, but I think we actually found someone dumber than Johnny Skeptic....and more invincibly ignorant at the same time!

jpholding

February 21st 2007, 07:38 AM

Email...and this is all it said:

Yeah,
Praise Hercules

O....kay. Now I'm convinced. I'm deconverting. :hehe:

lilpixieofterror

February 21st 2007, 11:31 AM

:lolo: Oh man....I didn't think it was possible, but I think we actually found someone dumber than Johnny Skeptic....and more invincibly ignorant at the same time!

Is he dumber than Jimbo and bumbler too? Gosh... that's scary... :eek:

Gosh, he so needs to come here... this will be pure entertainment. :rofl:

ApologiaPhoenix

February 21st 2007, 11:38 AM

Email...and this is all it said:

O....kay. Now I'm convinced. I'm deconverting. :hehe:

JPH. Wanna go lion hunting together?

konaman

February 21st 2007, 11:53 AM

Could someone post the link to the Dawkin's video on tektonics?

Darth Executor

February 21st 2007, 12:06 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

And for the record, never give JP any videos. He doesn't watch them. :rasberry:

konaman

February 21st 2007, 12:27 PM

Thanks...it was quite funny. The picture of the guys w/ape suits on, holding Dawkins books was a nice touch!

Sir-Think-A-Lot

February 21st 2007, 03:25 PM

Gosh, looks like everyone had fun making fun of the moron on that one. :hehe:

Yep and I could help taking a poke at member either.

Goonerman

February 21st 2007, 03:58 PM

Although this is an old review, in Amazon, from 2003, I wish to nominate a reader of the book of the debate which Gary Habermas and Antony Flew had concerning the Resurrection of Jesus 20 years ago:

" Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? I'm still not sure, or if it matters, 19 April 2003
Reviewer: Mr. N. Pugh "frodo-the-cat" (U.K.) - See all my reviews

This book is a live debate transcribed into book form, which is something that doesn't usually work very well, and it doesn't here in my opinion. Antony Flew has some good pointed arguments in places, but too often fails to respond to the specific charges made against his rather woolly atheistic case against the resurrection (namely, that it doesn't make philosophically credible sense). Although, I think we have to admire him for daring to step into the pit to take on the best that academic evangelicalism has to throw at him - they 'gang up'on him rather too obviously towards the end, when the chairman/editor of the book starts laying into Flew's case too. Habermas is one of the most erudite defenders of the resurrection of Jesus around today, and yet somehow he likewise fails to convince - I could not help feeling that without the resurrection belief he too would be an atheist, which seems utterly absurd. If you had to understand a fraction of the evidence and data as Professor Habermas does to come into a faith in God then most of humanity will remain 'lost'.In short, you expect a good old fashioned punch up of a debate, and you get a mildly interesting, but essentially disappointing book - I hoped it would be one I could get friends to read, but they'd be bored by it, more than I was. It has a promising title, and the vote that goes against Flew sounds interesting, but I was glad when I got to the end and simply disagreed with the voting which could have been a foregone conclusion given its evangelical audience. There are better books than this: try Josh McDowell's The Resurrection Factor for starters.

It fascinates me to think that most of humanity since the dawn of our emergence, have no clue about the fuss that is made about Jesus and his life, and yet to some in our age certain particular beliefs about his life are said to be so important that all our eternal fates rest upon them... which seems to me absurd. Something deeper is surely going on, if anything... "

The screwball bits should be fairly obvious!

I still cannot believe that the new idiot JPH alerted us to said that about the hymen not being discovered until AD 550! Does that mean that humans did not evolve or were created until then, according to him? :teeth: Alas, no sex before AD 550! Oh, what was that I just broke on my wedding night? What's all that disgusting blood-on-towel lark all about, then? Oh, I get it. Babies were born through the bellybutton before then, and as for the other physiological implications, well, the mods might have to intervene! :eek:

And now we know, folks, that the Babylonian, Ugaritic, Egyptian, Assyrian archives, blah bleh bleh, ad nauseam, were all fakes! As for the Chester Beatty papyri, only a few hours' drive from where I live, nah, they are all fakes too. After all, remember, we don't know when Jesus' birthday was, so He didn't exist (remember I sent you that corker of a quote from the Dublin heckler?). I'm still waiting for evidence of the time machine Constantine used to plant the manuscripts. You know, the ones which were written before the invention of writing, with the help of his successor Theodosius the time travelling zombie-emperor. No wonder those MSS smell of must- or is it mummy? My word, thinking of Bill and Ted, then that means that Socrates and his pupil and biographer Plato were illiterate! I think we should have placards made and go outside Viking Penguin together and protest at them selling all those spoof translations: Tacitus, Caesar, Josephus, Livy, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Philo, Lucian, both Plinies, Piso the Jesus forger ! :tongue: :wink: Burn down the universities, and also the HQ of the Loeb Classical Library! Wait, mustn't give the screwballs ideas. I mean seriously, these idiots if they had their way would be the ones who would REALLY plunge us into the Dark Ages!

Cynic Sage

February 22nd 2007, 12:54 AM

:gobahn:"GET ON THE ROAD TO FREEDOM!" :b_dance:

http://theroadtofreedom.ytmnd.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_freedom

:lmbo:

ApologiaPhoenix

February 22nd 2007, 12:55 AM

Yep and I could help taking a poke at member either.

Where has the coward been?

jpholding

February 22nd 2007, 07:31 AM

More from the new Johnny Skeptic:

It's become obvious that your only form of communication is insults without answers, hence I am debating with a dunce.
Screwball:-
Do snakes now or have they ever had a voice box and the ability to communicate in human language? No.
Human longevity average of about 85 years. Adam, Eve and lots of their predecessors, 900+ years. LOL.
A boat the size of a footy field that holds 800,000 animals tended to for 11 months by 8 people. LOL.
It would appear that your definition of stupidity is the same as mine of ignorance.
You go cuddle your bible like a good little Christian and believe that your world is all warm and fuzzy, but don't try to con the rest of the world with your BS. For the record, Faith = Doubt. If you need faith, you have doubt.
I have no doubt that the bible is science fiction, purely because by definition, most of the writings defy scientific logic and the laws of general relativity. The Harry Potter books make more sense.
But then, I guess you would be too scared to watch them because of the spiritual ramifications.

I asked if he was too chicken to come here and added appropos sound effects.

ApologiaPhoenix

February 22nd 2007, 09:22 AM

More from the new Johnny Skeptic:

I asked if he was too chicken to come here and added appropos sound effects.

Scientific logic? I'm wondering what that term means.....

Sparko

February 22nd 2007, 12:24 PM

Johnny skeptic better not come here. he's been banned permanently.

lilpixieofterror

February 22nd 2007, 12:48 PM

Here's a good screwball I've been having an exchange with over on aplo 301:

"I AM" is one of the names of God, isn't it? "I AM" the truth..."I AM" the way..."I AM" the light...

Didn't Jesus say, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."

Now, comparing alleged statements of Jesus to the works of countless other mystics throughout history who achieved a similar Unitive state, and we see similar patterns and "I AM" statements.

"...The universe was not there; only I was.
Adam wasn't there; only I was.
That light of unity was "I"; I am the Everlasting, and I am
the prophet Elias.
The universe gets its light from me;
Adam took his form from me;
I am the All-Wise, the Knower, the Judge of all judges."

-Jalaluddin Rumi (1207-1273)

Have you read much of Rumi's poetry? It really is beautiful. He was a mystic gifted with a flair for poetry.

During the mystical Unitive state, everything becomes identified with the self. Distinctions between self-other, subject-object become impossible to make, and it's hard to describe because words make distinctions. During the grip of an intense unitive state, the mystic can only use words which don't create distinctions...namely, "I AM". Such as "I AM" God, "I AM" the universe, "I AM" all, "I AM" you, "I AM" light, etc.

It's a very consciousness-expanding experience, since everything is percieved by the mystic to be part of the self, self seems to expand to include all. A feeling of omniscience is the result. These temporary experiences make a permanent imprint on the mystic.

As far as I can tell, it appears mysticism is true because he said mysticism is true, any contradictions are to be ignored, example here:

You don't get it, do you? Any apparent contradictions are only skin-deep, and they are the result of non-mystic / exoteric / literalist Christians misunderstanding his mystical words...twisting and editing them to support a non-mystic, exoteric, literal interpretation, either out of ignorance or ambition.

Isn't it pretty interesting that anything that contradicts his conclusion is automatically wrong?

The nonsense starts on page 33...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1870829#post1870829

Crystal