April 2008 Screwballs

[One Bad Pig]

Adam, talking about the early church vis-a-vis the gospels:

In 1960 when I studied the gospels just to see what they say, I got nothing about the Church at all. At least not from the Synoptic gospels. except for a few verses in Matthew that Higher Criticism excizes. The word "ecclesia" means "elect", not church.
Nevertheless, not finding any of my preferred Protestant denominations the slightest bit like the Synoptic gospels, I gravitated towards older traditions. I seriously considered Timothy's Ware's Orthodox wares, but got baptized in 1969 as a Roman Catholic. Yes, RC and EO are much like the ECF and the apocryphal gospels and acts, but I never have claimed even they were a perfect fit (the Orthodox not even approximate) with the gospels. In the first circle there are the Synoptics. In the second circle of expanding "churchiness" there's John and the epistles. Still not what you (Jezz) could rightfully call the apostolic church in the sense you're stretching it. Expand the circle further to early Church Fathers. You're getting warm, but by definition we know these guys were not the Twelve, not even if they are direct successors to the Twelve, nor even if they claimed apostolic succession in a broader sense than just twelve chairs. So by the time you get to what could with some justice be called the apostolic church in the modern sense, there is no necessary tie with the apostles.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

DJ does it again....

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...n-atheism.html

Let's see. God doesn't need or want a son and him having a son is ridiculous on its face.

God can't get angry. (You think someone would understand divine impassibility more...) I agree God doesn't get angry. DJ treats it as if the Bible saying that means it's an argument. It's anthropomorphism.

Oh yes. God hates skeptics and questions.

The further a man descends into atheism, the more irrational he becomes.

[Chaotic Void]

No one has Nominated PitchforkPat for this thread yet? I'm shocked...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...56&postcount=1

There’s a story from Leviticus 9-10where Moses’ brother Aaron loses two of his sons. It’s the way he loses his sons that is very telling.

In chapter 9, the boys, Nadab and Abihu, are busily helping their father kill animals to please God. God is really happy with the sacrifices and he makes a special appearance. During his appearance, fire goes out from him and he “consumes” the dead animals. What happens next is more than a little perplexing and a bit disturbing.

Nadab and Abihu offer fire to God. Unfortunately for them, it’s not the right kind of fire. It’s “unauthorized” or “strange”. It’s actually quite the mistake because it makes God really angry and he sets them both on fire and burns the boys to death. Apparently they had been pretty good priests up till then. What have you done for me lately?

God’s anger is not easily appeased, though and he’s soon threatening others. In chapter 10, Aaron is understandably grieving for his two sons, who have just died an agonizing death and whose charred bodies are currently being dragged out of the camp, when Moses delivers more bad news. Aaron is to stop grieving right away, and if God catches him showing any signs of grief, like leaving his hair untidy, God will kill him too.

My question is how this violent, callous behavior is supposed to inspire love and devotion to this being?

[Chaotic Void]

LGM on my comparing reading of Shakespeare to reading of the Bible...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...7&postcount=68

Here's another thing Void, Shakespeare is FICTION, hopefully you realize you don't have to DEFEND what Cornwall did as a GOOD thing, and perfectly in keeping with the CONTRACT he had with Lear and Gloucester...

Maybe someday you will get a CLUE and realize that this whole OT story is also a COMPLETE fiction. But for some odd reason, misguided 21st century OT idolatrists have to DEFEND this entire ancient, misanthropic mythology, and every one of your god's alleged homicides and genocides, because that's part of the twisted memeplex that infects your brain.

You are still young, and you are intelligent, and I sense you are a caring individual. You don't HAVE to be this way, you don't have to mimic these ignorant apologists wannabes. They are a BAD influence on you. Escape their influence and insanity while you can...THINK for YOURSELF.

[saladfingers]

i want to nominate my bruther for the skruball award, cause he just put lawndry sope in the dishwasher, and now theys suds all over the dang floor.

[historic salve]

What?

[knight2]

Hello, been reading for awhile but haven't posted here till now.

Nick, that was actually Joe Holman that posted that article on DC, and I was just coming here to nominate the whole thing. I also nominate all the commenters who gush about how it's "great stuff" and the like. This paragraph was utter nonsense:

And God wouldn’t need or want a son. The idea of a god having a son doesn’t even make sense on the face of it. That is, it makes about as much sense as a god who ejaculates to make a son (if you can imagine that?!) Nope, God wouldn’t have a son and he certainly wouldn’t have a virgin-born son, and he wouldn’t have his son brutally killed and then raised to life again for the purpose of setting up a death-glorifying, cannibalistic cult where beings who are infinitely less powerful than he sit around and eat the flesh of his dead/resurrected little boy, and then proceed to clamor on about how junior’s the greatest thing since sliced bread (well, actually before sliced bread!)

[Chaotic Void]

Hello, been reading for awhile but haven't posted here till now.

Welcome!

Nick, that was actually Joe Holman that posted that article on DC, and I was just coming here to nominate the whole thing. I also nominate all the commenters who gush about how it's "great stuff" and the like. This paragraph was utter nonsense:

I agree. That is utter nonsense. But then again, that's nothing unexpected from the readers and writers of Debunking Christianity...

[knight2]

Thanks SS.

Nick, I'm not so sure I agree that God doesn't get angry. He certainly doesn't get angry in the way we humans do, i.e. in a sudden reaction to something that we can't change (as Joe tried to suggest was the only definition of anger). But I don't think it's a complete anthropomorphism either... I don't think God is NOT angry.

Here's a pretty good article on divine impassibility:

http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Is...assibility/94/

A decent representative quote from the article:

So emotion in humans is not an unmixed good. Emotion is better than no emotion, but its expression is often the result of selfishness and ignorance. With God it is otherwise. He has an emotional life— he cares and loves and judges and has compassion on his sinful world. But his life—unlike our own emotional lives—is not spasmodic and moody. God does not have a temper. He cannot be cowardly or vain. Rather his “emotional life” is an expression of his perfect goodness and knowledge. The life of God is not first passive and then reactive, as ours is, but it is wholly active.

[aikidoka]

DJ does it again....

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...n-atheism.html

Let's see. God doesn't need or want a son and him having a son is ridiculous on its face.

God can't get angry. (You think someone would understand divine impassibility more...) I agree God doesn't get angry. DJ treats it as if the Bible saying that means it's an argument. It's anthropomorphism.

Oh yes. God hates skeptics and questions.

The further a man descends into atheism, the more irrational he becomes.

How silly of me, I actually read the post thinking there might be some justification for that, but nope.

Did it ever occur to them that a number of plausible solutions exist to the so called need/want "objection". And where do they get the idea that God needed a Son?

[jpholding]

i want to nominate my bruther for the skruball award, cause he just put lawndry sope in the dishwasher, and now theys suds all over the dang floor.

That's your brain fluid leaking out.

[TolkienFan]

In this thread, Pixie had asked whether there was a reasonable reason to doubt the traditions that say most of the apostles were martyred. Seasanctuary responded with this:

People have cause to fabricate support for their own religion. I hope this does not come as a shock.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...8&postcount=70

If this is a reasonable doubt (which has no evidence to speak of backing it up in this case), I guess we can reasonably doubt all of history. We could just say Alexander the Great didn't conquer most of the known world because those who say he did obviously wanted to make him look good.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Thanks SS.

Nick, I'm not so sure I agree that God doesn't get angry. He certainly doesn't get angry in the way we humans do, i.e. in a sudden reaction to something that we can't change (as Joe tried to suggest was the only definition of anger). But I don't think it's a complete anthropomorphism either... I don't think God is NOT angry.

Here's a pretty good article on divine impassibility:

http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Is...assibility/94/

A decent representative quote from the article:

I would concur with the view of divine impassibility.

[lilpixieofterror]

This should of got a screwball in January, but I just discovered it so I guess that's ok:

Furtunatelly, the responces were quite positive and that made me think that atheists can comment even with other atheists. At least atheists are open minded...Then I found this article from the Christian Apologetic website, Tektonics - "You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...."

....

So sorry to spoil the Christian's party, there can never be a "Fundy Atheist" because there are no degrees of non-belief. Christian fundies are simply equating something they don't understand with their own familiar belief systems.

Oh by the way, if you have read the Tektonic article, this is the best site that answered some of them.
http://www.zimbio.com/Atheism/articl.../Fundy+Atheist

Just wait till you read the article he linked to, it's pretty much a bunch of links to talkorigins.org that really don't answer the question. So is that a golden screwball?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

So the guy responding to Tekton doesn't understand what a parody is.