April 2008 Screwballs

[Kelp]

It's fine. Just a suggestion.

[TheAnalogman]

It's fine. Just a suggestion.

I promise to buy more server space if the need arises. I'll have to get a second job it seems.

[Kelp]

[DoomRater]

Huh. That's despite profanity never actually entering into SSBB to begin with?

The rest of the edited dialog is still hilarious- "And he's swinging it around like a penguin. He's not Dedede, he's a penguin."

[Kelp]

Well, it's just the word at the end of the clip. It's against the rules.

[Abykale]

I didn't think it was funny the first time since it wiped out a post I was trying to submit.

All you have to do when that happens is click the back button. Doesn't work so well when you've been automatically logged out and try to submit something, but with the April Fool's gag I never had any trouble.



Anyway I noticed that LGM's been quite busy on this thread. Most of this is probably not new coming from him, but I at least found it rather impressive.

He objects to the claim that "almost all" Christians would see the Creed as defining Christianity,saying

Nope.

In fact, you might be surprised to find there is a group of modern, liberal Christians who completely reject this creed, or more importantly, the need for people to recite man-made creeds, to prove their loyalty to some orthodoxy.

In fact, a lot of Christians are simply focused on trying to love their neighbor as themselves.

I realize that sounds crazy to alot of Christians just hoping they get a pleasant eternal life for reciting a creed and dropping a ten into the collection plate.

. . . yet in practically the same post insists that not taking Genesis literally makes you not a Christian:

The claim that the Genesis creation account, and the story of Adam and Eve, and the alleged ‘fall of man’ for violating a SPECIFIC commandment of god in the ‘Garden of Eden’, is the accurate description of how the Jews, and now the Christians, claim that their god allegedly created, and why there is sin, and death, and painful childbirth for women in the world. These are not my claims, they are the claims of CHRISTIANS. I reject these claims because they are obviously, hilariously false claims with no basis in any reality what-so-ever. You are trying to dance around them, but you can’t. It is Christians who have taken these claims LITERALLY for many centuries, it is YOU who aren’t Christian. I’m sorry if you’re uncomfortable with the ignorant creation story that Christians CLAIM is LITERALLY how the first man was specially created in the image of the creator god, and how the first woman was an afterthought, created from his rib after none of the ‘beasts’ were found to be a suitable companion. But that is what Christians believe. That is what the reference is to the ‘father almighty, creator of heavens and earth’ in your creed. It’s not referring to a universe that took 14 billion years for our solar system and life to evolve our species through a slow, mindless process, it is about THAT story. It’s is YOU are no longer a believing Christian, you just can’t come to grips with it. You are trying to salvage some remnant of your theology and creed that is now rendered incoherent by the creator god of Genesis shown to be a complete fraud.

LGM on Apostolic tradition:

Christianity grew out of a collection of messianic/apocalyptic cults where there was NO authority, and the only thing that established orthodox and authority was the power and patronage of the Roman empire starting in the 4th century.

(Hmm . . . try telling that to Justin Martyr!)

On differentiating genres:

These gospels do not cite their sources, nor does 'mark' even claim that he is writing history. There is NO reason to believe he was, other then wishful thinking on your part. The same wishful thinking that had people believing the Genesis creation accounts. You can't have two standards for historicity, and that is exactly what you are doing, by discarding Genesis but claiming the gospels must record actual events.

No. There is NO difference. And secular historians relegate both to the myth category. Sorry.

On intellectual pride:

Here, try this instead, what YOU consider literal or not in the bible is not important or useful to ANYONE other than yourself. The fact that you think you can summarily dismiss what Christians throughout history thought and believed is a sign of your hubris.

On the Christian worldview:

Sorry, there’s nothing about you believing your personal savior was born of a ‘virgin’ or descended into ‘hell’ that is a ‘philosophy’ of anything important or significant to the real world. It’s just the inane details of a myth, that you perhaps think mumbling each Sunday in church, earns you some kind of brownie points or a better set of wings in heaven.

On decency and respect:

Is it rude to adopt a bigoted theology that bifurcates humanity into the ‘saved’ and the ‘damned’ based solely on what ‘creed’ they mumble in what church?

I think so.

It’s ideas like that, promoted by ignorant, hatefilled bigots like C.S. Lewis, that need to be constantly pointed out.

On well-wishes and sympathy:

Please give the shadowmaster my best wishes, and tell him the check is in the mail...

Please tell the shadowmaster that people who only talk about themselves in the 3rd person, are looney toons.

. . . maybe that was meant as a friendly joke to cheer Shadowmaster up?

[Kelp]

I'm pretty sure the shadowmaster thing was a joke. They're friends.

[Doubting John]

Anybody else getting redirected to theologywebsucks.com from Tweb every once in awhile?


somebody must have got their rear handed to them in a debate

After a few clicks I read that "Doubting John is the president of the JPHolding fan club."

Gee, when was I elected? Thanks so much! I DIDN'T KNOW YOU CARED!

Now as president over his fans I do declare and proclaim he is the proverbial emperor without any clothes on.

You may now impeach me.

[jpholding]

Ed Dumbbuttski, on Mattchu's blog, shows us why he still works in a library basement even in his 40s:

Luckily for J.P. Holding he is a preterist (when it comes to eschatology) and friend of the preterist and creator of "Theology Web," Dee Dee Warren.

If both J.P. Holding and Dee Dee weren't so absorbed by the question of eschatology and didn't both see eye to eye on it, i.e., both being preterists (even of the same school of preterism, since they both reject "full preterism" as a heresy--while "full preterists" cast such accusations right back), then I suspect both Holding and Dee Dee would be at each other's throats over eschatology. Certainly they would have clashed so such a degree that he probably not have been granted his own private place on "Theology Web," but they would instead be doing battle with one another. (See Dee's Dee's preterist website and numerous articles and debates)

Heck, Holding might even have wound up banned from "Theology Web" as Safarti was, if his view on eschatology differed from Dee Dee's.

[Mountain Man]

Wow, so the fact that two people agree about something is reason to discount them and the thing they agree about? Who knew!

[Mr Minder]

After a few clicks I read that "Doubting John is the president of the JPHolding fan club."

Gee, when was I elected? Thanks so much! I DIDN'T KNOW YOU CARED!

Now as president over his fans I do declare and proclaim he is the proverbial emperor without any clothes on.

You may now impeach me.

Hmm... maybe Mattchu can be the vicepresident?

[jpholding]

Hmm... maybe Mattchu can be the vicepresident?

Well, he sure is an expert on vice....

[Chaotic Void]

Well, he sure is an expert on vice....

And it's probably not "Miami Vice", either...

[jpholding]

This one is going to makle you laugh hard. Be sure you sit down.


I'm right now doing research for the Christ myth book to be published soon under Tekton's banner. One of the new items I'm doing for it is a chapter on the idea that Nazareth didn't exist.

I discovered this guy named Rene Salm who is apparently putting out a book called The Myth of Nazareth:

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

He is, as you might expect, the typical atheist non-expert. But with what I just found, he gets an instant Platinum nomination.

Setup, from http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandaltwo.html

Our eyes should be opened when the primary archaeologist at Nazareth (Bellarmino Bagatti) assigns an artefact on one page to the IRON AGE (c. 1200 BCE-c. 600 BCE), and a few pages later assigns the same artefact to the MIDDLE ROMAN PERIOD. The difference, of course, is 1000 years. . . Was the priest confused? Inattentive? Inebriated? Unfortunately, his error is hardly unique in the Nazareth literature, and points up the need for a wholesale reassessment of the primary data by neutral, objective archaeologists.

The main source for scholarly information on Nazareth is the 325-page book Excavations in Nazareth by the Fr. Bagatti (English edition 1969). This book is considered the definitive study of Nazareth archaeology and is repeatedly cited in the scholarly literature. It is no small thing, then, when one reveals Bagatti’s book to be full of blunders.

One could study Bagatti’s book for months and not realize anomalies such as the following example, which becomes apparent only if one makes a written itemization of the hundreds of artefacts in his work, as I have done while researching The Myth of Nazareth. The example I choose for this Scandal Sheet is the following:

(a) While discussing pottery of the Iron Period (1200-587 BCE) Bagatti comes to a v-shaped piece of pottery which he calls a “rim of the vase.” (For those with access to his book, it is on page 269, item 215:7.) He also diagrams this pottery shard in his figure 224.1. Bagatti continues his discussion, “Other elements of the Iron Period…” So, there is no question at all that the archaeologist considers this shard to be from the Iron Age.
(b) On page 282 of his book, in the section discussing “Pottery of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods,” Bagatti notes “fig. 224.1” and “fig. 215.7” (the same references as above, both referring to one artefact). Evidently he forgot that a dozen pages earlier he called the shard the rim of a vase, for he now calls it the neck of a “cooking pot.” More importantly, Bagatti is oblivious to the fact that he earlier assigned this artefact to the Iron Period. Now, on p. 285, he writes: “The oldest element of these cooking pots appears to be No. 1 of fig. 224… The neck, with the splayed mouth, recalls the Hellenistic-Roman custom for these artifacts.” So, we see that on one page the archaeologist assigns a shard to the Iron Age, and on another page he assigns it to the “Hellenistic-Roman” period.

Our confidence must be shaken in an archaeologist who ascribes the same material to two eras separated by up to a thousand years. Doesn’t Bagatti know what he is talking about? Or is there something more nefarious at play, something which goes beyond error? For we see that the priest’s use of the word “Hellenistic” on p. 285 is entirely inappropriate. He signals the typical Roman features of this jar, not Hellenistic ones! It would appear that the archaeologist has simply found another excuse to falsely introduce the word “Hellenistic” into his book.

Well, I have a copy of Bagatti's book with me, and Salm obviously wet his pants so much over this that he forgot to think things over. Bagatti's book DOES read as he says, yes. But here's where he makes a bonehead error of the century:

On page 282 of his book, in the section discussing “Pottery of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods,” Bagatti notes “fig. 224.1” and “fig. 215.7” (the same references as above, both referring to one artefact). Evidently he forgot that a dozen pages earlier he called the shard the rim of a vase, for he now calls it the neck of a “cooking pot.”

The problem: In the above, "215.7" is clearly a typographical error and should read "225.7". Fig. 224 coinsists of drawings, and Fig. 225 is a photograph, and some of the pieces from the two figures overlap.

What a moron. I'm gonna write an article exposing this creep right after lunch.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

screwball for William Wheaton: (yes THAT William Wheaton)

http://www.danielle-movie.com/forums...9345#post39345

obviously attacking scholars is an answer in some circles...