August 2008 Screwballs

[Kabane52]

nomination, once again, to 122nerdbombs

What do historians use then? The Gospel of Philip?

[knight2]

Hard to believe, I know, but I'm actually giving an anti-screwball to none other than John Loftus, for this (in the comments of his latest post about atheism and agnosticism):

gopraire said…God and the miracles of Jesus and the resurection of Jesus defy the known laws of physics. Therefore I can say that because physics is known, and aspects of God would defy physics, there is not God.

Listen. I’m an atheist, but I think I can at least treat my opposition better than you do. It is simply unfair to say that a spiritual being, if one exists, must be known by the laws of physics. If one exists then it is outside the laws of physics. And even if such a being can be known by these laws there may be reasons why he hides himself from people who don’t want to know him. William James argued that maybe the God-hypothesis needs to be met half-way before such an entity will reveal himself to us. I find it strange to argue for the Christian hypothesis with you, since we’re both atheists. But I remain adamant that we cannot dismiss the Christian claims by laying down some alien rules for detecting such a being that they reject. Doing so begs the question in favor of the hypothesis one favors. This is an old bait and switch trick, one which I reject for all of the right reasons.

[JonLanceBarker]

Hard to believe, I know, but I'm actually giving an anti-screwball to none other than John Loftus, for this (in the comments of his latest post about atheism and agnosticism):

Well, I'll be!!!!

As far as I can tell, he's actually spot on!!!

(Now if only he were more CONSISTENT in that regard...)

[Virgil]

Another nomination for 122nerdbombs.
I linked him to your stuff on the Exodus and he replied

The PBS documentary was made by brilliant thinkers and scholars, and you're giving me crap from Holding.

Go chew a can, facilis.

Because a PBS Documentary has waaaaaay more credibility than tektonics

[Alucard]

Fred Phelps is at it again!

See, this is what happens with Hyper-Calvinists. Man has no free will, so every evil thing that men do can be nothing but divine judgments ordained by God.

[Kabane52]

Nomination to VenomFangX, who said in a debate over whether an old Earth was biblically warranted and I was using Hebrew:

i won't debate hebrew with you, i'll debate the english tho

And a nomination to the same guy for believing that the sun revolves around the Earth

[MarcusAndreas]

This one is so stupid I can't help but nominate it:

(...I am a scientologist Christian)...A Scientologist Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ, but believes in some scientific ways over Christian. For ex., I believe in the Big-Bang theory and evolution, rather than God's creation and Adam and Eve. Basically to sum it up, it is a more scientific approach to Christianity.

GAH! IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE'S SOMETHING EVEN WORSE.... A CATHOLIC!!!!! Guess what, the fundaliteral interpretation is not THE interpretation.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

MetalMark, we like the source link as well.

[MarcusAndreas]

Punkish, I know where to find it but that website I abandoned because everyone was really mean to me and I don't want to go back. But you can't make that stuff up! Plus I made some really nasty comments to people and I don't want everyone on tWeb to be able to find them.

[JB]

Several winners in a row from Theo? Awesome.

[Frogwarrior]

I know! I remember when Theostudent used to be completely impossible to put up with. :frog:

[Kabane52]

A comment I received. This is beyond most screwballs. I think it should go Platinum:

According to to Islam Judas replaced Jesus on the cross, according to others his bones have been found, but he never existed because he's a sun-god as we well know. So what REALLY happened is that The disciples stole the body of Judas thinking he was Jesus and tried to revive him. They succeeded. Since he was now divinely transformed, he put his bones in an ossuary and they are now mistaken for Jesus' bones. We dont know where Jesus is, but Judas ascended and became the sun we now orbit.

[jpholding]

I do still want this in a new thread, though I want to keep a copy of the quote below for Screwball purposes.




Gharfield, as quoted by Kabane:

I don't want a small independent team of social scientists thinking they can reinterpret the scriptures for us all ! They are a rogue organization that cooks the books. And I surely don't want to have it shoved down our throats by self-taught theologians and research "scholars" here who are scholars because they have alot of books and surf the web 24/7.

What do you know about a fish fry ? Nineteen year olds are closer to the easy bake oven years.

Yes.

For the last, here's a word for the old fart Gharfield: 1 Timothy 4:12.

Kabane is a great deal smarter than Gharfield, and Gharfield should just shut up about it. Same with JLB.

As for the rest, what else needs to be said? Like all the whiners, Gharfield is a frightened lamb, scared of the truth that wrecks his understanding of a Fluffy Bunny Jesus that lives in his heart.

May I resurrect the analogy, last applied to someone equally ignorant and ungrateful: He is like the insensitive jerk who drives down the interstate at 40 MPH, blocking all lanes while blaring Oh How I Love Jesus over his stereo, oblivious to the line of people behind him as he holds up progress.

The voice of fear and ignorance -- he speaks for it well.

This past week, my church got a message from someone who claimed I was teaching "unorthodox" views on Tekton. What were they?

1) My view of hell as a place of non-physical torment -- a view just like that held by many leading Christians (Moreland, Copan, Carson, Habermas).
2) My indication that Paul did not write Colossians PERSONALLY....but had someone write it for him.



Gharfield and his whiner friends are just more of the same. They're impediments to the progress of the Gospel, standing in the way of their betters because they can't let go of their insecurities.

I don't want a small independent team of social scientists thinking they can reinterpret the Scriptures for us all ! As opposed to what, Gharfield? A small, independent individual like you doing the (re)interprteting in complete ignorance? Instead of whining, how about you show that their work is in error? Goodness no, that would involve real work for a change; you'd have to stop singing hymns and actually crack open some hard books with words like "agonistic" in them.

If we rewrite their stuff as a hymn, would that help?


They are a rogue organization that cooks the books. PLEASE. They are not "rogue" in any sense of the word. They are a specialized study group respected by their peers. This does not mean they are always agreed with (no scholar has that), but it does require a heavy burden of proof on anyone like Gharfield who cries about them "cooking the books."

What'd they do, Gharfield? Invent honor and shame? Did they also convince 70% of the world to not behave like (real) Americans and become agonistic, so they could fake their results?

And I surely don't want to have it shoved down our throats by self-taught theologians and research "scholars" here who are scholars because they have alot of books and surf the web 24/7

Shoved? No one forces Gharfield to read anything. He is free to not hang out here or anywhere, and I assure him Ignore works fine -- and makes him sound much more informed.

Self-taught, books, etc. -- then again, the answer is for Gharfield to crack his own books, etc and show that the "scholars" here are WRONG. But no, that's the last thing he'll ever do. He's not capable. He can't keep his mind on anything for more than 22 seconds before he notices a bunny with a pancake on its head.


All this said, I welcome more of his comments. Such as he says makes it all the more clear to the objective and the intelligent that we are badly in need of cleaning house in the American church at large.












On the side, reader sends from Dumplin' Dumbash:

Third objection: the NT writers were biased. The authors try and turn this objection around by asking, “Yes, but why were they biased?” It’s not a very good question, since it invites the answer “Because they were superstitious, underprivileged, and gullible, and wanted to be part of something big and important,” so G&T turn it into a more apologetic version.

[jpholding]

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/...onversion.html

How surprising. One of DJ's latest Iseful Idiots is, uh....a practiced liar. Particularly at pretending to be someone he isn't.

[jpholding]

This is rich, from one of Dumplin' Dumbash's 17 readers on Evangelical Realism, responding to me, once again proves Google makes you stupid:

He used the word “patronage” again. I hate to be the indiot all the time but, to my untutored layperson’s mind, patronage means the support or influence of a patron. To Mr. Holding, however, it has every appearance of being a particular, well-defined, not to mention central, concept, which

a) isn’t listed in my dictionary (which is very small, I have to say), and

b) has to power to explain (so far) big ideas including atonement and God’s remoteness.

It sounds so simple…it explains so much…it could be Christian theism’s version of the natural selection theory.

I have to assume Mr. Holding isn’t going to spell the concept out for me, given his admirably direct expressions of dislike for indiots, so I was wondering if anyone else could provide some sort of good-faith approximation–a devil’s advocacy, as it were. The devil would want me to understand what he’s talking about, right?