September 2008 SCrewballs

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I got a nomination:

A newcomer here by the namegjpogiatzis, who selflessly promoted his site http://primaryproofsofchristianity.com/ here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=118830

Aparently he think he can take any parrallell to the Gospels(no matter where or how tenuious) and use it as 'proof' that God orchestrated that event/writing/natual phenomone to prove Jesus was God.

[John Goddard]

I got a nomination:

A newcomer here by the namegjpogiatzis, who selflessly promoted his site http://primaryproofsofchristianity.com/ here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=118830

Aparently he think he can take any parrallell to the Gospels(no matter where or how tenuious) and use it as 'proof' that God orchestrated that event/writing/natual phenomone to prove Jesus was God.

Our Bible says God created everything for the end result of Jesus being Messiah in the Kingdom of Heaven:

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds...

So while details of his comparisons may be inaccurate or not, his basic argument is also the biblical position.

[mig_killer2]

Nomination to one Geoff Hudson at DC for this enlightening comment:



Jesus never existed, Paul never existed, Moses never existed... next it'll be JP Holding never existed!

well that's interesting, it seems the idea of a Paul myth is gaining popularity given that JohnLArmstrong once confessed his inclinations towards the idea that Paul never existed.

[TolkienFan]

John, that verse doesn't support that guy's position at all. Didn't you read it?

[John Goddard]

That verse doesn't support that guy's position at all. Didn't you read it?

If your reply is to me, he's essentially saying that human history is a big puzzle and when you put it together it shows JESUS.

Ephesians 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

[MarcusAndreas]

This post will quote Holding's opinion on oral debates and then critique it.


=======================

Most Christian apologists disagree with Holding on the benefit of public oral debates between skeptics and Christians.

James White is a sincere truly born again Christian (unless Holding wishes to prove otherwise), he is a conservative Christian with a legitimate Th.d in apologetics, who has taught biblical subjects at seminary level as a professor for years, has authored many books on doctrinal subjects at the request of the standard Christian publishers in America, and has written articles in Christian publications, and yet Mr. White believes oral public debates between Christians and skeptics have full biblical justification. Why is God telling Mr. White "do oral debates, where you need to have memorized your scholarship", yet tells Mr. Holding "don't do oral debates, where you need to have memorized your scholarship" ? Is James White merely a fake or insincere Christian and thereby misinterpreted the voice of God?

William Lane Craig holds a Ph.d and has taught as a Christian professor for years. Craig debates bible skeptics quite regularly. If Holding has discovered biblical condemnation for oral debating, why doesn't he be a nice guy and tell Mr. Craig?

These are just two among many conservative Christian apologists who disagree with Holding on the beneficial nature of oral debates. This is yet one more division in the body of Christ. Not only are Conservatives against Liberals, but Conservatives are against Conservatives (Baptist vs. Pentecostal). Not only are Baptists and Pentecostals at odds, Baptists are against each other (Southern Baptist vs. Independent Baptist). Could it possibly get any worse? Yes! Conservative Christian Apologists disagree with Conservative Christian Apologists, on what type of apologetics is biblical!

This is probably due to the bible being the clear word of God.

My theory is that JPH doesn't do oral debates because he is dependent upon bible software, stacks of interlibrary loan books, and google (i.e., things you don't have in a public oral debate) to "respond" to his opponents.

This argument supports my previous assertion that any dim-wit can write the apologetics articles Holding does, if they have enough resources occupying gigs on their computer and space on their computer desk. The REAL scholars are not afraid to debate orally, however, because they have memorized their scholarship and research, and therefore do not feel deprived while in front of an audience not knowing what the other guy's questions or arguments will be. But Holding without his stacks of library books is like cornflakes without milk. Leaves you with dry mouth and a feeling that something just ain't right.

It's the fake apologists that insist on doing only written debates. That way, no matter what curveball skeptics might throw at you that totally knocks your theological socks off, thank Christ you have a few days to research the issue at your local seminary library so your later response can make it appear that you always knew how to answer the criticism. Better still, say "yawn" during the response so your critical thinking Christian doners will bow even lower before your smartness.

Holding cannot deny the fact that refusing to do oral debates is a refusal to put his loudmouthed skills to the acid test. It allows him to avoid the possibility of ruining his reputation, which could easily occur in an oral debate setting where he doesn't have the benefit of stacks of library books surrounding his computer desk, and where he doesn't have a computer with digital versions of bible-related publications to search.

Like I said, Holding, the oral public debate challenge is the acid test: you either know your stuff and hold your own, or you die fast and quiet. Given that no Christian publisher wants your stuff, not even your "slam-dunk" apologetic "Impossible Faith", it's pretty clear to me that you have lied about your reasons for not doing public debates. Evidently, it IS a problem with your lack of scholarship. Of course, I totally expect you to insist that anybody and everybody who criticizes your scholarship, has simply been blinded by their own stupidity to God's inspired revelation.

As I stated earlier, even if all I did was engage in "sound-bytes" in such oral debate, the Christians in the audience should presumably detect when I engage in tactics that don't support my case or refute yours, and therefore engaging in "sound-bytes" could only hurt my case and thus help yours look better. As such, your fear that your opponent might engage in hurling "sound bytes" as a reason you don't orally debate, is total bullsh--, as the soundbyte game can only make you look better if the skeptic stoops to playing it. Your writings make it clear you love every advantage you can get and you even invent them for yourself regularly. The very reason you gave for NOT orally debating is an excellent reason FOR orally debating. That's how stupid your reasoning is.

Or maybe you were just being sarcastic? Yeah, the "sarcastic" excuse is a definite ace up your sleeve whenever you need to back out of a stupid statement, amen?

The real reason you don't orally debate is you are nowhere near as "expert" in biblical studies as you loudly trumpet to the world.

The only time you are an expert is when you have access to logos bible software, google, interlibrary loan materials, and are then given three days to use them. After you carefully check everything, you then write like an ego-maniac who always knew the answer, assuring himself of a win by constantly belittling the opposition just like little bully kids do on school playgrounds everywhere, signifying to the mature people what terrible insecurity issues they must have, or how much they get beaten at home.

Is that it, Holding? Does your wife beat you? Does she spend all your doner's tithes at the mall before you have a chance to buy the latest videogame and pay the mortgage? Wow, I didn't know you could get a mortgage on a U-Haul.

There is no denying it Holding: your constant use of insulting rhetoric in your responses to bible critics cannot be conveniently labled "style". You are a very angry, depressed, anxiety-ridden person who uses Christianity to help vent his irrational anger, nothing more. I just found out that you made a statement several years ago that you personally don't care if the bible is the inspired word of God or not, so that your gargantuan efforts to "defend biblical inerrancy" were all in the name of finding a way to beat up other people and had nothing to do with your personal convictions whatsoever. Better break out that "I-was-just-being-saracastic" excuse again, you're gonna need it to back out of that blooper. Christianity and bible inerrancy provide you with a way to hurt anything and everything that doesn't see things your way, I compliment you for your good choice, since Christianity is perfect for anybody looking to get involved in never-ending debates about things that people haven't agreed on for more than 20 centuries. Trouble is, most of the hurt comes from your insults and not from your actual arguments...exactly the case with schoolyard bullies. And exactly like a schoolyard bully, you fail the acid test of your true abilities, which is why you prefer to stay in a format where your bark can never be proven worse than your bite. What's still so funny is that the reason you gave for avoiding oral debate is all the reason to DO oral debate. You'd get enormous advantage in front of an audience full of critical thinking Christians, if your skeptic opponent started playing a "sound-byte" game. Or maybe you just don't have any confidence that the Christians viewing the debate would have enough critical-thinking skills to detect the errors of the skeptic?

Bullies don't constantly tease and insult the other kids because their mind is functioning properly. They constantly tease and insult others because their mind is sick. The proof that I'm a smart guy is my belief that not even this common sense will get through to you. You couldn't stop insulting people to save your life. Your next posts will prove it. Wow, I predicted the future with amazing accuracy...I guess that means you'll suddenly believe whatever family history and miracle stories I create for myself?

[mig_killer2]

spirit5er might talk and write more eloquently than most skeptics but he flounders when you actually begin to discuss details and pick apart his arguments

for a good presentation you can either read his discussion on the textual variant found in Luke 3:22 wherein he floundered, or you can see my destruction of his arguments against oral tradition in that Eye-witnesses certainly would have played a big role in the transmission of the tradition.

[Alucard]

That sort of ignorance offends me.

He was probably one of those "hit and run" types, the ones who make an assertion and then just scurry when you ask for evidence.

was he?

Sort of. He made a thread about his virginity and how he couldn't understand how people could have sex and break up. He wasn't making much sense. Somebody said this:

I look at it this way (your situation). If your feeling depressed and this is a piece of the issue in that depression or sadness... then you have two options. TRULY try and find jesus and stay true to your virginity, or go out there and try to have sex. Once you have it, your perceptions about it will change. If you do neither, then you just a glutton for punishment. There's no point to stay in limbo about this issue. Using morality as a shield for your fear (if there is fear there) only makes the depression worse.

MVNeo replied with the thing I nominated him for. I berated him for it, gave him a few links, and told him to elaborate on just what he meant. He hasn't acknowledged it.

Anyway, this just in: a pastor who claims that Jesus the man was an invention of the Roman Catholic Church at Nicea!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-nl5adjqZw

[mig_killer2]

I have to nominate spirit5er for throwing his hissy fit over in apologetics 301

[lilpixieofterror]

No, no, those are fine; every time you misspell a word, however, you draw one step nearer to the great abyss.

Nah, it's not that bad. I just loose one point on my score per spelling mistake, which I did rather well on my last paper. I got an 88, so to all you grammar Nazi's out there.

[jpholding]

Email:

Maher is incredibly funny. My problem with the Buy-Bull is the disturbing misogyny...I was a True-Christian and became an atheist after leaving the cult. I ditched Jesus somewhere between Brownsville, TX and Matamoros, Mexico. I have never looked back. My way of coping with the havoc that Christian brainwashing brought into my life is through humor. I think decontextualizing "Jesus" is hilarious and takes away the sting, the poison. Christians are the most dour lot. Jesus is not only magic, He's one hell of a funny character.

Speaks for itself re the mentality of the people Maher attracts.

[jpholding]

Lordy! These comments from Spitball deserves Platinum noms:

It's actually the reason I want to debate Holding orally in person. If his articles are any indication of his scholarship, I could very easily win the crowd over to my side by pointing out how often he engages in the fallacy of argument-by-authority.

Since it's only the arguments themselves that get us anywhere, the scholars who employ the arguments are irrelvent.

The only reason to quote a scholar in a debate is to refute the allegation that your position is totally absurd. If you can find properly qualified experts who agree with you, then your opponent is most likely wrong to accuse you of absurdity, but that's the most scholarly quotations can accomplish.

Holding does not quote authorities to demonstrate that his position is within normal parameters, he thinks the debate has been called in his favor as soon as he cites a quotation from a scholar who agrees with him, and this is pushing the resource too far.

He knows better than to go it alone. If he could actually do apologetics without backing up a Uhaul to the local seminary's library, a loudmouth like him would be supremely happy to do an oral debate.

And credit where due, commendation to John Goddard for noting:

Well you said his bullying showed insecurity and lack of confidence before, now you say he is bubbling over with confidence and could never have stagefright, which is it?

With that said, Goddard -- TAKE YOUR COMPLAINTS TO THE RANT THREAD.

[jpholding]

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...witnesses.html

Evan of DC wins Gold, especially for using arguments from Carrier I refuted. Funny too how he doesn't see the obvious answer that Paul and other doubters simply suffered cognitive dissonance in the face of undeniable evidence -- Evan would no doubt think that's an easy argument to apply to people who DO believe.

[jpholding]

Reader sends:

*******

Thought I'd bring this to your attention to add to the number of awards this guy, SeaSanctuary, has been getting lately. SeaSanctuary claims that Wright is being "dishonest" by appealing to the three most widely accepted facts about Jesus, accepted by scholars across the critical spectrum.

That is part of [NT Wright's] deception. He is conveniently being open only after claiming that secular history requires:

* A dead Jesus
* An empty tomb
* Resurrection belief only the result of honest followers witnessing 'convincing appearances'

How convenient for the apologist Wright. It is a common tactic to assert that everything in the Gospels except the miracles themselves are noncontroversial truth and then argue that the miracles are the best explanation for whenever miracles are mentioned.

The common Christian using this tactic simply has not thought critically about what he or she is saying. Wright doesn't get the benefit of that doubt.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...9&postcount=15

[jpholding]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73215

Nudder dumb bell thinks he's discovered news by reading the Bible:

WND executive news editor Joe Kovacs has focused his journalism skills on the greatest book of all time – the Holy Bible – and has unearthed hundreds of stunning pieces of information.

This well-researched work, published in hardcover by Thomas Nelson, shatters scores of misconceptions while answering relevant questions regardless of anyone's faith or personal outlook.

"It's not about religion," says Kovacs. "It's about the Bible. What's in it, and what's not. You'll truly be stunned when you see for yourself what Scripture has to say, without anyone telling you it doesn't mean what it says. You may even find that what you thought was in the Bible is the exact opposite of what it really states."

"Shocked by the Bible" is jam-packed with fantastic facts few have ever dared to publish for general audiences.

Kovacs holds nothing back as he purposefully avoids the psychobabble of boring theologians and instead quotes directly from the Bible itself, addressing incredible issues of which many people are simply unaware.

Did you know ...

* The Bible does not say Jesus died on a Friday, or rose from the grave Sunday morning

* There were not just two of every kind of animal aboard Noah's Ark

* The word "Easter" has vanished from today's Bibles

* The practice of decorating a tree with silver and gold is actually condemned by God

* God wanted to kill Moses

* Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not Jews

* The Bible talks about "gay" sex with angels. Yes, you read that right.

These comprise just a small fraction of the issues Kovacs explores in "Shocked by the Bible." It will even make you burst out in laughter as it probes subjects you'll rarely, if ever, hear in church or on TV and radio shows.

* There's a character in the Bible called a "dumb ass"

* Underwear didn't disintegrate despite 40 years of heavy use

* The worst case of hemorrhoids in history is recorded

"For hundreds of years, people have been brainwashed by myths and misconceptions," says Kovacs. "I want to shine the light of truth on Scripture, and show you with your own eyes the amazing facts you've never seen or heard before."





Already, "Shocked by the Bible" is receiving rave reviews:

"If you think you really know the Bible, better think again. Joe Kovacs takes a close look at the greatest story ever told and separates myth from reality. My favorite parts of the book deal with Christmas and Easter. Check out 'Shocked by the Bible.' You may well be shocked."
– Bill O'Reilly, anchor, Fox News Channel

"Your parents never told you THIS STUFF was in the Bible."
– Melanie Morgan, radio talk-show host, co-author "American Mourning"

"'Shocked by the Bible' is nothing short of genius. From start to finish, Joe Kovacs turns the subject of Scripture into a fun-filled, information treasure that's virtually impossible to put down. The truth of what's really in the Bible will simply stun the world."
– Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily

While this eye-opening blockbuster explodes on the scene everywhere Sept. 30, WND has copies personally autographed by the author ready to ship this week.

Kovacs has written countless reports in his 25-year news career. Many have focused on biblical issues such as chariot wheels said to be found in the Red Sea, searches for Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant, and controversies over Christmas and Easter holidays as well as the Saturday-vs.-Sunday Sabbath.

Kovacs has received many awards for news excellence from the Associated Press and United Press International. He's run television, radio and print newsrooms in the U.S., as well as Budapest, Hungary. Kovacs is also regarded as one of the premier creative headline writers in the news business today.

Find out what you've been missing. Get "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" personally autographed by the author. It also makes a brilliant gift that will be remembered for a lifetime.

Shame on Nelson for pushing this kind of trash, too.