September 2008 SCrewballs

[mig_killer2]

Are you KIDDING me??

I posted a link to John's discussion on Paul and Marcion. in the comment section, he devotes two comments to the idea

Paul, assuming he existed...

the fact that he considers the idea that Paul never existed as even close to credible speaks volumes.

I don't know why I ever deal with him.

i guess it's just for people who are convinced by his arguments, or christians feeling cognitive dissonance

[ApologiaPhoenix]

JohnLArmstrong

he thinks Paul never existed.

John Armstrong's brain never existed.

[OfficialPro]

Impossible.
She hasn't been on Y!A for 2 years and has cut off all means of communication. We're screwed, basically.
Find another fanatic anti-lifer instead.

There's a whole load of them on godawful fan fic dot net. Most of whom take the tack that anyone who's anti-abortion is OHNOES TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN OR OHNOEZ TELLING ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY ITS NUNYA BIZNESS!

And the rest basically do the "every chow a planned and wanted chow" (and drag out horrific abuse stories to show how much better off a fetus would be dead than in an unwanted home). And others do not want to "ruin" their body with pregnancy, or be inconvenienced for 9 months (like scarlett said), or bring up scary things like Gestational DIEabetes, molar (terminal-cancer-if-you-don't-abort-it) pregnancy, and any other sort of freaky situation to justify abortion-on-demand.

[jpholding]

Stevie Weevie does it again, commenting at Dumplin's blog (one of the few places he won't be laughed at):

‘If the resurrection had not occurred, why would Paul give such a list of supposed eyewitnesses?’

Lots of eyewitnesses to cross-examine were there?

Acts 25 Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive. I was at a loss how to investigate such matters; so I asked if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem and stand trial there on these charges.

Even such a powerful man as Festus is alleged to have been unable to investigate those matters.

How could anybody else have investigated these alleged ‘eyewitnesses’ if the powerful guy in charge of the trial was unable to even start investigations?

Uh, Stevie...

If you look at the context of Acts 25, the thing Festus was "at a loss" to check out was points of Jewish law and belief -- not the historical resurrection of Jesus. That's why he was happy to have Agrippa have a go -- he knew Jewish laws and customs a ton better.

He gets stupider every day.

[Mr Minder]

[A Deeper Look]

screwball to Ken_1969... he's squabbling with LPOT

he brings up the old www.tektonics.com

Oh and by the way, now that I've had some time to "research" your oh-so-regularly quoted source the High Priest of Pixieism it appears that he is, at best, a bigot with a degree in library sciences who can't perform basic research and who edits his own posts to rewrite history.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=117553&page=7

[jpholding]

screwball to Ken_1969... he's squabbling with LPOT

Ah.

Note to self: Ken_1969 = Platinum n00b nominee, 2008.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ah.

Note to self: Ken_1969 = Platinum n00b nominee, 2008.

You should see how badly he attempted to misquote you and ignored the rest of your paragraphs that proved his point wrong.

[One Bad Pig]

n00b screwball:

Antonia Fraser's "Royal Charles" about England's "merry monarch," Charles II, who took over when they joyfully got rid of Puritan dominance. I want to learn how they bounced back from fundamentalist rule to evolve into a modern constitutional democracy of free people.

[Virgil]

JohnLArmstrong

he thinks Paul never existed.

I'm bending over backwards to try to understand how these mythicists think. Were those letters all separately forged and one day some dude decided to go insert an attribution to a random dude named Paul and as a bonus make up a conversion story and biography and insert it in the greater part of Acts in?
But I love how he tried to claim that if Paul existed he was a member of some Jewish cult we have no evidence ever existed (Isn't it funny how the evidence for these mythicist theories always ends up being "burned by the connivng Christians")

[Virgil]

I nominate Iron Chariots for their article on the King James bible

The translators, historians and Biblical scholars in all camps have launched attacks and provided apologetic defenses for the competing positions.

The net result of this "Bible Bickering" is a wealth of information which clearly casts doubt on all versions and demonstrates that all claims of authority are religious opinions that cannot be supported by empirical evidence.

All versions are wrong because a lunatic sect wants to keep a 400 year old translation.

[DoomRater]

The main writer of that article is a "Sans Deity" guy, apparently someone who started the whole thing.

[jpholding]

Dumplin' Dumbash is getting so paranoid he's checking this thread! Whatsamatta, Dumplin'? Feeling threatened that you might lose one of those 17 readers? I would be too if I were you -- especially since you're attracting losers like Stevie Carr, who's a laughingstock over here.

But anyway, he and one of his readers wins again. The reader, b8ovin, wins for this:

For what it’s worth, the client/patronage relationship describes the official designation of ancient Rome with some of its conquered territory, and predates Christianity. Rome was the patron and a territory, like Greece, for instance, was the client, providing Rome with art and artisans (this is, again one example of many). I find it humorous that this decidedly material and tyrannical relationship should be used to describe a god and his followers. Even Holding would admit that Jupiter was the client to the patronage of his followers, and when that patronage was withdrawn Jupiter ceased to bestow service. Further, about 40% of the city of Rome’s occupants were slaves, many of them from client states (taken during the conquering stage). All in all, the patronage and client analogy, in a historical sense, is not flattering.

Pffft. Sure thing. And that the old Soviet Union was a "republic" proves that our republic in America is decidedly a tyranny too. How unflattering to us. What a maroon!

Meanwhile, "I took one semester of Greek in fundy Bible college" Dumplin' , though he rightly corrects Stevie (get used to that!), wishes to dispute the following:

Holding is correct that pistis can be rendered as “proof” in some contexts, he’s just overdrawing his conclusions by claiming that this particular contextual meaning applies to other contexts as well. (And then he mocks me in his theologyweb post for applying his definition to the various NT passages that use the word pistis—as though I were the one claiming that “forensic proof” was the true, Biblical meaning of the word!)

By the way, Holding’s comment on theologyweb says “He tries to refute my point about the meaning of ‘faith’ by plugging in ‘forensic proof’ (the Acts 17:31form of pistis) into OTHER VERSES which are in a different form (which mean ‘loyalty’ or ‘faithfulness’).” It’s not entirely clear what Holding means by “a different form,” but if he’s referring to Acts 17 using pistis in the accusative case, as though pistin means “proof” where pisteoos means “belief” or some such, I’m afraid he’s mistaken again (cf. Matt. 9:2, for instance). Either way, he’s still got the problem that his “true meaning of Biblical faith” is a usage that is by far a minority “form” relative to how the Bible in general uses the word.

Sorry, Dumplin', your scholarship sucks again! I'm not referring to the case, no. I'm referring to something else you're entirely ignorant of. Keep guessing -- it's fun to watch you pretend to be an expert and get shown up for it. The answer is in the Acts commentary I use here at home, and one other sources, by scholars who would have probably been considered "of the devil" at your fundy Bible college. There's also a clue in my original article, if you pay very close attention (which I know is hard for you, since you're used to just cherry-picking one or two sentences out of huge articles and thinking that's sufficient as an answer).

[Leonhard]

Yo mr. H, you always wondered why the 'four horsemen' atheists never tried interviewing some scholarly Christians. Well this has happened to my utter shock and complete delight. Let me share with you the short showdown between...

*fanfare* *The commentator gets ready*

"On the right, with his four metrics tons worth of scholarship, more letters after his name than in the this sentence and the writer of a full seven books on the subject: Ben Witherington*

*On the left, weighing in at almost two grams worth of knowledge regarding ancient society, extending only to some reading one of Bart Ehrmans and whatever he picks up on the way. Is trying to find out how the brain works in people who believe (though this one, would like it if he demonstrated the existence of his own brain first): Sam Harris*

Its a little short showdown between the two, and its no contest. Witherington maculates Sam Harris, who... well... I won't spoil it.

BW3 on Lee Strobel's Faith under Fire

See this is what I'd like to see more of.

[jpholding]

Its a little short showdown between the two, and its no contest. Witherington maculates Sam Harris, who... well... I won't spoil it.

BW3 on Lee Strobel's Faith under Fire

See this is what I'd like to see more of.

Erm, this was Shermer vs Witherington....? Still Bambi vs Godzilla though.