September 2008 SCrewballs

[mig_killer2]

Krensharpaw uses this analogy to try to prove that Paul didn't really write 1 Corinthians

Also, jsut because something says it was written by someone, does not mean it was. I could say god told me to type this, would you believe me? what about Caption Hook? Also, no you shoulder it. You said you can site peeps, now its up to you to do as such.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by saladfingers

1. The degree of "persecution" varied from place to place, from group to group. "Persecution" was not as widespread during the formative years of Christianity.
2. The esoteric appeal of Christianity was far greater than any other religion or group.
3. The sense of embeddedness reached further into the spirit/soul/heart than any other cult or group.

There's his response to my question of why people bothered to join a group like Christianity. As you can see, it's just full of specifics.

[mig_killer2]

another one to krensharpaw

migkillertwo,but if its 27 different books by 9 different authers, if one book is bunk, it would bring into question the rest of the books wrote by that auther. How many times does 9 go into 27? Three is the answer. So if one book is bunk, that means two others are.

[Raphael]

Nomination for two men who belong to a church in Sydney who have been charged with 220 sex offences.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4690411a12.html

Stuff

Two men have been charged with more than 220 sex offences at prayer sessions of a western Sydney church.

Police say one of the men had claimed he could speak to angels and remove curses.

The men, aged 61 and 38, are highly regarded members of the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox communities, police say.

They are alleged to have committed the offences over a period of four years on a young woman who believed she was cursed.

© source where applicable

[One Bad Pig]

Nomination for two men who belong to a church in Sydney who have been charged with 220 sex offences.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4690411a12.html

Stuff

Two men have been charged with more than 220 sex offences at prayer sessions of a western Sydney church.

Police say one of the men had claimed he could speak to angels and remove curses.

The men, aged 61 and 38, are highly regarded members of the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox communities, police say.

They are alleged to have committed the offences over a period of four years on a young woman who believed she was cursed.

© source where applicable

A Copt and a Greek working in concert, and they charged money for prayer sessions? I'd smell a rat even without the allegations.

[jpholding]

Dumplin' Dumbash rakes in more Gold!

Reacting to the suggestion that the New Testament is unreliable because the documents weren’t written until long after the events they describe, G&T seem to be assuming that if they can make the documents sound close enough to the A.D. 30’s, they will have proven that the documents are reliable

"Seem to be assuming"? No, Dumplin', they never say that ANYWHERE. They're just answering the objection that they are late and therefore unreliable, you moron.

In other words, Geisler and Turek are admitting that the New Testament manuscripts are primarily written records of an oral tradition—what a lawyer might refer to as hearsay. This is actually a very significant point, and something that ought to be front-and-center in a discussion of the accuracy of the contents of the New Testament manuscripts, but instead they tuck it away in the “answers to skeptical objections” section, with the excuse that ancient cultures had legendary powers of recall, or some such.

Not only is this the standard nonsense re "hearsay" http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hearsay.html it is a sign of Dumplin's ignorance that he refers to oral testimony in terms of an "excuse" -- which apparently oral history scholars like Vansina and Lord use too.

Notice, though, that they observe, “[i]n such an oral culture, facts about Jesus may have been put into a memorable form.” This is actually a phenomenon we frequently see in urban legends. The story begins as an account that is remarkable and striking in some way, and as the story is told and retold—via email as well as orally—the more striking details become stereotyped, and take on a particular style of retelling that becomes more and more fixed and inflexible as time goes on. It is significant that Habermas finds evidence in the NT manuscripts consistent with the conclusion that Christian stories underwent a similar process of stereotyping.

Um, NO, Dumplin'. Having now read more than 50 books on the subject, I can say without qualification that you are stupid in this regard. The process of legend creation and the process of crafting for memory are two different things. The former is growth; the latter involves trimming and shaping in a LITERARY fashion. And it doesn't result in distortion of the facts for at least a couple of generations, when the tradition may be modified so that it can be more understandable to later generations. That doesn't apply to the NT.

The last skeptical objection that Geisler and Turek try to address is “Why didn’t the early Christians write more?” G&T’s answer is fairly predictable: people don’t always write about things (have you sat down and written out the story of 9/11?), it was a long time ago, manuscripts are fragile, etc, etc. One point that they don’t mention, however, is that there were a lot more manuscripts written than what we have today. Not all of them were orthodox, however, and a number of them were openly hostile. With the rise of the Catholic church in the Roman empire, history saw a number of Church Councils that sat down and voted on which doctrines were orthodox and which were heretical. Since it was the custom in those days to burn heretical materials, and since opinions sometimes wavered on which materials were heresy, it’s not too surprising that the life expectancy of ancient manuscripts would depend on how strongly they supported the central party line.

Nothing like unargued conspiracy-mongering to make an argument! Dumplin' couldn't argue specifics on this if we held a bazooka to his throat.

[Mountain Man]

Not only is this the standard nonsense re "hearsay" http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hearsay.html it is a sign of Dumplin's ignorance that he refers to oral testimony in terms of an "excuse" -- which apparently oral history scholars like Vansina and Lord use too.

Oh, I love the "But the gospels are just hearsay!" argument. What's funny is that they're absolutely right, the gospels are hearsay. What they don't know is that the Federal Rules of Evidence contain no less than two-dozen exceptions to the hearsay rule, and the gospel records fall under at least two of them, so I have no problem conceding that the gospels are hearsay.

[OfficialPro]

Have we nominated John Goddard-tarded for his insistence that Jesus is the reincarnated son of David and Bathsheeba that was made through the initial adulterous act? I swear that's Platinum Material.

[jpholding]

Have we nominated John Goddard-tarded for his insistence that Jesus is the reincarnated son of David and Bathsheeba that was made through the initial adulterous act? I swear that's Platinum Material.

It definitely will receive a nom in the Christian category. Or perhaps non-Christian theist. He's hard to place.

[Bill the Cat]

Have we nominated John Goddard-tarded for his insistence that Jesus is the reincarnated son of David and Bathsheeba that was made through the initial adulterous act? I swear that's Platinum Material.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=177

I've now added John Go-tard to my "do not bother to read" list.

[John Goddard]

Have we nominated John Goddard-tarded for his insistence that Jesus is the reincarnated son of David and Bathsheeba that was made through the initial adulterous act? I swear that's Platinum Material.

Reincarnation is same spirit, different body. Resurrection is same spirit and body, my position.

Also there is support that Uriah gave a bill of divorce to Bathsheba before he entered into battle, thus David's sin wasn't adultery but murder.

Aside from that a resurrection is rebirth by the Spirit allowing mamzers into the congregation anyway, even if that was the case. Part of the New Covenant eliminating the sour grape of fathers being inflicted on children, Jeremiah 31:29-30.

So now you can nominate with your facts straight.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Dumplin' couldn't argue specifics on this if we held a bazooka to his throat.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

The (but it has to be loaded) Curtmudgeon

[OfficialPro]

Reincarnation is same spirit, different body. Resurrection is same spirit and body, my position.

Also there is support that Uriah gave a bill of divorce to Bathsheba before he entered into battle, thus David's sin wasn't adultery but murder.

Aside from that a resurrection is rebirth by the Spirit allowing mamzers into the congregation anyway, even if that was the case. Part of the New Covenant eliminating the sour grape of fathers being inflicted on children, Jeremiah 31:29-30.

So now you can nominate with your facts straight.

Umm dude. There is 0, nada, negatory evidence that Uriah gave Bathsheba a divorce. And since David did her BEFORE Uriah went into battle, definitely Adultery is in there (the murder is a gimme).

Why would Jesus have the SAME body (or even spirit?!) as that dead child? There is no logical reason to believe this. It is rendered even further nonsensical as to Jesus dying on the cross. WHY would he die on the cross if he'd already died as an infant x1? Give your head a shake, that is DEFINITE screwball material, regardless of what terms you want to couch this inanity in. You can't even make a logical, reasonable case that this /would/ be resurrection, let alone reincarnation. It has no basis in fact or scripture, and is I suspect something you pulled out of your bum someday when you were bored.

[John Goddard]

I'll talk to you about it in the rant thread, it will just get moved there anyway.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I nominate Zeluvia for the rant to me in this post:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=113

Particularly, this one line:

You have some ideas that if everyone did what is "right" then society would be perfect.

Yes. I believe that's an accurate description....