January 2009 Screwballs

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'm starting to see why you guys make these threads. The logic displayed by jassi is just horrible. Has he/she even read anything at all about the history of Christianity and Jesus? I'm guessing not.

now now. Saying his logic is horrible could hurt his feelings....

[jpholding]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...quisition.html

Great Skeptical page. Starts with Pope Leo X and goes downhill from there!

[jpholding]

DJ's Useful Idiot commenter "Samphire" wins Silver:

For me the more difficult problem for christians is that the resurrection still leaves them with a body to dispose of. Even the nature of that body is uncertain. Though the disciples were supposedly with the risen Jesus they still doubted it was him and, according to Acts, Jesus had to give “many proofs” that he was alive. What these proofs were we have no idea. Apart from eating some broiled fish did he get into arm-wrestling contests with them? Did the disciples stamp on his feet or were they invited to poke him in the eye with a sharp stick to discover his reaction? Perhaps he was asked for his autograph on a clay tablet. We simply do not know. And, of course, if Jesus really was alive, why would he have to give any proofs at all? Being alive is itself proof of being alive. Rather, did the disciples suspect that he may have been an impostor, a doppleganger and that the proofs were for identity rather than vitality?

But then along comes St Paul who claims to have learned all through revelation without giving any indication that he discussed the matter of the resurrection with any of the disciples, Jesus’ mother or the other supposed resurrection witnesses. We do not even know if he knew any of the detail of the various contradictory resurrection stories or, if he did, whether he believed in the literality of any of them. However, we do know that in order to explain the resurrection he considered it necessary to invent the idea of a glorified body although exactly what he meant by this he failed to make absolutely clear.

But, a long time before Paul, the disciples (or rather their biographers) still had the problem of what to do with the body. They can’t leave Jesus walking around the countryside with an everlasting body shell so they have to get rid of him by sending him up to heaven like a rocket. Fortunately, a cloud gets in the way which absolves them from explaining what happened next. But, and here comes the burden of proof, I know that heaven is not “up there”. I have the photographs. Heaven is nowhere to be found above the cloud base. There may be a few space vehicles floating around up there and the odd ladies’ toolbag but no 2,000 year old living bodies. The story is untrue.

So, Jesus did not go “up” to heaven. If the resurrection was true it was of no lasting physical effect and his bodily atoms and nail clippings remain here on Earth. In fact, even though not a catholic, I have some of those atoms in my own body together with some of Mohammed’s and Hitler’s although, to be honest, I am not sure which one is which. But perhaps that is a good thing.

And Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall wins too for calling this a "well-reasoned" post.

[Alien]

Even if I accept that definition, most Christians (and even some non-Christians) have reasons for their disapproval of homosexuality. It's far from 'unreasoned'.

Right, but in that case it's not homophobia. That is the correct definition .... an unreasoning fear. It can also be antipathy, as the definition states. I don't see anything wrong with the original quoted text as it stands.

The point is not what the definition of homophobia is, it's whether any given Christian is homophobic. That word is thrown around much too freely, imo.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...quisition.html

Great Skeptical page. Starts with Pope Leo X and goes downhill from there!

The most amusing part is attributing the Leo quote to John Bale - think they've heard of Tekton?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Screwball award for porn industry kings Joe Francis & Larry Flynt:

Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild chief executive Joe Francis issued a joint plea for Congress to pump £3.3 billion into the sector.

They claim that the economic downturn is hitting the porn business and that federal assistance is needed to boost the nation's sex drive.

The pair added that they deserve the same treatment offered to banks and the car industry.

link: (not sure about Tweb decorum here...remove if needed, please)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090108/...y-41f21e0.html

[The Curtmudgeon]

Screwball award for porn industry kings Joe Francis & Larry Flynt:



link: (not sure about Tweb decorum here...remove if needed, please)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090108/...y-41f21e0.html

Actually, I approve whole-heartedly of their move, as it shows (and, I believe, is meant to show) the complete bankrupturedness of the government bailout policy.

Now, if they're successful at getting their money, that's a different matter -- but then the Screwbie would go to Congress, not Flynt/Francis.

The (I think Congress has long established its right to a Perpetual Screwbie anyway) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

DJ's Useful Idiot commenter "Samphire" wins Silver:



And Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall wins too for calling this a "well-reasoned" post.

I would swear that that's got to be a parody post -- not even a DJUI can be that spectacularly stoopid, can he?

The (of course, McCall is stoopid enough to fall for a parody, so that boosts my theory) Curtmudgeon

[DoomRater]

Right, but in that case it's not homophobia. That is the correct definition .... an unreasoning fear. It can also be antipathy, as the definition states. I don't see anything wrong with the original quoted text as it stands.

The point is not what the definition of homophobia is, it's whether any given Christian is homophobic. That word is thrown around much too freely, imo.

I think the problem here is that he's implying that arguing against homosexuality = homophobia because of the word antipathy in the definition. And that's not what the definition of a phobia.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Okay, Screwbie nom for POWELL in this thread:

POWELL:
I'm finding a surprising number of people who can't count days in English. So, perhaps this survey will help the readers at TWEB learn how to do it properly.

If Jesus died on Friday at noon and resurrected on Sunday at noon then would that be Jesus rising on the third day or rising after the third day?

My answer is it would be rising ON the third day. If he rose AFTER the third day then that would mean he rose some time after Sunday, say on Monday. If he rose BEFORE the third day then that would mean he rose some time before Sunday, say on Saturday. Since we're going from a daylight period to another daylight period it doesn't matter whether the "days" refers to daylight periods or Jewish weekdays (beginning at sunset) or modern weekdays (beginning at midnight).

What do you think?

John Powell

Apparently, Mr. POWELL believes

1. The Gospel accounts of the Resurrection were originally written in English; and
2. Truth is determined by democratic voting.

The (sad to watch a formerly intelligent person spiral down to such levels) Curtmudgeon

[MarcusAndreas]

I thought POWELL was supposed to smart.

[Alien]

I think the problem here is that he's implying that arguing against homosexuality = homophobia because of the word antipathy in the definition. And that's not what the definition of a phobia.

I've always understood phobia to include hatred as well as fear. But it has to be unreasoning to be a phobia. I don't think there's enough in the quoted part of the OP to decided what he was implying. Maybe if we could see the whole thing it would be clear.

(I agree with you IF he's implying that).

[Alien]

Actually, I approve whole-heartedly of their move, as it shows (and, I believe, is meant to show) the complete bankrupturedness of the government bailout policy.

Now, if they're successful at getting their money, that's a different matter -- but then the Screwbie would go to Congress, not Flynt/Francis.

The (I think Congress has long established its right to a Perpetual Screwbie anyway) Curtmudgeon

"Bankrupturedness"?

In general, I would suggest not using the word "screwball" in connection with the porn industry as it could be misunderstood ....

[MarcusAndreas]

Screwball to Wikipedia:

A major spokesman for the Church in the High Middle Ages (11th through 13th centuries) was Thomas Aquinas, one of the 33 Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church and renowned thirteenth-century theologian. Writings of Thomas Aquinas about women were an opposing influence upon church and philosophical attitudes towards women for centuries. He began his argument of women and their involvement in the creation story by quoting Aristotle's misogynist view of a woman as being "a misbegotten man." Aquinas reasoned that anything misbegotten or defective should not have existed in the creation story, therefore women should not exist. He viewed women as having been created for man simply to make procreation possible. Men can gain help and support from other men, but the act of procreation requires a woman, he wrote. By arguing that women were created simply to allow continuation of the human race, he attempted to shut down the argument that God made a mistake in creating women. However, according to Aquinas, the female sex cannot represent Christ because women are incomplete human beings.

I read this at my dad and he screamed and pointed out it is total nonsense.

[The Curtmudgeon]

"Bankrupturedness"?

I read both Lewis Carroll and James Joyce. I'm allowed. (Actually, I thought it was a pretty good "portmanteau word," to use the Carrollian term, even if I do say it myself.)

In general, I would suggest not using the word "screwball" in connection with the porn industry as it could be misunderstood ....

I refuse to let such people control the definition of terms.

The (memo to self: must remember to get a portmanteau to carry my words around in) Curtmudgeon