March 2009 Screwballs

[Pumbelo]

Ehrman has now gone completely insane:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3166

[seanD]

whoops, double post.

[seanD]

Ehrman has now gone completely insane:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3166

Just another crutch that he'll blow out of proportion, like his textual criticism, which he'll use to support his emotional agnosticism towards evil and suffering

[Darth Executor]

Nomination for Augustine2004 for this ridiculous hyperliteralism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=232

Originally posted by John Goddard
I interpret the following that men and women shall not have sex with their own kind of genders, that's up for debate though:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Here Paul implies that any sex activity outside of opposite-sex marriage is fornication, that's a lot clearer:

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Also what shadowmaster said.

You could be right, but I don't see that lesbanism is totally ruled out.

Maybe he thinks Exodus 22:1 allows women and children to steal livestock without consequences too.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by Pumbelo

Is he getting his numbers right?

http://www.microclesia.com/?p=324

Of course not. Tassman can't be bothered with the facts.

[Pumbelo]

I don't want to pick any example, almost all of the comments are screwed

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...jority-of.html

[jpholding]

When's the Feb feature going to be up?

Probably later today.

[MarcusAndreas]

Good.

[Mountain Man]

This guy is an absolute hoot, and yet he's so darn serious and thinks that he's making genuinely good points:

When Jesus says that God feeds the sparrows out of love, how do you interpret that today? Such a message seems specifically geared toward that particular audience. It seems to be a culture-bound sentiment with little if any applicability to us.

A sparrow’s existence is not maintained by an external conscious providence; it is maintained by its active pursuit of the things that keep it alive (i.e., unconscious drives). The potency of Jesus' illustration is hampered by its anthropomorphism, which to us is very strange. Of course birds and flowers don’t worry about food and clothing. Birds and flowers don’t have the capacity of forethought. Yet Jesus uses them to convey to his audience that we, a particular species of higher primate, is more loved than they. I was always puzzled as to the basis even of the sparrow's worth here, inferior though it is to ours. Implicit in Jesus illustration is the default worth of all living things by virtue of their being created.

I don’t discount that there are layers of meaning here. I’m eager to hear them. All I’m saying is that the explicit correlation of providence to worth isn’t convincing. How does one sidestep that correlation?

[Giorno Giovanna]

You'll discover that Tassman is all talk and no actual arguments. I've caught him several times being loose with facts and he just choose to either ignore what I said or try to claim that I'm 'misquoting' my sources.

I realized that to be true when I demolished him in the Hitler thread. He actually had the gall to say that the Bible does not prove that Jesus is our only savior when it says it right in the Bible.

Seriously, what a tool.

@Darth Obvious: Tassman just made me look like a prophet. Seriously you're wasting your time with him, he'll just keep trying to beat around the bush and never present a real argument.

@Pumbelo: Thanks for the article and I lol'd when that one atheist said that science would have to teach people about humility and life. Talk about scientism.

@Mountain Man: Alright! My favorite punching bag, Pai, is back and just in time for spring break!

[T-Shirt Ninja]

I nominate Christopher Hitchens for using the old, "Nazism and Stalinism were actually religious in nature!" argument in his closing statement in the debate last night at Samford University with John Lennox. It seemed like he was quite befuddled at the beginning of his closing statement since John Lennox's prior closing statement received thundering applause.

[Mountain Man]

Oh, this is hilarious: Pai and Theostudent have started going at it in one of Pai's threads. It's like watching two drunken louts in a back alley wrestling match.

[saladfingers]

Wahhhhh! Cry me a handful!

Oh well, since i'm here, I hereby nominate Michael Phelps for that big bong rip! I wonder what kind of weed it was? Sativa? Indica? Hmmm.

[seanD]

Ehrman has now gone completely insane:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3166

I double my nomination for Ehrman. Dr. Oakley rips Ehrman a new one, and exposes how bias, inconsistent, and dishonest Ehrman's new book really is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDrdQ...e=subscription

[Theostudent]

It would be alot more fun conversing with pia of i was drunk, as with most conversations.