April 2012 Screwballs

[Kristian Joense]

Maybe. I only speak from personal experience (obviously), but I've never had the moment Craig talks about. Still, I can't imagine it's a convincing argument to the people he's addressing.

It is important to note that WLC distinguishes between knowing that Christianity is true and showing that Christianity is true, he does not use the holy spirit argument for the latter, see for example this Q & A exchange.

[Rational Gaze]

I've felt some kind of spiritual encounter numerous times when I was a kid, then for awhile it left right around the time I became a nihilist, I have since felt it again, but only after becoming a Christian again. It is similar to an experience I feel whilst at Church, except more powerful.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Unbelievable? has a Facebook page called "Talking about Jesus" more geared towards debates. Major Screwball to poster Te Nee there. (Obviously referring to his IQ)

Jesus told the people to have no thought for the morrow, leave your family. He told them that he would come back within their lifetime.

Matthew 24:34: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus states that all the signs marking the end of the world in Matthew 24 would be fulfilled before his generation ended. That generation ended 2000 years ago, and the world has not come to an end, neither has all those signs been fulfilled.

Now to make excuses you will tell me that this is out of context. Then I will ask you how do discern between what is the context, what is literal and what is allegorical. You will say you rely on your personal relationship and biblical scholars. I will say you are picking and choosing, treating the bible like a buffet where you create your own religion, cherry picking the quotes that agree with your evolution-derived sensibilities. Then you will start throwing out red herrings like. "I don't want to live in a world where there is no (Term for God not allowed on TWeb) to hold my hand and punish al the mean people".

[One Bad Pig]

"[W]hy was [Jesus] killed? Because He fought and He occupied the corrupt temple." --"Reverend" Jesse Jackson

[ApologiaPhoenix]

"[W]hy was [Jesus] killed? Because He fought and He occupied the corrupt temple." --"Reverend" Jesse Jackson

What's sad is that he kind of came close without realizing. Yes. Jesus did go to a temple that was corrupt and he did deal with it, but it wasn't the economic system but the worship system.

And yes, Jackson's message is corrupt.

[Teluog]

That one lady from my school on Facebook again, from the Evangelical Narcissism Department:

Consider asking God "what do you think about me?"

Is that really necessary??

[ukchristian28]

Youtuber "theclockmace":

"A bearded man that lives in the sky, who created the earth in 7 days. Sounds like a wizard from a fantasy novel."

I hope he's a parody.

[Rational Gaze]

Major Screwball to poster Te Nee there.

I've seen that guy over at Unbelievable? too. The words "unremitting" and "stupidity" come to mind.

[jpholding]

YT user Hellrehab, on my Dawkins vid:

Actually I won't watch a theist vid with ratings disabled and comments censored. So I do this to see if comments are pending approval first. Then I'll watch the vid.

[ukchristian28]

A fundy called Ryan on Facebook who is really screwed up:

"true christianity under the new covenant has nothing whatsoever to do with rules ethics and rituals. that was the old system. the old covenant.

true christianity under the new covenant is not a religion. under the old covenant it was a religion. true christianity under the new covenant is not a relationship. it is an adoption. once we are adopted there is a relationship. it is a relationship of the unconditional love of the father for his children not a system of rules.

the bible contains much instruction. that is where people seem to get mixed up. instruction not command, not demand. according to our understanding of rules there is always punishment for the rule breaker, mediocrity for the rule keeper. under this new covenant the roll is reversed. mercy for the rule breaker and grace for him also. the rule keeper earns nothing with god because under the new covenant god is not interested in you keeping the rules. he wants you to live by faith in his son, is that faith if you choose to receive instruction it is simply for your benefit in this life, but has no bearing whatsoever on your standing whith god. once you are adopted you are a son permanently.

living by faith in his son does not mean keeping what his son has said. jesus christ is not a command giver, that is moses ( the old covenant). jesus is the mediator of a new and better covenant. jesus christ is the life giver not a law giver. Under the new covenant Jesus makes a man perfectly righteous based on faith his own righteous deeds apart from our righteous deeds or lack thereof.

you could ask anyone who claims to be a christian why jesus died. they were all give the same answer. " he died for our sins". yet, strangely enough they are in a religious system trying to earn merrit with god. look at their lives. they claim it but they don't actually believe that jesus died for their sins. they are still trying so hard to be accepted.

while they maintain this attitude, all the instructions in the bible become tainted as the turn them into laws because there is always a penalty for breaking the laws. when you are a son of the king because he adopted you, you are above the law.

the bible says that we who have been adopted are not under law but we are under grace."

[rogue06]

YT user Hellrehab, on my Dawkins vid:

Actually I won't watch a theist vid with ratings disabled and comments censored. So I do this to see if comments are pending approval first. Then I'll watch the vid.

Translation: I'll use any available excuse to avoid looking at something that might challenge my presuppositions

[Analytic Theist]

Eva Yojimbo continues:

I question how we can extrapolate from anything that we know through observing the physical universe to claiming these things hold outside of it. You want to put logic and causality into a separate category, but I’m questioning the validity of you doing this and I haven’t seen you argue with anything but naked assertions about them being metaphysical principles and such nonsense. We rely on these things because they reflect the closed system we're apart of, and claiming they must transcend that system is like a fish claiming that the principle of "faces get bigger as they get closer to me" holds outside his fishbowl!

The problem is created when theists are dishonest about what they mean by nothing: they use it one way to argue about how nothing comes from nothing ("you wouldn't claim an Eskimo village could appear in the road!" -- paraphrasing WLC), but then say that the kind of nothing they were referring to isn't REALLY nothing when a physicist shows that that kind of nothing can, indeed, give rise to the universe. It becomes a word game, and a very dishonest one.

When I said to him that God is a necessary being by definition:

Arguing by definition is for idiots.

[Kristian Joense]

Screwball to a bunch of people on Twitter not knowing about that the Titanic was an actual ship that sank.

[fm93]

Hate to point this out, but there's profanity in that link.

[Kristian Joense]

Oops, sorry about that!