June 2012 Screwballs

[jpholding]

so JPH, when is he coming here?

I invited him, but I doubt he will come.

[jpholding]

One of the clown's friends dazzletag, on my pi vid:

I'm atheist and I would certainly never look to the bible for accurate information; that's kind of a central claim of atheism - it isn't just slightly out, it's very out. Certainly a lot of ancients who needed to use Pi used 22/7; 30/10 is crass but exactly what you would expect from a book written by people without a basic grasp of maths. It is slightly odd that you say a desire for accuracy is the sign of stupid person, particularly when you make a video correcting someone.

[jpholding]

The prior emailer is too chicken to come here, but he keeps ranting:

A voluntary death on behalf of others? How is it a voluntary sacrifice when you are also a god, well actually 1/3 of a god (go figure that one out) and you have been ordered by one of the other thirds to get your [deleted] down to the earth and have yourself killed in order that the 1/3 god who ordered you to go down can forgive the humans for acting in the manner that this 1/3 god created them to be; a failure? The admission here is that despite being omniscient, and therefore knowing that his creation would be a failure, he went ahead and created humans anyway, when due to his omnipotence he could have created perfect humans, or any other type of world he wished!

The god xtians believe in is, according to the bible, a complete [deleted], and his plan was to have humans fail so this complete [deleted] that he is could sentence them to eternal torture and suffering! This is your god of love? You lose this argument; and don't give me that [deleted] about free will, for it is not, it is coercion, either you do what this god wants or you suffer eternal torture. Maybe you had better re-read the Free Will article on the Ebon Musings site, as you obviously failed to grasp it's meaning.

In any event, [Jesus], being also a god could not suffer, else he is not omnipotent, and he didn't really die as he was apparently alive less than three days later and is now sitting on his [deleted] at the right hand of his father, as due to his omniscience he knew he would be, so where is the sacrifice? There was none. You also lose this argument.

Xtians always bemoan his death, seemingly being too stupid to realize that this was all part of god's plan from the beginning, and that without his death there would be no xtianity. Instead of being a villain, Pilate should be considered a hero for sentencing JC to die and thus giving xtians something to worship.

[Deleted sexual content] I read somewhere that the holy spirit somehow impregnated [Mary] through her ear! I wonder how JC was born and yet Mary still remained a virgin? Must be one of those mysteries of god that xtians resort to whenever they are stuck for want of a logical answer. Right? Do you think JC knew he was still god when he was languishing in Mary's womb for 9 months, or did he give up his" godness" during this period? How would that have been accomplished one wonders, can a god become un-god? ...[deleted] Sorry for asking so many intelligent, reasoned, and logical questions, although I am certain you will have your excuses ready.

Question? In John 19:9 Pilate asks JC "where are you from"? Where are you from! Here is a man, JC, who the bible claims was wandering around Pilate's area of jurisdiction for several years "attracting huge multitudes to himself, in whose presence he performed stupendous miracles, such that his fame spread far and wide"" and Pilate has to ask him where he is from! Obviously he had never heard of JC and his miracles, or he never would have had to ask this question! This is impossible. Do you have an answer, or merely an excuse?

It goes on for a few more paragraphs. I told him it was all old crap that had been answered repeatedly, and that he needs to get over here and provide us with some public entertainment. One more line is worth a quote:

Why shouldn't I criticize scholars, when they are xtian scholars, as they enter any argument and address any question with pre-conceived ideas according to what is written in the bible. There is no such thing as a xtian scholar; they are all find what they are looking for. They are not true scholars.

The stupid is strong in this one.

[Cerebrum123]

The prior emailer is too chicken to come here, but he keeps ranting:



It goes on for a few more paragraphs. I told him it was all old crap that had been answered repeatedly, and that he needs to get over here and provide us with some public entertainment. One more line is worth a quote:



The stupid is strong in this one.

Through her ear? What planet did he hear that one on. Perhaps he has had one to many noodles over at the FSM church, and has had his brain replaced with meatballs.

[rogue06]

Perhaps he has had one to many noodles over at the FSM church, and has had his brain replaced with meatballs.

And Mama Mia it's a spicy meatball




(apologies to the old Alka seltzer commercial)

[jpholding]

It's a chicken meatball -- he's still too chicken to come here:

They may have been answered, but the answers are wrong, and are nothing but excuses indulged in by apologists such as yourself.

Just to address one of your beliefs, that the [Jesus] volunteered to be a savior for humanity. There is no mention anywhere in the bible that JC "volunteered", as you claim, to be a sacrifice, xtians always talk of him as being "sent" by god, implying he had no choice in the matter. This is further evidenced when he supposedly whines before the crucifixion for his father to to "take this this cup away" from him, or some such words placed into his mouth by the writers of the bible myth. There is a difference between volunteering and being ordered, a fact which you appear to be unaware of.

I'll have more to say later; too busy right now.

I too could claim that the fallacy of your beliefs was proven ages ago, without going into details, as you don't.

[Soyeong]

It's been explained to you why the comparison is offensive. It's a common apologia of fundamentalist apologists. As you didn't invent it but simply relied on it as a convenient argument against genetic homosexuality, it's no big deal. At least you inside not to use it any more.

Whag missing the point yet again.

[lilpixieofterror]

Whag missing the point yet again.

Whag is an idiot, you're better off trying to talk to the walls.

[GioD]

Shunyadragon shows his "rebuttal" to The Impossible Faith

Being suspect does not carry any weight beyond those that believe. Personally I do not consider shameful and inconvenient good reasons to be even suspect to be true. The power of Constintin's Roman political and military power was more effective

I didn't know "Constintin" was spreading Christianity militarily in the First Century.

[Cerebrum123]

shuny is best left on ignore.

[jpholding]

The loony who's been writing me has said he'll come over! I started a thread for him, the Chicken Rick Thread.

[Y'hoshua]

Screwball to this quote from Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor, The Great Cosmic Mother - Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth

Ancient moon priestesses were called virgins. ‘Virgin’ meant not married, not belong to a man - a woman who was ‘one-in-herself’. The very word derives from a Latin root meaning strength, force, skill; and was later applied to men: virle. Ishtar, Diana, Astarte, Isis were all all called virgin, which did not refer to sexual chasity, but sexual independence. And all great culture heroes of the past…, mythic or historic, were said to be born of virgin mothers: Marduk, Gilgamesh, Buddha, Osiris, Dionysus, Genghis Khan, Jesus - they were all affirmed as sons of the Great Mother, of the Original One, their worldly power deriving from her. When the Hebrews used the word, and in the original Aramatic, it meant ‘maiden’ or ‘young woman’, with no connotations to sexual chasity. But later Christian translators could not conceive of the ‘Virgin Mary’ as a woman of independent sexuality, needless to say; they distorted the meaning into sexually pure, chaste, never touched. When Joan of Arc, with her witch coven associations, was called La Pucelle - ‘the Maiden,’ ‘the Virgin’ - the word retained some of its original pagan sense of a strong and independent woman. The Moon Goddess was worshipped in orgiastic rites, being the divinity of matriarchal women free to take as many lovers as they choose. Women could ‘surrender’ themselves to the Goddess by making love to a stranger in her temple.

And yes, the spelling mistakes were there from the person who I copied the quote from. As I was reading this I was literally giggling to myself

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Congrats also here to Quanta and RG on their engagement. Definitely no screwball there.

[rogue06]

Screwball to this quote from Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor, The Great Cosmic Mother - Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth



And yes, the spelling mistakes were there from the person who I copied the quote from. As I was reading this I was literally giggling to myself

The fathers of Buddha and Genghis Khan are known. Suddhodana for the former (there are no accounts of Buddha being born of a virgin until well after Christianity in fact the oldest accounts mention nothing abnormal about his birth at all) and Yesükhei Baghatur was the father of the latter.

[Y'hoshua]

Ah, but the quote says

The very word derives from a Latin root meaning strength, force, skill; and was later applied to men: virle. Ishtar, Diana, Astarte, Isis were all all called virgin, which did not refer to sexual chasity, but sexual independence.

So "virgin" doesn't mean virgin! So there! XD

The whole argument is full of it anyway, there are more mistakes then just that