Submit Your Candidates for May Screwballs of the Month

[jpholding]

Because the month ended on a weekend, and I don't usually get online on weekends much, special rule: These can be from today until the last day of May.

[jpholding]

Memo to self -- award goes to "Penguin" for comments in Locker Room thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...3&page=1&pp=16

[Cynic Sage]

FreeBrightMind on "Enlightened Nations"

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52509

Another one from my blog:

This is the most ridiculous, asinine, bone-headed, moronic, maddening, pound your head against the wall, "what the &%$#*@ are they thinking with?" court ruling I've heard in a while:

The two workers on the Ekofisk field lost their jobs after being caught peeping at porn on the job in the summer of 2002. The pair took their case to court and won at both the municipal and appeals level, NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) reports.

Conoco Phillips appealed the decisions to the Supreme Court in order to have a clarification of what employees can do on company time and what employers can do to enforce violations of company policy.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the firings were not justified and have awarded the two NOK 250,000 (USD 40,000) each in compensation.

And FreeDimBulb replies.

Europeans are more enlightened than Americans.

[Cynic Sage]

An interesting topic was brought up in a conversation with Minnesota in the same thread. He posted a link to a rather interesting interview.

Editor's Note: the Christian porn star in question has asked to remain nameless, and thus, does.

Douglas: I'm confused at the term. To say you're a "Christian Porn Star"-isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?



Christian Porn star (CP): There are Christian rock stars, Christian actors, and Christian athletes. Why should being a Christian porn star be any different?



Douglas: Well the very nature of your profession is-well, not very Christian.



CP: (nodding) I've thought about that quite a bit in the past.



Douglas: And?



CP: Well, the films my production company makes aren't targeted towards Christians. They're targeted to men who have, by and large, not thought much of religion. I think their needs to be a Christian in the industry helping to promote the name of Christ.



Douglas: And how exactly do you go about doing this?



CP: Well the movies I do are what industry experts call "Art House Porno."



Douglas: Art house porno?



CP: (nodding) It's an experimental form of pornography. What we do in the films is really push the boundaries of what porno is. They're films that combine sex with morals.



Douglas: Sex and morals?



CP: Right.



Douglas: So are you trying to say that godless sex is wrong in your films?



CP: By all means, no.



Douglas: Then what are you trying to do?



CP: The films are moral tales of sorts. They have themes like 'don't steal' or 'don't do drugs' or 'don't lie.' Very moral things. But to get the men to come see the moral message, we throw in all kinds of sex-raunchier and more experimental then what you would see in most porn. Like we're doing one right now about the poet Jane West. It's about West and her desire to be a female poet at any cost.



Douglas: Was West a sex addict, then?



CP: In this movie she is. It's just your typical pornographic period piece.



Douglas: Interesting. But, back to the question at hand-you don't see any of this as disregarding one immoral act as a way of condemning another one?



CP: Not at all.



Douglas: And where does Christ come in?



CP: Christ?



Douglas: Christ. You are a Christian porn star, after all. Aren't you supposed to be promoting Christ?



CP: We live in a godless world. I believe people need to see that they are doing immoral acts before they are able to see why they need Jesus Christ.



Douglas: And what about you? What about the acts you perform in the movies? Isn't having sex with multiple partners, and sometimes men, a little immoral?



CP: It's done in the name of art.



Douglas: And this makes it right?



CP: If I got pleasure out of having sex with several women at the same time, then I would say it was wrong. But I don't. I merely do it to promote morals.



Douglas: But the audience doesn't know your acting. They see a man on screen whose having sex with several women. Aren't you afraid they'll walk away believing that this kind of thing in society is okay?



CP: They're just movies. If they can't see the difference between fiction and reality, then they have other problems.



Douglas: Like addiction to porn, low self-esteem, inability to commit they're love to one person?



CP: Exactly.



Douglas: And you don't feel like you contribute to they're feelings and addictions?



CP: Absolutely not. I'm just here to entertain.



Douglas: Fair enough. Then onto other questions. Why don't you want your name to be identified?



CP: If people knew I was a Christian and a porn star, then they wouldn't see my movies.



Douglas: Doesn't the gospel say you should not be ashamed to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ?



CP: I'm not ashamed.



Douglas: You just don't want people to know you're a Christian.



CP: Exactly. Maybe one I'll write a tell-all autobiography of my life, but not until I feel my calling is finished.



Douglas: Speaking of autobiographies, can you tell me your testimony-how you came to Christ.



CP: That's a really great story. We were filming a love scene in a church, and I overheard the pastor telling the director all about Jesus. The director blew him off, but I wanted to hear more. So after the love scene was over, I found the pastor and asked to hear more. He told me how Jesus died for my sins and that accepting him would let me have a personal, one on one, relationship with God.



Douglas: Did the minister tell you, after you accepted Christ, that you needed to stop living your current life and start living for Christ?



CP: He's the one who encouraged me to be a Christian porn star.



Douglas: What kind of minister was this?



CP: Methodist.



Douglas: I see. So how did your life change after you accepted Christ? Is this when you started doing the moral porno?



CP: My life didn't change. I was already doing moral porno. Ever since I entered the industry, I felt a very passionate need to change the system and put in moral films.



Douglas: So nothing changed?



CP: Well I was a Christian porn star after that. I had only been a porn star before.



Douglas: Then what would you say the difference is between a Christian porn star and a regular porn star?



CP: I'm asked that a lot, although I'm not sure why. It's pretty obvious. A Christian porn star believes in Christ. A regular porn star does not.



Douglas: But they're attitudes and lifestyles are the same?



CP: In many cases, yes.



Douglas: Then why would you tell someone they need to be a Christian if everything can be identical when you believe in nothing?



CP: On Earth, they're really is no point in being a Christian. It's in heaven where not being a Christian can be tricky.



Douglas: So one day you'll die and meet God. What do you think he'll say about your life?



CP: Well, seeing is how I haven't did anything to make me ungodly, I think he'll be well pleased.



Douglas: You have no concerns that he won't see you doing porno as ungodly.



CP: No I don't-not compared to what other people have did.



Douglas: And what about the rest of your life. Your life outside the industry. Do you go to church? Read the Bible? Pray?



CP: Some days I'm more spiritual then others, but yeah I try and do all of those things.



Douglas: Does anyone in your church know?



CP: No one. I think people would judge me if they knew.



Douglas: Even though you don't think your job is wrong?



CP: Look at you. You seem to have a bias towards me.

I don't know which deserves the Screwball more, CP or that Methodist Minister tha encouraged him to stay in the industry?

[Piebald]

That is so bizarre it almost reads like a LarkNews or Onion article.

[Tfbandie]

That is so bizarre it almost reads like a LarkNews or Onion article.

I agree, that has got to be the weirdest thing I've read in a while.

[BronzeArcher]

If this isn't TWeb exclusive (I can't seem to find the first topic for January)...I can submit LOTS of stuff from christianforums (I'm a former mod). I hope I don't break any rules; if so I will be ashamed... Now then, from here, and I don't even need to emphasize anything:

Begging the question is when you assume what you want to prove in your argument. And what happens, again and again and again is that the contents of the bible are used to justify the contents of the bible. Nevermind the contradictory statements therein.

There are any number of variations, but the fundamental problem is that from the point of view of validity of an argument, justifying the bible with the bible is fallacious.

In no other realm of historical investigation is it adequate to rely on a single document, such as the bible. And the last thing any competent historian would do is rely on a group with a vested interest for further evidence, doh!

Actually, given the political sensitivity of giving it the thrashing it deserves it is no surprise that there is so little quality academic critique of the bible and the surrounding dogma. An academic with a view to having a future would not be so naive as to assume this would not be detrimental to their career. The shame is that some find supporting it financially rewarding. But the taint this gives their scholarly work, is it worth it?

Got to love it.

[spl_cadet]

http://www.wiolawapress.com/black.htm

[Darth Executor]

Not as good as SPL's but...

http://www.jahtruth.net/starwar.htm


Oh, and can we expect a Farrell Till comic anytime soon?

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.wiolawapress.com/black.htm

And I thought Jack Chick was an extreme anti-catholic.

[Xavier]

Take your pick from this mess...

http://science.slashdot.org/article....59247&from=rss

[Darth Executor]

Take your pick from this mess...

http://science.slashdot.org/article....59247&from=rss

Hold on a moment there. I've been thinking about this for a bit, and....

1. We don't know how much time elapsed between God's command to Adam not to eat the fruit and its actual consumption.

2. Adam and Eve were immortal until the fruit was eaten.

Immortal means: infinite length of life. There could have been thousands of millions of billions of years between the command and the act. But it *would* have happened eventually, because in infinity, all possible things happen. It was *inevitable* that they eat the fruit, it was only a matter of time.

Now, that doesn't sound like a test of free will to me. And in fact, it seems that free will is not actually mentioned in the Bible. That's just something that arose during the centuries of obsessive meditation and re-meditation over the Bible there's been in the Western world. Think about anything that much, and you'll end up seeing all kinds of things implied by it as well, which is why some of the English papers I've been reading lately strike me as the products of a sprained mind.

No, I don't think he was thinking at all. Then again, those comments remind me why I always have a smile on my face when 12 year old "aranchists" claim they're smart because they don't believe in God.

[jpholding]

Oh, and can we expect a Farrell Till comic anytime soon?

It's done and on my counter waiting for me to take it to be scanned.

Dan Barker, too, and another Brooks Trubee.

[Darth Executor]

Excellent.

[Cynic Sage]

Redwolf, on the "Fruit of the Vine".

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...57#post1018857

Hey I was just wondering why many churches use grape juice instead of wine. And since this is the history thread...

1)what is the history of using grape juice instead of wine
2)what did the people in the era of Jesus use for their communion

As one who goes to a church that uses grape juice, the story I have heard is, that alchoholics, have a problem with wine, so even a taste of it, could set them on a bender again. So, the church uses grape juice to help alchoholics not be tempted.

You do not know for certain why your church uses grape juice rather than wine? That seems odd.

Alcohol is forbidden in the Bible. Do a google on why 'Christians should not drink wine'.

Fermented grape juice is a corruption of a healthful drink, and Christ had nothing to do with corruption.

Let it not occur to you that Christ made fermented wine at the wedding feast, unless you can see him contribute to getting the guests schnockered.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1

The God of the Old Testament is the same God we have today. He wants his creatures to be healthy and happy and not indulge in mind-altering drugs.

The word 'wine' is a collective, the same as the word 'meat'.

I hope that helps.

What crazy version of the bible do you use?

I use the crazy King James Version, but any other crazy version will do.

So, you didn't bother to look it up, rather suggesting the Bible contradicts itself from one book to the next and rather suggesting that Christ would make a harmful thing for the wedding party.

That's par!

Fortunately Pilgrim was there to school him.