Submit Your Candidates for September Screwballs of the Month

[Darth Executor]

Oh yeah, I forgot to rate mine. Silver-Gold.

[Cynic Sage]

Jude3b:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=130

Dear santaro 75:

The Old Testament was accepted as one Book. And though the New Testament letters and Gospels were only recently written, the churches of God - the body of Christ traded and copied them. And these scrolls were all gathered together in one important city: Antioch of Syria. Antioch was 310 miles north of Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26). They were called "Christians" - not Roman Catholics! These Christians in Antioch collected the holy scriptures and made many copies of them. Soon they were all collected into a single Bible. This all took place shortly after 100 AD. This was God's preserved words in Greek.

But there was another city, 317 miles southwest of Jerusalem: Alexandria, Egypt. And in that city the "intellectuals" perverted the words of God. Here is how it happened: From loosely 300 BC to 300 AD, Greek was the "trade language" people used to communicate all over the Roman Empire.
It was also the language of philosophy. That means every person who thought he was smart would read the Greek Philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism or Epicureanism. These philosophers all wanted to be "scholars." And guess what city turned out to be a philosopher's paradise? That's right! Alexandria, Egypt! Alexandrian "scholars" were stuck up, selfish, jealous hypocrites who could never agree on anything. So guess what kind of Bible they came up with?

(Sources for further research: The Outline of History 1920, page 305. Final Authority by Dr. William Grady (1993), page 77 and pages 191-195; See also Tixeront, Handbook of Patrology, page 92.)

The so-called "Scholars" from Alexandria got hold of the pure Bible from Antioch of Syria, which was straight from the apostles and prophets. The Alexandrian Scholars argued for years, but the main source of the false Bible they would produce would be a particular "scholar" named Origen.

Origen didn't like God's Preserved Bible. Why? Because he was a "scholar," or course! During his life he wrote hundreds of books, all infected with Greek philosophy. Origen was NOT a Bible-believer. Origen didn't believe in the Old Testament miracles. Origen didn't believe many of Jesus' words or stories. Origen didn't believe the Holy Spirit was eternal. Origen didn't believe that Jesus Christ was Almighty God!

The Apocryphal books were folk tales in circulation during the time that ORIGEN, and Alexandrian "Scholars" made up his strange and perverted Greek New Testament. Origen added the Apocrpha to his counterfeit Bible. He also added New Testament passages to Old Testaement texts. He put the Old Testament and Apocrypha together and then called it the "ancient" Septuagint! Origen gave the world his Bible, not God's: It contained a Modified Old Testament, plus the folk tales called Apocrypha, plus a perverted New Testament. This is the basis of Origen's Alexandrian "Bible."

Origen lived an unusual life. At 18 he was made head teacher at the school of Alexandria. He taught from 204 - 230 AD, when he was kicked out. He moved to Caesarea and was caught in the Decian persecution of 250 AD and tortured. After he was released, in 254 AD he finally died of his wounds.

After Origen died - his counterfeit Bible was copied by other "scholars" and they wrote three more Bible perversions: Sinaiticus (about 350 AD); Vaticanus (before 400 AD) and Alexandrinus (about 450 AD). These so-called "scholarly" Bibles disagree over 3,000 times, in the 4 Gospels alone!! We can safely call them "false witnesses."

After Constantine conquered "Pagan Rome" and legalized Christianity - this led to the official establishment of Roman Caholicism. Eusebius of Caesarea (263 - 339 AD) was Constantine's lap-dog. He treated emperor Constantine like he was a god. Constantine told Eusebious to get him some Greek Bibles. So Eusebius went to the school of his favorite "scholar" - Origen - down in Alexandria, Egypt! The perverted counterfeit Bibles were sent to Rome.

By 405 AD Jerome had finished a latin perversion based on the counterfeit Bible of Origen. It was called the "Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate!!"

There were still many copies of the preserved Word of God in Old Latin and many faithful believers hid their Bibles. Counterfeit Christianity was coming into full bloom now - and starting about 413 AD - in the form of Roman Catholicism, it would control most of the known world for the next 1000 plus years, and the church of God - the body of Christ, fled into the wilderness, as is shown in the book of Revelation.

The church of God - the body of Christ would remain in the "wilderness" during most of the dark years of the "Papal reign."

"Dem Evil Scholars were messin' wit' de Bybil, strait frum de beginnin'."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Got it straightened out. My mistake. I'm not the best with comps. I've shortened it to the best line.

Exegesis of the text. What does the text say about being led by the Spirit as opposed to living by the flesh?

Exegesis be damned! Learn the big picture then re-examine your own journey in Him.

[Gideon Brown]

TealHysterical's entire catalog deserves one...

From here:

If God didn't want sex to be abused, He shouldn't have made it feel so good.

From here:

God could've prevented a lot of suffering by making sex not feel good, or making sugar not taste sweet.

...God must not be a very good baby-maker.

From here:

There are many sins Christians could do that would incur no consequences on Earth...such as lusting after someone, for one. "Committing adultery in your head," right? Yet it seems that no negative consequences turn out from it...hmm...

I think most Protestants don't believe in engaging in sex for pleasure, either.

What was the purpose of making sex feel good and sugar taste good? What was the point, other than to tempt people to make stupid choices?

That God! Outrageous!

From here:

However, the NT writers are very biased, especially when it comes to the resurrection, since they have an obvious stake in it.

You see, we don't doubt most things written by Tacitus because he doesn't have much of a reason to lie. Why would he? Same with Josephus...

The NT writers' faith would have been shaken significantly if Jesus was not resurrected. Doesn't it make sense that I'm a little suspicious about their claims as to his resurrection?

And yet he goes on to say, in reference to JPH's TIF:

I already told you I found it unconvincing.

That thing is far too long for me to provide a sufficient rebuttal here. Let me just attack its premise, then:

The major point of it appears to be this: Christianity shouldn't have succeeded unless there was irrefuttable proof of the resurrection during those ancient days. Apparently, Mr. Hodling fails to realize a few things:
1) If the resurrection was the only thing converting people to Christianity, then why did it spread so far? It should've only spread to the people who directly experienced the risen Jesus and knew who he was. However, people converted who had never even seen Jesus!
2) I'd imagine, if this were true, we'd have some written memoirs by people who converted to Christianity because they saw the resurrected Jesus. As it is, we only have Paul--and he only saw Jesus in a vision!
3) It's patently unfair that God gives some people--the ones who saw Jesus--undeniable proof that he was the son of God, yet expects people of future generations to believe on blind faith.

And then, after all that, he says:

...I enjoy debating...

Which translates roughly as :wart:.

Some of it's bronze, some silver. Gold for the bolded part.

[Teallaura]

The question isn't the existence of absolutes but whether or not we can know them.

Moral relativism is not simply saying that no truth exists or that absolutes don't exist. I believe that we know of absolutes that exist. However we do not know the whole of the universe and the knowledge therein so we cannot know the absolute truth.

Is it just me, or does he refute his own assertion in the second sentence?

[Cynic Sage]

TealHysterical's entire catalog deserves one...

From here:



From here:







From here:





That God! Outrageous!

From here:



And yet he goes on to say, in reference to JPH's TIF:



And then, after all that, he says:



Which translates roughly as :wart:.

Some of it's bronze, some silver. Gold for the bolded part.

TealTerror needs to learn that Protestantism is all about being able to wear a condom. (Monty Python reference ).

[Gideon Brown]

TealTerror needs to learn that Protestantism is all about being able to wear a condom. (Monty Python reference ).

He also seems to think that the gratuitous addition of smilies to his posts increases the force of his 'arguments'. Or maybe he just has Tourette's?

More from him:

The disciples didn't bother to check the tomb.

As if!

The good reason I have that parts of what Luke wrote are fictional or untrue is because those parts are unbelievable.

Can you say 'begged question'? Of course you can.

The only record we have of someone converting because he saw Jesus after the crucifixion is Paul... Therefore, we have no records of people converting after seeing the risen Jesus, which puts Holding's theory that people would only convert if they saw the risen Jesus into doubt.

Pssst... that's not Holding's theory.

Even if your theory was true, why would the resurrection erase the social stigma? He was still crucified, right? Why would undeniable proof of his resurrection make people say "Oh, then the crucifixion was fine, then"?

This is the same guy who tells MM '[i]t's taking all my willpower to continue debating with you. Seriously.' No, seriously, TealHysterical needs to be seen to be believed. He seems not to realise what a fool he's making of himself. This stuff is mostly bronze or silver on its own; you have to read the entirety of the guy's writing to fully appreciate it.

And thus, I put something in my sig (taken from here).

[BronzeArcher]

Random CF picks. From a guy who has "Professional arguer" as his custom title, referring to some Leviticus laws...

So do you think those laws were acceptable at the time then? Sounds like those are words of a lunatic to me. I guess they were "re-worked" when people realized how unacceptable that was.

Professional, eh. And, from another great professional,

no offense but it bugs me to see how hard theists will try to justify the actions of a supposedly loving God in the face of his actions which speak otherwise. He killed women and children!!! Even man has an unwritten understanding that killing women and children is a nono, but God did it. And if God did it, it must be okay! . . .

The bottom line is, God's word in Leviticus doesn't sound like God's word at all. Instead, it sounds to me like the word of man in the infancy of his moral intellect. God on the other hand is perfect and therefore his morals, which should reflect this perfection, should be perfect themselves. In other words, God shouldn't be telling man to kill whores and their children, endorse slavery, condemn homosexuality (his very own creation i might add) etc...

Ugh, I really hate it in there. But in the Christian-only forums the decontextualization is even more rampant.

[OfficialPro]

This prolly deserves AT LEAST a bronze:

Some guy called xavier86 @ protestwarrior.com posted a thread http://forum.protestwarrior.com/view...768284#9768284

where he asks the standard mundane uber-simplistic skeptic question of all time:

Let's say you have two opposing armies, both comprising Christian soldiers, and both sides pray for God's guidance.

What's God supposed to do there? The winner of the battle is the side God favored?

[Gideon Brown]

Doubting John sez:

I teach critical thinking classes

'nuff said. (Coming from him, it's just a bronze. Now, if Johnny Skeptic said it...)

[Doubting John]

I teach critical thinking classes

'nuff said. (Coming from him, it's just a bronze. Now, if Johnny Skeptic said it...)

Why is this so problematic to believe? I also teach philosophy and ethics classes. So...

Just point out something I have said that is illogical. Go ahead. Try.

I might get some facts wrong, but that's not a problem with logic, just the facts.

And I might change my mind too, but that's not a logical problem, either, nor is it lying.

Sometimes I'm just having fun, like you do here. Sometimes I just enjoy it too much.

Just because I get frustrated at the level of some people's intelligence and lash out at them doesn't prove I'm illogical. Maybe a little hot tempered, but not illogical.

And just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I've committed any logical fallacy, either. It just means we have different control beliefs and our logic stems from them. Plus, all of the great philosophers committed informal fallacies from time to time. One person's fallacy is another person's anomally, that's all.

When I took the Graduate Record Exam to get into my master's degree program I scored higher than 9 out of ten college graduates who took it that year. Which might mean that if the Twebbers I talk to aren't even college graduates, then the ratio is even higher.

I might have a problem with arrogance, too, but that isn't a matter for logic.

And I may also reveal more of myself than others do here too, who prefer to sit back and anonymously insult me. But Christians can justify doing that because I don't matter to them--after all, I'm a doubter, a skeptic and an agnostic.

I think there might be one major problem with me being here on TWEB, though. This is from my perspective, you'll note, is that I feel I am casting some of my pearls before some swine (not most, mind you, just a few). My problem is that I think I can reason with some people who cannot reason with me. And for that, you might be able to call me a screwball.

And if you'll look at the threads "Doubting John's Faith in Doubt" and "Where is God in Hurricane Katrina" you'll see how reasonable I can be with reasonable people (although I may be running into some trouble with one person there--we'll see if things will be different his time).

But one thing is fairly certain. For as much as I'm nominated a screwball here, my weak arguments, as you are so apt to call them, are getting national and international attention. Even though you continue to nominate me a screwball and call my arguments "canards" and the like. They are making a difference.

With my revised book the arguments are even better than before. And some of them were hashed out here on TWEB, so for that you are to be thanked. And anyone who has ever responded to me with an intelligent question or comment has actually made my revision a better and stronger case against Christianity.

So the screwballs are really those who have intelligently responded to me.

[Gideon Brown]

You get another one for taking me seriously.

[BronzeArcher]

A guy called 'popey', who is attempting to 'shut down' the Bible:

Today we live and breathe in a society that is very much a result of scientific advancement, and human evolution (in the general sense). How can people still require religion to help explain our existence? This is what really frustrates me. It is an illogical explanation for existence! It is filled with contradiction! And it is completely outdated!

The problem with Christianity (and most other religions) is that it bases its belief so broadly in a text that is meant to be the (concise) word of God. **You would also think that if it is the word of God, it would be in a universally understandable form**

Most believers know very little about the history of their religion, they go to Church every week and they get spoon fed quotes from the New Testament (NT) - a revised edition of the Old Testament (OT). The famous Ten Commandments are underlying proof of both the inconstancy of the Bible and the convenient selection of the NT. For your convenience I will bring the evidence to you:

i. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
ii. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
iii. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
iv. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
v. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
vi. Thou shalt not kill.
vii. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
viii. Thou shalt not steal.
ix. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
x. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


At a simple glance, you would probably think nothing of it. But look what the word of God is actually saying. The first four commandments condemn our own religious freedom, and freedom of speech.

i. states that we must bow down to worship him
ii. condemns the creation and worship of other Gods
iii. states we can’t take his name in vein
iv. commands us to worship his Sabbath day

And apparently we disagree on "key central doctrines".

I find it hard to comprehend that Christians disagree on key central doctrines. Don't you think this is a tad bit strange? If the bible is for all mankind, why is written in a way that it's so hard for you to figure out what it's saying?

Furthermore, you all heavily confuse and complicate things with all your different religions.

right?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Pythagoras gets nominated again. (Personally, this guy should get nominated for anything he dares to write about the Trinity. We usually don't refute it because we're too busy laughing or we've seen it's pointless.) Anyhow, here is a sad bit of his logic as well as confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism.

(A)Do you agree Christ's soul died?
(B) How can the soul of God(Jesus) die?
(B) How can God("the Father") forsake himself("the Son")?

Is it possible for anyone to get more clueless on the Trinity?

[spl_cadet]

And apparently we disagree on "key central doctrines".

Well, Scripture alone vs Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium together is a key doctrinal difference.