Happy DJ day everyone!

Isn't every day in Screwballs a DJ Day? He doesn't need to even be mentioned...you just think of "Screwballs" and DJ comes to mind pretty quickly. Such a celebrity!!!

Gee thanks but my guess is that Holding gets a platinum for how he handled my new friend Truth Be Told. He used him. Yep, that's what he did folks, as I predicted. He USED him.

Holding is a USER. He should've known better. He should've known they would eventually part ways. Surely any rational intelligent person would know this in advance. A Deist and Holding will not long get along. He knew this!!!! And yet he used him anyway because it fit his agenda.

You cannot reasonably deny this, try as you might. Deep down you know what I'm saying is true. And it has nothing to do with whether you like me or whether you like me pointing this out, or anything about me at all. Holding is a USER. Proven fact. He will use YOU too. You know this if you're smart. [If you're not, then fine, admit it and defend him].

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=463

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=501

Just like he's using other twits here.

Think for yourselves is all I can say.
Think for yoursleves don't be led astray.

That rhymes I know.

To sum up without words:

I've been following DJ a bit in my absence. He's like a dying star collapsing on itself, except he's a person and this is metaphorical for his ego/lapses of sanity. My favorite example of DJ hyperventilating about himself:

Dr. William Lane Craig is afraid to debate John Loftus.

He's a mix between Gomer from Full Metal Jacket and Glenn Beck's crazy.

Did I mention he wrote a book?

Originally posted by Philosophickle

Did I mention he wrote a book?

I heard from one completely unbiased and totally objective (as well as humble) amazon.com reviewer that DJ's books are the best of their kind. I believe that reviewers' name was John W. Loftus.

...

Wait a minute... John W. Loftus? Hey, DJ; isn't he that guy you are?

Originally posted by Brandalf85

Isn't every day in Screwballs a DJ Day? He doesn't need to even be mentioned...you just think of "Screwballs" and DJ comes to mind pretty quickly. Such a celebrity!!!

Actually I nominate J.P. Holding and the riposte group for Screwballs. They believe all the N.T. writings were composed prior to 70 A.D. It's not just a hypothesis, like that liberal universalist, John A.T. Robinson, it's the truth for them. They believe that the whole Bible is inerrant. That Jesus came once (born to Marry), twice (70A.D.) and will come a third time as well. They believe angry, jealous, wrathful Yahweh won't "torture" anybody in hell, and all those allusions to fire are mere metaphors. (Calvin on the other hand thought such metaphors represented pains MORE severe than all the nerve endings of one's body burning, and being tossed into a lake of fire was only the most powerful metaphor we can know with our limited minds of the pains in store for sinners facing the wrath of God.) They believe God can do anything except produce truly convincing prophecies concerning his son's first coming to earth, and instead that the N.T. writers had to "pesher" their way to such "prophecies" of Jesus' first coming, because that's the best God could do in that day and age. They believe God can't convincingly relate a story of creation that is unmistakable in terms of the age of the cosmos, or its proper order of creation, or even speak of the earth as moving during anything other than an "earthquake." They also leave open the question of whether or not serpents can speak, when they have no muscular lips, no thick tongues, no vocal chords. And if the serpent was Satan's ventrilloquist dummy, they forget to ask why Satan isn't mention in connection with the serpent in Genesis, not even in the whole O.T. not till you get to the Intertestamental period. And in fact in Genesis the serpent is "The wisest beast of the earth made by Yahweh." So the serpent was just a serpent. A talking animal tale like in Aesop's fairy tales. And they doubly forget to ask why, if Satan was using the "wisest beast of the field," why it wasn't Satan who was cursed. And why the curses fit the serpent, i.e., to "go on his belly and eat dust all the days of his life." No trace of "Satan" in the Genesis tale in other words, not till some Intertestamental writer started taking poetic license with the Genesis tale, and oh HOW Intertestamental writers took poetic license with the Genesis tale. Check out Adam and Eve stories during the Intertestamental period.

Originally posted by JB

To sum up without words: :skulldance003:

To sum up WITH words (sorry, all out of emoticons, guess language will have to do), I nominate J.P. and the riposte group for Screwballs. I mentioned above the poetic license taken by Intertestamental writers concerning the Genesis tale, but J.P. takes the cake since he knows and preaches for a fact that all those translations that connect doves with gentleness and harmlessness are wrong. http://bible.cc/matthew/10-16.htm

According to J.P. the verse, "be ye as wise as serpents, innocent/harmless/gentle as doves" must only be understood correctly if you disconnect the word "innocence" from both harmlessness and gentleness. For all J.P. knows, doves could be as vicious as lions another "innocent" creation of God. The dove is however, known as not being a bird of prey (unlike J.P. who prides himself on attempting to sharpen his talons on those with whom he disagrees) and hence dove's, being non-carnivores, became symbols of "innocence" in respect to their relative harmlessness and gentleness, and I bet all that cooing also helped them achieve such symbolic status.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary [online], "The dove has been, from the institution of Christianity, the type of gentleness and harmlessness, and occupies an important place in Christian symbolism; a messenger of peace and deliverance from anxiety as was the dove to Noah (Gen. 8: 8-12); a gentle, innocent, or loving woman or child; [in Politics] a person who advocates negotiations as a means of terminating or preventing a military conflict as opposed to one (cf. hawk) who advocates a hard-line or warlike policy." That's the stereotype of the "dove."

However, when J.P. Holding reads the advice in Matthew 10:16 to be "as harmless as doves," his conclusion is that such advice "has nothing to do with any modern concern of peace or gentleness." J.P.'s full statement is even screwier, "The word behind 'harmless'... carries the meaning of purity and being 'unmixed' and has NOTHING [emphasis added] to do with any modern concern of peace or gentleness... it means essentially free from guile, NOT gentle... And bear in mind how the Pax Romana [Peace of Rome] was maintained... by strength and force." Sure J.P., then why did the Romans make a bird of prey their ensign, not a dove, and why aren't the Roman's today known for their "innocence?"

And what about the entire verse of which that phrase is but a part? Here is the verse in several translations:

I am sending you out like sheep in the midst of wolves; be wary and wise as serpents, and be innocent (harmless, guileless, and without falsity) as doves --Matthew 10:16 (Amplified Bible)

I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.--Matthew 10:16 (American Standard Version)

I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.--Matthew 10:16 (King James Version)

The mention of wolves contra SHEEP (oh those "vicious sheep," J.P. might say), and serpents contra doves, indicates that the wolves and serpents are the ones prone to attacking "viciously," not sheep nor the doves.

It may be that J.P. Holding's attempt to squeeze "viciousness" out of a statement like "innocent-harmless doves," tells us more about J.P., than it tells us about the meaning of Matthew 10:16 (and other verses in Matthew, like "blessed are the peacemakers," or, "love your enemies").

Indeed, why not let the Bible interpret itself?
1. Symbol of Mourning: The low and soft cooing of the dove gave the
impression to the hearers that it was lamenting or mourning, and it became a
symbol for that human experience. During Hezekiah's illness he said, "I
moaned like a mourning dove" (Isa. 38:14).* Those who survive the attack of
Babylon "will be . . . moaning like doves of the valleys" (Eze. 7:16). The
prophet writes, "We all growl like bears; we moan mournfully like doves"
(Isa. 59:11).
2. Symbol of Vacillation: The dove flies to and fro, giving the
impression that it is disoriented or vacillating with respect to its
destiny. This characteristic of the bird became a fitting symbol for the
indecisiveness of Israel, its lack of commitment to the Lord: "Ephraim is
like a dove, easily deceived and senseless—now calling to Egypt, now turning
to Assyria" (Hosea 7:11).
3. Symbol of Love: The dove's beauty and its traditional faithfulness
to its mate were taken by the ancients to be a symbol of human love and
beauty. This is particularly the case in the Song of Songs: "My dove in the
clefts of the rock, in the hiding places on the mountainside, show me your
face, let me hear your voice" (2:14); "Open to me, my sister, my darling, my
dove" (5:2; cf. 1:15; 4:1). Christ commanded the disciples to express in
their lives the love and gentleness of the dove (Matt. 10:16).
4. Symbol of Deliverance: The rapid flight of the dove became a symbol
of deliverance from one's enemies or from threatening circumstances. The
psalmist writes: "Oh, that I had the wings of a dove! I would fly away and
be at rest" (55:6). The Israelites returning from the Exile are described as
those "that fly along like clouds, like doves to their nests" (Isa. 60:8;
cf. Hosea 11:11). Probably the most important symbol of deliverance was the
dove sent by Noah from the ark that came back with an olive branch in its
beak (Gen. 8:10-12). It was a sign of peace; the storm was over.
Ephraim [read, "J.P. Holding"] has become like a silly dove, without sense."--Hosea 7:11a (New American Standard Bible)

I nominate DJ for a Screwball for not knowing what day today is.

Let me give him a hint...

http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/...e-john-is.html

Originally posted by Babaloo

According to J.P. the verse, "be ye as wise as serpents, innocent/harmless/gentle as doves" must only be understood correctly if you disconnect the word "innocence" from both harmlessness and gentleness.

Ed Dumbuttski:

How typical of you. You describe my positions but fail to refute them in any way, shape or form. In other words, one of your usual pitiable performances.

And what about the entire verse of which that phrase is but a part? Here is the verse in several translations:

Edski, this is why you're such a frinkin' dumbass. "Quote the English versions" is a game stuopid fundy Christians play. If you wanted to answer my argument, you'd find parallel uses of the GREEK word in question showing that I am wrong. But no, you're too stupid to do that!

The mention of wolves contra SHEEP (oh those "vicious sheep," J.P. might say), and serpents contra doves, indicates that the wolves and serpents are the ones prone to attacking "viciously," not sheep nor the doves.

Edski, you're not paying attention. My argument for this verse is that the description of doves does NOT indicate peacenikism, and does not EXCLUDE viciousness, and that has ZERO to do with the descriptions of wolves and sheep. Why don't you be a full fundy and say that the description of sheep means Christians are all supposed to get perms?

Matthew 10:16 (and other verses in Matthew, like "blessed are the peacemakers," or, "love your enemies").

Indeed, Edski. Why not let "Pax Romana" inform us of what a "peacemaker" is? Why not let the contextual, collectivist meaning of agape inform us? It's much easier to fumblebum your way around with the English decontextualizations you ate as a fundy is why.

Indeed, why not let the Bible interpret itself?

Not with you as the handler, that's for sure! Are you really this stupid? Animals have been used variably in metaphors; "dog" for example can indicate loyalty, filthiness and tiredness, off the top of my head. What's your point in cioting the dove metaphors? Is Jesus telling us to be wise as serpents, but also mourn and vacillate?

Edski, do yourself a favor -- instead of copying crap like this uncritically from places like

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch...s/whyadove.htm

THINK FOR YOURSELF. That's why you became a "free thinker" wasn't it?

Or did you think that meant you could be FREE OF thinking the rest of your life?

Reader sends a website nom that may be Platinum material:

http://www.tjresearch.info/

This site tries to make the case for a new age "discovered gospel's" authenticity. The fact that we don't have the alleged original manuscript, or that the cave where it was supposedly discovered has been "buried under a rock slide" is enough to give this away as a fraud. However the page author still tries to put forth a "scholarly" argument that the text is real and that Matthew was plagiarized from it.

....Also, you might get a kick out of the "response to critics" section where the page author suggests that Robert Price rejects this "lost gospel" because it refutes Christianity for effectively than Price ever could!

Originally posted by Doubting John

Gee thanks but my guess is that Holding gets a platinum for how he handled my new friend Truth Be Told. He used him. Yep, that's what he did folks, as I predicted. He USED him.

Do you need some hobbies DJ?

Originally posted by Philosophickle

He's a mix between Gomer from Full Metal Jacket and Glenn Beck's crazy.

Oh c'mon! Beck's not near that crazy. (and he's been working harder than a lot of media of late)

Yay, a new month, time to hit DD's place for a nom.

Oh look, first entry he "explains" the trinity:
http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2...-am-that-i-am/

The Trinity is Exhibit A in the case against the Christian God being a real person. Truth is consistent with itself; the Trinity is not, and has been declared such by the Church itself, and thus is not the truth.

Now I want to interject a moment because it's not hard to find repeated instances of DD being as inconsistent with himself despite his faith in "truth consistency". Keep this in mind as you read the following:

But then you have the many Scriptural passages where God refers to Himself in the first person singular, even when He is saying things like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” If that’s the Father forbidding worship and service to other divine persons, then there’s a whole lot of commandment-breaking going on among Christians who praise Jesus and let the Holy Spirit guide them.

Points to you if you thought about that verse in Genesis. "Let US make man in OUR image."

"But wait", some might say. Couldn't he be talking about angels and company? Ah but DD shot himself in the foot a few paragraphs earlier:

What happened between Moses and Jesus, of course, was the Babylonian Captivity, during which the exiled Jews were exposed to Zoroastrian and Mithraic beliefs. Those who returned from the Persian empire brought back beliefs that were foreign to Judaism but very familiar sounding to Zoroastrians: resurrection, judgment, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc. The Pharisee (Farsi) Jews were very strict monotheists, and blamed all of Israel’s woes on their polytheistic beliefs and practices, and emphasized (with a certain amount of reinterpretation) the exclusivist aspects of Moses’ Law.

So by his own "consistency", the Jews didn't believe in angels when Genesis was written. Thus, we have a passage that destroys DD's entire argument, which he is conveniently glossing over.

Of course, what do you expect from someone who says:

If you read through the Law of Moses, you’ll notice that the blessings and cursings of God are all about earthly, material blessings and cursings. Once you died, you supposedly passed into the jurisdiction of a different god, the god of the dead. Yahweh was not the god of the dead, He was only the God of the living, in early Jewish thinking.

Umm... no. Last I checked, the Jews believed that there was NOTHING after death. Remember what you said about how the Jews brought back ideas from Zoroastrians? "resurrection, judgment, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc." Heaven and hell included? That would seem to mean... "afterlife" wouldn't it? Ancient Jews believed God was the God of the living because the dead were literally nothing for any god to be a god of. Once again, DD is inconsistent.

He closes out as he always does:

But since they are both declared to be true, when they cannot be, and since no such God shows up in real life, we can know that no such God exists. He (or They) is/are the flawed product(s) of fallible human imagination.

So DD, does your inconsistency mean you don't exist?

BONUS: DD keeps complaining about God not showing up in "real life" like He does in the Bible. However, the Old Testament of the Bible covers a very wide span of history (4,000 years+ at least). So, take the instances of God's appearances, stretch them out over that span of time and what do you get? That's right, an appearance every few centuries. Which means entire generations can come and go between God's appearances.

And that's not even factoring in limited vs wide-spread appearance. Or the free will and discretion of a rational being. So even by HIS OWN STANDARD, DD fails. Epically.

subscribing