Screwballs
of the month
December
2005
With
the final 2005 installment of our Screwball feature we have a maintenance note.
In January 2006 I will select from what I see as the best of the Gold
Screwballs and create several categories in which to award 2005 Platinum
Screwballs. The very best of the very worst. If you
want to vote there will be a thread created on TheologyWeb
in my section of that forum.
From the mailbag
You could
call this the Month of the Inept Incoherent. Let’s start with this skein of
assumption and non-answering
rhetoric combined with bad spelling:
What I find really strange about
your website is that you try so hard to
refute anything that might suggest Christianity was influenced by any other
religion of the time. What you don't seem to get is that everything effects
everything else. I am not going to argue if Jesus was real to you as that
would be pointless. However, what I would argue is that Christianity was
most certainly influenced by these older religions and that does fit into
everyone's cosmology. Even that of Fundementalist
Christians and of
Atheists. Of which I am neither.
What I would suggest to you is that instead of concentrating so much energy
of people like Acharya S and trying to refute her
claims in her books that
you actually look a little deeper into why the people who write these books
are able to do so. Because there does exist much evidence to
support their
claims, because EVERYTHING EFFECTS EVERYTHING ELSE. Why do these
people
have more credibility than you do to Non-Christian readers? Because as
Christians you except the "authorized Canon" as the "inherent
word of God"
and some of you (mind you I said some of) think "The real Bible was
written
in 1611" (I have heard those exact words on a number of occassions
concerning the KJV) but what you ignore in this are the inconsistancies
that
are in the "official canon" Things
such as the fate of Judas. Also the
current taking away of the Apochrypha and also the ommission of the Book of
Enoch which is quoted in other books. This would suggest that if
it is "the
inherent word of God" then your God is feeble minded not to pick up on
those
things and correct them. However what I believe is that the initial truth
is pry in a lot of these books and stories cept
corrupt people manipulated
them for their own political ends and left us with their
compromises......... and a whole lot of trouble and suffering and bloodshed
over the details.
Let me ask you this.......... If you found definative
proof that alll of
these stories came from one common ancient source would you try to suppress
it? Try to refute it to hold onto your belief system or to up hold the
beliefs of others so that they would not feel disillusioned? Would you kill
in order to insure that the truth of that story didn't come out? Yeah that's
happened a lot throughout history.
Lastly why do you spend so much time writing things trying to refute things
that are coming from a fringe writer like Acharya S
that no one takes
seriously? A small minority has their minds made
up about this subject and
like to read everything on it and Christians like to refute it and the
rest
of the world could care less. Really they could care less they think we are
all insane (those who follow the Christian path and those of us who read all
the conspiracy theory-myths-devinci code type stuff) Only thing I need to
refute Christianity is the way in which MOST (not all) Christians behave in
the world. :)
And this
one comes from the world of those impressed by their own intelligence only, and
not afraid to confront those who say otherwise:
Sorry I clicked on the vote for the site..I was thinking it was like
an option..I meant to vote
NO. You poor helpless fool. How many years have you
been doing this? I expect the only links to your diatribe have come
from a Google search for Myths and Depections of the
Bible a fine book. No wonder you reject its message: it exposes you and
your kind as frauds and imposters. BTW Don't bother replying to this
missive. It will be deleted.
This now
from the Politically Correct Police:
I thought your critical article on
The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur was very
untasteful. I especially take offense to your
statement: "Perhaps that may
have had something to do with laws against importing foreign toxic waste"
regarding this book not being available in the
offends me greatly! Since when is openness "toxic waste"? Your
article must
be factual to some degree, considering your education,
however it is
difficult for me to glean anything from it. It's impossible for me to get
past the fact that you are obviously threatened by Tom Harpur's
book - to
the point where you lose your tact.
Can you not see any good in Harpur's book? I think
you are missing out
greatly.
Then we
have a couple from the Fringe Bin, the first in response to my article on the
Roman Piso theory:
Well, far to
literate for me to understand. And this is why I try to avoid getting into
discussions or debates about the intricacies of Religions, particularly
Christianity. I do like your cutting wit and sarcasm although you tend to
bounce off the old EGO limiter a bit. But that's OK. My humour
is ticked though. You have put great effort into discrediting and de-bunking
the Piso theory (I agree that it is not well
presented and far too complicated to be presented in a disorganized manner).
But, what makes me really laugh, is your (my presumption is that you are a
Christian. If not, please excuse me) ridicule of a theory that would explain
the motivation behind "piggybacking" a new religion on an old one.
Strange, that Christianity totally embraces everything (or close to
it) that the Jews believe and go one step further and actually come up
with a "Kistos" bloke that is half man,
half god and popped out of a virgina that had not
even been penetrated. Then you have God magic where boy-jesus
walks on water, does a great stir-fry with breaded fish and a party trick with
a bottle of Perrier that miraculously becomes a bottle of Chateau something
(Premier Cru). This belief system also encompasses men that live to 900, a
Universe that is about 6000, signs and stories that are totally original (NOT!
All stolen from preceeding cultures, but of course
you know this) and then top it all off with the fact that Christianity has
F***-OVER more people than all other religions combined.
Yes painfull
as it might be, Hitler was a Christian. You can refer
to his dozens of speaches from the late '20 thru to
close to the end. Oh, can this be true? Is there a similarity between the Roman
Anti-semitism and the Nazi Anti-semitism. No, cant be! The Romans had slaves while the Nazis had graves.
My respectful suggestion to a man of
your esteemed knowledge and position, is that before
you start laughing at other "Theories" you should examine your own
Christian "Theory". Just because the mindless many care to believe,
does not make it fact. This is only do-able if you have any interest
in trying to discover the truth.
On the other hand, I'm sure that by being
an "Expert" a little helpful suggestion from me will not penetrate an edifies as great as your head.
Good luck apprenticing for God II.
And this
from someone who read my article on the Christ myth:
where is the proof, where is the
first hand record of
seeing jesus, i see none
except josephus which we all
know is bullshit, cut to something that is solid and
concrete all you have is heresay which should be
disregarded, where's the proof, i see none, thanks
again for your time
This, from
someone who I expect read the funnies:
What is it that is wrong with you?
Were you damaged as a small child you f**king
liar?
And one
final blast of incoherence under the wire:
I’ve just read J.P. Holding’s
essay “Shattering the Christ Myth” It provides
very good reasons as to why the lack of evidence for Jesus’ existence does not
constitute proof of his non-existence but falters greatly in the apparent
emotional frailty/over exuberance of the author (far too many exclamation marks
and a juvenile challenge to Jews at the end). It is a piece of writing
worthy of reflection though and I, as a professional scientist, am more aware
than most of the vast number of things not only unexplained by, but also untestable by current scientific knowledge. It’s the
old saying “the more you know, the more you know the less you know”.
The Occam’s
razor argument does not work in the essay, however. We’re born
biologically, we die and rot, metaphysics is untestable in the known real universe. They are
observable, repeatable and intra-subjectively established facts immune to the
slash of William’s razor. Concepts such as supernatural gods,
non-biological conception, reanimation of an entire dead organism, macroscopic
events in direct contradiction of established physical principals and the
ability of consciousness to survive brain death seem to be a manifestation of
man’s beautifully vivid imagination, his ability to perceive his own death and
the resulting fear this causes. They are also concepts open to gross
societal, emotional and financial exploitation as is known to have occurred
from time to time.
I deeply wish it were
different, and have been an amateur “apologetic hopeful” for over 15 years
hoping to justify my irrational longing to once again “see” my father whose dead
eyes I stared into just a little too long when I was a boy. As a
professional researcher I feel competent to sympathetically evaluate subjective
material. Unfortunately, my personal wishes are as egocentric and
delusional as those of anybody else. There comes a point where almost complete
lack of evidence for the basic tenets of theistic religion starts to appear as
evidence for its falsity. It takes either a lot of obsessive dedication,
a tragic and emotionally damaging event, blind acceptance of parental
superstitions, adoration of another believer or some other non-intellectual
process which results in the acceptance of the outwardly bizarre-looking
beliefs of Christianity. Pride then forbids the adherent from seeing the
truth presented to his senses every second of every day.
I hope your writings find
some foothold in the minds of many atheistic zealots, most of whom I have had
decent discussions with display poorer communication skills, less information
and even greater fanaticism than moderate Christians.
All we need
after that is a theory as to why the Pope was visiting
Golden duh award winners
The Lying, the witch, and the hormones
The Narnia movie gives us the occasion of two nominations. The
first goes to a writer for the Guardian newspaper over in the
But so far, so good. The story makes sense. The lion exchanging his life for Edmund's is the
sort of thing Arthurian legends are made of. Parfait knights and heroes in
prisoner-of-war camps do it all the time. But what's this? After a long, dark
night of the soul and women's weeping, the lion is suddenly alive again. Why?
How?, my children used to ask. Well, it is hard to
say why. It does not make any more sense in CS Lewis's tale than in the
gospels. Ah, Aslan explains, it is the "deep
magic", where pure sacrifice alone vanquishes death.
Of all the elements of Christianity,
the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself
and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to? Poor
child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of aguilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted
knife to the heart. Every one of those thorns, the nuns used to tell my mother,
is hammered into Jesus's holy head every day that you
don't eat your greens or say your prayers when you are told. So the resurrected
Aslan gives Edmund a long, life-changing talking-to
high up on the rocks out of our earshot. When the poor boy comes back down with
the sacred lion's breath upon him he is transformed unrecognisably into a Stepford
brother, well and truly purged.
Why? Because here in Narnia is the perfect
Republican, muscular Christianity for
As for the
hormones part, an award also goes to Philip Pullman, the anti-C. S. Lewis, who
produced his own set of books (His Dark
Materials) where free sex is a prominent theme, abd his own
maladjusted critique of the Narnia series:
…propaganda
in the service of a life-hating ideology. But that's par for
the course. Death is better than life; boys are better
than girls; light-coloured people are better than
dark-coloured people; and so on. There is no
shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you
can face it.
There is the loathsome glee with which the children
from the co-educational school are routed, in The Silver Chair:
"with the strength of Aslan in them, Jill plied
her crop on the girls and Caspian and Eustace plied the flats of their swords
so well that in two minutes all the bullies were running away like mad, crying
out, 'Murder! Fascists! Lions! It isn't fair.' And then the Head [who was, by
the way, a woman] came running out to see what was happening." There is
the colossal impertinence, to put it mildly, of
hijacking the emotions that are evoked by the story of the Crucifixion and
Resurrection in order to boost the reader's concern about Aslan
in The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe.
As a reader noted of this: "Loathsome glee? Weren't the routed children bullies
who were terrorizing Eustance and Jill.
And yeah, Phil, Aslan is supposed to represent Jesus
so he is gonna go through something along the lines
of Crucifixion and Resurrection. I mean come on, it’s to be expected.”
An
award goes to GreatWhiteHype2 for still not realizing that apostates who
tear down faith are not a mission field but a mine field:
It sure is easy for you and I to sit here and discuss these things on a computer, but
I'd love to see your logic out in the mission field. I can see it now.
Darth Executor enters an African village. "HEY!" he screams.
"Accept Christ, or face the consequences, pagans! Either give your life to
Christ or die, cause I'm here to collect the shrunken
heads of God's enemies for the sake of the kingdom!"
(Executor takes a spear through the heart.)
(Villagers mumbling amongst themselves)
Villager 1: What was he trying to say?
Villager 2: I don't know, but he wanted to kill us if we didn't accept his God.
Villager 3: Where did he get that crazy idea to talk to us like that?
Villager 4: I looked through his bookbag, and there's all these papers in here by someone named
"James Patrick Holding." Wow, he must have really drank
this guy's stuff in! Looks like here he's got the Holding Study Bible, whatever
that is. Bah! We've got better stuff to do.
Hurry up, there’s a synagogue in
Sylvius wins Gold for his suggestion that
there was only one position of synagogue attendant in the
Mark is mentioned in Luke 4:20 as
the one who handed over the book of the prophet Isaiah to Jesus.
He is also mentioned in Acts 13: 5 , 'hupèretes'= attendant.
No, it must be talking about bozo the clown
IncRus wins Gold for this comment:
I DON'T see the word Jesus in John
1:1 and John 1:14. There is NO scripture which EXPLICITLY tells us that Jesus
WAS the word BEFORE he was born a MAN.
The holy spirit also told me you were a twit
RanRan on TWeb wins for his
new definition of “faith”.
(This is
going to seem incomprehensible to those who have not listened to Christ’s
lesson – just as it should be. To them, I say, save your breath and
energy for other threads, because to rant against His lesson is self-defeating.)
When Christ says: "And no one pours new wine into old
wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the
wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."
(and)
“Behold, all things are
new!”
It is a lesson in logic, because He is telling
people how to think – that is, how to put order to what, by faith, they see.
The problem is that faith hears the lesson, not logic. An inferior logic will
either not apply it because it never really heard it, or hearing it, ignores
it. In either case it remains inferior to the logic, which by faith, takes in
Christ’s lesson and applies it. The old cannot contain the new.
Let’s apply it: Inferior logic says that God cannot
change. Superior logic (because it is subservient always to faith) is
allowed to see the Gospel and does not force the Gospel into the old. It, this
superior logic, or way of thinking, becomes it own container. It answers inferior logic that God has changed. That
a God-Man sits on the throne of heaven, with His resurrected body and that He
had suffered and loved and ate and drank and had gone to the bathroom and that
this God-Man is Lord of the Universe.
At this point inferior logic, because it has not listened to Christ’s lesson,
feels its very existence in jeopardy because it cannot contain what has been
presented. It goes on the attack because it knows that to lose it must die and
be replaced. So it tries to minimize the change in God by denying it
altogether, or to balance change and no-change, the old and the new, but
arrives at where Christ said they would – with neither.
The problem is one of preeminence. If logic is allowed to dictate to faith,
then faith is destroyed. Faith, as sight, is the
imputer of data, what it sees, it sees, and responds to what it sees
emotionally (a response to indescribable love), and intellectually so as to
communicate that sight (and now also, that love) to others. An example of a
subservient ‘faith’ to its master, logic, would be one
that arrives at a god to explain why there is something and not nothing. But
that is not the God of faith and Lord of the Universe.
After all this, it comes down to the faith of a child
who silences logic altogether and is content with love alone. Someday,
when he is asked to defend the faith, he will, hopefully, be doing so out of
the same inexpressible love in which he began.)
Christmas edition awards
Golds for
the year close with some special Christmas awards, the first for this graphic
from an ad one of your readers got in spam:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=29906
Then we
have an award for the site at http://www.biblebelievers.com/watkins_santa/santa.html
which tells is:
You ever noticed how easy
it is to transform "Satan" from "Santa"? Just move the "n" to the end. And presto! "Satan"
appears. . . . The rearranging of letters (called anagrams) to hide secret
names or words has long been practiced in the occult.
Is "Claus" another anagram for
"Lucas"?
It’s no secret "Lucas" and "Lucis"
is a new-age "code word" for "Lucifer". The Alice Bailey
founded new age, occult publishing company was originally named "Lucifer
Publishing Company" but in 1924 the name was cleverly changed to "Lucis Trust". By the way, the Lucifer worshipping Lucis Trust is a major player in the works of the United
Nations (formerly located in the United Nations building) but now located on
"prime-time"
Actor Adam Sandler and New Line Studios are well aware
"Nick" is an alias for Satan. Their recent movie "Little
Nicky" is about the "son of Satan", hence "Little
Nicky". A teaser for the film says,
"If your mother was an angel and your father was the devil you'd be messed
up too."
In the popular Cloud Ten Pictures
"Apocalypse" film series Revelation, Tribulation, & Judgment,
the Antichrist just so happens to be played by none other than the actor "Nick"
Mancuso. Hmmm… The Cloud Ten Pictures are based
on Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkin’s popular Left
Behind "Apocalypse" book series.
Oh, the name of the Antichrist in the Left
Behind series? Nicolae "Nick"Carpathia, of
course. In fact, one of the books in titled, Nicolae, The Rise of the
Antichrist.
1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He
that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold,
but climbeth up some other way [say a chimney?], the
same is a thief and a robber. . .
Special lifetime Achievement award
Oh, and mary
Magdalene was cleopatra
A special
Lifetime Achievement Award goes to “Mr. Happypants”
on TWeb for promoting the theory that Jesus was a
copycat of….Julius Caesar. And also for thinking that I was
Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank. He
also embarrassed himself greatly with an appeal to a “Dr. Willem J. Ouweneel” who allegedly endorsed this theory and was a
prominent scholar. He was indeed a scholar, but told a reader of ours whop
inquired:
Dear Johnny\.
Happypants must be a deceiver, or someone who had
him/herself deceived.
There was some guy called Francesco Carotta who in a
book defended the
thesis that Jesus was the same as Julius Caesar.
I have debated this man in public, even on the radio, and refuted his
fancy ideas.
This is perhaps how my name became linked with this book.
Kind regards,
Prof. dr. Willem J. Ouweneel
Oops.
Silver duh award winners
Jimbo (Brooks Trubee) and marduck share the Batman Should be God Award for these
comments:
First of all, just to
be perfectly clear, I don't believe that the Christian god exists. I think it
is a make-believe being invented by primitive, superstitious, ignorant people.
Regardless of what I think about the Christian god, however, I would like to
know what Christians think of their god. Specifically, I
want to know why Christians believe that the Christian god deserves to be worshipped. The
Christian god has always been all-powerful. There is nothing that has
ever been or ever could be beyond this god's power. Unlike
human beings which have to set goals, suffer and work to achieve them, the
Christian god only has to snap its fingers-so t speak-and its wishes come true
magically and instantly.
I think the following quote from the Secular Web captures this idea pretty
well:
Quote: Originally
posted by marduck
Why does God deserve praise at all? Did he work or study hard for billions of years to achieve
his abilities, overcome great obstacles, fears or stumbling blocks? It
doesn't seem that way, sounds like he came with all the magic powers by fiat,
like a rich child who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, big
deal that's how he was made or is or whatever. Why
praise such a being at all?
Amazing how much mileage Christians get out of a book of Jewish folklore.
VFarris wins the Subject Catalog Excellence Award for:
The Gospels are not about salvation
thorough Jesus... never were... never will be.
Shunyadragon earns the Simplicity in Analysis award for two points, the
first where he trips over preterism:
The preterist worldview does not account well for all
the OT or NT prophecies. It isjust a conveniant
side door to explain that what people expect to happen did not happen.
The second,
for thinking that The Da Vinci Code is scholarship:
Not much is known of the first 100
years or so. the real history starts with bloody
Steven
Carr wins
the Free Guilt Trip award for:
Suppose for some reason you
momentarily lose your temper with somebody with somebody who has really behaved
badly to you, and want to hit them.
You can make a free will choice to hit them, and God will hold you guilty for
that.
However , there is an alternative. You can use your
free will and face down your anger and choose not to hit the other person. God will hold you guilty for that too. (See Matthew
5:22)
So what is the point of giving us free will, if God
will hold us guilty regardless of our free will choices?
Topherlee picks up the Christmas Gift Rap award for his
own take on the season:
Do you tell your children that Santa
Claus exists? A mythical or mystical being that lives in the
North Pole. This god-like being that can be everywhere and anywhere in
one night. Who like God, knows when you have been naughty or nice. That he will
scorn those who are naughty by not bringing them presents.
Do you tell them that Jesus was born on Dec 25th? When the birthdate
is not mentioned in the bible, but, can be tied to the celebration of the
sun-god, which was celebrated on the 25th? Are you telling GOd
when his Son was born?
So how are you so different from JW's? You teach against the Christmas dogma. You show your
children it's error in tradition but still continue to
celebrate Christmas.
Christmas doctrine, if you will, states that the birthdate of our Lord is on December 25th - not near
or about, but on. Now you are saying it is observed on the 25th of December. It teaches the existence of Santa Claus and his elves.
Do you not see how tradition changes?
Love-Warrior
handles
the Mormon Imitation award for these recommendations on listening to that
little voice in your head:
All of this doesn't get around the
need for us to use Holy Spirit discernment to redetermine
how we act politically to save lives and, ultimately, to change hearts through
the improvement of our public witness to others. Part of that discernment is
judging fallibly what aspects of our fallen world we can and cannot change. It
also requires that we hold true to what Scripture says and does not say.
Scripture does not say that we must treat the newly-formed zygote as a human
being. Our beliefs in this regard are part of our traditions, and inasmuch as
we are not RCatholic, they are beliefs that we should
view as fallible, or subject to change some, and open to some legit
disagreement on by committed Christians. We bear false witness to the Bible
when we claim that our beliefs on right conduct in this regard are truly based
on Scripture, rather than our fallible interpretations of passages that did not
address the exact same question that we are faced with today.
Rook Hawkins wins the Vain Repetition Award for uncritically copying the
likes of Remsberg on Tacitus.
Cognos picks up the Seasonal Disorder award for his
own take on Christmas:
The movie was on TV last night and I
tuned into it for a few minutes.
There is a scene where the little boy is explaining Santa to an adult who
doesn't believe in Santa. (I guess the adult is an a-Santaist.)
To me, the boy's explanations were similar to those
presented for the existence of God. For example:
Adult: What about Santa's reindeer? Have you even seen a reindeer fly?
Boy: Yes.
Adult: Well, I haven't.
Boy: Have you ever seen a million dollars?
Adult: No.
Boy: Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean is doesn't exist.
Adult: Santa can't possibly visit all the children throughout the world on one
night.
Boy: Not everyone expects Santa to deliver toys. And, anyway, it has something
to do with the time continuum.
The boy believes in Santa Claus and has created a world that is logically
consistent with that belief.
The main difference, though, between the belief in Santa in the movie and the
belief in God in everyday life is that there was
plenty of evidence for Santa.
Stange
movie. Not sure why it's so important to believe that the events in
Clement Clarke Moore's poem actually happened.
Crusader
picks
up the Please Quit Apologetics Now Award for not knowing that the Tanakh IS the Old Testament:
Eli, Eli, Eli, please understand
this: your Tanakh is not the Word of God
as far as I'm concerned, as far as Christians are concerned, and therefore
whatever extra-biblical traditions and "laws" there are in the Tanakh
did not have to be fulfilled by the Lord. For instance, your handwashing illustration was a good example of a tradition
in the Tanakh
not found in the Torah.
You make void the commandments of God, Eli, by your tradition. God, Himself,
instructed the Jews not to go beyond what is written, but you have.
MichaelCadry can’t go without one as usual, and this time
picks up the Solar Pantheism Award:
Our Lord's Spirit is in
the moon and in everything that exists, even rocks. He grows crystals in rocks among other things, and they are another
wonder of His abilities and power. His Spirit is in
the plants and flowers, and they hurt when they are cut off. They make a noise
or cry that no man can hear audibly.
Do not worship the moon. That is only His Temporary
Heavenly body that He chooses to reside in right now. He used to reside in a
giant man's body to start off with. And Jesus gets to reside in the heavenly
body of Venus soon. That's why it is written, "I am the bright and
morning star and I will give it to them who follow me, even as I have received
it from My Father."
P.S. God's
Great White Throne, as mentioned in Revelation, is our moon that goes around us
24 hours a day. It is Him keeping watch over us every day and keeping close to
us. He thought it was the right thing to do and who can argue with
Him????
We close
this part with some full website awards:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/esp_vida_alien_28.htm
http://www.atheistagenda.org/porno-for-bibles/
http://mujca.com/deathlizards.htm
http://www.satansrapture.com/santabegone.htm
This last
one was sent to me with an email:
Do you remember Exodus Gospel?
Jews ate manna from the ground ARE psilocybe
mushrooms! That why the Bible is REFUTED quickly. Take a look at psilocybe mushroom information and weep. I bet Mose ate a manna before saw bush
flame on the mountain. "I AM"... pls!
See: http://deoxy.org/manna.htm
John, Matthew, Luke, and Mark Gospels dated are AFTER Paul's Gospels... I bet
Paul wrote John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke Gospels. it
make the Bible is REFUTED again! LOL!
http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/biblecontradictions.html
This last
fellow came to TWeb as “material_miser”
and earned his Frequent Dumbbell miles quickly with statements like these:
Stupid? Wow! For a Christians forum, I have never
received quite as many personal attacks in this short a time of being in a
forum! I can just see you fools as if you were sitting around each other and an
atheist comes in your midsts. You'd roll your eyes
and sit around in your spiritual fat-cat club and re-affirm each other's
shaking faith, "gees, this guy is irrational and crazy!" That is sad,
really sad! I feel for you guys you can't imagine. Being here is reminding of
just how uncomfortable I used to feel around atheists because they intimidated
me that someone could logically discard the Bible! You are pathatic.
I look down on you in shame like a child with mongolism.
Bronze duh award winners
Kenite
[Billy] Graham has been
disowned by Christians since he accepted Romanism as
valid.
Though backing by
Soundsurfr
It means what it says. You claimed that atheism
allows murder. I said, no, it doesn’t *allow* murder. Your response which
amounts to “therefore it must prohibit it” is logically false. I no longer
expect you to understand these things, but it is logic 101 in case you want to
make an effort.
wakwak
The fact is that GOD has changed his mind
about soooo many things in the past. He's probably up
in heaven now with a few chared pigeons and some of
them virgin mindinites teaching his son "a few
new tricks". God has completly forgot or changed
his mind about the second coming. Since he's not the most detail oriented
omnipotent god around he has never got around to
updating his moral authority handbook.
Negasta
The day before yesterday me and the
family are driving on our way too our annual sea side holiday. While driving
through the sleepy mining town of
Here I thought that only people in other countries had to deal with them, I'm
thinking about going there and screwing with them a little. What are your
responses to this? Got any tips or warnings? I have very little to do here and
want to have a little fun.
Jolimont
Something must be wrong with me
because I don't believe in jebus but I am such a
sucker for Christmas sacred music!!! I was listening to the
John
D. Brey
As the premier scientist of the modern era Isaac Newton did what all future scientists will eventually do. He used the Torah as the science book par
excellent! He understood that all truths, scientific or otherwise, are
encrypted in the Torah.
---- No doubt the decryption of the truths might be problematic! But any man
who has cleansed his mind of sin and profanity can have access to the unlimited power of the Torah.
What follows is a vile simplification of how the process worked in
God said let there be light. Ergo the Torah makes “light” the lowest form
of entropy in the cosmos. Every other created thing in the Torah is said to come about as a
secondary phenomena (an “epiphenomenon”) of light.
What is the relationship between “light” and those things that arise from
“light”? ---- Well, “light” is created first and is
thus the pure “atom” or the “Adam” of all the offspring that will arise through
the seminality of “light.”
To better understand the relationship between “light” and all those things that
are the offspring of “light” we need only transmute
the narrative describing Adam’s relationship to Eve into scientific
nomenclature (transform biology into cosmology).
Modern physics teaches that matter is light in a higher entropic state. Only
after the universe cooled sufficiently could the pure
light give rise to matter. Matter is an epiphenomenon of light.
Therefore “matter” is to “light” what Eve is to Adam.
The Bible teaches that Eve sinned first and then Adam took the fruit and ate.
--- This simple narrative teaches the second law of
thermodynamics. The secondary phenomenon (Eve and “matter”) will always
cause the rise of the entropic state of the phenomenon through which they came
to be. ---- What the Bible calls “sin,” physics calls the “second law.” And the
Torah also makes it
the second law of Moses: Thou shall not make any phenomenon like The Phenomena (thou
shall not put the phenomenon in contact with the epiphenomenon in such a way as
to give birth to an idolatrous
icon of the phenomenon).
A student once asked a Rabbi whether when a sacred thing touches a profane
thing the sacred thing would make the profane thing sacred?
The Rabbi, understanding the truth of the second law
of thermodynamics through his love of the Torah, responded that the profane thing would in
fact contaminate the sacred thing. ---- A simple experiment proves the Rabbi
out: If pure clean water is poured into dark and dirty water it can never make
the dirty water pure. On the other hand, if dirty water is poured into pure clean
water it can easily make the clean water dirty.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system entropy will
inevitably rise; every time light comes in contact with that which was pulled
from its rib entropy rises. Adam could not have sexual
contact with Eve without causing entropy to rise, i.e. “sin.”
When persons read these things they chuckle and laugh and speak of word salads
and false conclusions based on false premises based on false worldviews. ----
But the only thing needed for such persons to understand the wisdom parlayed
even through such a gross and profane simplification of the science of the Torah is the ability to move
back-and-forth between seemingly disparate uses of words and concepts; one needs only have the spiritual clarity to see biology in
cosmology, cosmology in biology, physics in theology, theology in physics.
The fact that most persons have not yet shaken off the barnacles of the second
law of thermodynamics which still cling to their minds from that first contact
between a sinner and a sinless person (matter and light, Adam and Eve) makes
them laugh like monkeys when someone suggests something
so obvious as the principle that biology is a natural metaphor for cosmology
(that as the ovum begins as a small ball of low entropy and grows till rising
entropy causes thermodynamic equilibrium at death . . . so too the universe
began as a small ball of low entropy which will grow until the body reaches
thermodynamic equilibrium at the heat death).
“For God so loved His epiphenonmenon that He gave His
uniquely born son that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish under the law of rising entropy but shall
have everlasting low entropy ” (John 3:16).
acureforgravity
"IF they really believe
everything in their Bible they cannot, as according to God's Perfect Word the
stars are just little lights hung up in the sky.
Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree
casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a
mighty wind.
Revelation 12:4 And his [some big red dragon] tail drew the third part of the
stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth "
Alyeska
Bull***. There is no true meaning of
Christmas. Christians don't get to dominate Christmas, so no complaining about
it.
snarf
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [a] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full
day.
Plain reading-the sun stopped, in agreement with geocentrism
Trout (from IIDB.org)
Catholics in
particular seem to be obsessed with the whole Mary/virgin (crazy) birth deal.
Why is this one character so important to the whole mythology over others?
She didn't do much at all as far as I can tell yet you find pictures, etc all
over mainly Italian/Portugese households, there are
particular prayers to her, etc, right alongside Jesus and he's suposed to be the fleshy part of the big kahoona.
What gives?
Is this perhaps a root of the weirdly repressive Catholic take on sexuality
as well?
For example, I worked with some
Catholic school boards in the past and man they are nuts. Providing a well
designed new school or allowing for enjoyable athletic facilities took a huge
backseat to making sure the HS students didn't have anywhere to sneak off for a
snuggle in. It was openly discussed at a board meeting and made the guiding
principle for their efforts with two new schools.
I think that is pretty odd, not to mention sexually obsessed.
Marruk
We have a new receptionist and she
went and brought christmas
gifts for everyone. I happened to get an angel. I know she doesn't know that I
am an atheist, but it still bothers me that she just assumed that I am a god
fearing christian just like
her. I know it must be a little confusing that I have a little lighted tree in
my cubby, but unlike the rest of the office, my tree has no angel or star on it
and is covered in oragami birds. Oh well, I'm sure
she didn't mean to make me uncomfortable, she did buy candles for the Jewish
woman in the office. Though I feel kind of bad because I didn't even thank her
for the gift because I'm affraid that if I thank her
she will continue to assume I am a christian.