Screwballs
of the month
november 2005
As
of now, the Screwball feature will be a staple of the tektoonics.com site
rather than where it used to be. And if all goes well, maybe I can even start
making some new toons on the fly for the better ones.
From the mailbag
This first
bit came from someone with a pants bug about my article on the fish as a
Christian symbol http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/fishsymbol.html
--
To answer your question So What?
2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore get out
from among them, and seperate
yourselves, and quit touching the unclean thing.... (For example the Dagon
symbol)
The standards that the world uses
for their money making schemes cannot be compared to the standards that God
require of us. So using the analogy of the tiger for Kellogs
and Exxon is not relevant. God has a higher standard.
Please look at Deuteronomy 7:26 And you must not bring a detestable thing into your house
and actually become a thing devoted to desctruction
like it. You should thoroughly loathe it and absolutely detest it, because it
is something devoted to destruction.
Also, take a look at Exodus 20:4 You must not make yourself a carved image or a form like
anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or
that is in the waters.
There are many other scriptures in
regards to idolatry. God does not want
any symbols in worshipping him, even if they don't have pagan origins. We
have to come to grips that we must worship God the way he wants not the way we
want to.
Unfortunately
they couldn’t tell me where anyone was worshipping a fish in the church.
Speaking of powerful delusions, here’s a set from someone who read my material
on Alvin Boyd Kuhn, the esotericist who thinks there
are vapors in the air that cause mental evolution:
I just happened upon your sight and
would like to offer my 'two cents' after reading your arguments on Alvin
Kuhn. I have read nearly all of his writings that I have been able to get
my hands on, with the exception of two.
Out of fairness to Kuhn, I recommend
posting comments from readers who, like me, read your critique of his The Esoteric Structure of the Alphabet, and
Lost Key to the Scriptures, yet
have drawn different conclusions on Kuhn's writings. I am by no means an
authority on Kuhn or religion, only a life-long student of comparative
religious studies. First, I believe it is reasonably assumed that Kuhn
was writing to individuals who possess a somewhat keen familiarity of the
Biblical texts and variety of translations- so his omission of "citings" as you refer to in some cases, may not appear
so suspicious to some readers.
Of
course any reader of Kuhn's material must proceed with a critical mind, taking into consideration when he did his writing, the prodigious volume
of work, available resources at the time, etc. Yet, your arguments do not
succeed to "undermine their credibility", as is your stated purpose
when referring to Kuhn (and Massey). Yours is clearly a case of throwing out
the baby with the bathwater. The overall premise consistent throughout
Kuhn's works is ignored in your analyses and thus remains unraveled. I
would encourage any sincere and curious visitor of your site to take time to
carefully read all of Kuhn's writings in their context and draw their own
conclusions before being swayed too quickly by your thin rebuttal. The
points you bring out are by comparison nominal when taking an objective look at
the important archetypal themes Kuhn brings to view. Unfortunately,
because his works are little known, there is virtually no legitimate (yet
absolutely needed) debate amongst scholarly circles.
Until then, I think your position
could be a little more convincing (at least to the credulous reader) if you
omit the character attacks and name calling, i.e. "crackpot".
That approach may rally the naive, and may even appear as a blow to those who
share your prejudices, but mostly undermines your own credibility.
Instead of downplaying his credentials, you should not
surreptitiously withhold the fact that Kuhn received his Ph.D
from
I am not alone in recommending to
all sincere students of religion Kuhn's writings, especially his major works Shadow of the Third Century and The Lost Light, as absolutely necessary
to understanding from where our modern beliefs evolved; and equally recommend
to those who have refused to 'swallow the goat' as offered by the church and
its various offshoots.
Rebuttal or none, the point remains
that some of your visitors may all too hastily fail to investigate Kuhn's
writings and conclude for themselves- it is unfortunate your argument
leads one in that direction. Though it may not be spelled out in specific
terms (and you obviously have no control over who ultimately reads what), your
argument seeks to exploit impressionable minds. Just because YOU label
Kuhn as a "crackpot," doesn't make it so. If you truly speak
for a legitimate scholarly consensus, then your article had better disclose the
details.
But what may be distracting to you
may only be of peripheral concern to other discerning and capable
readers. It's comforting to know that you are among a small
minority who allegedly concede reading Kuhn's material is a waste of
time. I know that I am not alone in testifying that I gleaned more
truths, and resolved much confusion, from his material than I did from 30 years
of conventional fellowship.
The major ideas Kuhn has brought to
the table are monumental, worthy of further exploration amongst genuine
scholars; what literalists have offered are nothing more than the same old
ideas creatively wrapped in new, neat little packaging. The handwriting
is on the wall all around us, Christianity has long been overdue for serious
renovation; apologetics has succeeded in nothing more than reinventing the
wheel.
Wow. All of
that and not one argument answered? Then another on my fish symbol article that
made as much sense from the other side:
I just read your article on how the
fish is not from pagan origin. Why would it bother you so much if it
were? It isn't meant to be offensive to use sexual symbols in early
religion. The population wasn't nearly as huge as it is now. People
died of strange diseases that we have made extinct nowadays. Sex was
life. To reproduce was to survive. The fact that life sprang from a
woman was amazing and celebrated. Times have changed. We think
differently now, but it's very easy to empathize with their plight.
I asked the
fella why it would bother him so much that I had
written the article in the first place. But still no actual arguments.
Then this
round of chatter came in….
Basically anyone who has the ability
to have a job and buy nice things and to love his family first above all others
be it,christ,god,mathew,mark,luke,or john is the
spreading of poison even if the conoltation is
softened Like-"love less" or loved less than me,who
wants to be in heaven with a bunch of people who love eachother
less than jesus or god oh I hate you mom dad bro sis
dog cat i'll see you in heaven though right? so it's all good now-uhh I don't
think so. the only way I see this happening is these deciples
of his would have to be the very weekest of people in
society they would be the homeless,like dad kicked
him out because he dropped out of highschool and mom
died from drug abuse his bro thought he was lower than a dog and they
despised eachother and sis is a whore so he
don't associate with that kinda peep he stinks to
dirt hell and has no clothes or currency he's basically shit.So
in this light lets talk about the people he did make his desciples
they had families,marriages,money,clothes,currency,sounds
like contradiction.The reason why I wanted you to
read to the end is because all the way up till I read this passage I was able
to put all the parts together and the bible was enjoyable reading but this just
stinks no matter how you want to lable it so if you
have anything that you would like to tell me that could clear this up I might
even except hearing "GOD IS SMARTER THAN US PUT YOUR BIBLE DOWN AND NEVER
READ IN IT AGAIN" but i'd rather figure a good
way of alieviating this pain so I can read forth.
O….kay. How about this chatter then?
In reading some of your
articles about "jehoshua" etc, I find this
subject to be fascinating. I would like to find our more factual evidence about
this stuff, however, it is obvious from your writings that you are wholly
incapable of being objective and are not interested in fact. I find name
calling and satyrism unappealing and unconvincing and
I will on my own look further in to these matters to find out where the facts
lie. If your version is correct, you would serve yourself better by being
objective and sticking to empirical data. This issue of your credibility and
your bias sticks out like a sore thumb to anyone who is seriously interested in
find out the truth.
Can’t seem to get anyone who wants to be on point this
month.
Ah, wait – try this:
was looking up 834 BC because
it falls during the reign of Semiramis who is
mistaken
for the planet Venus in founding NInevah in 2060
BC.
834 BC reinauguartes
the planet Mars or Damuzi (Damu)
mistaking Marduk for the Jupiter
or Jova at
was 834 BC (exactly 200 years off). But as Marduk
temple it
is Adam's year 3192 AM (2256 + 936), the crossing that is
mistaken in other chronologies as the original 2009 BC Marduk
when Abram was 9 which counts 43 years from Ninevah's
foundation
in 2060 BC and thus presumes that Nimrod's son is Marduk
or Damu
(the
calendar for the planet Mars), which then presumes that Sumer-Amat
(Semiramis)
or the planet Venus is Nimrod's wife, and then connects it to
the Semiriamis of 834 BC whose son or husband was
general Ninus,
and bore a son Ninus or Ninyas.
Thus i
would like to no more about this Druid because its
cross of 834 BC
would only support the massive amount of other calendars waiting for the
cross of planets as the savior before 6000 or end of the world in 6000.
Feel free to publish this email, and
i hope you help me seek that cross of 834 BC.
Marduk date for 834 BC is the egyptian
new year Thoth 1 which falls that year
as a March 20 Marduk. This is why March is named
that year after Marduk.
But without leap days the
original revived Hamurabi's Marduk
in 1770 BC or 2256 AM
when Nimrod died at 500 is egyptian Thoth 1 which without leap days is Nov 9 back then.
Thoth was also the 7th month, not new year, until the Exodus in 1513 BC.
Please note that Psalm of
Moses 136:15 says Pharaoh died in the
use any Pharaoh except one that dies the year of the Exodus. The original Marduk
is mistaken as Thoth 1 Jan 8 in 2009 BC as
Adam's 3192 AM from 5200 BC,
but it is correctly Noah's 360-day new year 1-01-966 on July 8 with the
rise of Mars
on what was then the day Epagem 3, three days
before Phamenoth 1 as new year. The egyptian
calendar being only 21 years old since the fall of 177-year
death of Peleg Mesanipada,
whose son Reu Aanipada then
became father of
he had ruled as king 80 years from 2207-2127 BC measuring Venus.
During which time the moon was
measured
for the Chinese calendar 50 years (2207-2157 BC Feb 2) and by Nahor's life 50 years
2177-2127 BC before king Elulu introduced intercalary months for 25 years, 2091-2066
BC.
This is because the lunar calendar
was established as 25 years x 365 days 309 lunar months, before Joshua
upon his death in 1443 BC made it 19 sothic years
of 235 lunar months.
I hope this is sufficient study to
give you reason to help me on this 834 BC Celtic cross.
Grunt….OK,
someone sent me this note:
Margaret Towne's Honest to Genesis: A Biblical and Scientific Challenge to Creationism. She doesn't even cite her sources in the book, which ought to
disqualify it from even being eligible for scholarly critique. Not to mention
that she produces jewels like "If creationism is scientific, then there
should be atheistic creationists. Are there any?"
Few practicing biologists (geneticists embyologists,
anatomists, physiologists, ornithologists, mammalogists,
etc.), geologists, or paleontologists would question that life has evolved. Disagreement among
them centers on the how of creation. All the mechanisms are still a matter of discussion. Creationists' claim that thousands of scientists with post graduate
degrees (Morris and Morris, 1996, p. 9) is difficult to believe or prove.
Some mathematicians, engineers, chemists, and physicists may disclaim
evolution. However, few biologists, geologists, or paleontologists, those
who study the subject in minute detail, do. Creationists infer that
scientists have weighed the data openmindedly on
all sides and have chosen creationism apart from their religious persuasions.
Where are the lists? Can there be creationists who are not religious? Can
creationism be arrived at by scientific means alone? Then there should be young
Earth atheists. Are there any? (page 264)
Here's a few more you might like...
God made the rainbow so he could
remember his promise. Does God need help remembering?
In response to the creationist
assertion that NT writers believed in a literal Adam:
Jesus became human. He took upon
himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men (Philippians
2:7). What does that mean? He was born of a woman. He hungered, wept, slept, became angry,
questioned, loved, was subject to temptation, celebrated weddings, needed
friends, needed to pray, bled, died. Many believe he
was not only confined to human flesh and blood but also to the culture in which
he was born and raised. He knew no science, no technology, no geography, no
art, no music beyond what they knew. He was reared in
a devout Jewish family which studied and memorized the Old Testament texts and
interpreted them differently than do modern rationalists. In becoming a frail
human he was limited to all that encompasses.
... Jesus was bound not only by the
physical but by the mental restrictions of the human condition. Embracing this
limitation was part of his deep love and humiliation for mankind. He did not
understand all things. Even on the cross he asked "Why?"
This is why
non-scholars need to mind their own bidness, eh?
Finally at the end of the month, a certain Mr. Happy Pants arrived with these
drum rolls:
Stumbled across your site and you
may be what I'm
looking for, someone who can offer a real challenge to
my theory.
From a chance remark of
"Everyone knows Jesus of
place existing at that time, I've done a bit of
blissfully ignorant research.
I cheerfully admit I know almost
nothing of the bible,
as it struck me as a daft fairly tale as a kid. I
remember snippets only.
But I've discovered the real Jesus.
The reason there
is no real evidence is you're looking in the wrong
place. The real man was NOT in the heart of
a few miles outside and about 100 years earlier. His
religion was so obscure I can't even find the name but
there is, apparantly, evidence he actually existed.
I have a few questions but first,
what's your take on
the possibility of this?
I can show you a man who's story
matches, as best as
an ignorant chap like me can tell. On 2 different
websites I've proved it in debate but as one guy said,
"I wish we had an expert
here". You seem to be an
expert?
I warn you in advance, this is 'blue
pill or red
pill?' stuff. Be willing to have your faith seriously
dented, if not destroyed.
Up for it?
I told him
to show up on TheologyWeb and he signed up as happypants. I expect he’ll give us some fresh material next
month…
Golden duh award winners
Dunkel’s duh notes
A character
from christianforums styled “dunkel”
wins Gold for a variety of wild comments such as:
The point is, do not make a claim
about Jesus and then say it must be true because it says so in the Gospel. The
Gospels, by themselves, are not an objective source of actual history. I am not
make a statement about whether I believe the Gospels
or whether I think the teachings therein are valid. I'm merely stating that in
order to prove the historical accuracy of a document, ANY document, you must go
to outside sources for corraboration.
At any rate, the burden of proof in this case is not on those that have certain
doubts about different aspects of the Bible, but on those that insist that it
is true. . . Did a historical Jesus Christ exist? Ok, prove it. And, although
it might seem unfair, prove it without using as evidence the source of the
claim that you're trying to make.
Think about it like this. I go out partying one night and don't come home until
the next morning. My wife is up waiting for me, so I tell her my story. Car
broke down, cell phone died, I had to rescue a kitten
from a burning building, whatever. Oh yeah? She says, prove it. Is it
sufficient for me to say "well, I just told you what happened, there's
your proof"? No, it's not. I better produce a dead cell phone, a car
repair bill, and a sooty kitten. Better yet, let's hope channel 2 news was on the scene of the fire and got me on tape
running into the burning building. The Gospels are the claim, the story that need to be proved. Now, how are you going to prove them?
First, we have the Gospels. I've
already stated one reason I don't like to use the Bible as "proof" of
anything...of course it's going to tell the reader that it's true. Wouldn't be much of a religious text if it didn't. I'm
inclined to discount the Gospels, therefore, as proof that Jesus actually
existed.
The point of my analogy, which was,
apparently, too complicated for you, was that when you tell a story, you can't
then depend on that story to validate itself. Any
story, whether it's in a history book or I'm just trying to get myself out of
hot water with my wife. Yes, there are other writings about Jesus, the creeds,
all that good stuff...and all based on...the original story. A few obscure
references to Christians, as a group, here or there, but again, that has never
been in doubt. A few more references to Christ himself, but none by anyone that
actually claims to have met him and no sense of the ultimate source of these
references (what sources were available?). And the primary 3rd party source
(Josephus) is considered so spurious that the debate is no longer that parts of
it were made up but only WHICH parts.
BTW, if I was able to
get four friends together to back up my story, but they were as full of holes
and contradictions as the four Gospels apparently are, you can bet I'd be
sleeping on the couch for a month. So, you went bowling, huh? Who went with
you...Frank and Joe? Well, your other friend said it was Jimmy and his
girlfriend...which is it?
There were
many cults who revolved around a God/man who was put to death in ignoble ways.
Some even had the subject of their worship dying through crucifixion. The fact
that Christ was crusified does not make him unique by
any stretch of the imagination.
I don't think even Biblical scholars
believe that Mark was actually written by Mark.
Just for fun, though, here are a few links for your reading pleasure:
http://www.infidels.org/library/his.../16/chap16.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/wasdin/wasdin30.html
http://www.fabrisia.com/crucifixion.htm
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
Have fun
Back later,
I have to pick up my white sheet from the cleaners
A person I usually found reasonable referred me to this site
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM
as a corrective to some of my points
about honor and shame societies. I asked someone who had been an exchange
student in such a society (
Dude, this guy is an total freaking idiot who although travelling
to foreign countries, really needs to get his head out of the yankee-doodleverse and let go of his ideas of Manifest
Destiny. The guy isn't even an anthropologist, he's a geologist.
The sad part is that I
saw other exchange students (even myself) have the same kind of attitude of
self-rightousness towards the Japanese at times (such
as with regards to the importance placed on the observation of certain rules
how to wear the school's uniform). With regard to what Shintoism has to do with Bushido, one could be shamed
before one's dead ancestors (that would have to do with the significance of the
Shrine of remorse). Although
he is somewhat half, no, make that a quarter right that modern Japanese are
different from the ancient one's and may feel guilt (IMO), but they are not a
"Guilt-culture" as the values of honor and shame still hold
precedence. Special lifetime Achievement award God hates people who
stub their toes A special
Lifetime Achievement Screwball goes this round to a “fundy
atheist” styled Underlings, for his
support of "Why does God Hate Amputees.com" (which simply offerers the a glorified version of the "If God was
real prayer would be like a gumball machine" argument, and for that the
website deserves a nomination itself). Here are some samples of Underlings’
marked brilliance which earned him this award: According to the
Bible, all you need is a modicum of faith--the relative amount of a mustard
seed next to a mountain--and what you ask Jesus for, he will give. NOTHING is
impossible. I'm not making up the rules...that is what
the Bible says! Those who disagree with the site's position have been skirting
around this issue with red herrings (pardon the odd imagery). -------- So the Bible never was meant for
other cultures and other time periods, is that it? Well, I suppose that makes
sense if it was written by primitive men. After all, if an all-powerful god
created it for the whole world (even by proxy) then he would have ensured the
book was written well enough to accurately survive translation and not be so
confusing to decipher. But, unfortunately, the Bible has gone through a lot of
translating. And without a true understanding of the original culture in which
it was written--something that is, of course, essentially impossible in this
day and age, at least by Westerners--there's not much hope that the true
meaning can be determined. Wow...over a third of the world's population is
following a religion based on faulty translations. Pretty heavy stuff! 2 Kgs.
2:23-24 -- He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the
way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go
away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" When he turned around and saw them, he
cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods
and mauled forty-two of the boys. And one more example is Hell. Hell
is supposedly eternal suffering. One is forced
to ask...does ANY punishment deserve to last forever, especially if there is no
hope of redemption ("Abandon all hope, ye who
enter")? If there is no hope of
redemption, then there is no lesson to be taught, is there. That's why we have
another name for punishment that does not teach a lesson: "torture." i . I have a question
. Just out of curiosity , if you did happen to
find someone who regenerated a limb , would it prove the exsitence
of God or Jesus to you ? His answer: And when
confronted with the details of scholarship…guess what… No historical scholar with any
credibility claims to know for certain the contextual use of long-dead
languages. Come on, you KNOW this. If YOUR PERSONAL translations are
the only ones that are true, then all those Christians are going to Hell
despite all their best intentions. Finally,
Underlings hypothesized that we had a starving Third World Child before us and
asked how we would respond to such a child. My reply: I'd stop wasting time flapping my
trap and get him some food. Which
yielded the truly Screwball response: They must have worn out
a lot of scalpels when they tried to do the circumcision From our
old Screwball friend Joe Wallack (it says, "Wallace" but it looks too much like his work) comes
the news that Superman was Jewish: http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0104/super.htm Superman was created by two Jews in
1933 (no, that's not a coincidence) named Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Yes, I
am talking about the comic book figure, Superman. Everyone has seen the movies
or read the comic books, but few understand that the
Jewish-created Superman was a Jewish fantasy that pitted Jews, or the Supermen,
in an epic battle to destroy Christianity (in other words, Siegel and
Shuster were just envisioning World War II where World Jewry united against the
last great Christian nation). This may sound a little far-fetched to some, but
that is just what these two Jews had in mind. The Jews
have long operated this way, creating entertainment that purports to be
wholesome or family-oriented but in the background it is filled with various
pro-Jew, anti-white themes. Just look at the Walt Disney Co. I can
hardly wait for the bits on Batman and Spiderman. Green acres is the
place to be, Or, you’ll burn for e-ter-ni-ty Chetrecon, on why living in a city is
unbiblical: Agrarianism
is a movement that seems to me makes total biblical sence,
I have lived city life before and I absolutely hate it, and I see absolutely no
biblical call for it. I think that the tower of babel, Silver duh award winners Pythagoras wins the Competence in Scholarship
Award for posting a forged quote from Irenaeus, and
by responding to a question put to him about translation by citing an article
written in 1897! moses earns the
Rambunctious Valorous Vagueness Award for a few lines: Christianity,"
in its simplest terms, is the result of previous centuries of Jewish and Greek
myth and conjecture about the coming of a “Messiah,” and revolves around the
resurrection. Nathyn (at protestwarrior.com) wins the
Spoiled Porridge Award for pulling the old No True Scotsman fallacy over
Hitler, saying that since there is no accepted definition of Christian, that if
Hitler said he was a Christian, that he was. After all, "people don't lie
to themselves about their beliefs". Provoker wins the Less is More
in Education Award for these comments, upon being questioned over calling
himself a “lifetime Bible scholar”: "lifetime bible scholar"
simply means that I will always be a bible scholar,
and never allow myself to reach a point where I think that I know so much that
I can close my mind...LOL If by credentials, you mean; who's opinions have I been taught? the answer is that I
have not been taught anyone's opinions. Dr. Babara Rossing,
who teaches New Testament at the Lutheran School of Theology in But he gave
it 5 stars even so. BaggerVance earns the Hard Head Award for: What does an empty tomb prove? Absolutely nothing. It could have been anything. It wasn't
the empty tomb that sold them on Jesus. It was the message of redemption and
rebellion against Again, a tomb being empty means
nothing. I don't recall many accounts of christians
verifying this. They simply believed what they were told. The true question is
if it was so easy to verify then why didn't everyone convert straight away?
Maybe it was only the people who wanted to believe it or trusted the apostles
that converted. It sure wasn't a slam dunk case that tomb empty business. Mass
converts came around after they heard about the free ride to heaven and grace
instead of works. Even today it is too good to be true. You can act just like a
sinner and go to heaven cuz like...nobody's perfect. They had that in the paganism before
Muhammad. Muhammad's initial mass following was not at the point of a sword or
because they could steal. They could steal before him and he only gained power
through the mass conversions that he then used as an army. Your prejudice is
showing though. Nice. The incentive for jews
turning to christianity was grace, community, and
freedom from overly strict and ridiculous hebrew law.
What about all the commune churchs like in Acts where
the poor came together and helped one another? That sense of community wasn't
incentive even if you were in trouble with the establishment? f the evidence is so convincing for an empty tomb why did the vast
majority of his jewish brethern
reject that is a foolish notion? Was it the devil? Did God blind them? Talk
about claims you can't verify. Why did those that knew Jesus best reject him?
Jews didn't go to him en masse. If you want to pretend that the empty tomb
argument was the key argument that led to conversion
and that it is indisputable go ahead but history says differently. No
historians say the resurrection is fact. Most will say Jesus existed but you
get none that say you can historicaly verify the
empty tomb. Doubting
John wins
the Twist and Shout Award for a pair, when first he said: And the client-patron relationship, like the honor-shame one are ancient codes and
ancient ways of thinking. You mean, like held by 70% of the
world today, Uncle McWhitey? His reply: Yea, but if you want to be in the
same company as 2/3rds of the world who are animists, then go ahead and claim
they agree with you Then,
claiming that nomination of him for a Screwball meant he was being invited to
comment on it, was chastised: in·vi·ta·tion P Pronunciation Key (nv-tshn) Cognos earns the Atheist Apologists for Mr. Rogers
Award for this post: Imaginary Friends Between the ages of two-and-a-half and six, children
often create imaginary friends to play with. Although this development
sometimes perplexes parents, it can be a positive sign that the child is
devising creative ways to deal with being alone. © source where applicable The list of all important questions
that the Bible does not answer would not fit within the limits of a TWeb post. (The list of all questions that the Bible does
not answer would not fit on the TWeb site.) Good
assumption. We close with three full-site awards: For Mark Smith of
jcnot4me.com; for the site at http://littlegeneva.com/
(speaks for itself), and for biblewheel.com, whose owner showed up at TWeb and made a few interesting comments…. Hey wfaber,
let me set the record straight. The reason I took a break is because of the
PUTRID CORRUPTION of many of the posts on this thread. No self-respecting person has any reason to try
to communicate with people who smear their own poop on their posts. ---- My proclamation is that the Bible Wheel was designed by God before the
foundation of the world and that it reveals the Divine Perfection of
Holy Scripture. I declare the Bible is God's Written
Word, and its fulfillment is God's Living Word, Jesus Christ. Bronze duh award winners Vfarris Sparko is clutching at straws as he usually does, this time with Titus 2:13... David
Ben-Ariel Biblical Christians who follow Yashua's
example don't eat pork or other unclean foods or partake of unclean
pagan practices that pretend to be "Christian." "Christmas is about
giving." SAYS WHO? Who started that BIG LIE? Undoubtedly those with
something to sell, the modern moneychangers! Look at the folks about you
rushing like sheep to the slaughter, to the "sales" and such that
they simply CANNOT AFFORD. Going into debt certainly isn't biblical, so
why not break free from the trance? The "Christmas" rush is a
"drug" pushed by commercial pimps prostituting a supposedly Christian
holiday for their ungodly profits! They hold hands around the cash register and
sing, "What a friend we have in Jesus." Kenite Re the question, “Whose interpretation of Scripture? Scripture does not interpret
itself...” Told, ”if it did then
everyone with a Bible would believe in the same things”: I think what you mean is legalism.
Catholics are not justified by faith, and they have to go through the priest-centred hoops of their cult; going to mass and confession,
'Sunday' attendance (and there's no such thing as Sunday), saying
rosaries, lighting candles, fasting, etc. It's no different from circumcision;
'Beware of the dogs', Paul wrote, and they're still around, ready to bite any
passing foolish Galatian. Shunyadragon You are citing confirmed traditional
Christians here and not unbiased secular scholars. Tektonics
is the most dubious source. The argument of contrasting the
cultures to justify scripture and the truth of the testimony of the gospels is
very artificial and does not reflect the history and nature of religious
movements than or today, and the motives behind those who believe. The gospel
accounts may be accurate to a T, but they also maybe fabricated based on the
emotional desire of the people at the time to believe. There are too many simpliar cults and religions that begin and develop in all
societies regardless of the social context of the society. All of the believers
cling to their beliefs and testimony through humiliation, torture and
martyrdom. There is absolutely nothing unique about an artifical
construct of as honor/shame society that presupose
that the people believing in extraordinary or miraculous claims, would be any
more reliable than anybody else in history. Religions, Religous
cults and movements have arrisen in eastern societies
as well, which may be considered very honor/shame oriented, based on the
testimony of some to miraculous events and claims. Bandicoot
on
Jesus: Christmas is his birthday easter is his funeral. GWB wanted something for the middle
part. ( I typed that with a straight face, honest) Darththeo Everyone of you who keeps talking about your faith as fact is wrong; Faith can
not stand up to fact. You said your faith is fact, you are wrong and aren't
worth me arguing with you. You wish to argue your faith against mine and treat
your faith as faith, that is fine. Arguments are bias ... because we
make them and as humans we all have bias. So using my argument to make an
argument off of course is unfit. ttp://www.tektonics.org/lp/mission.html oPiAtE It shows how insecure you are about
your beliefs that you have to spend countless hours on the internet arguing
about them with people you don't even know boots It is amazing that with so much proof of G-d's existance on the BibleWheel website, that
people dare come up with such foolish responses. Richard, you are throwing G-d's pearls
to the swine through this poll.
What G-d has revealed to you through the gift of the
Holy Spirit can not be understood by those who do not know the Holy Spirit.
They are blinded to the simplest of Truths. Ebolav Let me make my position clear from
the get go.. I do not believe in any jesis christ, warewolves, hindu gods, Zeus, or
any other mythical type stuff.. But I will say this, the fundementalist are the closest thing to practicing what
they preach with regards to religous goofs in
general. However, they still don't go all the way.. I am sure they wish they could but they don't have the
Gonads for it.. For example, Leviticus in the old testament says that if a man has sex with his daughter
in law, he should be PUT TO DEATH, and that if a man has sex with his wife's
mother, he and her should be BURNT WITH FIRE. It also says that if a man lays with
another man they shall be put to DEATH.. Hey look, there are no gods or
goddesses, or at least there is no evidence for any of them. It's so rediculous people still
believe that this christ character is going to
come to save humanity or that the world was created my magic ant feces (yes,
there is a religion that believes that).. Ebolav
posted this same message in 8 places on TWeb. LakeGeorgeMan quotes, in
ironic order: cubanito Stricly speaking, God did not exist until Jesus was conceived. athiestman9 If there is a god, how can you explain the recent discovery of a brother of
Jesus? The Bible clearly says the 'only son of god?' The answer? The bible was not
written by 'god' or jesus.
It was written by jesus'
best friends. If you asked your best
friend to write several books about how you've done 'miracles', the book would
be vagrantly biased and if not you really need better friends. And if the book is biased, how can we base our decisions in
life on it? We can't. That takes care of the New Testament. As for the old testament, according to biblical scholars, the old
testament was a group of very old stories carried down by word of mouth. How
believable is anything carried down by word of mouth? Here's an example: anyone
ever played Telephone? You know, everyone sits in a circle and someone whispers
a secret in the person next to them's ear and the
secret goes around the circle by whispering. If after only 20 people one
sentence can go from "Billy is a fast runner" to "I want to run
to Phillidelphia", how can so many people trust
in, basically, an attempt to write a guide to life through a 100 year game of telephone? They can't. I'm done. The
Creep But my point was that terrorists are
people too and we shouldn't let the anti-art
tendencies of a few dominate the samaritanian
impulses of the many.
Now as to the Bushido bit, I'm no anthropologist, but I can tell you that this
is straight BS: “ In sharp contrast to thar, Bushido was an internalized code of
honor. One could be shamed in Bushido
even if nobody else knew.”
So let me try once again.... Given the following:
1. The Bible is literally the word of God and all its contents are true.
2. The Bible says in no uncertain terms that ANYTHING
you pray for you will get.
Why is it that when you actually pray for something that can't be explained by
natural means (coincidence, human deception, human achievement, etc.), such as
the regrowth of amputated limbs, the prayers NEVER
come true? (If you do not believe me...try it!!)
At any rate, if someone uses hyperbole to explain the power of something that
is unknown to the listener, it is a form of deception.
Hmmm. God should rewrite the Bible every year or so because skeptics have busy busy lives.
(Yes, yes, I know that some people would like the
words "small boys" to be replaced with "youths" so the
passage wouldn't sound so condemning, but nearly all versions of the Bible
refer to "small boys"...not that "youths" wouldn't still
mean small boys, and not that even if the boys were older such a vicious act
would be justified.)
While one might not mind if a murderer suffers forever, the Bible implies that
those who fail to worship God and ask for salvation through Christ are doomed
to suffer in Hell for all eternity too. Well, what if you don't like God, or
have been raised in another religion without exposure to Christianity, or
simply don't believe there is enough evidence for the existence of God? Do you deserve to suffer for all eternity? And to
what end? Even if you learn your lesson ("Okay, I guess God does
exist."), is there any hope of redemption? No, not really. So billions of people will suffer for
eternity...for the sake of gratuitous torture. Would a loving God
permit such a thing?
Did he just quote Dante's "Inferno" to show Christian Doctrine
regarding hell? Underlings was asked:
Or, would you end up attributing to evolutionary ?
Like when a lizard grows back his tail after it breaks off when someone picks
him up by it ?
Thanks .
That's really immaterial, since the point of this thread is to prove that prayer does NOT work, thus
helping prove the non-existence of God. But I'll answer it anyway:
No. After all, if you saw someone regenerate a limb, would it prove to you the
existence of the Babylonian god Marduk? Or any other non-Christian god?
What it would prove would be that limbs can regenerate, and the process would
then have to be investigated thoroughly. If every time someone prayed for a limb to regenerate, a limb
regenerated, then it would be logical to infer a causal relationship between
prayer and regeneration.
But it would take further experimentation to determine the cause. After all,
it's conceivable that some naturalistic phenomena is
responsible. If extensive research reveals no such thing, then the answer
becomes, "We still don't know the cause." Some
may BELIEVE the regeneration is due to a divine cause, but without evidentiary
support there is simply no way to know.
You're kidding. This is ALL any of you
can muster? Your brilliant solution to preventing starvation is feed them? Let
me guess...and your solution to preventing crime is to stop criminals? And your
solution to prevent pollution is to stop polluting?
Way to go, Einstein. Why didn't I think of those brilliant solutions?
Once again you deliberately sidestep the issue and refuse to answer the very
evidence that reveals God to be indifferent, evil or nonexistent. Well, I
suppose I shouldn't be surprised...after all, if you did actually take a
serious look at the issue, you'd doubtless come to the same conclusion I have.
...Superman came to
So the Jew must infiltrate his enemy in order to destroy him. In Superman's
case, his arch-rival was Lex Luthor.
Again we see that these two Jews really had a sense of humor. If you haven't
figured it out yet, Luthor is just another spelling
for Luther, as in Martin Luther. This was their way of
identifying Christianity as the arch-nemesis and the object of attack of the SuperJew.
...
As for the Lex in Lex Luthor, again, this was a carefully thought out attack
against white Christianity. Lex is simply the Latin
word for law and Lex as a concept represented the white Christian Law that had
been in Europe, particularly in
http://www.xanga.com/chetrecon/383284283/item.html
The teachings of Jesus were altered to
fit the legend, but definitely took a secondary role.
The gospels were composed many years after the death
of not only Jesus, but even of most of the people that knew him directly. Not only were these Gospels displaced in time, but also displaced culturally
since Greek speaking Christians composed them.
- And then even further meaning was lost in
translation from the Aramaic.
There are now two main, and disparate, schools of thought about the origin of Christianity.
The first, and mistaken belief is that Jesus himself,
as well as his teachings, was the founder.
The other is that the Christ or "Anointed One" of the Resurrection,
as well as Pauline thought, is the bases of this religion. This may seem to be
a small distinction upon first inspection, but in the end a very crucial one.
If it is based on the teachings, and more importantly, the example of Jesus,
then his words take on enormous significance.
If, on the other hand, the "resurrection"
and "Pauline thought" is taken as the bases for Christianity, then it is based on the ideas and beliefs of the people who
came after him!
Remember a very important fact! Jesus never personally claimed to be conducting
his Ministry to "erase man's sins,” just as he
never claimed to be Divine himself. Jesus constantly referred to himself as the "son of God,”
just as we all are!
The early Christian gospels are not historical
biographies of Christ, and do not really give us insight into the life of
Jesus. These gospels proclaim a message about Jesus, and express a
significance that the early Christians found in Jesus.
They are written in a way that appeals to historical
truth, but they are not history in any actual sense.
Until the recent deciphering of the Gospel of Thomas and the discovery of the
"Q" sayings, this knowledge of Christ was the only bases we had to
explore the historical Jesus.
As a result, it was very difficult to differentiate between the actual words of
Jesus and the words attributed to him by his followers. (Christians)
............................Fortunately, this is changing.
I began personally studying the bible in 1957, I graduated from high school in
1960, and have been studying the bible, off and on,
ever since.
I found that orthodox Christianity requires the acceptance of unsupportable,
unscriptural, man-made doctrines, as a starting point, so I began to study the
bible in the context of it's own story, and worked
very hard to avoid any doctrinal preconceptions.
Basicly, my method is to interpret scripture
according to the continuity of the story it tells.
I don't expect to be taken seriously, as I test
my honest opinions through discussion with other bible
scholars.
However, the unofficial credentials that I have are; a
reasonable command of English composition rules, a reasonable amount of common
sense and logic, and a "hopefully" unbiased committment
to seeking the truth of the bible.
So the less education he has, the more qualified he is to speak on the subject?
**** Rapture Exists. People Have to
Believe in The Lord. , October 31, 2005
A Kid's Review
The Rapture exists period. This signifies that the
coming of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just so close. It has been predicted by the Mayans that the time cycle will
change in December of 2012...the Rapture has to exist because His Believers
will be picked up. I don't think that Christ will leave His Followers on
this Earth in order to face the wrath of the antichrist (who is in the flesh right now, yes, in 2005). And believe it or
not the antichrist has a book out right now titled,
"Memoirs of Antichrist." It is here, sold on amazon.com . The signs are everywhere, but the signs point
to the Sign: Jesus Christ. Immortality for ever is at hand but just believe in the Son Of God: Jesus Christ. You need the
invitation (by Christ) in order to make it to the Party that(
God the Father)is having in Heaven. Just pray alot
for yourself, and for the poor and sooner or later He
will come back. Let the secular or Religious Mayans of
the past persuade you through their information that they have done-that
the Signs that they have talked about point to the Sign: Jesus Christ. The
Rapture is always talked about on TBN and backed up with Biblical scripture. It is best to believe in Jack Van Impe
than in this person named "Barbara Rossing."
Barbara Rossing should talk to Jack Van Impe.
Let us not pretend that martyrdom is so unappealing for many any way. That is
just a lie.
The sad thing is that you refuse to see that other religions use the same exact
"logic" and "reasons" as you do and when you step all over there
reasons you trample on your own.
And I replied:
n.
The act of inviting.
A spoken or written request for someone's presence or
participation.
Now, would you please show me where they requested your presence or
participation?
To which he said,
only:
Oh, aren't you cute. You remind me of the
Pharisees, but wait, you would be one of them.
...
Imaginary friends help children deal with the normal anxieties of growing up.
They often come into being at times of change or stress.
...
Imaginary friends usually have names and well-developed personalities. Often,
they are somewhat mischievous or naughty, allowing the child to express
negative feeling and actions without having to take full ownership of them. For
instance, an imaginary friend may strongly dislike certain foods, letting the
child voice opinions about dinner without taking responsibility. Asked about a
mess he made, a child may well blame the imaginary friend instead of
confessing.
...
There is no harm in playing along with your child's imagination. In fact,
trying to convince your child that an imaginary friend doesn't exist may lead
to unnecessary conflict. Most children will say good-bye to their imaginary
friends as soon as they feel able to deal with their fears and negative
feelings by themselves.
http://familyfun.go.com/parenting/child/health/childhealth/dony79enc_ifriend
It seems that believing in imaginary entities can be useful, especially
"at times of change and stress."
And, perhaps, the best way of dealing with someone who has an imaginary friend
is to "play along".
But what if someone writes a book and says that it was written by a friend who
is real, and that everyone has to follow the instructions in that book?
"And, perhaps, the best way of dealing with someone who has an
imaginary friend is to "play along"."
If what he is implying about God being an "imaginary friend" is true,
then why did he go into the Apologetics forum of Tweb
to post this in the first place? But Cognos also
earns the Silver Platter for this set of complaints:
It's glaringly obvious that the various
books of the Bible do not contain the answers to all
the questions.
Nor do they have answers to all the
"important" questions.
But if there any answers, where
are they? Are they in the words in a physcial copy of
one of the various translations of the various collections of the various
writings? Or are they in a person's subjective evaluation and interpretation of
those words?
The words of the Bible do not explain the world. They
don't even explain why people believe what they believe.
People interpret the Bible. And they base their interpretations on many
extra-Biblical sources. The Bible, on its own, is
inadequate in the pursuit of truth and knowledge. And, in some ways, it
interferes with that pursuit.
Oh no! We need to actually understand
context and study the Bible to learn from it.
Let's start with yours. Please indicate where in the Bible I can find the
definitive answers to these questions:
What is the purpose of the universe?
Why does evil and suffering exist?
What is the afterlife?
What should I eat?
What should I do to be clean?
How should I treat others?
How about some important personal issues:
Should I get married? (Actually, I am married,
but you get the point.)
Should I marry this woman?
Should I marry more than once?
Which university should I choose?
Which career should I choose?
Should I start my own business?
How many children should my wife and I have?
Should I move to another country?
When should I retire, and where?
Does the Bible answer the above questions?
How about some health questions:
Which medical professionals should I consult?
Should I undergo that surgical procedure?
Which exercises should I do?
Some family issues:
When should I move away from home?
Should I hit my children?
Should my mother live with me?
Some moral questions:
When, if ever, is it right for me to lie?
Should I tell you everything that happened?
If my father is a diagonosed
with Alzheimer's, should I obey him?
Some political issues:
Which political party should I vote for?
Should I run for office?
How should I vote on this proposition?
Should we got to war?
How should the government balance the budget?
What should the government do about the economy, the
environment, energy, education, the arts, health, human rights, international
trade, foreign affairs, and law enforcement?
Some financial issues:
Where should I invest my money?
Should I become rich?
How much life insurance should I have?
Which tax breaks should I take advantage of?
Should I move my money offshore?
How should I structure my portfolio to optimize my
risk/return ratio?
Some cosmic questions:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
What exactly is gravity?
Is time unidirectional?
Is there extra-terrestial
life?
Some questions about the future:
When will I die?
When will the world run out of fossil fuels?
What will the temperature of earth's atmosphere be in
100 years?
Who will win the next election?
What will interest rates be in five years?
Which country will be the next superpower?
And, finally, questions about the Bible:
Who wrote each book of the Bible?
When was each book written?
Which books were inspired by God?
Please get back to me within a day with the particular passages in the Bible
that answer these questions; otherwise, I'll assume that you are ignoring this
post.
Steadele is the prime example. He posted nothing but vile god-hating mockery and ad hominen time, and time, and time again. In his every
post, he violated every principle of Holy Scripture,
and by inevitable implication, he conclusively denied
its Author. After many such posts, he finally did make an assertion that
had sufficient content for me to answer. And what did he do when I answered? He
ran out of here as fast as possible, all the while claiming he had "owned
this thread."
Of course, steadele did own this thread, in the way that a flatulent
cow owns a tea parlour. But there is one thing he
would NEVER OWN, and that is his OWN WORD! He utterly
disgraced himself. But worse, and almost
everyone else posting here, yourself included, let his corrupt posts slide
right by without comment. This is why serious minded Bible students don't like TWeb.
Or take yourself as an example. How is it possible that you could be so
deceived as to think it valid to simply DISMISS anybody who disagrees with you
as failing to be a "serious minded Bible student"? Look at the Poll! There are a dozen folks who
voted that they have not seen an error in my work. But according to you, each
and every one of them is not a "serious minded Bible student." Nice
work, wfaber. Real "christian" of you.
But it gets worse. Your primary argument is to simply ATTACK GOD'S HOLY WORD as
presented BY HIM in the 66 Book Protestant Bible! You have an extraordinarily
LOW VIEW of God's Sovereignty. You claim to be an "inerrantist"
even as you assert (by implication) that God inspired the individual documents
and then just tossed them in the wind, hoping weak and fallible humans
would succeed in putting them together in the form He wanted. Or didn't want. In your view, Genesis could be tossed in
with the Minor Prophets, and Revelation with the Gospels and all would be just
fine. God didn't actually ORDER the structure of
Scripture! No sir! He's not a God of order, now is He?
That is one low view of Scripture, man!
As for your links - talk about making somebody look STUPID! And its not the Holy Spirit I am speaking of. It is you and the Twebbers who posted the posts you linked to. Most obvious is the supposed "failure" of
symmetry. That is tooooo stuuupppiiiidd.
How in the world could you let yourself post that?
If something is perfect, it can not be improved upon.
Therefore, all the enemies of the Bible Wheel have a very simple means to prove
me wrong.
All you need to do is rearrange the Books to make a
better, more meaningful pattern. If the Bible Wheel is truly random, as
many have suggested, then it should be TRIVIAL to use your mighty intelligence
to rearrange the Books to make something obviously more
"intelligent."
The Written Word is the great Type of the Living Word, Jesus Christ, its true Antitype. He fulfills it all.
The Bible Wheel is the Bible. Everything in the
Bible is in the BW, and everything in the BW is in the Bible.They are simply two
views of a single object. All I did was roll up the traditional list of
66 Books on a spindle wheel of 22 Spokes corresponding to the 22 Hebrew Letters
that God Himself eternally established as a FOUNDATION STONE in the Alphabetic
Verses, most notably Psalm 119, the incomparable Psalm of God's Word.
God used Hebrew alphabet as a template for the large-scale structure of His
Word (the Bible) just as He used it as a template for the Psalm of His Word (Ps
119).
The Bible Wheel is what the Bible looks like if we simply roll it up![Ed.
note: and smoke it.]
The BW is simply a 2D representation of the traditional 66 Book Christian
Bible. That's it.
So yes, the Bible Wheel is the Bible, and the Bible is
the Written Word of God.
"Theos" here is mistranslated as
"God" instead of "lord" and shows the bias of the
translators... "Theos" does not always mean "god" as the "trini's"
would have us believe as shown by the two gods we get in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 if both words mean "god."
Jesus is indeed "lord" of all but not God of all; there is ONLY ONE
GOD...
Titus 2:13, in my opinion, should read: "while we wait for the blessed
hope—the glorious appearing of our great lord and savior, Jesus Christ,"
Paul does not belive Jesus is God... The word "theos" in Romans 9:5 is mistranslated... it should be
translated "lord." it shows the bias of the translators... they want
Jesus to be God therefore that is the way they translate the text... to suit their
theology.
Biblical Christians know that the dietary laws given
at CREATION for ALL MANKIND are still in effect, and will remain in
effect as long as there are mortals, until our transformation into the Divine
or our return to the dust.
Acts 15:29
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the
meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to
avoid these things. Farewell. (The dietary law against
blood reveals the dietary laws remain in effect, which is why Peter hadn't eaten any unclean things years after Christ's
resurrection).
Isaiah 66:15-17
15 See, the LORD is coming with fire, (time-setting, the end times, after the
resurrection)
and his chariots are like a whirlwind;
he will bring down his anger with fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For with fire and with his sword
the LORD will execute judgment upon all men,
and many will be those slain by the LORD.
17 "Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens,
following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and
other abominable things—they will meet their end together," declares the
LORD. (pagan holidays with
unclean foods like an Easter ham).
Matthew 5:17-19
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Yashua
didn't rebel against His Father's commandments but kept them, upheld them,
taught them and magnified them to make them even more binding!) 18I tell you
the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by
any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who
breaks one of the least of
these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in
the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will
be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Those unclean ministers who teach the religious lie
professing Christians can eat abominable things will have "hell" to
pay and their tainted traditions will become toast! Real Christians
don't eat pork!
The whole idea of giving gifts has gotten out of hand. First it's not Jesus'
birthday. Second the wise men didn't exchange gifts amongst each other but gave
their gifts fit for a King to the King of the Jews (two years old and living in
a house at that time - which is why Herod slaughtered the children two years
and under trying to abort the Messiah's ascension to David's Throne).
If Christmas is supposed to be about Christ (and some sincerely believe it is,
still in denial that it's a pagan holiday God wants no part of), why let Santa steal the show? Why
do folks pretend they care that Jesus was born when they deny His life the rest
of the year? Why do folks get angry when you mention these facts and
they're not even religious? The herd doesn't want their trance broken, so
they'll go broke keeping alive pagan festivals and foolishness that will be the
death of many.
"Harmless" Christmas celebrations, abominations to God and rejected
by Christ, are setting the stage for our worst nightmare: our family and friends are going
to be shipped off like cattle, since our
countries are prophesied to suffer national defeat and deportation due to such
idolatrous ideas and tinsel traditions! WAKE UP!
Christmas
is an ABOMINATION.
It does. People who hold to 'sola Scripture' are not incompetents; they have a record of
academic distinction that overwhelms everything else religious put together.
They do, if they are honest. Those who are born again know how others who are born again
think before they have even met them.
Long laborous lines of reasoning and logic do not
help an artificially constructed argument.
The truth of God or God lieing is not the issue here.
It is the testimony of fallible humans. They need not be lieing
either to believe in miraculous visions that also may be illusions. The word
'mirage' closely follows miracle in the dictionary.
Reading comprehension is your friend. You treat your faith as fact, you are
wrong. Your faith limits your ability to form a coherent and decent argument
because you, as you have shown many times, are very closed minded. And you
laugh off other peoples questions without answering or twist what they say to
attempt, and poorly at that, to make yourself sound smart, and then tell others
they don't answer yours question when they had answered them three times prior.
That is how your site is bias. If you have one bias
site, you should, if you have any sense, look at other bias sites. If you are
making a argument of Abortion, you should go to both Pro-Choice and Anti-choice(Pro-Life, if you prefer a PC term) web sites. And get
info from both.
Here is the other bias ... I took the liberty of finding for you.
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfholdin.htm
You know you're a Fundy Athiest
when you misspell "Jesus" and use a lower case "J", yet
spell "Zeus" correctly with a capital "Z".
There's no fundementalists going that far to follow
this dumb book that closely.. I'm
sure some of them are psychotic enough and angry enough to secretly want to,
but they fear a much realer god then their bible god - that god is THE POLICE.
I think it goes to show how silly the freakin book
(the bible) is..It's so
barbaric.
In anycase, the fundementalist
stick to their guns the most out of any of these religious yahoos..
I mean, life is absurd.. Life is meaningless
ULTIMATELY. Things are "screwed up" so to speak..
But trying to compensate by adding gods and goddesses into the mix is so
childish.. There is no REASON to believe that those
things exist.. No gods, no god, no goddess, no
goddesses, no transexual
gods, no transexual gods, no wind gods, rain
gods, sun gods, olympian gods or anything else like
that.. These theist just WANT to believe it because it
fulfills a need.. Well here news for you.. The universe doesn't correspond with our needs. Why
should it? Because we are UPSET otherwise?
I always hear someone say "This can't be the end
of life.. There must be something after this.. How could there be no afterlife?"
What do you mean?? You mean "How could there be no afterlife when that
means that my awareness would cease to exist forever and I don't want
that"
That's what you really mean..
Death is a hard thing to accept.. TO
BAD.
"Crossan is a NT scholar who has spent his entire life studying these
texts."
"Crossan is a scholar. So it is accepted."
"You don't "like" his conclusion because he does not agree with
your confessional belief that the gospels are inerrant historical
records."
"Wright is a confessed Christian minister defending his faith."
Although, I do concede that perhaps it may be said that God does not exist even
now, and merely is. It hinges upon the semantics of
Put another way, while it is accurate to say that Jesus exists, it may not be
precise; and while it is accurate to say that God exists, it is certainly not
precise.
Given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, this is to be expected from our
vantage point (ie precision being ultimately
incompatible with accuracy).