Screwballs of the month
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
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
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:
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."
“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:
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
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:
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
This is perhaps how my name became linked with this book.
Prof. dr. Willem J. Ouweneel
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?
Adult: Well, I haven't.
Boy: Have you ever seen a million dollars?
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:
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!
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!
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
[Billy] Graham has been
disowned by Christians since he accepted Romanism as
Though backing by
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.
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.
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.
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).
"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 "
Bull***. There is no true meaning of Christmas. Christians don't get to dominate Christmas, so no complaining about it.
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)
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.
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.
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.