2010 is history, which means it is time again for our readers to select the screwiest of the screwballs. Pop by my section of TheologyWeb here and cast votes in each of the many Platinum Award threads. Polls close Jan. 20 this time so we can have a special award for the Screwiest of the Screwy (what we'll call the Diamond Screwball of 2010). Results will be posted in next month's feature. You can check out the Screwies that didn't make this list here.
Here a moronic email from fan of Walsch's Conversations With God:
Are you a servant of/in Christ? or Are you a servant of the Christian faith? Are
you spreading Christ? Or are you spreading a defense of Christianity? When your
ready maybe you'll pick up Conversations with God and read it again, with an
open mind. The mind and the mouth...neither closed gets fed. A closed mouth can
only swallow the saliva it produces which has no nutritional value and does not
progress the body. A closed mind can only rehash the same thoughts; gaining
insight into those congnitions, while starving the soul. Be the best you that
you can be JP!!!
Why is it that you always need an open mind to see that trash isn't really trash?
Are you a servant of/in Christ? or Are you a servant of the Christian faith? Are you spreading Christ? Or are you spreading a defense of Christianity? When your ready maybe you'll pick up Conversations with God and read it again, with an open mind. The mind and the mouth...neither closed gets fed. A closed mouth can only swallow the saliva it produces which has no nutritional value and does not progress the body. A closed mind can only rehash the same thoughts; gaining insight into those congnitions, while starving the soul. Be the best you that you can be JP!!!
Why is it that you always need an open mind to see that trash isn't really trash?
One day I was at a Barnes and Noble browsing around. I got to the Philosophy section, and picked up The Christian Delusion. Part 2 of the book is titled "Why the Bible Is Not the Word of God." After reading about some historical, scientific, and moral errors I went to the Christian Inspiration section of the store to get a Bible so I could read the context of each verse. Finally, hours later I renounced my faith.
Wow. There are people who get doctorates in studying the Bible and he had his decision done in "hours".
Loftus sycophant Renoliz wins for this:
And children are still being frightened by the overlord of evil - Satan, yes the Devil himself. So sad to think of the nightmares of such horrid and terrifying and seemingly evil world would give a child. As we have seen in our own lives or in the interactions we have had with exChristians, the image presented of demons and devils and Satan cause no end of fear for people. These superstitions have not been overcome even in our modern times. At least not in many Christian homes. May reason prevail for the sake of mental health in our nation.
I so feel for this little girl. What a scary world to live in.
Nothing this round. Looks like Yo can't keep up quality for his own category.
The Pixie wins for infernal laziness, as expressed in many ways such as this posting:
Interesting blog page. The bit "On page 20, Walton wants us to realize that in the ancient world, everything was brought about somehow by the deity (or in pagan cultures, deities). " atually reminded me of the subject of this thread! You talk of the differences in culture - are you not in danger of underming uour own position there? If you say that Genesis was written for a specific culture in a specific time, then that leaves anyone ouside that culture to ignore. More importantly, it makes me wonder why God's book is targeted at that one culture. God, according to Christian doctrine, is eternal, God's message is eternal and for everyone. So why are parts of the holy book targets at different cultures? It seems to me that the most likely explanation is that they are products of that culture, and not products of God at all.
He also wins one for whining about how I don't provide links to goofy Skeptical sites so he can see what they say, rather than try to find them himself...and then, when he comes across an article of mine where I cite the title and page of a book as a source, asking me to provide more of the context!
Alexis, challenged to read some books on apologetics, responded:
What evidence?, there is no evidence... just interpretation... I could recommend some other books to read but I guess not everybody has the time to read book after book. Instead, I would recommend looking at these links. I could not express it better that these [YouTube] videos. (provided links)
YouTube Skeptic CMrace says:
Explaining away biblical contradictions is not an argument.
If someone comes up with a contradiction you say....
a) it meant something different in that time and culture
b) It was idiomatic
c) it was meant as a metaphor
d) It really means ____ in the original language
No one can answer these arguments as you provide no real rationale. The key IS that those other religions can do it successfully. You don't believe them and can't answer them either because nothing to answer.
Soooo....when you provide the rationale, you provide no real rationale? He also said:
Now imagine we lived 200 years apart and you couldn't look up anything more than what was written here. You coundn't answer any of my arguments either, because they aren't arguments just value judgments. just like yours there is no reason to believe they actually were intended to be idomatic, metaphorical, language, errors, etc.
Its all just your opinion.
I mean honestly, pretending to know what idioms were in common usage 2000 years ago, what metaphors people used, ignoring slang, pretending you know what common usage of greek was 2000 years ago.You don't know those things because no one knows those things. You even pretend to be a scholar when you are just an English/Lit (minor, major maybe) All this just so you can say your book is 100% true.
You don't like this opinion 'non-sense' because it hits home, just like my last post. I like french fries. go ahead refute that argument. You can't? then it must certainly be true.
Chrissy Hallquist wins the Delusions of Grandeur Gold for:
While Iím at it, I want to say something that I hopes gets broadcast loud and clear through religion-debating circles: If I debate William Lane Craig on the resurrection, I will win.
Plantasm begs the question:
One of the reasons religion puzzles me is the inspired's penchant for embellishment. For instance, why did Mark and Luke, or whoever who wrote the inspired autographs, add so much unnecessary details? Did they REALLY know Pilate's wife had a dream? Moreover, if they could embellish, certainly they had the editing skills of a good writer. That kinda goes without saying, right? So why would they keep all that stuff about Jesus' blood being on the Jews heads? If that really was said, it's not an important detail and could be misconstrued in an age where tribal grudges and wars were commonplace.
If it wasn't said--if it was an embellishment like Pilate's side's dream, one wonders why an inspired author would be given such indulgent dramatic license. It doesn't get any more melodramatic and stupid than blaming the murderer's children.
BurntOffering is still...burnt.
The Z is an N turned on its side. A-M belong mostly to Him as in I Am and the NO-Z belongs mostly to Her as in I Am Not and just like GOD they both have two eyes I(s)
Ty Rockwell still has the rant:
You are an ignorant person. As I have already made perfectly clear, Paul was only addressing tongues in public church assemblies.
He said, "in the church." He was not addressing or restricting private prayer.
Get spiritual understanding, and some reading comprehension.
Your stupid argument does not trump the practical application of the reality that I'm talking about, that God confirms with the Spirit's power demonstrated in believer's lives.
Now shut up!
F. E. Adkins has a new theory for the historians:
Nebuchadnezzar had to know about Jericho, the Philistines' sorrows for taking the Ark. He wouldn't have destroyed it, he wouldn't have listed it on items taken, he wouldn't have left it there, he was a megalomaniac. He would have believed he could harness its power and would have taken it back to Babylon. His sorrows were his insanity for over three years during which time he probably stopped visiting the Ark and thus regained his sanity. Could these sorrows have continued even to Sadam? There's a good chance that the reason for Nebuchadnezzar's invasion was the ark to obtain its power. I would say it is in or near the ancient ruins of Babylon close enough for Nebuchadnezzar to visit. I'm considering going to the Middle East this summer and may try to get to the area.
franktalk explains hiow we get saved by faith:
Neither side can produce proof so your argument is foolish. God has asked us to come to Him in faith. He has not left a trail of data crumbs for us to follow. In that faith many will get details wrong, it is the nature of faith and no proof that sets the stage for that. So if you wish to blame someone for allowing some to believe one way and others to believe a different way then blame God. But we are not to judge, I think that includes God and how He went about with His Word. So if His Word can be interpreted differently by different people then who is to blame? It is obvious that some core Gospel is clearly given to man and it is equally clear that much of scripture is not clear. So on the margins man has different views. I wonder if this was done on purpose to test our ability to love our fellow man.
And also explains his epistemology:
Let me talk about one subject. God the Father, God the Holy Ghost, and God Jesus are all manifestations of God. This is clear in the Bible. Now if man wishes to view each of these as one or each as separate it does not change who they are. Their existence is independent of how we may think of them. So as I worship the Father I am not thinking about His relationship with Jesus or the Holy Ghost. I am speaking to Him directly. Do you think that Father will turn from me if I have some doctrine wrong? I think that Father would send the Holy Ghost to clarify doctrine if is was Important to Him. But I do not see this in the world. You personally may feel strongly about some issue of doctrine but I can find others that feel just as strongly and may disagree with you. Your feelings are not to rule my salvation. In scripture it is very important for God to know us. In fact it is critical. Yet scripture says over and over we can't know God's ways. So we are to speak to God and have that one way conversation on faith.
The mystery of God will not be over until the voice of the seventh angel is heard. Since it is God who is keeping this a mystery then we can't know certain things. Why are you fighting against God?
The first level of man's ability to conceptualize God is to take the ideas presented in scripture and turn them into a construct of the mind. That construct is then believed as a real thing, thus a manifestation. The second level of man's ability to conceptualize God is to form a spiritual bond with God. This spiritual bond or communication is also a manifestation that is unseen. But it is real and provides the personal proof that God does exist. But that proof is personal and as such can not be given to another to view. The third level of manifestation comes from a change in behavior in the person who has formed a relationship with Christ. This outward change is visible to the world and as such provides a light for others to follow. This is the manifestation that God desires.
Previous Platinum champ, Mormon Jo, wants another:
No, you are ignoring the point of my comments. The point is NOT whether we are breaking the law. It is that even the scribes and Pharisees are going to be in heaven - only they will be considered the "least" in heaven. Meanwhile, those who follow and/or teach their corrupted doctrine are also going to be in heaven - only they will be considered "great".
That means that even if you are correct about the LDS following and/or teaching false doctrine (the doctrine of men, etc.) the LDS are still going to wind up in Heaven. Even Joseph Smith will be there because he would be equivalent of the Pharisee who taught the doctrine to us.
Therefore, this is evidence against your believing (let alone the "judgment" thing about determining the destination of our souls to be eternally damned) that the LDS aren't going to heaven is actually bogus. It is not Biblical. In fact, these passages show this so clearly, that I would find it difficult to see the anti-LDS continuing to cling to their "damning" and "judgment" views about the LDS once they have a clear understanding of these verses.
Person of unknown affiliation says:
I really hate when people compare abortions to the holocaust. It almost makes me wish I could get pregnant just so I could abort it, even.
Another, firedoglake.com, has one too:
For myself, the obvious Christian parallels in the 'Narnia' series were always a turnoff, even as a kid. Once you figure it out, and it's not all that hard to do even for 10-year-olds, the books seem like someone is trying to trick you into taking snot-tasting medicine.
Another, from YouTibe, says:
but yes William Craig Lane is a self-important moron and philosophy is largely a load of glorified introspection with no right to challenge science.
saladfingers is back and as incoherent as ever:
Armed with an arsenal of literary devices, one can get quite creative with Theology,which is, after all, an Art. I suspect alot of symbolic equivocation thorughout the biblical network of prohpecy, types/anti-types/ signs and symbolism, motifs and allusions, allegories and metaphors.
Here's something to ponder :What is the Hypostasis of a curved mirror?
Late Platinum book entry:
As an alternative / complimentary explanation to the Piso theory, the new book 'King Jesus' explains that Saul-Paul was Josephus Flavius the historian, and therefore Jesus was Jesus of Gamala, the leader of 600 'rebel fishermen'.
This does, of course, place the NT events in the late AD 60s, much like the Piso theory. And surprisingly, the NT and Talmud fully support that chronology. This book maintains that Jesus wanted to become Emperor of Rome, but was defeated by Vespasian and exiled to roman England - to the fortress Vespasian built at Chester.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10693360&ref=rss -- Famous Christian Platinum nominee
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/firas-alatraqchi/red-sea-sharks-made-in-is_b_792347.html -- At Large Platinum nominee
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/theologyinthenews/barna-says-christians-are-becoming-more-theologically-illiterate/ (Award for the North American church.)
http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13645814 -- automatic Platinum Scum winner
http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_28388.shtml -- At Large Platinum nominee