The gazillionith July Stundie Nom thread

[AvalonXQ]

Robrob would have been better off following my advice and reading the thread, since the exact same argument had been made the page before, and I explicitly addressed it:

That's actually the other reason I'm avoiding it. AvalonXQ stated that the OT was historical and not--which is important--any sort of moral or spiritual instruction (the idea that the OT isn't binding means that there's nothing to be gained from a moral or spiritual standpoint there, because everything is arguable).

I don't agree with this statement. The New Testament say the Old Testament can provide moral and spirtual instruction. We're freed from the commands of the Old Law, but that doesn't mean there's nothing there to learn from -- in fact we're told the opposite.

The NT, on the other hand, is, by AvalonXQ's arguments, the ONLY way to get information about the New Covenant, THE morality given by God Himself. It may contain historical information, but that's not the major point: the major point is the morality (it has to be--to say anything else is for AvalonXQ to argue that he's going to get his morality from HUMAN actions, not God's instructions).

Agreement here.

My point is, the fact that AvalonXQ views the NT as his source of morality complicates interpretation of the books. The OT, given AvalonXQ's views, doesn't have those complications.

I think I agree with your point, but I don't agree with the idea of "throwing out" or "dismissing" the Old Testament. Claiming not to be bound to the Old Law is not the same as acting like the Old Testament is not in the Bible. Remember what Paul wrote to Timothy (this was one of the verses cited earlier):

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So it is a mistake to act as though the Old Testament is just discarded. All the Scriptures are there for our understanding and benefit; I've never claimed otherwise.
But there's a difference between studying and understanding the Holiness Code and other Mosaical Law, and being bound to practice it.

So, there's no "Stundie" here, and no contradiction. There is an explanation about the difference between being bound to the Law and the Law being moot. It's the first, not the second.

 

[TjW]

Robrob would have been better off following my advice and reading the thread, since the exact same argument had been made the page before, and I explicitly addressed it:


So, there's no "Stundie" here, and no contradiction. There is an explanation about the difference between being bound to the Law and the Law being moot. It's the first, not the second.

So you're not actually bound to kill homosexuals, even though it is good to take instruction from verses which recommend it. I guess that's some better. What instruction should you be taking from those verses?

 

[Horatius]

I guess that's some better. What instruction should you be taking from those verses?

Just beat them up a bit. It's a nice middle-of-the-road type answer.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Robert Prey goes for the gold in his attempt to justify his claim that Jack White's photographic "analysis" was peer-reviewed...

They were peers. They reviewed his findings. Thus, "peer reviewed". Just as rigorous as printed in some publication.

 

[Liam]

I'd like to nominate this post from Simon666 (it was a reply to me actually) simply for repeating almost every denier cliche and canard in one paragraph;


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8496343#post8496343

Meh, where is all the soap made of jews, the lampshades, the steam chambers, vacuum chambers and electrocution chambers? ALL of those are disbelieved by most mainstream historians today but were believed back then. Even for the gas chambers, the evidence is UNDERwhelming. The only "evidence" is more "witness testimony" or "confessions" and no such testimony has ever presented a credible account for the actual operation of gas chambers. Let alone the suspension of physics and for example the cremation of bodies within 15 minutes, a feat which even modern crematoria can not accomplish. There are too many things that do not add up to warrant revisionism about at least some issues. I am sorry but I actually read the arguments of revisionists and found that even if you're not willing to consider them, they should at least make some sense.

 

[carlitos]

That "new" participant in the Holocaust discussion joined here in 2007, made a handful of posts, and just now re-appeared, diving right into 9/11 truth and Holocaust denial. Curious, no?

 

[Horatius]

That "new" participant in the Holocaust discussion joined here in 2007, made a handful of posts, and just now re-appeared, diving right into 9/11 truth and Holocaust denial. Curious, no?

Yeah, add it to this standard "Gee, I thought you guys were skeptics..." whine, and he's got the mark of woo all over him.

I was surprised to see at JREF that there are not more revisionists. For a forum for supposedly skeptical people that think critically, it seems like 6 million dead jews is an unquestionable fact akin to a religious dogma, all those who deviate are evil and dumb.
...

It seems that critical thinking and skepticism is promoted here for just about everything EXCEPT you know what.

 

[uke2se]

Yeah, add it to this standard "Gee, I thought you guys were skeptics..." whine, and he's got the mark of woo all over him.

Isn't getting any better. He's just repeating every single canard we've all heard before, and he's trying to effectively nullify all the thousands of posts in the holocaust denial threads by resetting the discussion completely. My guess is that he won't last long.

 

[Horatius]

Isn't getting any better. He's just repeating every single canard we've all heard before, and he's trying to effectively nullify all the thousands of posts in the holocaust denial threads by resetting the discussion completely. My guess is that he won't last long.

Well, this is either the Best CT Stundie Evar, or proof that he's really just trolling us:

If you believe that conspiracy is truly what is going on, what are you as individuals doing about it in the sense of coming up with a plan of action which will thwart the ultimate goals of these power mongers?

Thank You.

I'm thinking of setting up a blog of some sorts.

 

[Oystein]

What facts I know and can believe. Call it 911 agnosticism.

Agnosticism = Facts a truther knows and can believe. *facepalm*

 

[000063]

Do you think I'm in power or control of some government organization or something? I am complaining for the lack of evidence on your part and sheeple accepting whatever government claim at face value. Of course whatever evidence I have is little, so is yours.

Wow. Deja vu.

 

[Cocana The Second]

well, this is either the best ct stundie evar, or proof that he's really just trolling us:

brilliant! :d

 

[TSR]

He's trying to get people hopping mad.

Just sayin'

 

[uke2se]

He's trying to get people hopping mad.

Just sayin'

My thoughts exactly.