"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Prove your idiocy in just 3 easy steps

1.  Make an 8 point video showing your complete lack of understanding of the Bible
2.  Within said video, repeat in condescending tone that all intelligent people agree with your stupidity.
3.  Post the video on youtube for all to see your mind numbingly foolish arrogance

Extra stupid points for those who start a discussion with it on myspace, giving me the opportunity to comment thusly:

Second point in the video is taking a specific comment to one person, to expose the individual's misconception and presentation of their own character and applying it globally with no justification whatsoever.

The point being submission to God, per that particular individual's circumstances and character.

Point three is showing complete unawareness of hyperbole and the use of contrasting motives in Semitic literature as well as not understanding that the word used for hate does not have the same narrow meaning the English word does.

I Hate Skeptics - Does Luke 14:26 Teach a Misogynist Hatred of Others?

Point four is incredibly stupid in not understanding metaphor, even when admitting that such is possible, it still counts the passage in an incredibly literal fashion. How convenient.

Point five is just repetition of the idiocy of four without even understanding what the passage referenced is about.

Matt. 18:3

Point Six is as stupid as claiming you're wrong for saying the sun sets and rises.

Point Seven is typical in not understanding the difference between moral law, temporary ritual purity codes, time bound cultural expression of moral laws and the difference between covenant and law.

Point 8 is nothing as it just repeats the previous errors

Nothing but complete foolishness and ignorance. Hardly surprising that synaptic would post something like this.


I replied to point 4 from the perspective of a non-Catholic. While I disagree with the Catholic view, I'll now give a Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation which avoids simplistic accusations of cannibalism.


Transubstantiation (from Latin transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ, the change that according to the belief of the Roman Catholic Church occurs in the Eucharist.

"Substance" here means what something is in itself. (For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory.) A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. Whereas the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.


Sadly, some will begin and end their "research" of Christian doctrine with the yammering contained in that video on youtube. This is just another symptom of what I described in my post on the Da Vinci Code:

a symptom of a particular malady that tempts all of us. That being the avoidance of personal responsibility and accountability.

That someone will say something like this:

All religions blur people's mind from reality and reduce their ability to think rationally. However, if I had to pick the least harmful one, it would be something like Jainism.

and then turn around and post that video, also displays complete idiocy and blind arrogance. It is further evidence that nothing is so impervious, as the walls we ourselves raise against truth, lest we should have to face the overwhelming wave that would destroy all of our coddled preferences and bias. Sadly, the refusal to submit leaves such a person with the dank refuse within their walls of defiant refuge, free from the cleansing waters that would destroy only that which truly endangers and would make way for that which will lead to salvation and glory.


Filed under: Apologetics -- Christianity -- Culture -- Religion

Blogs with open pots: Jo's Cafe -- Tor's Rants -- historymike -- Stingray -- Blue Star Chronicles -- Planck's Constant -- Adam's Blog -- third world county -- Is It Just Me?

Technorati Tags: Apologetics -- Christianity -- Religion -- Myspace -- youtube --  --  --  --

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: