- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted on 7/8/26 at 11:44 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 7/8/26 at 11:44 am to FooManChoo
quote:
All you've got is ad hominems and opinions not based in reality.
And that's obvious within a few exchanges with the guy.
So.
Why.
Do.
You.
Still.
Engage.
Him?
Just to show off your Bible knowledge? Surely you can see that it does potentially far more harm than any good it could ever do to engage him and give him a platform.
Why do you insist on casting pearls before swine, in direct opposition to Jesus' teaching on the matter?
This post was edited on 7/8/26 at 11:50 am
1
Posted on 7/8/26 at 11:45 am to Champagne
quote:Why do you think I care what the majority position is? I don't go after what is popular, but what is true.
Not even your fellow Protestants agree with you here, Foo, on your belief in Double Predestination. Is Double Predestination even a majority theological position within all of Protestantism? I don't know.
I do know that there are Bible passages and other ancient writings that you use to support this notion of Double Predestination. I have read them and I understand how one might reach your interpretation on this theological issue. It's a very complicated issue and theologians over the past 2,000 years have pondered the question.
All I'm saying is that I'm not sure that your interpretation is shared by many or most of your fellow Christians.
If you want to argue about what the Scriptures teach, then do so, and show where my understanding of election is incorrect. However, throwing statistics at me (as you do when discussing the denomination I belong to) is not an argument, but a logical fallacy, and hardly a defense that will help your position.
This post was edited on 7/8/26 at 11:58 am
Posted on 7/8/26 at 11:57 am to wackatimesthree
quote:I'm getting rather impatient in having to respond to you about this time and time again, but the answer is the same as it always is: he is a liar and deceiver like his father, Satan, and he presents enough truth with his lies to make it difficult for many young and immature believers to know what to make of it, potentially tempting them away from the truth. His lies should be responded to.
And that's obvious within a fee exchanges with the guy.
So.
Why.
Do.
You.
Still.
Engage.
Him?
Just to show off your Bible knowledge? Surely you can see that it does potentially far more harm than any good it could ever do to engage him and give him a platform.
I'm not giving him a platform. This website gives him a platform. He continues to spew the same lies regardless of whether or not any responds to him. Most of his involvement is him responding to others, who had no intention of bringing him into the discussion in the first place.
He's going to continue to respond with the same things over and over again, no matter if anyone responds to him or not. He's here to put doubt in the minds of Christians or those who might be curious about Christianity, and if no one responds, he'll continue posting anyway, and continue to sow those seeds of doubt. At least when others respond to him and call out his lies, he's distracted for a moment in having to "defend" himself, and it shows others that his lies can be refuted. To many, silence actually seems to demonstrate an inability to respond.
quote:For the thousandth time, it's not a violation of Jesus' teaching. This is a public forum where his garbage is read by dozens if not hundreds or thousands of people (I don't know the site statistics, but it's clearly a popular forum).
Why do you insist on casting pearls before swine, in direct opposition to Jesus' teaching on the matter?
Jesus, Himself, continued to rebuke the Pharisees publicly over and over again, even though He knew they were hardened in their hearts. Why? Because those rebukes were public and in response to teaching that was public. The public nature changes the complexion of what is going on. If SM were talking to me in private, I would agree with you that it would be casting pearls before swine and I would have ignored him years ago. I'm not responding for his sake or my own, but for anyone else who might be reading this.
This post was edited on 7/8/26 at 11:59 am
Posted on 7/8/26 at 12:37 pm to Ailsa
quote:
Same mother but Joseph was his father.
Mary (Jesus’s mother) was not the Apostle James’ mother.
Posted on 7/8/26 at 12:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
All you've got is ad hominems
Who wrote this?
quote:
he is a liar and deceiver like his father, Satan
You are simply mistaken. You misinterpret my attacks on your baseless assertions as attacking you. There’s a reason why you think that way though - is psychological. Because your god is literally you. It’s why you think you know God better than anyone else and you know the “correct” interpretation of God’s word - because he is your psyche. By pointing out all the problems with your delusions of God and errors within the Bible, you interpret that as “attacking God” which is really an attack on your psyche. I may have attacked your character before, but it was never ONLY an attack on your character because they are always accompanied by attacking your erroneous and fallacious subject matter and baseless assertions. An ad hominem is attacking the character of a person instead of engaging the subject matter. I always engage the subject matter.
quote:
opinions not based in reality.
Think about it. You believe in invisible people that cannot be heard or seen or verified in any sense, based on the musings of 2000 year old desert dwellers who didn’t know anything about the world around them. You believe in things that there is no evidence for and for which there is no way to verify. It is you who doesn’t live in our reality.
quote:
We went over this a month or so ago. There's like a couple dozen skeptics who acknowledge the possibility of the mythicist perspective out of thousands, and you use phrases like "explosion of growth"
Well there was like 4 scholars about 15 years ago and now there’s over 50 that admit Jesus likely didn’t exist, so that’s what about 1150% growth over 15 years? I’d say that’s an explosion of growth.
There is also a huge portion of scholars who work for confessional institutions that sign letters of faith that cannot publish works that conflict with the dogmas of the institutions.
quote:
The evidence is overwhelming. There's more and better evidence for the reality of the earthly existence of Jesus than for some other historical figures that aren't doubted at all.
Evidence is overwhelming of a mythical Jesus worshipped by Christians before the historical Jesus was ever ginned up.
Let me mock you a bit more:
You believe this really happened.
quote:
12At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” 13And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
Of course the sun stopped in the midst of heaven (the name given to the firmament) because the sun is within the firmament.
Posted on 7/8/26 at 12:53 pm to FooManChoo
Here is what you believe is the Infallible Teaching and Truth of Scripture, in your opinion.
Double Predestination
Young Earth Creationism
Original Sin
Eternal Security
And yet, significant portions of your fellow Christians read the same Scripture and will tell you that this theology is not taught by the same Scripture.
I'm not arguing what I believe. What I'm saying to you is that your personal interpretation of Scripture is not shared by all Christians.
I'm also reminding you to be careful about claiming Infallibility in your interpretations of Scripture, or risk being deemed "Pope Foo."
Good talk, Sir. I hope I've helped you realize the error of your ways.
Double Predestination
Young Earth Creationism
Original Sin
Eternal Security
And yet, significant portions of your fellow Christians read the same Scripture and will tell you that this theology is not taught by the same Scripture.
I'm not arguing what I believe. What I'm saying to you is that your personal interpretation of Scripture is not shared by all Christians.
I'm also reminding you to be careful about claiming Infallibility in your interpretations of Scripture, or risk being deemed "Pope Foo."
Good talk, Sir. I hope I've helped you realize the error of your ways.
Posted on 7/8/26 at 1:03 pm to icecreamsnowball
quote:
This! He ruins every one of these threads
quote:
with his long-winded incoherent bullshite
You are unwilling or unable to comprehend and think critically, and that is a shame.
quote:
It’s fitting that his name has squirrel in it because he’s a nutjob
good one 
Posted on 7/8/26 at 1:03 pm to icecreamsnowball
quote:
Mary (Jesus’s mother) was not the Apostle James’ mother.
Do you thiink Jesus was a only child?
Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Jude). He also had unnamed sisters.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-13/
This post was edited on 7/8/26 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 7/8/26 at 1:05 pm to Ailsa
how many times is judas and lucifer in the old testament?Posted on 7/8/26 at 1:07 pm to Ailsa
Posted on 7/8/26 at 1:09 pm to Champagne
quote:I think you're confused. I believe the Scriptures are infallible, and what they teach as truth is infallible. It doesn't follow that I believe my interpretation is infallible, only that I believe my interpretation aligns with the infallible truth of Scripture. If my understanding changes over time, it's because it is (hopefully) becoming more and more conformed to the infallible truth. I am not claiming infallibility in my interpretations, like the Pope may do.
Here is what you believe is the Infallible Teaching and Truth of Scripture, in your opinion.
quote:1. My understanding does not need to align with most Christians, it just needs to be aligned with what God has taught.
And yet, significant portions of your fellow Christians read the same Scripture and will tell you that this theology is not taught by the same Scripture.
I'm not arguing what I believe. What I'm saying to you is that your personal interpretation of Scripture is not shared by all Christians.
2. Aligning with the majority does not mean I'm aligned with the truth. There are more Muslims than Roman Catholics in this world, but I wouldn't argue that Muslims are correct (or more correct) over and against Catholics simply because of the numbers of those who believe one over the other. That's the argumentum ad populum (appeal to majority) fallacy.
3. Significant portions of lay Catholics disagree with the official teachings of the RCC in various ways, so that argument cuts both ways, which is another reason why it's a bad argument.
quote:I haven't claimed infallibility in my interpretations. You are the one who is assuming it, which is why I called you out for calling me "Pope Foo", as if I act like your Pope may do.
I'm also reminding you to be careful about claiming Infallibility in your interpretations of Scripture, or risk being deemed "Pope Foo.
Posted on 7/8/26 at 1:12 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
how many times is judas and lucifer in the old testament?
There were many names in the scriptures of people with the same name. Several Mary's and 2 Judas that were named. In Acts it names Judas from the house of Saul and book of Acts was written after Jesus was crucified and Judas Iscariot killed himself.
Acts 9:11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus; for, behold, he prayeth,
This post was edited on 7/8/26 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 7/8/26 at 1:36 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I did. It is an accurate description of who you are and what you do here.quote:Who wrote this?
All you've got is ad hominemsquote:
he is a liar and deceiver like his father, Satan
But as I said, all you've got is ad hominems, because you don't have the truth.
quote:It's not about engagement, but argumentation. You can "engage" the subject matter by saying "you're wrong about that, you idiot", which is, of course, ad hominem.
An ad hominem is attacking the character of a person instead of engaging the subject matter. I always engage the subject matter.
Your argumentation amounts to "nuh uh", and "you're stupid".
quote:I have thought about it. You are absolutely deficient in philosophy and logic, which is why you keep saying things like this.
Think about it. You believe in invisible people that cannot be heard or seen or verified in any sense, based on the musings of 2000 year old desert dwellers who didn’t know anything about the world around them. You believe in things that there is no evidence for and for which there is no way to verify. It is you who doesn’t live in our reality.
What you're actually saying is that because one cannot observe a thing empirically, it doesn't exist. That's saying that empiricism is the only valid epistemological methodology, and if you knew anything about philosophy, you'd like that that system is self-defeating, since we cannot know that everything can only be known through sense perception. You keep smuggling in your ignorance into these discussions and claim that you're the only one living in reality. Not quite
quote:When we discussed this a while back, I only found a handful of scholars who actually agreed with the mythicist position, while several others were open to it. That's not the type of growth that I would call an "explosion". You grasp for straws and are claiming you're standing on solid ground.
Well there was like 4 scholars about 15 years ago and now there’s over 50 that admit Jesus likely didn’t exist, so that’s what about 1150% growth over 15 years? I’d say that’s an explosion of growth.
There is also a huge portion of scholars who work for confessional institutions that sign letters of faith that cannot publish works that conflict with the dogmas of the institutions.
quote:Factually not true. This relies on later interpretations forced back on earlier writings like Paul, and an assumption that Paul was teaching things like the Ascension of Isaiah, which even speaks of Jesus' earthly life. You have to take Paul's much earlier writings about the historicity of Jesus and interpret them as entirely spiritual and celestial through a cherry-picked reading of the Ascension of Isaiah scroll, and that isn't sufficient to say that view predated a historical Jesus view. The contention is that Paul wrote about the historical Jesus only a few decades at most after He was on this earth.
Evidence is overwhelming of a mythical Jesus worshipped by Christians before the historical Jesus was ever ginned up.
And since you went on to mocking, I'll repeat that you think early Christians believed Jesus was created from the physical sperm of David (and Abraham?)
Posted on 7/8/26 at 3:07 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
But as I said, all you've got is ad hominems, because you don't have the truth.
Pope FooLaneCraig, all you have is baseless assertions of a mind deluded into a false reality.
quote:
Your argumentation amounts to "nuh uh"
You won’t even admit Jesus says take nothing but a staff, and take a staff.
quote:
and "you're stupid".
If you wouldn’t take stupid things like taking a staff and not taking a staff are the same, then maybe you wouldn’t be as stupid.
quote:
What you're actually saying is that because one cannot observe a thing empirically, it doesn't exist.
The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. That’s you. You believe in ghosts - show me the ghosts. Me saying I don’t believe in your ghosts and your silly angels and demons is logical, being that there is no evidence of such supernatural beings.
You’re an embodiment of special pleading fallacy. Of all the mythical fantasies out there - the Quran, the ancient Egyptian and Greek and Babylonian myths, Hinduism, and much more - all myths all not based on reality without a shred of evidence to back them up, you believe in your magical mythical tales because…
Well you don’t have a good reason. There’s no reason to reject all the others and accept the one you like, other than that your untestable unfalsifiable delusions align with your presupposed dogmas. That’s it.
quote:
When we discussed this a while back, I only found a handful of scholars who actually agreed with the mythicist position, while several others were open to it. That's not the type of growth that I would call an "explosion". You grasp for straws and are claiming you're standing on solid ground.
Look harder.
List of scholars who take Jesus-mythicism seriously
I stand behind the explosion. I know you’re inclined to say “nuh uh” though and then claiming projection while you project.
quote:
Factually not true. This relies on later interpretations forced back on earlier writings like Paul
Factually factual. Paul - his 7 legit letters - plus whomever wrote James, 1 Peter, Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude, oh and the Didache and 1 Clement… in none of these letters are a single reference to Jesus…
1. Eating, drinking, sleeping, walking, preaching
2. Casting out demons
3. Walking on water
4. Feeding people
5. Doing any sort of miracles on earth
6. Having disciples
7. Raising the dead
8. Having family members, other than cultic family members “brethren of the Lord”
9. Being born of a woman… he was “made” of woman
These people knew a great deal about Jesus. This isn’t an argument from silence… they were not silent at all and wrote a great deal about Jesus, but not once did they ever mention Jesus existing or doing anything on earth.
quote:
an assumption that Paul was teaching things like the Ascension of Isaiah
It is the ancient Christian gospel that most closely aligns with Paul’s gospel, which is that Jesus was given a body of flesh crafted by God from the sperm of David, was sacrificed in heaven by tricking the archons in heaven to kill him, and then he went to Hades and then was resurrected and then earned the name “Jesus”.
quote:
which even speaks of Jesus' earthly life
Only the Ethiopic version has the “pocket gospel”. The others in Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Slavonic do not contain this pocket gospel. Scholars demonstrate how the Ethiopic version pocket gospel is a Christian interpolation. The pocket gospel contradicts the earlier verses.
quote:
And since you went on to mocking, I'll repeat that you think early Christians believed Jesus was created from the physical sperm of David (and Abraham?)
Don’t hate on your religious cult’s practices. It’s what Paul believed. You’re mocking your own dumb self while failing to acknowledge you believe Joshua/God stopped the sun and moon in the sky to give enough continuous light so that they could more efficiently genocide innocent people in the name of the Lord.
ETA: I know I’ve explained the pocket gospel to you at least a handful of times. You blatantly ignore that fact and that’s one more bit of evidence demonstrating you are a disingenuous person.
This post was edited on 7/8/26 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 7/8/26 at 4:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I believe my interpretation aligns with the infallible truth of Scripture.
That is the same thing as saying: "My interpretation is Infallible because it agrees with the Infallible Truth of Scripture."
That's why I say you are Pope Foo.
Being Pope Foo shouldn't be taken as an insult. It's not. The Pope in Rome says the same thing about his Bible interpretations. Pastor Bob in New Llano preaching in the First Baptist Church doesn't preach that he might be preaching Error. Pastor Bob would say that his interpretation of the Bible is Infallible because it aligns with the Infallible Truth of Scripture.
All Pope's say the same thing. If they didn't, they would have to issue a Disclaimer with their Sermons: "The words of Pastor Bob are merely his personal opinion and are not Infallible. Only the Bible is Infallible and Pastor Bob only interprets the Bible. Pastor Bob did not write the Bible. Pastor Bob's interpretation of the Bible is not Infallible because Pastor Bob is not God."
This post was edited on 7/8/26 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 7/8/26 at 5:52 pm to Champagne
quote:But that's not the same thing. At all.
That is the same thing as saying: "My interpretation is Infallible because it agrees with the Infallible Truth of Scripture."
That's why I say you are Pope Foo.
The Scripture is infallible and cannot be changed, improved upon, or reformed. It is without error and it cannot err.
I, on the other hand, am fallible and can err. I can believe false things and teach false things. My understanding may be imperfect, and therefore, it is capable of being improved and reformed.
That is true for all people, including your Pope.
quote:Protestant pastors have traditionally done that very thing by telling those in the congregation that the Word of God is perfect, but the preaching is only as good as it is aligned with the Word of God. Therefore, the congregation is asked to be Bereans and to test what is taught according to the Bible.
Being Pope Foo shouldn't be taken as an insult. It's not. The Pope in Rome says the same thing about his Bible interpretations. Pastor Bob in New Llano preaching in the First Baptist Church doesn't preach that he might be preaching Error. Pastor Bob would say that his interpretation of the Bible is Infallible because it aligns with the Infallible Truth of Scripture.
All Pope's say the same thing. If they didn't, they would have to issue a Disclaimer with their Sermons: "The words of Pastor Bob are merely his personal opinion and are not Infallible. Only the Bible is Infallible and Pastor Bob only interprets the Bible. Pastor Bob did not write the Bible. Pastor Bob's interpretation of the Bible is not Infallible because Pastor Bob is not God."
We do not have implicit faith in fallible men, like Rome requires.
This post was edited on 7/8/26 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 7/8/26 at 7:17 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
We do not have implicit faith in fallible men, like Rome requires.
Pope Foo and the Pope of Rome are both saying the exact same thing about their interpretations of Scripture. EXACT same thing.
That's why you are Pope Foo.
Rome doesn't require implicit faith in any man, Pope Foo. You are wrong about that OR is this another example of your opinion being Infallible?
Pope Leo and Pope Foo have a lot in common actually. They say the exact same things about Holy Scripture, how to interpret Scripture, how their interpretations are guided by the Holy Spirit, so that the Pope may rest assured that his interpretation of Holy Scripture is Infallible, because the Holy Spirit is Infallible.
Pope Foo, you say that your interpretation of Scripture is guided and secured from error by the Holy Spirit? If so, then your implicit meaning is that it is Infallible. If NOT secured from error by the Holy Spirit then why do you bother to preach something that is probably erroneous?
This post was edited on 7/8/26 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 7/8/26 at 7:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:You protestants are a wild bunch. Good luck at judgement!
muh Trinity
Posted on 7/8/26 at 8:15 pm to Champagne
quote:Again, not true.
Pope Foo and the Pope of Rome are both saying the exact same thing about their interpretations of Scripture. EXACT same thing.
The Pope demands submission to his teaching by nature of his office as the vicar of Christ and head of the Church, and he has power that I do not. He wields "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered". That's very different than what I'm claiming.
He also has papal infallibility when he speaks authoritatively about faith and morals. That is not something I have or claim to have.
The RCC also teaches that one is anathema who does not submit to the Pope. That is not something I say about myself.
quote:1. My opinions are not infallible, so you really need to stop breaking the 9th commandment toward me. I've corrected you about this previously and you are still misrepresenting me.
Rome doesn't require implicit faith in any man, Pope Foo. You are wrong about that OR is this another example of your opinion being Infallible?
2. Implicit faith is required in the Roman Magisterium, which consists in the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.
I do not require implicit faith in what I say and teach, and if I did, it would be against God's Word, just like the implicit faith that Rome requires is also against Scripture.
Rome requires implicit faith even in the fallible teachings of the Pope and the Church as a whole. I don't claim implicit faith in my statements.
quote:Again, you're speaking falsely.
Pope Leo and Pope Foo have a lot in common actually. They say the exact same things about Holy Scripture, how to interpret Scripture, how their interpretations are guided by the Holy Spirit, so that the Pope may rest assured that his interpretation of Holy Scripture is Infallible, because the Holy Spirit is Infallible.
The Pope says that the Scriptures are dependent upon the Church, and I say the Church is dependent upon the Scriptures.
The Pope says he and the Church Magisterium are guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, but I don't claim that for myself. I believe the Spirit reveals the truth to Christ's people, but that our flesh fights against the Spirit, so due to our sin, we may not understand fully everything that God teaches, or even if we grow in understanding by the Spirit, it doesn't happen all at once, but we grow in understanding as the Spirit testifies to the written Word as we study it and submit to it.
quote:No, I do not claim my interpretation is secured from error by the Holy Spirit. I'm not like the Pope, as I don't claim something that isn't true about the infallibility of myself.
Pope Foo, you say that your interpretation of Scripture is guided and secured from error by the Holy Spirit? If so, then your implicit meaning is that it is Infallible. If NOT secured from error by the Holy Spirit then why do you bother to preach something that is probably erroneous?
I don't believe what I'm teaching is erroneous, only that it's possible that I don't understand it rightly. You are making the leap from the lack of infallibility to the necessity of error. I'm not saying I am in error, only that I could be, and that I'm capable of reform.
I really hope you'll consider trying to understand what I'm saying before responding again. You keep telling me I believe something that I don't, which is fully of irony, considering that Catholics accuse Protestants of that very thing all the time.
Posted on 7/8/26 at 9:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
No, I do not claim my interpretation is secured from error by the Holy Spirit
Thanks. I finally got you to admit that your preaching around here is not secured from error, that is to say - you admit that your preaching here could be erroneous and wrong.
Why do you spend so much time preaching on Tigerdroppings Political Talk when you know that what you preach is not secured from error by the Holy Spirit and may very well be erroneous and wrong.
Is the Westminster Short Confessional secured from error by the Holy Spirit? In other words, is that document and the men who wrote it Infallible? No, of course not. The Westminster Short Confessional may be erroneous and wrong.
Page 30 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News