Angus T Jones Needs a Surprise Slap

Posted by Jim Newman on December 2nd, 2012 – 42 Comments – Posted in Humor

Every few years I have a strange encounter. I’m sure you have too. You’re at the car wash, the grocery store, or maybe just walking down the street. You see an acquaintance, maybe an old friend, they are redolent with splendor as they approach you. Yet, as they get more near, the patina of splendor belies something deeper. They look at you like an old dog lost for years, now found. You look at their eyes and see a kind of glaze. Like you want to look deep but their eyes are so focused they don’t animate, they are clouded, in some other state. Are they really looking? Their eyes move but…ahh…aha…born again!

Excited to talk they wrestle your hand, look in your eyes, and search to see how you are responding, like a new date, blind date, who is trying to ascertain what you think of them now in this state.

They chatter “Oh, life is just so great, (I just joined the Calvary Church)” or “Have you noticed how amazing the stars are, (scientology)” or “I am so grateful to see you (evangelical).” Now, I have embarrassed myself tremendously over the years—the hazards of being conversational—by accidently telling a cocaine/meth/heroine user that “Cocaine is an expensive nasty drug”/”Meth destroys your body”/”I never tried horse, it’s just too addictive.” I look again closely to detect which drug it is…nope, reborn.

I am pretty good at spotting the born again, though Episcopalians are subtle with their “I do believe in god (usually slid in between food servings),” “Religion helps people (they have learned I am not attending church, nor my kids),” or “Jim, I believe in God” or “God, is such a comfort,” (a random anytime witnessing that often occurs right out of the blue, say when I am sawing a board, or starting a tractor).”

My initial reaction is to grab them, slap them, and say “Dammit, man, get over it.” No, not usually a wise approach but, let the hallucinations begin, I wish I could a) wrestle them to the ground, hold a microscope over their head and exclaim “Demons of ignorance, get thee out. I beseech thee, cast away this spell in the name of Hypatia and Sagan. May the Four Horseman drive away this evil, now,” and then tickle the crap out of them until they pass out from laughing; b) grab their body, begin to cry, and slowly slide down their body, landing on my knees, hands raised, imploring “Oh, no, how could you. My friend, old friend, now lost, lost. How could you. How could you. I weep for you” and then lie still, inchoate, until they pull themselves away; c) grab this amazing prostitute that happens to be near by, pay them handsomely, and throw them to the reborn with a bottle of wine and a cheery “have fun.” Oh wait, that’s my fantasy…

What do you do? Angus T Jones was born again last June at Valley Crossroads Church. His testimony was before the Voice of Prophecy Seventh-Day Adventists church where he belittled his work being born again and all that. I surmised (Angus Jones Has Been Programmed), that he was active for one big reason, a girlfriend, Sarah “Stalker” the girl that meets all the stars and posts photo’s. She’s also a Seventh Day Adventist and goes to church with him. But hey, we’re taking the video out of context–it’s OK to hate your life when you’re with others who hate what you do, de rigeuer. It’s the message and the message is they are evil out there…

So, what I really, really want to do is grab Angus, shake him, and say “Angus, Angus, she’s not worth it. The price is too high. Save your virginity for some nice Catholic girl, maybe a Mormon, a nice Jewish girl that can cook soup, but not a Seventh Day Adventist, not …”

The video that included Jones’ “filth” remark was produced by controversial Seventh-day Adventist Christopher Hudson, an Alabama resident famous for the fiery sermons he gives in YouTube videos.

Hudson has likened President Obama to Adolph Hitler and claimed Jay-Z, Kanye West and Rihanna are “in league with Lucifer,” according to posts labeled the ForeRunner Chronicles.

“I’m not an extremist,” Hudson told The News in an exclusive interview Tuesday. “I use colorful language to cement my ideas. I don’t think Obama is the new Hitler. I like Obama. I was talking about some of his policies and comparing them to the policies (of Hitler).

Ok then, let’s see, Hitler used to take young people and tell them they should hate their parents, they should join the new order, and turn in their parents to be hunted and killed. Yup, Hudson pulls a Hitler. But it’s not comparing to Hitler but to a process Hitler used. Really, Obama uses a process that leads to killing 6 million Jews, Gays, Blacks? And he likes Obama??

At first I thought it was a simple case of Angus experiencing ennui, being at loose ends, and looking to keep his girlfriend. Now, I see the last is absolutely true. He wants her approval. He’s still a virgin. Time to get married. She’s handy. Connected. Beautiful. A good conversationalist. She likes him. What more could you want?

I go with option d) “Man you gotta get over her. Find a nice secular girl that can keep you sane. Give up this extremism. Forgive, find the good, keep your integrity. Love yourself. There are other girls. Hey, have a good day. BTW I know of a good therapist and occupational counselor.”

Aaah, crap, OK. I have the hardest but handiest response of all: “Wow, you look happy. I’m gad for you. I’m really happy being an atheist. Life is good. See ya.”

What would you say to Angus?

Jim Newman, bright and well

 

  1. Artor says:

    I think I’m missing something here. Is Angus Jones someone whom I should know about? At first, I thought you were talking about Angus Young from AC/DC, but I’m pretty sure he’s not a virgin.
    That aside, I was almost one of those poor saps like in the meme. As a geeky young atheist/Pagan, I lost my virginity to a born-again Xtian girl who was apparently trying to make up for the sin of divorce by trying to convert a Pagan. There was lots of sex & fun & proselytizing right up to the moment it became clear I wasn’t going to become a good, Xtian husband. It was difficult being with an otherwise intelligent, educated woman who absolutely could not acknowledge that I didn’t need to be saved, that Catholics were actually Xtians too, that Xtian mythology was not historical fact, etc.

  2. Jim n says:

    Sorry, context, I wrote a post about Angus T Jones a few days ago as the internet has been aflame with his calling the show, Two and a Half Men, filth, etc and had to apologize for it, which he sidestepped. Recall Two and a Half Men is the show Charlie Sheen used to be on. In looking this up I found he had been born again last June and that he had a girl friend who was in recent photo’s. So… It made me think of when I have had friends become born again and what that is like to encounter. It also explained why Angus would have made the video with his new reasons for hating the show on which he worked. It seemed clear to me that he recently revised his taste and decided he had to hate the show to impress his girlfriend but I didn’t read that that was actually true until this AM.

    My point, by allegory, is that often rebirth is not finding Jesus or whatever but for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Religion gets credit for great change when it’s really for other motives.

    At least when I read Jane Austen to please my new spouse to be, I didn’t pretend that all literature before was crap or that it was the grandness of Jane Austen that motivated me.

    I only hope you had a great time with your friend in spite of insidious motives but I have to wonder how a sincere xian would want to have you since virginity is usually prized for preserving until marriage… Maybe you seemed safe, and challenging, in some way… I don’t know. I’m a philosopher not a psychologist.

  3. Jim n says:

    So, Artor, I’m dieing to know more… How long did it take for your meme to progress? Did you have an inkling from the beginning? Most of us respond to being liked… How did you resist?

  4. NJK Project says:

    Talk about ‘biased ignorance’ Jim Newman…do your research and get your facts straight before posting:

    -Angus’ friend Sarah M. is not, nor has ever been an SDA. ( https://twitter.com/SarahMOnline/status/279051157081563136 )
    -They met long before they began attending and studying with the SDA Church in ca. April 2012.

    These info/fact links should further help:
    http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/01/theological-views-commentary.html#atjoneslinks

    Even good “humor” these days is based on actual facts/reality!

    • Phil Ferguson says:

      “Angus’ friend Sarah M. is not, nor has ever been an SDA.”
      Whoop di doopdie doo.

      I will point out that Jim did concede the point,
      “maybe you’re right, maybe it isn’t Sarah he’s trying to impress…”

      It does not change the fact that Angus has still lost his mind and SDA is still a cult.

      I will have to agree that you are not a troll. You are actually that nutty. I followed your like…. 50 pages long (all on one scree) of a text wall. WOW!

      I guess that Sarah is very lucky to not be in the SDA cult.

      • NJK Project says:

        I just noticed your response Phil Ferguson….ummm… HA!! -Seems like the most fitting response.

        Seriously “50 pages long (all on one scree) of a text wall”… You novicely sound like you just discovered what a blog post is and how it works… perhaps you want 20,000 140-character Tweets instead, each on different links pages. Now that would be really “cool”….Talk about mindlessly quibbling…

        Only the fact that you think that Jim’s “concession” had settled the point is substantively more comical here.

        • Phil Ferguson says:

          “I just noticed your response Phil Ferguson….ummm… HA!! -Seems like the most fitting response.”
          I’m glad? you liked? it?

          “Talk about mindlessly quibbling…”
          Pointing out that no one would read your “blog” is quibbling?

          “You novicely sound like you just discovered what a blog post is and how it works…”
          “novicely” what is that?
          I think I have a good idea about blog posts.

          • NJK Project says:

            Therefore you should have had an idea that it can involve text on a page…however long…

          • NJK Project says:

            Phil: “I’m glad? you liked? it?”

            Like I said… I found it comical/funny. The context should specify how “funny” I think it is.

            Phil: “Pointing out that no one would read your “blog” is quibbling?”

            No the reason why you won’t read it is mindless quibbling…especially since you didn;t have to read the entire page to see what I had pertinently linked to here. If you want to read more that’s you option. And can you speak for ‘everybody’??!

  5. Jim Newman says:

    Really, then why did Sarah say so in an interview:

    “The 17-year-old also opened up about why her and Angus choose the Valley Crossroads church in Pacoima, Los Angeles, which has a largely African American congregation revealing they started attending together around last April.

    She said: ‘We have a friend that requested the church, we decided to start coming here. We’ve both been coming to this church.

    Furthermore:

    “The sitcom star made his religious revelations while sat beside mentor Christopher Hudson, whose own extreme teachings have sparked outrage by many Liberals who believe he is waging a religious war against the entertainment industry.

    “In 2009, he gained notoriety after releasing a documentary on YouTube called The Jay-Z Deception, in which he accused the rapper of being a devil-worshipping Freemason. He has also declared masturbation a sin and referred to President Obama’s health-care plan as a “carbon copy” of Hitler’s health-care policies.

    They indeed did meet before going to Valley Crossroads, last fall actually, but that was never a point.

    Finally, your own, highly proevangelical. proSeventh Day Adventist site states he is attending such a church and rightly so in your opinion, and rightly that he should be allowed to change his role on TV to reflect Seventh Day Adventist theology.

    Yet, maybe you’re right, maybe it isn’t Sarah he’s trying to impress but rather:

    “From what I know from Angus T. Jones’ testimony, he came from a troubled home and his parents were splitting up and he nearly turned to drugs. His friend and him were discussing ways in which he could make money and he came up with a business plan and said he wanted God to be at the center of it,” revealed McNamee.

    Promoting religion is one thing, but lying to get visits or followers doesn’t seem to fit the many biblical quotes you press.

    • NJK Project says:

      Really… ‘impressing and keeping Sarah M. was never the/your point. I was addressing the chief theme of your post here. Perhaps you may assume/think that attending a Church means membership, but it does not. Especially in the SDA Church where even children born to parents who are baptized members are not considered, nor counted as, members, until they decide to also be baptized later on (usually age 12 or older), and after they have themselves done basic studies about what the Bible/Church believes.

      And my response was indeed to that “point” in your post because, again, Sarah M. is not, nor was never, an SDA. I clearly read in your quoted statement of hers that: ‘they began attending the SDA Church for the first time together, at the recommendation of a friend’, as Jones explains in the full video of his testimony. He did not begin to attend in order keep her. And that was the first SDA Church both he and Sarah ever attended. In fact he states in his testimony that he was all by himself on that first visit.

      Furthermore your quoting of other people claims (i.e., McNamee) proves in regards to what Jones wanted to do and why he joined the Church prove nothing. They are simply what someone else thinks…= gossip/rumors. Get the facts directly from Jones in his testimony. In fact Jones actually confesses/admits that he was beginning to (‘enthusiastically’) do drugs.

      His stated reason for, first, becoming more serious about his Christianity was that he did not like the down turn his life was taking and secondly, for becoming an SDA, because he saw in all of his researching and weighing that what they taught was much more strongly supported by the Bible. As much as secularists want to believe, the reasons for his conversion were quite clear-minded, sequitur and rational!! Deal with those actualities instead of the vacuous and straw-men claims out there!!!

    • NJK Project says:

      And, just saw and read this part in your response: I seriously suggest you also get your facts straight before accusing me/my website of “lying to get visits or followers”. The internet does not put you beyond libel and defamation laws!! I hope you are not actually a journalist, and just an aspiring comedian fake pundit, ala. Stephen Colbert’s Colbert Report, because you clearly have no knowledge of Journalism’s 101 – get the facts/story straight first before “publishing”!!

  6. Jim Newman says:

    This is your own statement so there is no libel. You are a troll!! Go pick on someone your own size.

    “I am glad to hear of the conversion of child TV/Movie star, now 19 year old, Angus T. Jones to the Remnant (SDA) Church message, and, personally, not at all because ‘a celebrity has joined the SDA Church’, but, just from reading and seeing the various interviews that he has given about his conversion, you can see that, unlike the many knee-jerk claims, in the secular world, he has a sound personal and spiritual grasp of both the Christian message in general as well as the furthering distinctive truths of the Remnant (SDA) Church itself, -and in my view, on many key levels, he actually has a more advanced understanding of what God expects of a true/full follower of his than most SDA’s both individually and corporately. “

    • NJK Project says:

      Substantively completely irrelevant.. and I certainly am not a troll. Clearly you are simply/obliviously ignorant and confused, and obviously just makes claims according to what your ‘carefully guarded mindset/world’ can grasp. What does my factually stating on my website, (and not even in the section that that prior link points to), that Angus Jones has (relatively) ‘chosen right’ here, have to do with any of your factually false claims about Sarah M. in your post which I was solely addressing. You are the one who came up with this tangential and defensive, evidently “red-herring”, claim. Unless of course you really cannot differentiate the actually issues here. In that case, do refrain on commenting on them, for your own financial good.

      Get the facts: Angus T. Jones is an SDA. (And that is what my website merely, factually states). Sarah M is not, and has never been!!! And they began attending the Church together, and not Sarah before Angus. That is all your factual errors in your posting here. I tried to help correct you, but you are evidently clinically suffering from that expressed “born again” phobia of your post because you fancifully can only see that this means ‘trying to get followers to my website’. You want to stick by your ignorant libellous and defamatory claims, then do be my guest. It will make for a good, “slam dunk”, and easy payday in any court as they are not handicapped or confused by your biases!! The only issue will be the costs of my time/effort to sue you!

      And the only issue of “size” here is in regards to your lack in your factual knowledge and capability to discern/understand factual issues/matters!!

  7. Jim n says:

    Hmmm, I used the word surmised and I said she goes to church with him as she has since he began–they chose to go together; not sure what you’re correcting, as we agree–whether they baptized to be official was never related. Not sure what born again has to do with your site and my comments but whatever.

    • NJK Project says:

      Well you are “surmising” wrong and there was enough available evidence to avoid that incorrect inference…if you had chosen to let it speak for itself. Since a person does not become an SDA, what you call ‘becoming “active”’ just by walking through the Church’s door or even regularly attending, then I am correcting that view of your which evidently assumed this for your slant on the reason for their friendship. So we just do not agree here as the fact is that being baptized is pivotal here, as it is the sign that you actually believe what that Church is teaching.

      And your underlying surmised “brain programming” of Angus is also completely false, and quite evidently was also arrived at by ignoring the involved, pertinent facts. (Angus actually said things that most SDAs would (wrongly) never dare, (at least openly/so publicly and categorically), say (all for fear of the backlash). And I could easily see from the body language in the video that Christopher Hudson was surprised that Angus made that statement.)

      In regards to the “born again” issue, if you are going to badger the belief of other people, then at least get up to speed on what they are. As you clearly (and rightly so) understand that Angus Jones became “born again” by becoming an SDA, and since Evangelicalism is also synonymously understood as being “born again” then your spurious decrying of my site as being “proevangelical. proSeventh Day Adventist ” inherently involves that “born again” notion that you evidently greatly fear!!

      The telling sign that someone is not talking from knowledge but simply spouting off what they simply heard elsewhere is when they do not even know/realize the involvement of what they have said…

      • NJK Project says:

        …and, keyly enough, as Angus states in his testimony, he is the one who became interested in and approached Christopher Hudson because he already had those convictions about the detrimental effect of TV/Movies on one’s brain. So no one, especially not the SDA Church which officially does not teach what Hudson claims, “programmed” Angus Jones. Those were already his own convictions, and manifestly, observationally, from ‘being in the “filth” aspects of the business’.

  8. Jim n says:

    “Well you are “surmising” wrong and there was enough available evidence to avoid that incorrect inference…if you had chosen to let it speak for itself.”

    The evidence said he was born again and the evidence said he began attending with Sarah, Whether Sarah was born again was never the issue. My point was that he was trying to become more pure to appeal to her and it was surmise, and it was what the humor was. We all try to impress our girlfriends. In AJ’s case I surmised, played with that idea; being born to impress a girlfriend in all of its possibilities. It’s not even an insult, that part.

    “Since a person does not become an SDA, what you call ‘becoming “active”’ just by walking through the Church’s door or even regularly attending, then I am correcting that view of your which evidently assumed this for your slant on the reason for their friendship.”

    No at all. All religions have some blueprint, and seal of approval, of membership, the more expensive the better, and going to church for months on end was good enough for me–hell, it’s good enough for the Episcopalians. Their friendship may or may not have begun, solidified, or increased from going to church. Rather it was his born againness that belied a certain desire to impress her, himself, and the world at large. That would impress you and make me laugh.

    I see context and subtext and made humor of the foible as did another reader who recognized himself in it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. but you would have to agree that being born again is an improvement in your mind, and if it were to impress her, salutary. But to me who sees SDA as a harmful, mischievous, malevolent church that sometimes uses a pleasing message to entrap people, I think otherwise.

    “So we just do not agree here as the fact is that being baptized is pivotal here, as it is the sign that you actually believe what that Church is teaching.”

    No, I’m just literate and played on your rhetorical turf for a moment. But any one could guess that baptism is de regueur unless you’re renegade which SDA does tend to create, syncretized sects, that is.

    “And your underlying surmised “brain programming” of Angus is also completely false, and quite evidently was also arrived at by ignoring the involved, pertinent facts.

    All religion is brain programming. SDA and JW are some of the worst. Surely as one who would, as you do presumeably (after reading your stuff), attribute ill will to satan you get what programming or false intention is as you use it to attribute wrong action to be corrected by right action–if that’s even possible during this millennia, as SDA atonement.

    “(Angus actually said things that most SDAs would (wrongly) never dare, (at least openly/so publicly and categorically), say (all for fear of the backlash). And I could easily see from the body language in the video that Christopher Hudson was surprised that Angus made that statement.)

    Yeah, well, blame that on conversion enthusiasm.

    “In regards to the “born again” issue, if you are going to badger the belief of other people, then at least get up to speed on what they are.

    Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize this bullshit. You could benefit from some study in critical thinking, logic,and history. Lots of words still reveal your tendentious, Manichaen attitude on your site, much less here.

    “As you clearly (and rightly so) understand that Angus Jones became “born again” by becoming an SDA, and since Evangelicalism is also synonymously understood as being “born again” then your spurious decrying of my site as being “proevangelical.

    Well I addressed you as an apologist or believer, which was irrelevant as we’re arguing the story and theology, and not our backgrounds. I combine all “born again” experiences to the same brain works. I don’t think born again has different brain receptors like dopamine, versus epinephrine with its different results. Certainly, specifics differ but not the fundamental clarity, ecstasy, and connectedness.

    A born again Catholic is having pretty much the same experience as any other person who has an ecstatic experience–though I think the Amazonian with their hallucinogens had a hell of a lot better time.

    “proSeventh Day Adventist ” inherently involves that “born again” notion that you evidently greatly fear!!

    I fear nothing. If I died today I would have lived a good life!

    “The telling sign that someone is not talking from knowledge but simply spouting off what they simply heard elsewhere is when they do not even know/realize the involvement of what they have said…

    I was blind all of the time I was learning to see…Jerry Garcia sings this with the Grateful Dead. When you die, will they put roses on your grave? I hope so.

    • NJK Project says:

      Perhaps, or even evidently, you main concern was merely humor in your post, and so, (as Proverbs 26:4-5 involves), I am actually wasting my time trying to speaks facts and reason to your claims. (It is all like a guest trying to reason with Stephen Colbert on his show. It is substantively futile, the show is preprogrammed for him to say and believe whatever he wishes for a punchline however incorrect.). But here goes:

      -Whether Sarah was “born again” or not, and that some time before Angus, IS the whole, straightforward premise of your posting. You claim Angus is brainwashed and “programmed” straightly because he denounced his own show as filth. Well how then would he be endeavoring to “impress” Sarah is she was not also of the same convictions. Indeed how would having those convictions work to impress someone who clearly is passionate/fascinated by Hollywood and the Entertainment World (or at least the celebrities in it). Simple logic would tell you that Angus’ stance against what she so likes would more likely alienate her than attract her. So it is indispensable to your “impressing” premise that Sarah actually also be at least professedly “born again” and that this would have occurred sometime before Angus which would then require him to try to “keep up”, become likewise “more pure”, in order to “appeal to” and “keep” her. Obviously in all of this, you just did not know/understand/realize what being “born again” specifically meant for SDAs.

      -Indeed thinking that this is the same as for Episcopalians demonstrates that lack of distinctive denominational awareness on your part. Seriously, talk about having a “cookie-cutter” bias and approach, or more illustratively: a butcher trying to do eye surgery!

      -And (misspeak): I indeed actually meant to say “his conversion” instead of “their friendship” in the phrase: “then I am correcting that view of your which evidently assumed this for your slant on the reason for their friendship”

      -It seems to me that you already long had you bias in mind against people who are “born again” and saw in Angus’s Testimony a perfect opportunity to try to make it stick. Which explains why you did not bother ascertaining the facts. Wouldn’t want these to get in the way of a “humorous” slant/story!!

      -You can actually read from my blog that I (now) do not think much of SDAs, but actually knowing quite first hand, having studied in their Theological University Programs, what they believe, teach and practice, I actually find your “view” of them as “harmful, mischievous, malevolent” somewhat comical and tellingly uniformed….unless you’d care to substantiate what you are claiming here. Your views about them here actually all depends on what you yourself otherwise think and believe, so perhaps only to you (and others variously of the same “thinking” as you), this seems like the accurate understanding. And really it may all be because they are not properly sharing, teaching and practising/modelling what their Bible/Christian beliefs fully involve, and so it is thus readily misconstrued, which is the pointed reason why I no longer am a member.

      If/Since you believe that Baptism is de rigeur in Christianity, then, if you were actually concerned with getting the facts on Sarah M. before basing your article on a premise that she was already ‘conformed’ to the Church and Angus was trying to keep up, you then could have easily contacted the Church which by Dec 2 was widely known, (even papparazzis were staking it out by Wed. Nov. 28), and ascertain if she was a ‘conformed’ member, in order to substantiate that belief that ‘Angus was now frantically scared of losing her’. Obviously that was not your concern.

      And in regards to syncretized sect, Christianity as a whole is one big syncretized sect with now over 30,000 denomination with the vast majority having the same core beliefs. So this is not just an SDA issue.

      I won’t speak for all religions, but if you do any serious study into, specifically here, Biblical Christianity, particularly the prophetic elements that establish it, you honestly would not have this pejorative belief that it is “brain programming”. Can’t argue much when history developed just as it was stated in the Bible 2000+ years before. In fact God squarely put the onus on prophecy to prove that He exists and is the only God (e.g., Isaiah 41:21-23; 44:6-8; 46:9-11). I’ll factually agree that the JW teachings are not valid, but, and even I, do not see/belief that SDA beliefs in their codified (vs. practiced) selves are wrong, and “brain programming”. And It actually takes “brain programming” on your part to obliviously manifestly ignore the claims of the Bible. As I said, prophecy proves the Bible, and thus God.

      -Knowing what I know about Satan, I understand, contrary to many Christians, that “ill-will” is a product of one’s free will and that the devil does not make one do everything that is contrary to what the Bible teaches. People do what they want to do, and that was always Satan’s desire. That people should be free to do evil if they wished, but of course, that God should accept and “sponsor” such a lifestyle, at any cost.

      -I am not getting what you actually meant by your ‘millenia’ and ‘SDA atonement’ claims, it certainly finds no resonance in my actually view, thus certainly makes no sense to me, but me correcting your factual incorrectness has nothing to do with any sort of atonement. Just “platonically” thought you were concerned with posting facts.

      -I’ll actually attribute Angus bold statement to conversion pureness. He commendingly even understands the lukewarmness that seems to typically affect all members. I’ll say to him to keep enthusiastically “red hot” in his faith and not become politically correct. And the end result is not spewing out non-sensical conspiracy theories as Hudson does.

      -I have involved much critical thinking, logic, and history in my studies, as actually seen in my web postings. The, deliberate “inciendiary” element has its purpose, to those who it is actually intended for. It can either repulse you, as manifestly your case, or convict one to do what you already know they should have been doing. Consider it a type of “boot camp” approach. Those who cannot take the intensity just quit and did not really want to become soldiers for God’s Full Truth. And your knee-jerk Manichean claims are manifestly out of a belief that Christians are supposed to be sheepish push-over. Obviously you do not understand either what when Jesus meant “turning the other cheek” was applicable, nor that He has actually come to unsheathe a sword and take away (false) peace. (Matt 10:34-36/Luke 12:51-53)!

      -Since being born again involves different tangible practices in different denominations, then the experience will actually not result in the same outward manifestation/actualization across the Christian board. So viewing them as all the same is not at all accurate…and the actual experience, particularly when what the Bible actually teaches is understood, (as I see was the case with Jones and his adherence to SDA teachings,) beats drug consuming by light years because a born again Christian finally and clearly understands what life is all about, what the future holds, and the unseen cosmic realities involved. This may not mean anything significant to you, but like drug taking, you can’t perceive or get the actual experience through someone else. And in lived out true Christianity, they are no adverse or side effects.

      -It is interesting that you immediately linked my statement of “fear of born again people” with “having lived a good life”. Is the Christian teaching of hell haunting you. That is actually not at all what I had in mind. In your article, you state you want to do violence to people who are born again. Why… are they a threat to you?? Are you afraid to even converse with them or engage them substantively on their claims. It is evident to me that you are greatly concerned with trying to maintain your obliviousness to the claims of the born again person. It really is, as you “Freudianly” express, all an issue of not wanting to have an accountability. Manifestly you believe in living a “good life” I assume that you understand that this at least meant not being, e.g., a serial killer. If so then why/why not?? Who says that not killing whomever you want to consist of being good. Why was it “good” for Roman to have Christians be their bloody entertainment in their auditorium (And our Reality TV society may also consider this to be also “good” e.g., for death row inmates). I’ll merely refer you to this philosophical exposition of Clifford Goldstein on this issue entitled “Moral Authority” here: http://cliff.hopetv.org/watch

      You should also listen to his other expositions as well. They may be up you seeming quasi-philosophical, skeptic alley.

      -I don’t get the substance nor pertinent relevance or your Jerry Garcia lyrical quote. Perhaps you can elaborate. And I actually will ask people not to spend money on flowers at my funeral or for my grave…what a waste of money. I’ll ask that they instead give that money away to organizations which help people in need. That should be more life-giving and in fact be more “honorable” to the life and legacy I am endeavoring to live and leave!

      • Darrel says:

        I don’t know who Sarah M is, and don’t really care. But I do see NKJ saying some really silly things about the Bible, so I’ll address some of that:

        NKJ: “Biblical Christianity,”>>

        “Biblical Christianity.” Love it. And just imagine, I bet NKJ just happens to follow the correct version of “Biblical Christianity.” What ever the hell that is.

        NKJ: “particularly the prophetic elements that establish it,”>>

        You have no examples of supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecy. I know you think you have many, if you’ve be hanging around with SDA perhaps you may be so deluded you think you have thousands of examples. Try establishing one, we’ll see how it holds up. Don’t get your hopes up.

        NKK: “Can’t argue much when history developed just as it was stated in the Bible 2000+ years before.”>>

        What a load. Even the conservative branch of Judaism doesn’t accept the Exodus story. Why? Because it didn’t happen. It’s a made up story, like much of the Hebrew Scriptures. In this we include of course Noah and his boat, and Adam’s rib wife, talking animals, etc,.

        NKJ: “In fact God squarely put the onus on prophecy to prove that He exists…”>>

        Excellent. Then lets see you prove an example of Bible prophecy. Here are the rules:

        1) Can you show you are properly interpreting the text in question?
        2) Can you verify that the prophecy was made before the event?
        3) Can you verify the prophecy was made long enough before the event that it couldn’t have been 4) easily guessed?
        5) Can you show that the prophesied event actually happened?
        6) Can you show that some group couldn’t have purposefully caused or performed an action in order to appear to “fulfill” the prophecy?
        7) Is the prophecy not mundane, obvious or likely to occur?

        Do that, and you’ll have begun your task and have something at least worth talking about.

        NKJ: “As I said, prophecy proves the Bible, and thus God.”>>

        Then you won’t have any trouble establishing an example of supernaturally fulfilled prophecy. Begin. Oh, and there are lots of examples of failed Bible prophecy. Examples upon request.

        NKJ: “-Knowing what I know about Satan,”>>

        You know Satan? Cool. Say hi for me would ya?

        NKJ: “the devil does not make one do everything that is contrary to what the Bible teaches.”>>

        How do you know what “the devil” makes one do or not do? Did you read it in an ancient anonymous book that has talking animals in it? I bet that’s it.

        D.
        ————–
        There are lots of mundane ways to predict the future:
        1. Make the wording sufficiently vague that, with proper interpretation, it could apply to practically anything.
        2. Predict something which has already happened.
        3. Rewrite history to say that your prediction was actually fulfilled.
        4. Give no time limit for the prediction.
        5. Predict something which is extremely likely to occur.
        6. Make so many predictions one of them is bound to occur. Later, edit out those that failed.
        7. Predict something that you yourself can cause to happen.

        “I will say it again: No one–NO ONE–can prove a single verifiable example of biblical prophecy fulfillment.” –Farrell Till

        “There is no prophecy in the OT foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the OT referring to him in any way–not one word. The only way to prove this is to take your Bible, and wherever you find these words; “That it might be fulfilled” and “which was spoken” turn to the OT and find what was written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible reference to the thing recounted in the NT–not the slightest.” — Robert Green Ingersoll

        • Phil Ferguson says:

          OK… NJK…
          Let’s see if you can put something behind your hollow claims.
          I’m betting you can’t rise up to Darrel’s simple challenge.

          If you don’t try that you will provide witness to the fraud that your magic man is. Everyone that stops in here well see that you cannot document one prophecy.

          I’ve got my popcorn and I am ready for a show….can you take the heat?

          • NJK Project says:

            Oh Phil. Try something else than juvenile peer pressuring with me for, and if you had read in my various blog posts and comments, you would have understood that it has never worked. As I had just finished doing when you posted your comment, I’ll answer Darell, and anyone else whenever and however and it is best for me… So don’t be putting pop corn in the microwave whenever someone posts a comment to me or you’ll likely just have to keep reheating it!! Answering you all is definitely not my priority. Especially since my views and beliefs, which thus far addresses all your claims heer, are already posted on my blog.

          • NJK Project says:

            To be fair, Darrel, in case you are actually serious/sincere in your views beyond the antagonistic front you’ve present to me, I’ll recommend you to someone who, unlike me, has had the burden of engaging skeptics of the Bible as yourself. (Perhaps it is because he himself was a skeptic/atheist earlier in his life.) Try looking up on Youtube:

            David Asscherick – Eleventh Hour Evidence (ca. 15 presentations)
            David Asscherick – Discover Prophecy (ca. 24 presentations)

            The priorly posted entirely philosophical series of Clifford Goldstein (an ethnic Jew) may also be more relevant to you.

            http://cliff.hopetv.org/watch
            If you also look his name up on Google and Youtube you’ll find other series by him which do not even involve the Biblical claims as that recent hopetv series occasionally does.

            It is just an operational fact that I do not have that ministry burden of engaging skeptic of the (entire) Bible per se.

            And also, quite seriously stated, people have engaged and experience Satan through witchcraft, voodoo, wicca, etc. It really just depends how serious sincere you actually are about believing in, and following him because he actually does not want to spook anyone into believing in God/Jesus instead.

          • Phil Ferguson says:

            “Oh Phil. Try something else than juvenile peer pressuring with me…”
            Nope that’s all it got….

            “if you had read in my various blog posts and comments, you would have understood that it has never worked.”
            If you would have read my comments above you would see that I can never read a 50 page wall of crap – sorry.

            “I’ll answer Darell, and anyone else whenever and however and it is best for me…”
            But, the bible says you must always be ready…. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” – 1 peter 3:15
            So… if you are not ready…. you aren’t much of a christian.

            “Answering you all is definitely not my priority.”
            ah…but is should be – see bible verse above – check mate!

            “Especially since my views and beliefs, which thus far addresses all your claims heer, are already posted on my blog.”
            Yeah….I’m sure they are but no one can read that. Plus, you came here….
            So…. put up or admit defeat. Hurry, up! I’m running out of popcorn.

        • NJK Project says:

          Well at least you’ve made your fundamental bias clear, Darell. Since you can’t even get an abbreviation of my username here correct, I am not sure it is worth spending time trying to reason with your manifest bias here. All seems like a typical Matt 7:6 scenario here.

          If you really want to know my prophetic interpretations and views read my blog. Indeed start with the very first post on Daniel’s 70 Weeks.

          http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/biblical-interpretation-of-daniels-70.html

          And towards the end of my blog’s TOC here: http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-posting-note.html you’ll find an index for the rest of my prophetic interpretations and understandings. I think that you criterias are all transparently met in all of those interpretations.

          Heads up… Those blog posts were not written with people with the same level of bias and skepticism you have demonstrated. Not my particular ministry burden… And yes the Bible involves halted and/ (literalistically) postponed prophecies, indeed for the conditional reasons mentioned in Jeremiah 18:1-10 (i.e., the people did not keep the conditions for fulfilment), so that Theological reality is involved when applicable, as easily demonstrable. And also, God has veiled many apocalyptic prophecies in symbolisms which need to be determined and then factored in. The Bible itself provides that symbological key.

          I am also working on a blog post in regards to claims of, particularly Judaism, of non-fulfillments.

          In regards to Satan, if you want to say hi to him, you can do so yourself….I don’t!!

          • Darrel says:

            NJ: “Well at least you’ve made your fundamental bias clear, Darell.”>>

            My fundamental bias is to follow where the evidence leads and not go where it doesn’t. Yours appears to be the opposite of that. When are you going to muster the courage to even attempt of a supposed example? Or is something that is beyond you?

            NJ: “I am not sure it is worth spending time trying to reason with…”>>

            It’s always a good time to support your claims. What’s keeping you?

            NJ: “seems like a typical Matt 7:6 scenario…”>>

            I’ve seen your pearls. I know your pearls better than you do. And I know your pearls are fake. Bad fakes. You probably know they are fake too. That’s why you’re too chicken to show your fake pearls, because I’ll point out their flaws and show exactly how we know they are fake.

            As Ingersoll once put it:

            “The Church once wore upon her hollow breast false gems, supposing them to be real. They have been shown to be false, but she wears them still.” –Ingersoll

            That was about 150 years ago. You know, back when your antique Bible scholarship was still around but at least twitching on the floor. Now, outside of fundie circles, it’s dead.

            NJ: “If you really want to know my prophetic interpretations…”>>

            I want to see you give a supposed example of a supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecy. Let’s see it. Stop stalling.

            NJ: “read my blog.”>>

            Read your own blog. Post your example. Time to poop or get off the pot.

            NJ: “…Daniel’s 70 Weeks.”>>

            State your claim (supposed prophecy), then show it was fulfilled. You’ve got bupkis. This is why you fold when your bluff is called. See my note below regarding the book of Daniel.

            NJ: “find an index for the rest of my prophetic… [blah blah blah]“>>

            Where’s your fulfilled prophecy? Still waiting. I’m not going to do your job for you.

            NJ: “I think that you criterias are all transparently met in all of those interpretations.”>>

            Excellent. Then you won’t have any trouble at all with providing a detailed specific example and supporting it with evidence and reference. Pick a good one. Time to poop or get off the pot.

            NJ: “Those blog posts were not written with…”>>

            Don’t care. I am not going to read books, watch youtube, search the google or sift through indexes on your blog. Provide your example or admit you aren’t up for it.

            NJ: “God has veiled many apocalyptic prophecies in symbolisms which need to be determined and then factored in.”>>

            Of course he has. You’ve started your spinning before you even begin. And with good reason. Your stories need lots and lots of spinning. And then you still can’t even get them off the ground. Hell, you haven’t even made it that far yet, you can’t even rise to the occasion of providing an example!

            Bring me a fundie with some BALLS for Christ sake!

            NJ: “regards to Satan, if you want to say hi to him, you can do so yourself…”>>

            I don’t believe in Satan because I don’t believe in Mother Goose. Grow up.

            D.
            —————
            The Oxford Companion to the Bible, regarding Daniel:
            “The book of Daniel is one of the few books of the Bible that can be dated with precision. That dating makes it the latest of all the books of the Hebrew Bible…” “…the book reached its present canonical form approximately in the middle of 164 BCE.” (pg. 151)

            Further:
            “…Many commentors believe that the Daniel of Ezekiel text is to be identified with the Canaanite Dan’il (dn’il) of the “The Tale of Aqhat” preserved among the fourteenth-century BCE texts found at Ras Shamra (*Ugarit) in Syria. There Dan’il is discribed as one who “judges the cause of the widow / tries the case of the orphan.” It would therefore appear that Daniel was a legendary figure, represented in this book as a youth of outstanding wisdom and piety who matures into a seer capable of receiving visions of the future.”

  9. Jim n says:

    Wow! You are a nut job. Thanks for commenting here, as for now into perpetuity there is proof of it.

    Perhaps you don’t want roses on your grave, a waste of money. You couldn’t possibly understand or desire the love of people for you.

    • NJK Project says:

      Wow!!… You’ve just demonstrated for the record that you prefer to be an ignorant moron!

      And I don’t care to have money spent on flowers for my grave, so why should I want this from others…just to make them feel better… you clearly don’t know me!!! Never play the ambivalent Politically correct card. If those people really love me, then they’ll do for me, at least then, what would make me happy… Can’t you understand that???!

      Legal Notice: Like I said, and it indeed does still stand… your are liable for any of you comments you post about me or my website. I do not begin to be responsible for your moronic ignorance. (And that is a technical/factually descriptive of your responding here.) Look it up in any Case Law and Legislature: making false comments (=disparaging, defamatory or libellous comments) out of ignorance does not disculpate you.

  10. Jim n says:

    I maintain that he’s a troll and psychopathic. “move along now. There’s nothing of interest here.”

  11. Jim n says:

    OK, you’re probably right. He just seems more excited by the fight than content. He seems familiar with provoked antagpnism. Maybe its just sexual frustration…

  12. Darrel says:

    Went to see the movie Life of Pi, in 3D. Very nice. Highly recommended. I read the book too.

    Anyway, I see NJK has responded, let’s see if he’s provided anything of substance in support of his claim about Bible prophecy confirming the existence of God.

    NJK: I’ll answer Darell,”>>

    Excellent. That’ll be two “r’s” and one “l” please. If you do attempt to back up your prophecy claims we will need to have you learn how to pay attention to some details. You may learn that you’ve gotten off in the intellectual bushes due to your learned habit of not taking care and attention to specifics and the details. Bad habit.

    Next post:

    NJK: “Darrel, in case you are actually serious/sincere in your views…”>>

    Oh, I’m very serious. I would like to see you try to establish a supernatural fulfillment of a Bible prophecy. Begin.

    NJK: “I’ll recommend you to someone who,…”>>

    Oh no, that won’t do. Don’t tell me to go read a book, watch a movie or study something at some link. It’s your claim, you need to back it up. Provide your supposed example, make your case. I am not going to do your job for you, set up your case and then knock it down to. I could do that for you, but I’m not going to. Let’s see what you’ve got in support of your claim. Get to work.

    NJK: “I’ll recommend you to someone who, unlike me, has had the burden of engaging skeptics of the Bible as yourself.”>>

    You have the burden of backing your claims. When are you going to do this? Why don’t you begin now. Now would be good. I suggest starting with a good one. How about now?

    NJK: “(Perhaps it is because he himself was a skeptic/atheist earlier in his life.)”>>

    Sure he was.

    NJK:”Try looking up on Youtube:”>>

    Nope. I don’t do argument from “go watch a movie and try and figure out what I think about Bible prophecies.” Again, I am not going to do your work for you. You’ve claimed the existence of Bible prophecy shows the existence of God. Provide your first example. Let’s see it. Pick a good one.

    NJK: “David Asscherick”>>

    I’m not interested in him, I’m interested in you backing up the claim you made. What have you got?

    NJK: “The priorly posted entirely philosophical series of Clifford Goldstein…”>>

    If Mr. Goldstein has an example that *you* think *you* can set up, put together and defend, let’s see it. I am not going to do your job for you. Make sure your example can get through the seven basic and very sensible rules I’ve set up, saves me time.

    NJK: “If you also look his name up on Google and Youtube you’ll find other…”>>

    Oh, the internet and youtube have a great variety of information, and also a great pile of utter nonsense. I’m not interested in being directed to someone else. I am interested in seeing if you can get off of your bottom and back up your claim by attempting to establish a specific example in support of your claim. The truth is in the details, and the details are my specialty.

    NJK: “It is just an operational fact that I do not have that ministry burden of engaging skeptic of the (entire) Bible per se.”>>

    You don’t need to engage a “skeptic of the entire Bible,” (whatever that means) you just need to establish an example of a truly supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecy in order support your extraordinary claim that Bible prophecy shows the existence of God (which is a non sequiter anyway). Stop avoiding your burden of supporting your claim and begin.

    NJK: “also, quite seriously stated, people have engaged and experience Satan through witchcraft, voodoo, wicca, etc.”>>

    Sure they have. Hey NJ, once you’ve nailed down a prophecy or two, then we’ll move on to your other basic cognitive errors in the area of critical thinking.

    NK: “just depends how serious sincere you actually are about believing in, and following him because he actually does not want to spook anyone into believing in God/Jesus instead.”>>

    Sure He doesn’t. That’s why He’s just so darn sneaky about what He does. Just the Boogie Man. Some people don’t believe in the Boogie Man either, but they’re just not serious enough “about believing in, and following him because he actually does not want to spook anyone into believing in” a God of Boogie Man Land (I bet they play a lot of disco music there).

    Enough with the introductions, the singing and dancing, let’s see your first example of Bible prophecy, or perhaps you would like to admit you don’t have the courage back up your claim.

    D.
    ———————-
    “It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.” –L. Sprague de Camp

  13. Darrel says:

    NJK posted his latest response in the wrong spot above, so I’ll post this here again as well:

    ***
    NJ: “Well at least you’ve made your fundamental bias clear, Darell.”>>

    My fundamental bias is to follow where the evidence leads and not go where it doesn’t. Yours appears to be the opposite of that. When are you going to muster the courage to even attempt of a supposed example? Or is something that is beyond you?

    NJ: “I am not sure it is worth spending time trying to reason with…”>>

    It’s always a good time to support your claims. What’s keeping you?

    NJ: “seems like a typical Matt 7:6 scenario…”>>

    I’ve seen your pearls. I know your pearls better than you do. And I know your pearls are fake. Bad fakes. You probably know they are fake too. That’s why you’re too chicken to show your fake pearls, because I’ll point out their flaws and show exactly how we know they are fake.

    As Ingersoll once put it:

    “The Church once wore upon her hollow breast false gems, supposing them to be real. They have been shown to be false, but she wears them still.” –Ingersoll

    That was about 150 years ago. You know, back when your antique Bible scholarship was still around but at least twitching on the floor. Now, outside of fundie circles, it’s dead.

    NJ: “If you really want to know my prophetic interpretations…”>>

    I want to see you give a supposed example of a supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecy. Let’s see it. Stop stalling.

    NJ: “read my blog.”>>

    Read your own blog. Post your example. Time to poop or get off the pot.

    NJ: “…Daniel’s 70 Weeks.”>>

    State your claim (supposed prophecy), then show it was fulfilled. You’ve got bupkis. This is why you fold when your bluff is called. See my note below regarding the book of Daniel.

    NJ: “find an index for the rest of my prophetic… [blah blah blah]“>>

    Where’s your fulfilled prophecy? Still waiting. I’m not going to do your job for you.

    NJ: “I think that you criterias are all transparently met in all of those interpretations.”>>

    Excellent. Then you won’t have any trouble at all with providing a detailed specific example and supporting it with evidence and reference. Pick a good one. Time to poop or get off the pot.

    NJ: “Those blog posts were not written with…”>>

    Don’t care. I am not going to read books, watch youtube, search the google or sift through indexes on your blog. Provide your example or admit you aren’t up for it.

    NJ: “God has veiled many apocalyptic prophecies in symbolisms which need to be determined and then factored in.”>>

    Of course he has. You’ve started your spinning before you even begin. And with good reason. Your stories need lots and lots of spinning. And then you still can’t even get them off the ground. Hell, you haven’t even made it that far yet, you can’t even rise to the occasion of providing an example!

    Bring me a fundie with some BALLS for Christ sake!

    NJ: “regards to Satan, if you want to say hi to him, you can do so yourself…”>>

    I don’t believe in Satan because I don’t believe in Mother Goose. Grow up.

    D.
    —————
    The Oxford Companion to the Bible, regarding Daniel:
    “The book of Daniel is one of the few books of the Bible that can be dated with precision. That dating makes it the latest of all the books of the Hebrew Bible…” “…the book reached its present canonical form approximately in the middle of 164 BCE.” (pg. 151)

    Further:
    “…Many commentors believe that the Daniel of Ezekiel text is to be identified with the Canaanite Dan’il (dn’il) of the “The Tale of Aqhat” preserved among the fourteenth-century BCE texts found at Ras Shamra (*Ugarit) in Syria. There Dan’il is discribed as one who “judges the cause of the widow / tries the case of the orphan.” It would therefore appear that Daniel was a legendary figure, represented in this book as a youth of outstanding wisdom and piety who matures into a seer capable of receiving visions of the future.”

    • NJK Project says:

      D: NJK posted his latest response in the wrong spot above, so I’ll post this here again as well:

      Huhhhh!!! What wrong spot…It supposedly was “awaiting moderation”…Or was it convenient to not have it posted it first…

      ***

      NJ: “Well at least you’ve made your fundamental bias clear, Darell.”>>

      D: My fundamental bias is to follow where the evidence leads and not go where it doesn’t. Yours appears to be the opposite of that.

      Not bad disclaiming for someone who evidently is just going by fanciful assumptions.

      D: When are you going to muster the courage to even attempt of a supposed example? Or is something that is beyond you?

      Uhhh… “whenever” you would have read my blog post!??!

      NJ: “I am not sure it is worth spending time trying to reason with…”>>

      D: It’s always a good time to support your claims.

      Uhhh…You fancifully/self-importantly ignored the rest of that sentence which make this ‘not worthwhile’.

      D: What’s keeping you?

      Effectively, your prima-donna non-heeding/cooperation, if you really just can’t figure it out.

      NJ: “seems like a typical Matt 7:6 scenario…”>>

      D: I’ve seen your pearls. I know your pearls better than you do. And I know your pearls are fake. Bad fakes. You probably know they are fake too. That’s why you’re too chicken to show your fake pearls, because I’ll point out their flaws and show exactly how we know they are fake.

      As Ingersoll once put it:

      “The Church once wore upon her hollow breast false gems, supposing them to be real. They have been shown to be false, but she wears them still.” –Ingersoll

      Did you mean my own or, generally speaking Christianity in general?? Doesn’t seem at all to me that you’ve read my blog posts. Contrary to what you may need to straw-manly believe, not all Christians believe nor teach the same thing. There are ovre 30,000 Christian denominations and not because they don’t agree on carpet colors!

      So deal with my own view and/or the ones of others that I also find convincing. If you just won’t then that is just your own self-limiting problem.

      D: That was about 150 years ago. You know, back when your antique Bible scholarship was still around but at least twitching on the floor. Now, outside of fundie circles, it’s dead.

      Says the oblivious uniformed…I seen and experienced advanced, even now, computer-aided, Biblical Scholarship rescue and/or correct many of the beliefs of the past, and also discard the ones which did not pass the presently available greater exegetical scrutiny testing.

      NJ: “If you really want to know my prophetic interpretations…”>>

      D: I want to see you give a supposed example of a supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecy. Let’s see it. Stop stalling.

      Take you foot off the brake pedal… you are stalling yourself..

      NJ: “read my blog.”>>

      Read your own blog. Post your example. Time to poop or get off the pot.

      Ahhh so that indeed was your knowing indifferent stance all along. I have actually written my blog so people like you can read it. So you read it if you care. Like I said… I don’t… Obviously you just cannot factor that fact in.

      NJ: “…Daniel’s 70 Weeks.”>>

      D: State your claim (supposed prophecy), then show it was fulfilled. You’ve got bupkis. This is why you fold when your bluff is called.

      I have stated it… on my blog post. You are the one who circularly needs to believe that I can only be “bluffing” here.

      D: See my note below regarding the book of Daniel.

      No problem, I will…

      NJ: “find an index for the rest of my prophetic… [blah blah blah]“>>

      D: Where’s your fulfilled prophecy? Still waiting. I’m not going to do your job for you.

      Like I said…listed in that index…I am not going to read things for you, and certainly not write/post them twice. If you can comprehend that, then you’ve got some serious pride issues.

      NJ: “I think that you criterias are all transparently met in all of those interpretations.”>>

      D: Excellent. Then you won’t have any trouble at all with providing a detailed specific example and supporting it with evidence and reference. Pick a good one.

      I have… you just won’t read it.

      D: Time to poop or get off the pot.

      You are, not surprisingly at all, but typically so, quite verbally “crass”. Says a lot about you and moreover make having a discussion with you not worthwhile. All sounds like the euphemism in Dan 5:6!

      NJ: “Those blog posts were not written with…”>>

      D: Don’t care. I am not going to read books, watch youtube, search the google or sift through indexes on your blog. Provide your example or admit you aren’t up for it.

      Your issue/problem not mine…

      NJ: “God has veiled many apocalyptic prophecies in symbolisms which need to be determined and then factored in.”>>

      D: Of course he has.

      Indeed!!

      D: You’ve started your spinning before you even begin.

      How did the subject switch from God to me…I just relate what the Bible says, and what is indeed involve in its interpretation.

      D: And with good reason. Your stories need lots and lots of spinning. And then you still can’t even get them off the ground.

      Not spinning, just the “attenuating circumstances”. God also does not do convincing/convicting things just to cater to doubters, unbelievers and/or rebels…wherever they manifest themselves.

      D: Hell, …

      Interesting choice of term…Is that factually or conveniently expressed by you?? I.e., you won’t see me start a sentence by citing/saying “Oz” or “Wonderland”

      D: …you haven’t even made it that far yet, you can’t even rise to the occasion of providing an example!

      Oh I have… you ‘just won’t read it’ LOL!!

      Bring me a fundie with some BALLS…

      Did you mean “fundi”??…

      D: for Christ sake!

      Again, as exemplified above, interesting choice of name/term… And since we are, at least effectively being Biblical here, haven’t you read that at one point even God/Christ wishes that unbelievers remain set in their ways…. ala. “Make my day” (e.g., Isaiah 6:8-13|Matthew 13:10-17; Isaiah 28:13; Ezekiel 7:4; 8:8; 14:1-7; Revelation 14:10; 22:11). So appealing to/through Him is not at all a guarantee to bring you desired response, especially not by taking His name in vain (Exodus 20:7)!!

      NJ: “regards to Satan, if you want to say hi to him, you can do so yourself…”>>

      D: I don’t believe in Satan because I don’t believe in Mother Goose. Grow up.

      I believe that Satan exists because I have long ago “grown up”, indeed where it actually matters, -especially from Mother Goose. Moreover, unlike you, I roll my eyes at productions such as Life of Pi. LOL!

      D.
      —————
      D: The Oxford Companion to the Bible, regarding Daniel:
      “The book of Daniel is one of the few books of the Bible that can be dated with precision. That dating makes it the latest of all the books of the Hebrew Bible…” “…the book reached its present canonical form approximately in the middle of 164 BCE.” (pg. 151)

      Further:
      “…Many commentors believe that the Daniel of Ezekiel text is to be identified with the Canaanite Dan’il (dn’il) of the “The Tale of Aqhat” preserved among the fourteenth-century BCE texts found at Ras Shamra (*Ugarit) in Syria. There Dan’il is discribed as one who “judges the cause of the widow / tries the case of the orphan.” It would therefore appear that Daniel was a legendary figure, represented in this book as a youth of outstanding wisdom and piety who matures into a seer capable of receiving visions of the future.”

      LOL!!…Was that the best you could/would provide??! Actually quite pathetic really if you knew how inconsequential those lame, irrelevant and inconsequential, and thus easily long “debunked” argument are….You have been making quite a lot of brash/pompous noise for/from such flimsy “key/main” arguments. Almost had me fooled..if I had not long known what I was claiming and talking about. It would be helpful for you to not assume that ‘all Bible Believers must be ignorant’ simply because you yourself don’t (really/actually) know nor understand what they are talking about.

      B) The Daniel of Ezek 14:14, 20; (not sure about 28:3) may indeed be someone else than the canonical prophet Daniel. Not sure however that he was the one that Tale (if a Tale) of Aqhat. Then again, citing a legendary figure may have been Ezekiel rhetorical intention here as if to contextually, (contemporizedly) say: ‘Even “Superman” could spare you!!’

      A) At least there is ample objective evidence, as seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls* that the prophecies of Daniel (in Ch. 2, 7, 8, 9, 11), (among other prophets) were written long before the 1 Century AD/CE. Ergo, as all of those prophecies still involved major fulfillments long after that time, reaching right down through our time, then it shows, to at least the Bible believer, that those prophecies were indeed inspired by God (Isa 46:9-11). Presentations of the aforementioned and referenced David Asscherick would have long ago addressed that spurious objection of yours.

      *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Dead_Sea_Scrolls

      • Darrel says:

        NJ was given a simple task: provide an example of a prophecy, then establish that it was fulfilled. As is typical, he doesn’t have the courage to even attempt to do it. Pitiful. I’ll be brief.

        NJ: “What wrong spot…It supposedly was “awaiting moderation”…”>>

        No. You put it in the wrong spot. Best to begin by being honest.

        NJ: “whenever” you would have read my blog post…”>>

        Saying “go read my blog,” is not an argument or a demonstration of a prophecy example.

        NJ: “Doesn’t seem at all to me that you’ve read my blog posts.”>>

        I don’t care about your blog. Hey NJ, here is a forum I administrate: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/index.php

        I have about 7,000 posts or so, much of it instruction for and extensive debate with Christians of your ilk. Some of them, unlike you, even have the courage to stand up for what they believe and defend their assertions. Can you imagine how stupid it would be if you asked for a specific example of prophecy fulfillment and I told you to “go read my blog?”

        Good grief. When will I find a Christian with some courage to defend their convictions?

        NK: “So deal with my own view and/or the ones of others…”>>

        I’ll deal with your view when you have the courage to state it. Here. Now. Or you can tuck tail and run.

        NJ: “I seen and experienced advanced, even now, computer-aided, Biblical Scholarship rescue and/or correct many of the beliefs of the past, and also discard the ones which did not pass the presently available greater exegetical scrutiny testing.”>>

        That sentence is so awesome I am going to make it religious Quote of the Day on our forum. I’ve posted it here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=25976#p25976

        NJ: “God also does not do convincing/convicting things just to cater to doubters, unbelievers and/or rebels….”>>

        Actually, as the story goes, he does and has repeatedly. Let me walk you through a few examples:

        When Thomas doubted he said, let’s do a test, lets see these wounds then I’ll believe. Then, as the story goes, Jesus participated in the test and evidence was provided. At Malachi 3:10 Yahweh says to the doubters, test me:

        “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it.”

        1 John 1:4 says test God’s spirits to make sure they are legit:

        “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

        At 1 Kings 18, Elijah, does a classic test any bronze age goat herder can understand:

        “I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God…

        Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.”

        What happens? The LORD participates in the test:

        “Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD—he is God! The LORD—he is God!”>>

        So spare me this nonsense about God not stepping up to be tested or providing evidence for doubters. In your story book, he does it all the time, but that’s *conveniently* unavailable evidence and completely useless to us now.

        NJ: “since we are, at least effectively being Biblical here,…”>>

        The word “biblical” isn’t capitalized. Not unless you are reading fundie literature, which of course is what you feed on. You’re rather new at this aren’t you?

        NJ: “I believe that Satan exists…”>>

        I haven’t the slightest interest in what you believe, but rather what you can show. And apparently, that ain’t much. Typical.

        D.
        —————
        “The Sin of Silence
        There is a sin among a large segment of the Christian clergy that I find despicable. It is the sin of omission, the sin of silence. It is the sin of promoting falsehoods in order to hold your job. It is the sin of not sharing with a congregation what you know to be true about the bible and Christianity.

        Those graduating in religious studies from every major university in America, as well as every major theological seminary that is independent of Christian financial pressure, know certain facts to be true. They know that:

        1. The entire bible is saturated with common mythological themes, from the creation and flood myth to virgin birth and resurrected hero mythology.

        2. The stories of the patriarchs in the Old Testament are known as ‘temple legends’ to enhance the history of the Hebrew people and are mostly fictional.

        3. The gospels were not written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.

        4. The ‘Christ’ myths and formulas are direct copies of Zoroastrian myths adopted by the Jesus sect.

        5. These facts, with others, have been known for years, and taught by internationally respected scholars from major universities world wide.

        Religiously educated clergy, through the sin of omission and silence, continue to promote superstition.”

        –William Edelen. An active ordained Presbyterian and Congregational minister for 30 years. Adjunct professor of Religious Studies and Anthropology, University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington
        http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article723.html

  14. NJK Project says:

    Answer for Phil Ferguson’s December 15, 2012 at 7:37 PM response

    “Nope that’s all it got….”
    To me its is clear that… that’s all you’ve got!!

    “If you would have read my comments above you would see that I can never read a 50 page wall of crap – sorry.”
    Oh so that’s what you really meant…well why couldn’t you just say so?? So you’re that type who get all flustered up with the peripherals vs. the substantive, well as many others could similarly tell you, my blog post, as it deliberately is, was meant to sift the superficial likes of you out….(ala. e.g., Isa 6:8-13|Matt 13:10-17)

    • NJK Project says:

      Answer for Phil Ferguson’s December 15, 2012 at 7:37 PM response cont’d

      But, the bible says you must always be ready…. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” – 1 peter 3:15
      So… if you are not ready…. you aren’t much of a christian.

      Quoting the ‘fabricated/fictitious Bible’ now that it seems convenient… how typical…
      (a) An overall Christian understanding is never dependent on solely one Scripture. There is a pointed time and place for everything. (Cf. Luke 22:35-378) And here is something you’ll probably not understand: it is God’s Spirit which injunctively determines what “times” are in effect.

      (b) Knowing, like I said, the other work I have to do, and all that is actually involved in providing the proper/full answer… I will indeed apply whatever is necessary and that, pertinently enough, however and whenever. If you really want to know those (full and proper) answers, especially since you’ve indicated that mere assertions won’t convince you, then you can do the required (reading and/or listening/viewing) work to obtain them. Whether you do so or not is beyond my concern.

      “Answering you all is definitely not my priority.”
      “Check mate”… really… It actually can be that simplistic for you???? For myself, I know that proper exegesis is always applicable. Try reading the Gospels and see the model of e.g., Jesus Himself, -whenever the “time/circumstance” demanded it… In fact as God Himself does, He’ll answer you whenever and however He thinks it is justified. Thus far your attitude has certainly not warranted any greater “care” or concern from me than the bare minimum, if even that. It is comical how you skeptic think God/Christians “owe” you something.

      “Yeah….I’m sure they are “

      So am I…

      “…but no one can read that.”

      -Again you speak for ‘everyone’.. How exactly/again??? In regards to believing in the some or all parts of the Bible or even the God of the Bible, agnostics/atheists like yourselves are not even in the Global majority as over 3.7 billion people confess to having that belief and most of the remaining 3.3 billion who don’t (and yet who mostly believe in a god), actually have never been given a chance to even be able to believe in it if the so desired. So just by those numbers you may understand why my own priority is not for agnostics and especially atheists or anti-theists.

      Plus, you came here….

      Yeah…with knowing trepidation to address a single factual issue and certainly not, as you all fancifully and self-importantly clearly need to believe to discuss my blog posts. Just can’t begin to win against this infantile moronic mindset: ‘a “troll” when you don’t’ and ‘“mean”/“unchristian” when you won’t’. If you couldn’t click a link and read text on a page, then you would begin to have a point. Otherwise it is all just mere offended pride talking.

      So…. put up or admit defeat. Hurry, up! I’m running out of popcorn.

      I have already long told you what to do/where to go….to get the answers that is “of course”. Heed or forebear…. Not my problem…. In fact, allegorically speaking, “of course”: ‘you can keep stuffing yourself with popcorn’ for all I actually care….

  15. Jim n says:

    Wow, still at it. Yeah, not a troll. Just crazy. Somehow he found his way here. He must be so sad and lonely; duty bound to speak until finally everyone quits. Not because he’s right but because he argues so damned poorly he has to just get more and more vituperatively verbose till everyone shuts up.

    So, if the bible speaks for itself, why do you keep defending it, reinterpreting it, or directing to other interpretations? You say the bible is inerrant and then you waste thousands of words interpreting it, trying to convince highly educated and informed people that your interpretation is the most valid.

    Sadly, you interject constant insults, which is neither kind nor Christian and by this provoking you get reactions to justify your initial insults.

    How must it feel to live in a world where few understand the bible as well as you. How ever can billions reach salvation when it requires your support. If the bible made any sense at all it could stand on its own. Supposedly, it doesn’t need your help.

    Rather you must be angry that even religious types don’t get it. You are more pure and perfect than anyone because you get it and the fools don’t. You rejected your own religious groups because they don’t get it like you do.

    Why don’t you join a new and different bible study group where you can argue to your heart’s content with people who already believe the fundamentals of the bible? Are you not able to have friends? Have you pissed them off so bad you have to isolate yourself in intellectual masturbation? Wouldn’t it be more useful to groom new religious soldiers that already believe some of it?

    What kind of sadist enjoys beating up others? I’m sure when you get to your heaven no one else will be there but you because you’re the only one that gets it. Lonely fool.

  16. Jim n says:

    No, it’s just sad. Sad that every discussion you have degenerates to anger and insults. It would be great to learn something new from you as it is from any person but you don’t allow for it. There is no dialog, no discussion, no exchange–just blind and angry assertions, mostly personal. You are responsible for how you present yourself.

    You intend to generate anger, first with threats of libel, then constant assertions of stupidity. You have no empathy, no compassion. Sociopathic, paranoid schizophrenic, devoid of feelings, of the ability to empathize. Please seek help. After you do please return as you are smart and could have something interesting to say but for now you bury it in your dispassionate, irrational hate and fear.

  1. There are no trackbacks for this post yet.