# Tomndebb is one weaselly mother fucker… **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 12, 2007, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569 "2007-03-12T06:48:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/541 "2007-03-15T22:18:02Z")
I suppose that’s preferable over “Welded Ass Grommet,” but perhaps that’s a tad too confessional. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/542 "2007-03-16T04:44:37Z")
**Meatros** comes back and everything gets immediately better! Psssst! did you bring pie? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/543 "2007-03-16T08:20:15Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] No, he is right, by being a ‘jerk’, BC indirectly brought a poster out of retirement to refute him. That is $14.95 paid to the SDMB due to BC. Give him credit where credit is due. Jim [/QUOTE] Well, it’s a bit like saying Hitler is to be thanked for making _The Diary of Anne Frank_ such a cracking good read. (There! I’ve Godwinned the thread - can we all go home now?) ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/544 "2007-03-16T11:44:06Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] **Meatros** comes back and everything gets immediately better! Psssst! did you bring pie? [/QUOTE] Turtle pie, as a matter of fact…Mmmm…Chocolate and Caramel… ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/545 "2007-03-16T12:32:10Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Well, it’s a bit like saying Hitler is to be thanked for making _The Diary of Anne Frank_ such a cracking good read. (There! I’ve Godwinned the thread - can we all go home now?) [/QUOTE] ::Golf Clap:: Well Done Sirrah. Best stretch to achieve a Godwinization of a thread I have ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/546 "2007-03-16T12:32:52Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Damn good to see you again. Whatever change has taken place in your worldview, the honesty and integrity have remained the same. [/QUOTE] Thanks and it’s nice to see you again as well. As much as I’d like to think that the whole theism/atheism thing was simply an open and shut case, I realize it isn’t. I also agree with what Michael Martin wrote a while back. He said something to the effect of that the philosophers who study this sort of thing don’t simply change their opinions with every new argument that comes in that they don’t have an answer for. If a new argument comes in and they can’t rebut it, they don’t simply renounce their position. Instead they do research and give the matter quite a bit of thought. Then if they can’t get around the argument they will (well, most will) renounce their position. I think that if this were an easy philosophical question it wouldn’t have lasted this long. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2007, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/547 "2007-03-18T23:56:51Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] Takes one to know one. You can only make your point by: 1. Noting that “rhaka” and “moros” are two different words in Greek that are _not_ synonymous, having two different definitions; 2. Translating them into English; 3. Deciding that translated into English they _may_ be synonymous; and therefore 4. Concluding that when translated back into Greek they must be synonymous. . . . . Even though you yourself admit that in Greek they _aren’t_ synonymous. [/QUOTE] Well, as I cited “rhaka” means senseless, and “moros” means foolish, as per the website **DtC** told me about. To me, “senseless” and “foolish” mean pretty much the same thing, as does “stupid.” Whether they meant something different 2000 years ago, I can’t say, but it seems Jesus not at all encouraging of calling people either. [QUOTE=tomndebb] No. I am pointing out that talking about someone’s stupidity is not the same thing as calling them “Fool.” Even saying that someone is a fool is different than calling them “Fool.” (And even that allows for interpretation, which I am not sure should be permitted based on your previous exercises of demanding literal readings.) Specifically, the statement that Jesus made was that one would be in trouble for calling another person _Rhaka_, and the author of Matthew’s gospel did not even translate it out of the Aramaic, meaning–following your insistence on the literal acceptance of scripture–that the bad things come into play if one _names_ his brother “Fool” (not **a** fool), or, more probably, based on your way of reading scripture, only if one names one’s brother _Rhaka_. Given that Monty has not ever named you _Rhaka_, you lie when you claim that he has disobeyed Jesus. [/QUOTE] Please, **tom** would you listen to yourself? Do you think Jesus would be persuaded by your semantics games? Calling someone “fool” vs. “a fool.” That’s hilarious. [QUOTE=Charlie Tan] I’ve been trying to stay away, mostly becuae there are now three threads in the pit directly on indirectly relating to **badchad** , and I don’t know if the hamsters can take much more. I have a question to **badchad** , though: Why are you here? Why do you pay to post at the SDMB? [/QUOTE] Fate. [QUOTE=Meatros] To put it simply, the _Christian_ you targeted in our discussion simply wasn’t the Christian I was and further, you didn’t seem to want to engage the Christian I, in fact, was, so I pretty much shrugged a lot of what you had to say off. [/quote] No I just looked at our debate. You were one of the very first people I ever responded to here, perhaps that is why I remember it, and I most certainly engaged the kind of Christian you were. At the time you were a liberal Christian, who argued against Creationists, still believed in the divinity of Christ, and were quite impressed with the writings of **Polycarp** There are two threads I am thinking of, I can cite them if you wish. > [@Meatros](#): > > As for anyone else putting the screws to my faith - people putting screws to my faith only reinforced it (that sounds odd, but what I mean is that they made me defensive, but not _critical_) and as a matter of fact, quite a lot of people were grilling me about my faith at the time. For instance, I would consider the people at the baptist board as being prime grillers. I went back and forth with them for months and believe it or not, but even though they were stark fundies I could relate with them better (and therefore I was more receptive to them). Well, I can’t say about what went on at other boards, but as for here, I was almost a one man show in my debates against your type Christianity, (that being liberal or nominal Christianity) at the time. BTW, how do you like my new sig line? > [@Meatros](#): > > I certainly didn’t plagarize from you if that’s what you are implying and I don’t recall discussions of that sort with you. I’m not even saying you plagiarized them, but rather perhaps internalized them. I can’t say that you got those reasons from me, but they are pretty much what I was arguing at the time, and as I noted, the timing was coincidental at the least. [QUOTE=Meatros] Eh, they’re decent reasons, but I certainly don’t find them hugely compelling anymore and I wouldn’t expect anyone to find them convincing. I’ve actually read a lot more philosophy since then and I think there are better developed reasons/argumentation. [/quote] Having read though the second link that you posted, I thought your reasons were hugely compelling, enough so that **Jodi** , or anyone else, would be powerless to argue against them. What are the better reasons you can think of? > [@](#): > > In fact, I think there is a certain reasonableness to both sides of the theological debate - a concession I’m not sure BC would share with me. Theists can be reasonable and they can come up with some good argumentation. I still do disagree with them, ultimately, on those reasons. In your opinion, what are the reasonable arguments for the divinity of Christ? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/548 "2007-03-19T00:27:27Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] In your opinion, what are the reasonable arguments for the divinity of Christ? [/QUOTE] Amazing. It’s like he doesn’t even see what the thread’s about. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/549 "2007-03-19T00:37:19Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] Amazing. It’s like he doesn’t even see what the thread’s about. [/QUOTE] Nobody, has talked about the thread title for some time. Least of all you. As for what it becomes, that’s as much up to me as anyone. Heck, it’s my thread anyway. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/550 "2007-03-19T01:00:05Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] Please, tom would you listen to yourself? Do you think Jesus would be persuaded by your semantics games? Calling someone “fool” vs. “a fool.” That’s hilarious. [/QUOTE] I don’t care one way or another. You had been harping at Monty over multiple posts and when he posted his rather cryptic reply, I posted simply to give you enough inmformation to figure out his point. You, of course, danced around with a bunch of definitions irrelevant to his specific point, so I pointed out the explicit issue. I am glad to see, however, that you have demonstrated that you are willing to shuck and jive and dance away from a literal interpretation of scripture when it suits your particular needs. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/551 "2007-03-19T01:06:19Z")
> [@Charlie Tan](#): > > I’ve been trying to stay away, mostly becuae there are now three threads in the pit directly on indirectly relating to badchad, and I don’t know if the hamsters can take much more. I have a question to badchad, though: > > Why are you here? Why do you pay to post at the SDMB? > [@badchad](#): > > Fate. Is that _your_ fate or _ours_ :eek: ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/552 "2007-03-19T01:27:29Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I am glad to see, however, that you have demonstrated that you are willing to shuck and jive and dance away from a literal interpretation of scripture when it suits your particular needs. [/QUOTE] I would like to see an example of where I have espoused such an extreme form of literal interpretation. And anyway, as for you and **Monty** your behavior shouldn’t be guided so much by what I think, but rather what you think Jesus does. Do you really think that Jesus would approve of your semantical games? Again, do you think that when the bible says “though shalt not steal” that your excuse that you extorted or embezzled but never “stole” would be acceptable to your concept of god? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/553 "2007-03-19T02:38:58Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] I would like to see an example of where I have espoused such an extreme form of literal interpretation. And anyway, as for you and **Monty** your behavior shouldn’t be guided so much by what I think, but rather what you think Jesus does. Do you really think that Jesus would approve of your semantical games? Again, do you think that when the bible says “though shalt not steal” that your excuse that you extorted or embezzled but never “stole” would be acceptable to your concept of god? [/QUOTE] You are the one playing games, here. (And I was not part of your discussion with **Monty** except to point out the meaning of his statement, although I then noted your lack of consistency in your arguments.) The verse is explicit–to the point that the author of Matthew does not even translate the word in question out of Aramaic. It is clearly an admonition to not name a person in a particular way and you have simply used a less literal interpretation to harrass **Monty**. As I said, it is good to see that you are willing to use less literal interpretations–at least on those occasions when it suits you to ignore the clear meaning of a verse. ---
**Author:** ![Dante](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dante/32/9673_2.png) [@Dante](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/554 "2007-03-19T03:42:08Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] Amazing. It’s like he doesn’t even see what the thread’s about. [/QUOTE] It’s the megalomania, I tells ya! Actually, if it wasn’t so ironic, I’d say he had some sort of messiah complex. Only he knows the Truth, and lo he must bring it unto the masses, just like he hath done for **Meatros** , whose take on his own conversion is not required right now, thank you very much. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/555 "2007-03-19T11:17:57Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] BTW, how do you like my new sig line? [/QUOTE] Here’s a better quote from **meatros** for your sig. [QUOTE=meatros] …but I certainly can’t be used as an example of a ‘win’ for **Badchad** , since his over all style ultimately made me blind to his criticisms. I remember ignoring them and glancing over them and thinking, ‘he just doesn’t get it’. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/556 "2007-03-19T12:17:29Z")
[QUOTE=Harborwolf] Here’s a better quote from **meatros** for your sig. [/QUOTE] Good call. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/557 "2007-03-19T14:10:14Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] No I just looked at our debate. You were one of the very first people I ever responded to here, perhaps that is why I remember it, and I most certainly engaged the kind of Christian you were. At the time you were a liberal Christian, who argued against Creationists, still believed in the divinity of Christ, and were quite impressed with the writings of Polycarp There are two threads I am thinking of, I can cite them if you wish. [/QUOTE] I was a liberal Christian, yes - that’s not exactly what I’m referring to when I say the type of Christian I was though. You targeted liberal Christians in general - which is ineffective since liberal Christians do not have a monolithic faith (that sounds kind of weird, but I can elaborate if necessary). In other words, what you targeted wasn’t necessarily a representation of all liberal Christians. Granted, some of the issues were important to the majority of liberal Christians, my point is that your tactic was basically to bait them by being very inflammatory and the like. That tactic shuts people out from what you have to say - regardless of how well reasoned it is. You can even see that’s implied in the quote you’ve selected for your signature. Baiting me the way I recall you used to was simply not going to be effective against the type of Christian I was. I remember you talking about Old Testament verses primarily and some New Testament verses. Since I recognized that I was fallible, pointing out verses that contradict each other or what I believed was going to be negligable at that time. I’d simply shrug my shoulders and assume that god would clear up the issue somehow. My point here is that your line of argument wasn’t aimed at understanding who I was or where my beliefs were and the type of Christian I was. I realize you were targeting very broadly, Liberal Christians, which I would fall under, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. At least that’s my recollection of our exchanges as I said. Keep in mind that I’m not saying that you never had any good arguments BC or that we didn’t have any worthwhile exchanges because we did. [QUOTE=badchad] Well, I can’t say about what went on at other boards, but as for here, I was almost a one man show in my debates against your type Christianity, (that being liberal or nominal Christianity) at the time. BTW, how do you like my new sig line? [/QUOTE] Fair enough - I’m not arguing with you being a one man show here. I’m arguing about your influence over me - which as I pointed out wasn’t all that substantial for a number of reasons, one being that this was only one of the boards that I engaged in. For another, and more importantly, as I’ve repeatedly said, the primary influence was that website and the idea of a Christianity that didn’t match any that I _knew_. You seem to be ignoring this, or sloughing it off. Did we have any extended discussions during those weeks between the links I posted? Did we have any discussions over the historical basis for Christianity and astrology? As for your sig line, I see it as an attempt at being inflammatory. From that I get the sense that you are upset with my lack of crediting you with what you feel is due. I would also take it to mean that you feel slighted by what I’ve said, somehow feeling as though I’m _against_ you. So in that sense, I’m disappointed. I’m not horribly distraught by it though, after all I could be wrong about your intentions and I’m certainly not ‘against you’. [QUOTE=badchad] I’m not even saying you plagiarized them, but rather perhaps internalized them. [/QUOTE] That was the implication BC. Further, I’ve explained where the ideas came from and short of actually citing the specific books - which I could still do - I think you are attempting to take credit for something that you shouldn’t be taking credit for. [QUOTE=badchad] I can’t say that you got those reasons from me, but they are pretty much what I was arguing at the time, and as I noted, the timing was coincidental at the least. [/QUOTE] No, you can’t say that I got those reasons from you, because I didn’t. As for coincidental, I can’t help the way you feel BC, most of the reasons I give in that post are philosophical, not specifically biblically related. Perhaps I’m wrong here, but all I remember about you is you attempting to go after interpretations and biblical issues. [QUOTE=badchad] Having read though the second link that you posted, I thought your reasons were hugely compelling, enough so that Jodi, or anyone else, would be powerless to argue against them. What are the better reasons you can think of? [/QUOTE] The non-cog argument still seems pretty strong to me, especially in conjunction with the divine attributes argument (Michael Martin presents them very effectively in his philosophical atheism book). Have you heard Jeffery Lowder’s (sp?) debate versus Philip Hernandez (I think that’s the second guy)? I think that Lowder presented some very powerful arguments in that ‘naturalism’ debate. The reasons I give in the second link are still valid reasons - but they aren’t very thorough and can be tightened up considerably. They appear sloppy to me now and could do with considerable reformulating. [QUOTE=badchad] In your opinion, what are the reasonable arguments for the divinity of Christ? [/QUOTE] I sense that you are attempting to attack a red herring, BC. My point is not that the arguments for X religion are the **most** reasonable arguments. My point is that they aren’t devoid of reason and some of them are compelling - yet, ultimately fail to convince me. For example, Alvin Plantinga’s modal arguments are compelling and well reasoned, yet ultimately fail - IMO. I also think that foundationalistic arguments for Christianity are compelling and well reasoned, yet ultimately fail. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/558 "2007-03-19T14:24:50Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] “I did want to applaud everyone in this debate, badchad (whom I think has backed off of the inflammatory button pushing aggressiveness) included. I’m learning a lot by reading the exchanges.” Meatros [/QUOTE] BTW - I take it by the amount of pit-threads (including this one) that you reverted back to your inflammatory button pushing ways - correct? Why did you regress to such behavior, since you were clearly capable of better? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/559 "2007-03-19T14:45:35Z")
[QUOTE=Meatros] BTW - I take it by the amount of pit-threads (including this one) that you reverted back to your inflammatory button pushing ways - correct? Why did you regress to such behavior, since you were clearly capable of better? [/QUOTE] **badchad** will probably answer this, but I doubt that he will be as truthful as he was in this post from July 2006, days after his reappearance: [QUOTE=badchad] To those who just want to throw stones: Do as you will, I like the attention. [/QUOTE] [Link.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7604098&postcount=15) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569/560 "2007-03-19T18:15:26Z")
[QUOTE=Crotalus] **badchad** will probably answer this… [/QUOTE] [Probably not.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=413034) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-is-one-weaselly-mother-fucker/395569.md?page=29)