Here we go again. Catch all the rest of the action that didn't merit Gold here.

From the Mailbag

Not much in the mailbox this round. This one came from the Laxative League:

You guys have proven to me that faith is truly dangerous! Thank you! You are a delicious buffet of christian one-track-thought propaganda! What a breath of fresh air it was when I Left Behind all of that separatist religious non-sense. Now, when I meet people, they are just...people. Without any preconceived notions about the salvation or damnation of their soul. Seems that faith is only good for dividing people into camps to wait for a glorious end of the world. It's really sad that so many buy into it.

Yours in Mythological Christ,

Thinking for Myself Now

And here's another doofy one from People Too PC to Know Better:

I was quite surprised at your attitude towards those who don't share your approach to the Bible. While there are a lot of very ignorant people everywhere, I thought that the whole point of the Bible was to teach humans how to achieve union with God. While there are a lot of people who go off on crazy, uneducated interpretations of the Bible, both those who use it to promote bizarre doctrines and those who completely reject the validity of the Bible and of all religion, I can't understand why you are so rude to these people. They're often very rude themselves-I get tired of atheists treating believers as brainwashed, irrational idiots. However, if a person accepts the overall message of the Bible, which I do, then that person would want others to benefit from that message, especially those people who are so uneducated, misguided, and angry.

I also thought that Biblical Nonsense by Jason Long was pretty ridiculous, but simply calling him an ignorant yahoo is not going to make him or anyone like him see your point. I don't see how you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your arrogance and pride in your own superiority. Moreover, your attitude is quite ineffective in getting out the Christian message since you damage your credibility by your unchristian attitude.

I'm not trying to attack you personally. I'm simply asking whether you care whether your very good points about the Bible are accepted by those who need them most?

Here's one from the Pedantic Jackass Department:

You said:

"The modern defender of the "Jesus-myth" fares no better. G. A. Wells has also picked up on the "Trypho error" in his latest work. In another place, attempting to explain why Pilate was chosen as the person who authorized the death of his fictional Jesus, Wells says that he was selected because he was "particularly detested by the Jews, and is indeed the only one of the prefects who governed Judea between AD 6 and 41 who attracted sufficient attention to be discussed by the two principal Jewish writers of the first century," Philo and Josephus. [Hoff.JesH, 39-40] In other words, Pilate was chosen because he seemed like he would do something like the Gospels describe! If anything, this is better evidence, rather, that the Gospel writers knew what they were talking about, because they knew the history...."

You may have meant to say, "In other words, one of the reasons Pilate was chosen…" etc. But you may have merely meant that this was the sole reason for why Pilate was chosen as the prefect in the gospels.

According to Wells there were several factors for why Pilate was chosen as the prefect in the gospel stories. One of the most significant that I can remember without having his work in front of me is that Pilate corresponds with the apostles of the 1st century, the very same apostles who reported witnessing the risen Christ.

I can't do Wells' work justice in this sparse e-mail but I wanted to at least point out that there's more to the Jesus Myth than what you represent at your website.

The International House of Pretense sent this message:

I have been studying the similarities between Christianity and Egyptian Teachings and i myself are starting to find a lot in common.

Not the typical ones that you see in those stupid conspiracy videos. Much different ones, where the passages in the Bible and Egyptian Book Of The Dead are incredibly alike.

I wouldn't myself say after during the current study that Horus was like Jesus, but the legend of Osiris is a lot like the legend of Jesus.

I say legend as i am intelligent enough to know they are both fictional stories, which reflect each other greatly.

I am in the process of drawing up reference based similarities instead of just making things up which others seem to be doing.

Once this is completed i will provide you with this information.

A reader received this in response to using Tekton as a source:


Finally, this from People With No Point:

You have got to be kidding me? For some reason, the church always finds a way to keep asking for money. You keep asking skeptics to give you original citations that prove the similarities between christianity and the egyptian belief system when missionaries would go to "god-less" countries and destroy their structures, documents, and any evidence that represented their current belief systems. I found that in my World History book from high school but it is downplayed as if it wasn't as significant as recent major events.

The April 2009 John Loftus Collection

John has pulled in his horns a bit since the April Fool's Humiliation. It was especially funny that his 4/1 post was titled, "Don't Be Fooled on April Fool's Day: Take the Outsider Test for Faith." He also wins for this post:

While briefly watching Episode 9 of The Amazing Race on CBS tonight, I wondered to myself if I should bother any more with debunking Christianity. It's already debunked. The final nail is in the coffin. The nail is our contact with a global world. We're now in a global society. The contestants are in China. Watch the video and tell me that the Chinese are not reasonable people with morals and concerns that all humans share. That's a country that knows little or nothing about Christianity. A country that has had little or no contact with Christianity. Go live in China. Become an anthropologist and study their culture for a couple of years. Then come back and tell me that only Christianity can provide an objective basis for morals. Then tell me God was smart when he sent his so-called Son in the Middle Eastern ancient world. Then tell me no one will be saved except through Jesus, or that the Chinese people who don't believe will go to hell. Do it with a straight face, an honest face. All of the apologist's arguments to explain away religious diversity will fall on deaf ears.

On his crew, Ed "I'm Talking and I Can't Shut Up" Babinski wins for this:

Hey J.P. if you've gotten this far, please tell me how all the N.T. documents could have been composed prior to 70 A.D. and not leave a gap of some quite noticable sort in early church history between those documents and later church letters and documents? After all those N.T. documents were crammed into pre-70 A.D. you have a bit of a gap before the other documents started appearing. The move you move forward, then you just move around the gap..

And of course, Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall is vying for a second Platinum in a row:

And your lame claim of "patronage", how many bonds and stocks did Jesus sell as your dumb-*ss broker label? Talk about a business dictionary, "Jesus as broker"! I'm sure Wall Street is in the Bible too, or at least in your Businessman's Study Bible edition.
The Random Atheist Collection

Plenty of fodder here. Dumplin' Dumbash of Evangelical Realism wins for a rather retarded commentary on the Trinity. Richard Carrier wins for debating William Lane Craig, and for this, as described by Craig:

His main point was that the Gospels are myths, not history. I responded to this by explaining that the genre of the Gospels is not mythology but ancient biography, and therefore they have a historical intent, an intent which is fulfilled with respect to the four facts I was defending. My impression was that the more Carrier explained his view the more implausible it appeared. When a questioner pointed out that Carrier's theory would require that the Evangelists be literary geniuses, Carrier agreed, claiming that the simple style of the Gospels was deliberately affected by these writers to conceal their genius!

Celtic_Fire_666 wins for this:

Technically god raped the virgin Mary, so if you are Christian, and you are against rape, you are a hypocrite.

Steven Carr is still winning in his old age for comments like these:

Once again the Good Shepherd makes no attempt to stop one of his sheep leaving his fold.

I'm sure that if somebody has a personal relationship with say, his wife, and announced he was leaving his wife, then his wife would at least *say* something.

But people can leave an alleged god who allegedly loves them, and this god will be as silent as the grave.

These invisible friends vanish when you stop believing in them, don't they?

Stevie Weevie also gets a Dunning Ribbon for writing on his blog that he could defeat N.T. Wright (or any Pauline scholar) on the physical resurrection body.

Moose0866 earns Gold for this rant:

When you speak of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, do you actually believe that the gospels, as labeled, were written by Jesus' actual disciples who witnessed Jesus after the crucifixion? These were written decades later, by people likely not even born when Jesus died.

How can you even begin to argue your point when the bible is so clearly flawed? Your analysis makes absolutely no sense. For example, "Luke is believed to have been a doctor and would have been familiar with reading and writing. As for fishermen, John's family owned a fishing business and as a result, he would have been trained in reading and writing as well."

This comment is laughable; you really think that these people wrote the gospels? Your ignorance is mind boggling.

An atheists on the Confident Christianity board wins for many comments, but mainly for this:

My observation is this. It seems to me that no one has ever been convinced that the gods exist by argument or logic.
The classical arguments for the existence of the gods (teleological, ontological, moral, etc) are not convincing. They have been shown to be lacking from Celsus to Hume to Dawkins, et al.
People accept their gods based on their upbringing. Geography seems to have more influence on what gods are believed in than argument.
The gods seems to require faith. The substance of things NOT seen. Logic and argument are irrelevant.
Faith is contrary to logic. Hence my view that apologetics is a waste of time and perhaps blasphemous. If the gods require faith alone, then any attempt to "prove" the gods is contrary to Their Will.

RainyMonday wins for this scholarly review of Darwin's Black Box:

Meaningless slander towards Darwin. The book is poorly written, and not scientific in any way. It absolutely refuses to look at the whole picture that the scientific research shows (which is a shame because there is some really interesting information in it). It just will not look at what Darwin said. Irreducible complexity is an absoulte abomination of a theory.

Tassman takes Gold for the following post:

See Wikipedia article.

See Wikipedia article.

Wikepedia above.

Explain how three persons in one god is not contradictory. And don't come back with the "3 aspects of the one god", because that is heresy. The official definition of the Trinity in the Athanatian Creed explicitly states that there are 3 PERSONS in one god, but not 3 gods...i.e. 'persons', NOT aspects. The same applies to the Hypostatic Union...Jesus is supposedly FULLY god and FULLY man...simultaneously. OK!!!! There is NO way around it, the fundamental dogma of Christianity is based on contradictions...or 'mysteries' as the Church likes to call them. One can understand why.

Seasanctuary is still running:

MetalMark:One problem with the hallucination theory is that they are personal, and last for a few minutes usually, sometimes for a few hours. This is entirely different, Jesus was hanging around for 40 days and appearing to different people in different places.

Seasanctuary: 'Appearing' being the key word. Not simply alive and being around.

Hooks is in the running for Platinum n00b, but has already won an Insensitive Jerk Award for his crude comments on people with autism:

I am one of those very simple people (I doubt I will have many people here cry foul with this claim), so here is how I look at this. If I am referring to how trees grow, for instance, I can take you to a tree (or many trees) and we can observe how it grows. In this sense, we probably would agree, without saying as much, that the tree(s) are real. And sure, we could get into the whole philosophical "how do you know it is really there" stuff, but by and large this is non-controversial. Then suppose someone comes along and says there is this stuff called "design" and let me show it to you. Well "design" is not the same kind of real as the tree. It is a characteristic of the tree perhaps, but not a separate or component part of the "stuff" that makes up a tree. Perhaps, I should include "design" as part of the stuff that makes up the tree, and perhaps could be persuaded that "design" has the same kind of ontological existence as the tree. I have not been convinced, and can produce far more questions, which have remained unanswered, so I continue to regard "design" as not a thing. People could try to bring more reasons to me to get me to change my mind, but at some point it is a waste of time to keep looking at reasons that are not compelling, and it is time to stop wasting time reviewing these claims and move on.

You and I could then stick to the tree, or other things we agree are real, and build from there.

Perhaps that is why I have no idea what ECREE is. But, regardless, as a general style rule in our culture, when we use an an acronym for the first time in a document, it is supposed to be spelled out. Thus, if I don't know what it is, you should not feel entitled to say I am ill informed (right ApologiaPhoenix?), as it is you who is breaking with the standard conventions.

It is hard to have a cogent worldview with too many nonexistent things that we give ontological properties to. Here is some that many Christians (and others) that mistakenly attribute ontological properties to: consciousness, truth, sin, faith, joy, salvation. (

Simply put, MM, my conclusions are reasonable if for no other reason than I have them.

And the funniest is this response when William Lane Craig was mentioned:

He can email me if he wishes. You are presumptuous to think he can hang with me on an intellectual level. He is not superior to me, and based on his childish arguments that he has the gall to label "scholarly," ithe opposite seem quite likely.

Yo lunch , though, is still giving a run for that n00b award:

Fact is, the Bible is not the product of ANY god! Men wrote it , my dear Christian, men! David Copperfield can produce all of those so-called miracles , including the resurrection,done in the NT and nearly all of those in the OT. He would be a Christ himself back then! In fact, he would make Jesus look like an amateur charlatan!

You don't get it either, do you? You are making MY POINT! If there were only TWO Apostles named James and they both were not the brother of Jesus, THEN THE STATEMENT THAT HE SAW JAMES who was an Apostle and the brother of jesus IS A LIE! Get it now? They can't BOTH BE TRUE! Why? Because THAT JAMES WAS AN APOSTLE! Duh!? The Josephus stuff was just thrown in as an extra irritant. It does not negate my present argument!

jamestangent69 gets one:

atheism is none of those, atheism is something you can repeat, test and observe.

lueeyez357 doesn't quite get history yet:

Have you ever met any eyewitnesses? Do you not realize that the bible that we read today was "produced" by a number of people years after the supposed "events" took place. The bible that we read today is nothing like the dead sea scrolls which they reference. It was produced by mankind to be a society controlling device.

When asked to prove their claims, blueeyes357 said:

Ah now we start with the proving game. Prove that I'm wrong, you can't.

JimL takes Gold for this commentary:

The whole resurrection story was just paganism, if you mean by paganism( myth ). The crucifixion itself probably happened, but the resurrection, which of course was witnessed only by those few who had a stake in its being authentic, is a fallacy in my opinion. Jesus preached that he was the son of God, at least according to the Gospel writers, and at the very moment when he could have shown everyone this glorious truth he conceals it between himself and, as I said a few apostles who had a stake in the deal.

I know that christians will answer this with something like: Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe, which of course was also written by those that had a stake in it, but why? Why would Jesus go thru all the trouble, all the suffering, producing all the miracle healings, in order to prove himself the Messiah, and then at the culminating point he decides he only wants a few loyal followers to actually witness his bodily ascension into the clouds. Makes no sense. But at the same time, the typology of the resurrection scene portrays a mythological allegory. It speaks of the psychological conflict between the individual and the world, as well as pointing to the resolution of that conflict in man.

Add Homonym is still missing the point:

Both the Sermon on the Mount, and Paul state that the best way to defeat an enemy is to aid them. They state it a little differently. Paul says that helping them will irritate them, as if it's a strategy for winning. This idea has been picked up by hippies and leftists, who are generally decried as cowards by the god-fearing militaristic Christians.

Apparent paradox: The most Christian nation on earth, is the most litigous militaristic gun-obsessed nation, on a quest to root out the evil of Islam and Communism, using bunker busters, torture and napalm. They do this, being top-down Christians, and largely without grass roots Christian objection (true or false?).

The militaristic Christian can rightfully argue that they are being brave and possibly laying down their life for others, as Christ did. Can't argue with that, but are they really doing it for God?

It would appear logical to me that if Christians were meek, the religion would have disappeared. The way for any religion to be successful is to exterminate the rest, using blankets full of smallpox, slavery, nukes, divine right and unfair trading rules. These are the true methods for a God to win the war against his enemies.

Once you have conquered your enemies with nukes, you can then bring the gospel to them. It's so clear. Jesus had things very wrong. The sermon on the mount is just dribble to be ignored, until the bunker busters have done their job.

I have to ask, why do Christians follow a man who was obviously wrong about everything?

And finally, a Platinum nom for Ken Humphreys of, whom I debated on radio, and who brought up the canard that the Tacitus Annals 15.44 passage on Jesus must be a forgery because it is not paralleled in Tacitus' Histories. As a reader observed:

Obviously Hump is too dimwitted to realise that the Annals covers the period AD 14-68 and the Histories, though written earlier, covers AD 69-96, though the AD 70-96 material Tacitus wrote is now lost. There are a few years missing from the Annals as well, such as AD 33, and most of all, part of 66 to 68. Caligula's reign as Emperor is missing as well. But we wouldn't expect someone like him to understand that. He'd expect an incident in Hitler's life to appear in a history of the Cold War, and complain that nothing was said about Hitler in the Cuban Missile Crisis! (Maybe Krushchev was fiddling with the top of Hitler's skull while on the phone to President Kenned
The Confused Christian Collection

Obsidian goes for Gold:

In my opinion, Arianism isn't that bad of a heresy anyway. Many Christians today have a rather weak understanding of the Trinity, and they don't seem too much the worse for it. I think the early church was a little too obsessed about christology, to the point that they seriously neglected more important matters. They fiercely condemned various distortions of trinitarian theology, but they allowed legalism, asceticism, and works-based salvation to spring forth. And they also seriously failed to educate and train the laity.

Ty Rockwell also adds to his award collection, as he responds to an explanation of modalism as heresy:

Again, you can't call a heresy the articulations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They exist, he didn't say they didn't.

You are nit-picking over terminology. Tell us, do you think The Angel of the Lord is an angel, or an appearance of the Lord at a time other than that of his incarnation? Whichever you say, it is an opinion, not a heresy. Get off of your high-minded, ranting foolishness. You are not better than Christians who have those experiences of God

Maudman wins for this bit of "support" for why the Roman Catholic church is the only correct church:

... Rome was in Scripture exalted much Higher by Christ and the Apostles, and Christ never spoke ill of Rome… The greatest Faith found in a man in the scripture was a Man of Roman military status… As Christ state; No greater faith was found in all Israel… And he wasn't Jewish… And as Paul states, Rome was a faith that went throughout the world… And he wasn't talking about Roman Christians either… Rather Rome by nature had many positive qualities and its faith was a gift from God…

Thing is, he means here pagan Rome.

redsky does his duty for ignorance:

The Sun does revolve around the Earth. We scientifically proved it.

Skia takes some cake with gold frosting:

Actually, I quoted Matthew 5:28 to show that "lustful thoughts" = adultery and therefore heterosexuality is a sin and an abomination (see Leviticus 18). I posted this in response to Darth Executor's moronic and ignorant response to Xian Pugilist's post.

After almost 26 years of dealing with homophobic Christians who selectively quote Scripture to prove they are not as bad as 4% of the population, I think it is time these Christians consider the whole counsel of God and what He says about heterosexual immorality. Are you divorced and remarried? Then you are living in an adulterous relationship. If you are not divorced and remarried but heartily approve of 2nd, 3rd, and etc. marriages after a divorce you are approving a sin God labels an abomination.

brianshearer1985 still has his head in a dark place:

Kabane, I have read through your arguments on this RRS group. Seriously man, stop with this. Your in the wrong, and your making us Christians look bad man. Using Matthew 23 as your "authority" for disgracing the RRS leadership is flawed. Jesus was rebuking the Jewish leaders among other believers in the temple, not those that claim there is no God. Veggiechild69 is right in saying that public humiliation of your enemies is not Christian like. Please stop it, this will be my only post on this.

Gold also goes to a silly boy named Jeff Leroy over at who is vainly trying to defend Dougie del Tondo from me over at the review section:

Oops, you're out of excuses. I'm not defending Mr Deltondo, I'm pointing out your corruption of Scripture to support your mean-streak---and now the blatant misdirection from your original error. "Gentleness", "purity", "innocence", have nothing to do with your ad hoc interpretation.

You were attempting to justify being vicious. You said doves' reputed viciousness indicated your "methods were closer to Jesus' words than one might think."

So tell us, dubious apologist, what were the "metaphorical lexicons of the period" you consulted?

Dr William Lane Craig cautions about those who enter apologetics for purposes of ego. Your notorious adherence to insults, contempt, derision, childish name-calling, etc indicates your purpose needs attention. If you were to get a degree in theology, as Dr Craig recommends, perhaps you could release yourself from the mean-streak and embrace a loving Christ, rather than the vicious one you try to paint and cultivate in your young fans at Theologyweb.

I dropped that view about doves over a year ago, by the way. BurntOffering for this....well, I'm not really sure what this is; but it gave me a headache:

The Hebews did not use vowels i.e., A, E, I O U and sometimes Y in the English language as they believe they were too Holy to even utter. But what I am suggesting is that used the End Language or Kings English to show us Our Real Beginning when symbols and things were used instead of the alpha Bet.

A V is just half of a W or M and stands for Victim, Victor, or Villian. Also the S is for Spirit and this Spirits can S/Witch from the Left Hand or Right Side of wordS turning them into a Double Edge Sword; which this Angel will Us to Cut Man back to the Bone; Where I cam from.

Someone on christiandiscussionforums wins the Ed Whisenant Trophy:

There are three prophecies that confirm the specific year of the second coming, and none of them are in the 1st century. Christ arrives per the Bible in 1992. Therefore when Christ said, "some standing here will not die" he meant they would live over 1900 years until he came. The Apostle Paul who is one of them, thus at 1 Thess 4:15 includes himself in the "living who survive to the Lord's day" since he would be one of these who survive. For those of us within the "eagle" secret societies of Christ, we get to see Paul, and he looks the same as he did in the 1st century.

Now either I'm lying, delusional or telling the truth. But that some would survive over 1900 years to our day is what the Bible teaches. Jesus' 2nd coming would not come in the 1st century. This is clear even by the confusing "7 times" prophecy which shows 2520 years between the fall of Jerusalem and the second coming. That is, the removal of an earthly king and the return of an earlthy king. "7 times" = 1260 years x 2.

Now the chronology of the NB was revised twice and so is distorted, but not more than 100 years. 2520 years from 600-500 BCE still dates the second coming in the 20th century. Thus when Jesus said that "this generation" would not pass away until all these things occurred was a true statement since he had previously said some from that generation would never die until he returned, even 1900 years later. If you have the correct year for te fall of Jerusalem, which is 529 BCE, you can calculate the second coming to 1992, which is when it occurred.Christ has gathered his elect from 1993 to May of 2008. Now we are expecting Armageddon to come within less than 2 years, likely by 2011 AD.

Don't believe. Let's wait and see. Just a couple of years more.

Adam loses it once again:

The flavor of early Christian writings was very Gnostic, a set-up for later Marcionism and eventually Manichaeanism. Because of these problems we define the ECF as those early writers who were later accepted as models for Catholic Christianity. So here again we are reading in later standards of what is acceptable.

Mazinga sure deserves an award:

In the new testament we learn that the vineyard(earth) has been rented out to the farmers(angels). They were to make a world of their own. Some angels ruled Europe. But till 1000 Years ago things weren't still going so well. So they decided to be bad. They went to the east and altered the genes of the people. They altered their eye gene. This was why Kahn was mad and went on conquest of the world. And the heavens punished them by sending the bubonic plague which killed more than 14 million people in Europe. Then the angels(fallen angels) fought back by killing and torturing people which we know as the inquisition.

Tomwindsor has also been smoking something that's not quite right:

Greetings , I'm going to be posting some excerpts from a new book of mine The Wheels of God's Throne. Is about unfolding the mystery in the visions of Daniel and Ezekiel , the so called "Ezekiel's wheels .

(From the Intro ) There are descriptions recorded by the prophets that provide rare glimpses into heaven itself. Ezekiel, Daniel, the apostle John and others saw these visions. These often came in the form of prophetic dreams and spiritual revelations. Hereby what is usually unseen becomes visible, even describable in human language. They offer a lens, as it were, to "look" into the celestial unknown. These heavenly spiritual concepts are typically described in metaphors. This imagery uses earthly things as types and shadows whereby the Lord communicates to us of heavenly things, and specifically, in this case, God's throne. God uses his Word to describe a reality foreign to us---a place of strange angelic beings surrounding the Lord: the cherubim and seraphim enveloped by thunder, lightning, blazing lamps, and a glorious "likeness of a human form" seated upon a fiery throne, sometimes seen with wheels.

The words used in the imagery eventually fall short and stretch us to the limits of our imagination, invoking many questions.

This leads us through one of the most mysterious areas of scripture. Why is the Lord enthroned between the cherubim as the Scripture states on a number of occasions? What do the wheels signify beside the cherubim in Ezekiel's vision and beside the throne in Daniel's dream? For ages God's throne, the cherubim, and the wheels beside them have posed a mystery. The ancient Hebrews prohibited its discussion in public and its teaching was restricted to a very few initiates. The early and medieval Church seem to have gone in the other direction and produced fanciful embellishments and excessive allegorizing on the subject.

The subject is usually delegated as one of those subjects in the Bible that many believers think is not important because it does not seem relevant to the New Testament. However, consider this: When Christ proclaimed his final claim of Deity to an unbelieving generation, He said: "I am,... and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62). He was referencing Daniel's vision and that throne was a throne with fiery wheels.(Dan. 7:9,13) This is a future event .

(End of Part A ) So any thoughts (interpretations) of the "wheels" that can be proven from scripture ?

LambofElohim remains on meds for the time being:

First of all: any translation after the King James is garbage. Secondly the words "was made" are not the same as the word "became". Third: The Word is not YHVH and it is not the secret name of God either. Fourth: Jesus Christ is not YHVH's Son. Fifth: it does not say that "The Word was born from a virgin and was made flesh" now does it. Sixth: The Word that is spoken of here is Elohim, Hebrew word which became "God" and it is The Word and The Word is Elohim, "God".
And All The Rest

A Muslim named asmaa needs some therapy:

paul was a kind of weird especially the story you know with on of his student , when he ... you know it is a big question mark for straight guy to act this way , so how come you consider him credible enough to follow ? Paul circumcision of Timothy indicates his hidden homosexual desires

Barnasha, another Muslim, wins for his high standards of research:

are you saying the wikipedia citations contain incorrect information?

And, in reply to someone who used Dan. 7 to argue concernking Jesus' divinity, he saidL

It's telling that the best you can do is quote someone unrelated... from a time before Jesus... and not only that you're quoting his dream!

Epharimite the Mormon may need therapy more, as he vies for Platinum:

I wold contend that there is much MORE evidence for Nephi than there is for Jesus.

Some folks of unknown persuasion....from a note of a girl on facebook:

My dad is like a spring of knowledge for me. There's always something for me to learn from him - he's a walking wikipedia!

So he's completely unreliable on anything even remotely obscure or controversial?

KingRatedRKO1511 wins for the golden question:

Wasn't the Old Test. written 200 years after Jesus died?

A youtuber called "Dhorpatan" had a lot of screwy stuff to say:

TOMMY IS ABOUT TO GET HIS JESUS RESURRECTION FAIRY TALE CRUSHED: Number one. The reason why it was impossible for Jesus to have risen from the dead, is because it violates the Law of Identity. It did this because Jesus was identified as being dead. For him to become alive again, would require the impossibility of altering the identity of himself, through an act of pure consciousness. This is a violation of the Law of Identity.

Number two. The reason why it was impossible for Jesus to have risen from the dead, is because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. To confirm that an entity is dead, then for that entity to become "un-dead", is to contradict the kinetic physiology of that entity, by an act of pure will.

Number thee. The reason why it was impossible for Jesus to have risen from the dead, is because it violates the Law of Excluded Middle. Death and Life, are mutually exclusive, like existence and non-existence. To say something is dead, and for that statement to be taken as true, then to have that statement contradicted by claiming that same entity is now alive, makes the earlier statement false, which manifests internal contradiction, and makes both statements necessarily self-refuting.

Number four. And the last reason why it is impossible for Jesus to have resurrected, is because it is based on invalid metaphysics. For Jesus to have resurrected, by a pure act of will/consciousness, asserts the Primacy of Consciousness, over the Primacy of Existence. This is false, since existence has metaphysical hierarchy of consciousness, which means, existence does not conform to the wishes or dictates of pure will


DakfireonMYNK is almost coherent:

He's not real because nothing could of been there forever, and if god was there forever somehow, before there was anything but him, how did he make colors if he had never seen them?

Also, if he's so smart, why does he make people spend their whole lives worshiping them in exchange for an apparent afterlife? He's robbing you of your own free will and a few hours on your sundays.

rodento42 is waiting to make sense, too:

I have read nothing at all on historical jesus. that is one of the reasons that i can be proud when i say that I, myself, have solely decided that God is too mythological for a logical person.

rba718 hasn't heard of an anthology yet:

Funny, when I go to a book store, I don't see an entire series of the bible, I see one book lol.

yonhee3's bellybutton earns his a Platinum nom:

Did the bible ever prophecize anything important? Where in the bible does it say anything about extra solar planets? Does the bible even know about Google? or even YouTube? How about 911? Do we take the bible literally? I'd say Nostradomus was far better prophet than the bible!
The bible is a book of mythologies! Let's just it in the fiction category and let it collect dust!

Anonymous comment submitted: Hm. I could argue that oral tradition can't be that airtight given the wide discrepancy between accounts post-resurrection in the gospels. (I would agree with you for trained Jewish scholars but most of the disciples of Jesus had peasant backgrounds - eg. fishermen). Your comparison with performing Hamlet doesn't work for me. The actors have scripts to read and memorize, extensive rehearsals and they perform daily once a show begins. However, we were talking about Paul and I don't think oral tradition is a factor.

And last, Shunyadragon the Bahai pipes in:

Christ represented a competing God taking on flesh. The problem was Christ's challenge to Roman authority. There is no indication that Rome objected to the concept. In fact, they readily adopted Christianity for the state religion and molded into their own image.

Reader sends a website nom that may be Platinum material:

This site tries to make the case for a new age "discovered gospel's" authenticity. The fact that we don't have the alleged original manuscript, or that the cave where it was supposedly discovered has been "buried under a rock slide" is enough to give this away as a fraud. However the page author still tries to put forth a "scholarly" argument that the text is real and that Matthew was plagiarized from it. Also, you might get a kick out of the "response to critics" section where the page author suggests that Robert Price rejects this "lost gospel" because it refutes Christianity for effectively than Price ever could!,2933,512066,00.html

A Denver jury wins, for this:

DENVER - A jury ruled Thursday that the University of Colorado wrongly fired the professor who compared some Sept. 11 victims to a Nazi, a verdict that gives the professor $1 and a chance to get his job back....

Churchill said claims including plagiarism were just a cover and that he never would have been fired if it weren't for the essay in which he called World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi leader who helped orchestrate the Holocaust. Jurors agreed....

University spokesman Ken McConnellogue said the university will review its options before deciding whether to appeal.

"(The verdict) doesn't change the fact that more than 20 of his faculty peers found that he engaged in plagiarism and other academic misconduct," McConnellogue said.

A church sign wins that says: "Exposure to the Son prevents burning."

A site at wins a Pope Leo Screwball for posting a fake paper by one "Professor M. Moghdam" that was supposedly part of the Second International Congress of Mithraic wasn't.

Here's a Muslim TV debate: Is the earth flat? One of the muslims explains why we can have solar eclipses: the earth is flat, and the sun is smaller than the earth!

A Florida church wins for this: It's trying to persuade people to return to worship with this campaign:

The Mosaic Church of Crestview, a non-denominational Christian church, used the slogan "No More Christians" to spark conversation and attract the attention of people who have grown lackadaisical in their religious practice, the Crestview News Bulletin reported.

The campaign advertises a series of discussions with names like "Why you should be an atheist instead of a Christian" and "Why you should be a Muslim instead of a Christian." ...

Unfortunately, [Mosaic Church Pastor James] Ross told the newspaper, the signs have also drawn negative attention.

An Australian hospital wins after it banned crucifixes, Bibles and other religious symbols - from its chapel:

Managers at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney told worshippers they were allowed to display symbols during services but had to store them out of sight afterwards because the chapel was increasingly being used by people of a variety of faiths, according to the Daily Telegraph.

Some patients and families who've sought comfort from the chapel in the past said stripping it of its symbols strips it of its meaning, the Daily Telegraph reported.

"I used to sit there and pray when my wife was dying of breast cancer and look at that cross," Mosman Mayor Dominic Lopez told the Telegraph. "Now it is just a hall ...You either have a chapel or you don't. It's offensive to have a church or chapel and not have a cross in it."

The hospital however said the decision was appropriate to appease all religions, the Telegraph reported.

A reader alerted me to this wah wah by Calvinist Obsession Master Phil Johnson, whose review of Tekton used to be just the first sentence here:

An in-your-face reply to some of the more aggressive Internet skeptics. The proprietor, J. P. Holding, is one of the more controversial Christian apologists on the Web. Frankly, he usually employs far too much raw personal invective for my tastes, but in the mix you'll also find some thoughtful arguments. Mr. Holding has had run-ins with James White and Steve Hays that have cost him credibility. (His own hostility to Calvinism, combined with a pathological inability to represent Calvinists fairly, is the root of most of the problems Holding has run into with his fellow Christian apologists.) His apparent use of pseudonyms and some unnecessary mystery about his real name also raised questions about his seriousness over the years. His post explaining the name game is a fascinating read and will give you a sample of his trademark style..

Someone wins for this:

A charity worker has been suspended after telling a colleague about his Christian beliefs against homosexuality, even though he says he is not homophobic and was merely responding to questions from a colleague about his beliefs.

... The next evening, Mr Booker was suspended from his post as a hostel support worker with Society of St James, where he has been employed for the last four years. The hostel told him the action was taken for "events that happened last night".

A few days later he was told he had "seriously breached" the charity's code of conduct "by promoting your religious views which contained discriminatory comments regarding a person's sexual orientation". The action had been taken "to safeguard both residents and staff", he was advised. -- potential book award. Gets a Christian Platinum nom. The article on naming hurricanes has got some wonderful crackpotia in it, like:

The Occult Signature of the Hurricanes

Another important detail to notice is that the path Charlie took up through the bay from the southwest points up to the town called "Arcadia" where the desolated Peace River Community was situated. "Et in Arcadia Ego" is the title of Nicholas Poussin's painting of a Greek paradise ruled by the god Pan in pre-Flood Atlantis. The painting has an esoteric meaning and the title is probably an anagram containing a code known only to the Merovingian bloodline.