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

From the Mailbag

Just two this past month...appropriately for Easter, I received this about my item resolving Barker's "Easter Challenge" at

Sorry, not acceptable. You make too many assumptions about the writers.You have no idea who the writers are, and no proof of whomever you might think they are.

Also not acceptable because Christians pass this off as a book allegedly "written by God, infallible and inerrant in all matters of faith."

Only the choir could buy your explanation

sign me another x. christian

Then we had this email from the Emergent League:

I enjoyed reading your commentary on faith. I disagree with your conclusion at one point which suggests a "personal relationship with Jesus" is some kind of crude (my emphasis) remaking of God and Jesus in our own image. I would not have recoiled from your statement quite so, I suppose, if you had only added 'in my own view' instead of pontificating on the issue. I wonder if you view 'personal relationship with Jesus' as a really disrespectful and uppity presumption on the part of a sinner who just accepted Jesus as Savior and as a result was personally indwelt by the Godhead?

I will say this to you with gentleness in my eyes, sir---I am content that I do not go to church with you. Though I only wish you spiritual fulfillment as you examine your relationship with the Almighty whom I have referred to occasionally, perhaps in a lapse of decorum, as Abba Father.

Otherwise, thank you for your contribution to the topic of biblical faith.

Funny how these sorts think that if they tell you they're denigrating you gently, they're not insulting you.

The April 2010 John Loftus Collection

Wow, John really racked up the awards this time, because he just got so excited about his new book coming out. I mean, just look at all this drool on his chin, starting with a review he wrote of his OWN BOOK on Amazon...on April Fool's Day, no less:

What I Like About My Book "The Christian Delusion"

I really like this book. Dan Barker recently described it as a "powerhouse of a book," in an interview he did with me to air Saturday. It is. And not just because I compiled it and wrote four chapters for it. Let me explain why.

The book was made to have eye appeal. It just has a good look and feel to it. When holding it in your hands at 422 pages, it makes you see that there is a lot of information in it for the price.

The authors are experts in the areas they write about. Let me give you a few examples. Who is better to write a chapter arguing that Christianity is a cultural phenomenon than cultural anthropologist David Eller? Who is better than psychologist Valerie Tarico to write a chapter on Christian belief and cognitive science? Who is better to write a chapter on Biblical cosmology than Ed Babinski, who has spent years studying this topic? Who is better than Biblical scholar Hector Avalos to write a chapter on the barbaric tribal God of the Old Testament? Who is better than Robert Price to write a chapter on what we can know about Jesus? Who is better than Richard Carrier to write a chapter on the resurrection of Jesus? The three last chapters in the book by Eller on morality, Avalos on Hitler, and Carrier on the origins of science, are each by themselves probably worth the price of the book.

And the flow of the book is good too. Most skeptical books dive right in on the arguments. But not this one. In the first part of the book we show how believers first adopt and defend their beliefs. We show that believers are not rational to accept what they first learned in this Christian culture on their mama's knees. Jason Long shows in his chapter how believers cannot reasonably think they have truly examined their adopted faith. And I close that part out with the Outsider Test for Faith, in what I consider my most mature defense of it ever.

After reading part one of the book, believers will be more likely to consider our arguments in the other four parts. Paul Tobin in the very next section does a masterful job telling believers what modern biblical scholarship shows us about the Bible, which will surely give readers much to doubt...

I've read many such books and I have to say that this one is unique, sure to be discussed in the years ahead. I am very happy and humbled to be a part of this effort. And I am very thankful for each and every contributor who agreed to write a chapter for it. I have no doubts but that this book will help change the religious landscape.

I think every skeptic who wants to understand Christianity and/or who argues with Christians should get it. I think every Christian apologist worthy of the name should get it. I think every believer who is having questions about his or her faith should get it. And I can only hope every devout believer will get it too.

You get the idea that John's about to go out and buy some champagne and maybe even some flowers and take his book out on a date. Only thing he can do since he can't take himself out like that. Closest thing to it.

Hey, John...want a cigarette?

Loftus has also found a way to promote his book without seeming like he really is. He notes that Richard Carrier said this of it:

John and I wanted this book to be conclusive, every chapter its own tour de force on each topic. And we achieved that goal. The book is superb. Every chapter is fantastic, some more than others, but all are great. It doesn't cover every subject it could have, but the subjects it does cover, it covers thoroughly, leaving nowhere left to run. It's all readable (nothing will be above anyone's head). Much of it will even be fresh and new to you (and that's saying something).

Most of all, taken together, its fifteen chapters are sufficient to establish that Christianity is a delusion. The Christian religion is so manifestly contrary to the facts, belief in it can only be held with the most delusional gerrymandering imaginable. That's a bold statement. I wouldn't have made it myself before reading this book, but now that I have seen it all in one place, I am forced to agree.

A commenter replied:

calling your own work a tour de force. Classy.

And Loftus whined back:

Double A, who cares about being classy?...I could be a hillybilly or clown or even worse, a bum, but what does that have anything to do with this book if it's that good? It's called excitement, and we're excited. You would be too, but then, you've never written something this good, now have you? ;-)

But meanwhile, John said this to someone who said, "Why would you rate your own book? Isn't that a tad distasteful?"

Chris, in order to make any comment at all on Amazon the reviewer must rate it. I basically said why I liked the book and it had very little to do with my own chapters. I wanted to also place the Table of Contents there since the reader would be interested in them.

Any excuse will do, eh? However, John seems to be having trouble getting other atheists to care:

Hedrick said...John, send a copy to Sam Harris and ask him to endorse the book on his website. If he would comment on it and recommend it to his followers, you'd get some serious sales. My understanding is that he has a good fan base, as do Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. Three free copies there might turn into a thousand more sales. Of course, if you don't want to send them free copies you can simply contact them and ask them to recommend the book.

John W. Loftus said... Landon, so far I have tried to contact them, and so far none of them have given me the time of day. Maybe others could contact them for me. If so, I would appreciate it very much.

Somewhere else John said:

Brenda, or whoever you are, if Richard wasn't very excited about this book then why should anyone else be? I too am very excited about this book. Write a book and see how you feel about it. Trust me. Authors treat their new books like a new babies and Mothers are extremely excited about their babies.

An here was yt another shameless self-marketing attempt on the apologetics315 blog, which was deleted as spam:

...I merely want to make JP aware of a chapter I wrote for my new book The Christian Delusion, called, "At Best Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet." In it I think I've more than sufficiently shown that even if the NT is reliable then Jesus was a failed prophet, Preterism (or partial Preterism) notwithstanding. If my case succeeds, as I think it does, then Holding's whole book TIF is inconsequential.

Last, a Loftusite named Baphomet also wins for saying this on TWeb, of all places:

Yep, your God is a fantasy. Good to see you came to the rational conclusion with only marginal nudging. I wont get to meet your God because he doesn't exist. Now if I could just persuade to purchase a copy of John w. Loftus' book 'Why I became an Atheist' then we'd really have achieved something here.

The Lunchback of Notre Dumb

Not to be outdone by John, Yo Lunch had a few choice words:

Fact is, the smarter atheists, like me, don't give a damn about being called a troll!

Please! [Another fundy atheist member of TWeb] not only has wisdom that comes with age, he can use google and the web to buttress his arguments! Nothing wrong with that!. The only difference I see between you and him is that you use google, JP's BS and have no wisdom!

If the Bible contains errors, can it be the word of a God, who is supposed to be perfect? Would He allow those who are charged to write his will and words to hard copy to deliver the unintended message? If that were true, why send a message if it is not delivered accurately? Furthermore, how would we know what is true and what is not? That is why the courts throw out such testimony when it is discovered. ALL of it becomes suspect since one may not be able to seperate truth from fiction.

So, to answer your question, yes I think that they do need to be inerrantists. However, since skeptics have pointed out many errors, some apologists are now relenting on such strict requirements.. However, I will leave those fights to the over 35,000 sects to quibble over.

The Random Atheist Collection

A poster on Facebook draws first Gold:

Atheism does have comfort to offer, not only in the face of death, but in the face of suffering. Among other things, it offers the idea that suffering comes from natural cause and effect. We don't have to worry about what we did to make God angry, or wonder why a God who supposedly loves us is making us suffer. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.

Seasanctuary comes next:

Suppose your son takes up Buddhism and begins to tell your daughter about the benefits of making the change away from Christianity. Shouldn't you kill your son to keep him from endangering the faith of your daughter?

The Pixie wins in the "Epic Decontexualization" category. The thread is about whether or not it's right for Christians to kill sinners in accordance with the Old Covenant:

Not at all, because Jesus brought the new covenant.

No, wait: Mat 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

Sounds like Jesus kept that bit in the new covenant.

DickTracy offers these mutterings:

Jesus of course never said Hey you're going to be judged if you don't read a book and call it truth. No such thing existed.. He did not encourage people to write books much less read them and call them new bibles or new testaments or the word of god .That would have been considered by ancient Jews almost an unpardonable sin. Illiteracy as we know it continued unabated in most of the world for more than 1600 years. People based their beliefs from story tellers who handed down and re wrote and amplified the tales and mysteries around them. Much was lost or recreated in translation. It was their only entertainment

mikeledo is back and as screwy as ever:

Robert Graves is the only Graves I quote in my book. I have not quoted from any other Graves.

You don't understand how to properly compare myths. I would be wasting my time.

If you haven't found evidence that the early Bible stories come from Babylon, you haven't looked, again I would be wasting my time.

Genesis uses the same cosmic myths as the Gospels. The Mark of Cain in the OT was the cross of Jesus' crucifixion. Abel was stabbed with a spear in the side just as Jesus was stabbed in the side. both resulted in earthquakes. The coat of many colors was the same as the mock robe of Jesus. The trial of Jesus was the same as the judgement of Sodom. The virgin birth of Jesus were the barren births of the OT. etc. etc. They all took place in the same constellations, although the writings and usage are centuries apart.

I knew I would get this typr of uneducated reaction because no one on this borad understands the cosmic myth or how it works. The mark of Cain in mentioned by Rabbis. The crucifixion and Cain v. Abel both take place in the constellation of Centaurus, which depicts a victim being speared in the side. the very name Cain means "to strike" [with a spear]. One has to know the Hebrew meaning of the names of people and the constellation the story is from in order to get a complete picture of the Bible stories. Otherwise there are things in the Bible which make no senses what-so-ever and is glossed over by theologians. Barreb births included Rachel/Issac, Rebecca/ twins and Samson. All take place in Cancer, the constellation of barren births. The text never mentions a color. The star which represents Joseph's coat was garnet in color. Again, people who don't understand the myth, can't understand the connection. The trial of Jesus is a judgement. The destruction of Sodom is a judgement. They key common element is judgement. There doesn't have to be a destruction of a city for the two to be related through a cosmic myth.

Robertb in a thread on morality asked me if sex was desirable to which someone said "Yes." His reply?

Are you sure about this answer? Should your neighbor hide his sheep, if you happen to give in to your desires?

SirJosefFritzel says:

God is not real and that is a fact you all know you are just too arrogant to accept it. No facts to prove his existence but plenty to prove does not exist. Only retards believe in him and i hope your children are raped by paedophiles.

SatanTheAlien has his own roster of foolish words:

I'm sorry, but I think you know your argument is weak, and thus why you are accusing me of whining. But am I appealing to emotion? Absolutely. We are emotional beings. We live our lives emotionally. Appealing to emotion is effective and good. I doubt any logical argument is going to get an emotional being to finally see that slaughtering unarmed children is evil. Appealing to their emotional nature just might. After all, good and evil are emotional ideas.

You keep claiming that killing unarmed children and women was the best choice to make at the time, but you haven't supported that claim. The best choice would have been to move away. Why did they have to fight? Why couldn't the Hebrews be the better people and just walk away from the fight? They could move far away so that no one fought them.

Besides, it was Israelites fault. Right after they left Egypt they started trying to take over small nations. They started the war according to the bible.

And on top of all that, we are dealing with God here, a supposed supernatural being. To think that the best option a supernatural being had was to have men kill unarmed children and women (a cowardly act I think by most people's definition) is a really scary God to believe in. The unarmed woman an children I am talking about are the ones in Numbers 31.

Lastly, and I don't know why they aren't speaking out, many Christians don't take these stories seriously. They know it makes no sense. They know it makes God evil, so they choose to interpret the stories as metaphors and not as historical events.

You pretend that I don't know. It doesn't matter how evil they are. The babies and children are not. And even if they were, it is, if nothing else, cowardly to slaughter an unarmed person, be it a child, a woman, or a fully grown man.

You have ignored this point now for several post. The so called holy israelite soldiers stabbed unarmed children and women. Numbers 31. What kind of person is capable of obeying an order to kill an unarmed child or woman? And it doesn't matter if that child or woman is evil or not. That makes no difference at all. The child, evil or good, is still an unarmed child. Could you obey the command to stab an unarmed child? Are you "holy" enough?

I find it very odd that you use similar justification for murder that Hitler used. He said that the non-Aryan people were wicked and were making the whole word evil. The world's problems were caused by Jews, blacks etc. So he started slaughtering them.

Moses said all non-Jews are wicked and are making the world wicked, so he started slaughtering them.

If you kill an unarmed child, you are just as wicked as a Nazi soldier. << can you prove this wrong?

My point was that there is no evidence in the bible itself that the morals contained therein are anymore than mens ideas of what morals are, what is write and wrong. So, I still wish to know how we can know the the morals in the bible are not from men but from some higher source. There is no indication by the content itself that it was inspired by anyone but primitive humans.

During a meditaiton I awoke and realized I have been atheist for longer than humans have walked this planet. That makes me crazy, right?

Right. That and everything else, too...

Carpedm9587 hasn't upped his IQ any lately:

This topic just came up in another thread, and it struck me it might warrant a thread of its own. One of the core Christian claims is that God became man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The belief is that this being was "fully man and fully god."

The LNC suggests this is not possible. God is an instance of "not man." So the claim is essentially that the propositions:

Jesus of Nazareth is fully human, and

Jesus of Nazareth is not fully human

Were true at the same time and in the same way. Or if you prefer:

Jesus of Nazareth is fully god, and

Jesus of Nazareth is not fully god

Were (are?) true at the same time in the same way. To get past this, you would have to show that either God and Human are identical (I think this is essentially what the LDS say?) or that there is no intrinsic contradiction between the attributes of human and the attributes of god.

Yet there are clearly attributes of god that are not intrinsic to man. God is eternal - man is not (both forward and backward in time). God is omniscient - the human is not. God is omnipotent - the human is not.

If you begin to argue that humanity has the "potential" for all of these things, god does not "have potential," because god is potentiality realized. God does not change (at least not the Christian god). God does not have unrealized potential - man constantly does.

I don't see any way out of this conundrum but to fall back on "it's a mystery" and walk away from the problem. Obviously, I find that less than satisfying. How can one justifying setting aside the LNC in this context, but passionately defending it in other contexts?

It's essentially why I don't engage in "the bible says" discussions. I find them pointless. The bible is a great tool for reading and getting insight into some aspects of the human person. It has some verifiable historical elements. For the rest, if it helps you gain insight - more power to you. To claim anyone knows what the author of the non-verifiable passages actually meant when they wrote those passages is a stretch at best.

12steprevenge has clearly studied in depth:

The ontological argument for the existence of God: “I have an idea of God, the idea had to come from somewhere, therfor God exists”.

I also have an idea of a unicorn. Is that proof of their existence, too?

The contingency argument for believing in God: “If you do believe in God and He exists, then you’re going to heaven. If you don’t believe in God and he does exist you’re going to h***. If you believe in God and He doesn’t exist, it doesn’t matter.“

This assumes that there are only two logical possibilities: no god or the Christian God. There are obviously other possibilities. Heck, if we’re going by the ontological argument, the fact that I can conceive of them means that they, too, exist! Maybe you’d do better to stick to one argument instead of hedging your bets.

Shall we continue?

Jaecp needs a geography lesson:

Canada eh? You might want to check this article

However, the article he linked to was about a Catholic priest from Alaska.

plk11 explains Christian origins:

Here it goes: The apostles knew that the Resurrection did not occur. However, they knew that the story of the Resurrection affect people in a positive way, and would start a religion based on love, something they valued. They also knew that their deaths would help the spread of Christianity. So they died to assist the spread of Christianity, not for the actual belief that the Resurrection is true.

Pitchforkpat has an earth-shaking thought:

I was thinking the other day about the top funny men and women in the entertainment industry. I think it’s interesting and perhaps telling that the vast majority of the top comic entertainers are liberal. I had a difficult time coming up with funny conservatives...Any theories as to why most funny people seem to be liberals? I have my own sophisticated theory, which is that conservatives are generally pompous, up-tight, self-righteous twits who take themselves too seriously.

JimL is still ranting about conspiracies:

In 2002 Cardinal Ratzinger Issued a secret Vatican edict threatening anyone including child victims themselves with excommunication for exposing the abuse and rape of children. For years both himself and Cardinal Bernard Law, archbishop of Boston have been protecting these pedophile priests and are now both protected from the law hidden away in the vatican enclave. Cardinal Law even got to vote for his criminal friend for Pope.

Composer and YourMaster get Platinum nominations for TWeb n00b. Here's why Composer does:

My definition of Good is Good and my definition of Evil is Evil.

And here's why YourMaster does:

Although middle ages is the more commonly used term these days .... they were still dark by any reasonable standard. Imagine a world where the Catholic Church was your thought police. Teaching others how to read was a punishable offense, intellectual dissent was punished by brutal torture and execution (often by burning), even those who tried to print the bible in vernacular language were executed.

Like the horror book that's at the center of your religion ... until the enlightenment Christianity was indeed horrific.

(The Context Group) are a bunch of religious kooks ... like their groupies.

Brett "Dumbass" Palmer is at it again, as he first asked:

How could the Scythians, a nomadic people living thousands of years and thousands of miles from the enslaved Hebrews of Goshen, have something in common with the Israelite population? Were the Scythians held in bondage? Were they exiles in the Nile delta, captives of a foreign government that, from all accounts, detested them and sought to subjugate them?

I replied:

Being in bondage or living in the Nile does not in the least affect the critical and relevant issue of comparison for our subject matter, which is living nomadically and the effort of practical living while doing so.

His reply...make sure you're seated...

This is obviously a relevancy that Mr. Holding cannot see for he believes the Hebrews of Goshen lived a lifestyle similar to that of the nomadic Scythians. The Hebrews were not nomadic.

Unbelievably, Palmer has been so dumb that all this time he's been thinking I've been addressing the lives of the Hebrews in Goshen! My subject since Day 1 has clearly been the lives of the Hebrews while on the Exodus. He even quotes me as saying:

...this stage of the argument is past the issue of whether or not the Israelite population reached into the 2-3 million range, so appeal to the above issues is irrelevant in context. The objection has confused Israel's earlier situation (being in bondage in Egypt) with their later one (living pastorally in the Sinai wilderness). Their lives in Goshen is NOT the subject here.

I made it perfectly clear what my subject matter was. But does he admit he's been jostling the wrong table all this time? Nope!

And, again, I'm not sure why Mr. Holding believes my criticisms are "past the issue of whether or not the Israelite population reached into the 2-3 million range". That is exactly the stage of the argument still under discussion. Does Mr. Holding believe he has received a free pass on his and Mr. Hardaway's conjured calculations which materialized the Hebrew population from the stifling conditions of the ancient world? I can understand his eagerness to move the discussion away from his fantastical figures, and maybe he can magically make disappear those mathematics the next time he "revamps" his website, but I personally have not moved one cubit away from the discussion of those population figures at any point during my examination of Mr. Holding's sorcerous sums. And all the quotations of my criticisms of his "Scythian challenge" deal directly with its relevancy to those arcane additions which Mr. Holding now apparently wishes to push off into the distance. So, since my criticism remains that of the relevancy of the Scythians to the Hebrew population in Goshen, perhaps Mr. Holding will finally get around to clarifying why, when I first criticized his and Mr. Hardaway's population figures (and only their population figures as they relate to the conditions restricting population growth in the past), he directed me to his "Scythian challenge" in the first place if he were not trying to defend those convoked computations.

Wouldn't it have been faster to just say, "Whoops, I had the wrong argument"?

The Confused Christian Collection

A commenter on a blog, on objections to the way The Shack portrays God:

I think you are very ignorant and naive to the fact that God can be whatever he chooses because he has no physical shape or form, and further can present himself in whatever physical state he chooses. A lot of you think because we see Jesus in the form of a white man in a picture frame, there’s no way he could be anything but that; the Bible clearly describes him as a man of color.. And seems like some of y’all clearly missed the message in the book

Reader tells this story:

Had another gnostic/psychic moment with fellow church people again. I just got back from a ministry meeting about making some renovations to the way we do Sunday School. We couldn't come to an agreement about whether to have leadership teams switch every Sunday or do a 3-week rotation. So someone suggested we "listen to what the Lord says." So someone lead us in prayer where we asked God to speak to us, because we apparently couldn't make a decision. Then the Sunday School coordinator said he figured God spoke to him that we all should be on one team and do Sunday School every Sunday. Even though we already decided against having each team doing 6 Sundays in a row, but now all of a sudden everyone agreed with that, except the lady next to me. I never had a chance to speak and say that I'm switching churches so I can attend my mom's un-psychic church and get closer with my family--apparently God forgot to mention that to him.

Platinum Nomination, Famous Christian category, for Jennifer Knapp.

A rising star on the Christian music scene is returning to the public eye with a new identity after a mysterious seven-year absence spent mostly on the other side of the world.

Jennifer Knapp is not only coming out with a new album, she is also "coming out," a term the Grammy-nominated singer/songwriter considers "very bizarre" as she nervously relaunches her career.

She ended up in Australia, became a citizen, and now drops the friendly appellation "mate" into the conversation. She plans to spend most of her personal time Down Under.

But Knapp's time in the wilderness was not all about shrimps on the barbie and Vegemite sandwiches. She underwent an early midlife crisis of sorts as she reexamined her faith, sexuality and career. Making music was the furthest thing from her mind.

Before Knapp met her girlfriend in the United States, she was celibate for 10 years, which she says is in line with the general expectation for unmarried members of the evangelical community.

"Anyone who has a decade of celibacy has 'complete loser' written on their back," she joked, although she still respects those who do abstain.

And All The Rest

LDSTrue is still on meds:

KJV John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I ago unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. Ontology = Theory of existence. So when Jesus said ‘my Father is greater than I” He was sharing a theory applicable to persons and not beings? He sure made it sound like He knew it was a fact and not a theory.

If there's one main area of confusion for Krusader, it is this: "who is god" after Jesus’ proclamation regarding His Father and God in Haven while standing here upon the Earth after His crucifixion in His resurrected body as recorded in...

Scripture Verse: KJV John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

Go ahead Krusader, tell us how your God is made up of three non-being persons, the Father non-being person, the Son Jesus non-being person and the Holy Ghost non-being person all into your one spirit God being without form or shape.

The being Jesus standing there in His resurrected body (resurrection = spirit united eternally with body) is certainly to be considered a "being" and therefore cannot ever be considered a non-being person or part of your spirit only God being without form or shape made up of three non-being persons especially when One (Jesus) is definitely a "being" with a form and shape for the rest of eternity!!!

I have a question for you pertaining to the Father sending Jesus as stated in New Testament scripture...KJV John 5:23,36 “That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him....But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.”

Krusader, tell me if you know, did your spirit only God without form or shape made up from three non-being persons, the Father non-being person, the Son Jesus non-being person and the Holy Ghost non-being person issue instruction to the Father non-being person to send Jesus, His Son non-being person or was the Father non-being person acting on His own volition when He sent His Son Jesus non-being person to be the Savior and our Redeemer without prior instruction or approval from your spirit only God being without form or shape?

In a nut shell: Does your spirit only God without form and shape issue instruction to or approve what the non-being person Father does prior to the Father doing it? Chr website Plat

Disclaimer :

NOTE: The Ku Klux Klan, LLC. has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The "Westboro Baptist Church". We absolutely repudiate their activities. -- Book Platinum nominee

Nomination to a Facebook application titled "On this day, God wants you to know..." which posts something on your profile some things that God often doesn't want you to know, and also posts it from your friend's profile for others to see (for some reason). This morning, it says:

.. that most of your words are unnecessary. All too often you speak simply to fill the space with sound, because you feel too uncomfortable with the silence. But this silence is golden. Only in silence you can hear God speak to you. Only in silence can a real prayer, a heart prayer be born. Next time you start chattering, stop and feel into the silence, feel its shape, its texture, and then slowly and silently say only what really has to be said. -- At-Large Platinum nominee -- At-Large Platinum nominee