Catch all the rest of the action that didn't merit Gold here.

From the Mailbag

Been a while since I got an email from this type of nut...

I'm always fascinated and confused by all the people who claim to know so much about scripture and "Jesus". What confuses me the most is that, without fail, so far, all the people who claim to know so much don't even use the name of God's Son, even though they know what His name is. There never was a "Jesus". The Messiah's name was "Yahushua".

It seems to me that if you want true believers to pay attention to what you are trying to teach, you would at the very least use the name of the person you're talking about, As usual, if I even receive an email back from you, I will expect the usual canned arguments. If not, then I will dance! Why is His name important? Look up its meaning. YAHUSHUA is not just a name, it is a Hebrew phrase, and its meaning explains everything

These nuts don't think we can look up "Jesus" in a standard reference source and find out what it means?

The April 2013 John Loftus Collection

John wins for endorsing a NonStampCollector vid, and this comment:

Mary responded by saying, "How will this be since I am a virgin?" (NIV, Luke 1:34) You see, if Mary was actually talking to an angel she would not have to say she was a virgin. The angel would already know."

The Random Atheist Collection
YT fundy atheist MindForgedManacle, on my vid on Ps. 137:9:

I'm certain you realize that this is hardly one of the passages used when referencing the obscenities in the Bible, many (or even most) of which are commanded by Yahweh itself.

Oh sure. I've only seen it referenced about 50 times in the last 15 years...hardly ever used. The same idiot also thinks we can find people in the Bible called "Amalycites."

YT fundy atheist A. J. Baylock shows his maturity:

Given that God is omnipotent, why not establish reality such that violations of these standards of "cleanliness" aren't feasible, rather than allow people to breach the laws and be subjected to scrutiny or punishment? For example, God could have made lobsters unappealing as a meal choice or changed their characteristics to match those of pure land animals. Given omnipotence, all of these standards and pertinent actions are completely arbitrary.

firstfloor, for this exchange:

ff: I am also told that if only I would read the Bible I would understand it the way you do and accept Christ Jesus. I can honestly tell you that hell would freeze over before that would happen.

reply: there you go twisting things again. I said read the bible so you would understand what we believe and stop making up strawman arguments. I never said you would accept Jesus or our beliefs. That is entirely your choice. And you have made it clear above that you are indeed rejecting God.

ff: You don’t understand. If I thought G-d really existed, I would not reject Him.

JimL wins for not only thinking Jesus did not exist, but that the disciples did not exist either.

Tanya Simmomnds earns a special Platinum for, among other things, this error:

Secondly, what Origen allegedly did to himself comes from Eusebius, a man who, by his own admission, was not above making up tall stories. Nevertheless, he was a key player at the Council of Nicaea – the origin of the Christian canon

YT fundy atheist andyfromsheldon, on my knowledge of the Bible:

Holding has a better understanding of a work of fiction than other fans of said work of fiction. We still have a work of fiction. If someone who had a greater understanding of Norse mythology than you do proposed it were not a work of fiction, would you be inclined to believe them?

And All The Rest

mickiel says in all wackiness:

The bible nowhere defines what A Christian is, nowhere; I totally disagree with you. God is not a Christian, Jesus is not one, and no where, absolutely nowhere in the bible has either of them ever endorsed Christianity.

The Remonstrant does a self-righteous foot in the mouth dane:

A "fundy atheist" is a contradiction in terms. "Fundamentalism" as a worldview is theistic in nature:

With this in mind, you would do well to stop employing such asinine terminology.

(But I suppose you are free to redefine key terminology and continue erroneously employing it if you so wish.)

Vivian is still smoking lettuce leaves:

18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” Jesus was a party-er, and a good one too! He drank, if there had been cigarettes he might of even smoked.

Rod Parsley wins for going to his pulpit on a zip line.

Platinum status: A protest sign reading "Jesus had 2 dads and he turned out fine"

Belated Screwball to Erwin Lutzer for his horrible book Hitler's Cross, first published in 1995 and re-issued in 2012. I am reading it now for my own e-book on Hitler, and Lutzer falls for the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a closet occultist, as he uses all the standard unreliable sources on that subject (e.g., Sklar, Ravenscroft) that no real historian takes seriously. Sadly, Ravi Zacharias wrote the Foreword, and the book won an ECPA Gold Medallion Award.

And also an award to a loony who defended Lutzer from my critical review:

If you write to me (email in my profile) I will be glad to send you a brief study I wrote showing allusions to Hitler in the bible codes and the fact that he was God's instrument to catalyze the restoration of Israel.

Joss, on a critique of Eckhart Tolle by Nick Peters:

Surely you’re arguments and Tolle’s could be seen as true or false depending on what you believe. After all, Jesus’ words mean what you interpret them to mean depending on your beliefs. Tolle believes something different to you. That’s why he’s interpreted the bible that way. You believe something different. Neither of you is wrong or right. That’s the magical thing about beliefs. We fit the world to them. Ultimately nothing means anything until we give it meaning.

Screwball to the world, because after events in Boston, "Czech Republic" was trending on Twitter because people don't know the difference between it and Chechnya.