Egad. The Screwies took the summer off from work to send me lots of mail....remember to check here for more Screwballs who didn't earn Gold.

First on the block: This email regarding my article on Losing Faith in Faith:
Your baseless, unintelligent critique of this book ,which I have just now read, is only further evidence of the harm that religion does. To be able to sleep at night while coming with ANY reason for ANY God of ANY religion to murder countless men, women and children in the course of his murderous Old Testament reign is simply the sickness of the cult that Christianity is. How you can face the mirror each day in the world we live in today and be a part of any religion that separates the "saved" from the "lost" will forever be beyond those of us who believe in a kind and loving God who loves all people and is not interested in negative, damaging, blood-curdling works like the Bible. I found my humility, and I pray that one day you will find yours.

This, from the People In Need of Ex-Lax League:

I recently happened upon your writing, "You may be a fundamentalist atheist if..." And I found it to be very interesting. It was also rather scathing and rude, full of generalizations and bigotry. I was wondering why a Christian ministry who's mission statement includes the phrase, "being committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith." would even post such material.

You see it is writings like this, "You may be a fundamentalist atheist if..." that continuously push me away from any religion because there seems to be such a lack of tolerance for people that just don't know what to believe, I look out there for someone to talk to about my situation and I continuously come across these hurtful things.

So in closing, I will repeat my question, why have you posted such hateful material on your page and how does it contribute to Christian ideals of love, compassion, and morality? Because as an Atheist, I know that I would never write something like this directed to any religious group.

This one came from the Louis Farrakhan Fan Club:

Dr. Ben (YBJ) Is 110% right on all counts! You have no points to make because you are a racist zionist pig! There seems to be a lot of racists zionist pigs coming out in the internet lately telling the now regurgitate lies about white Egyptians and etc..., I bet you still think that Jesus was white! But if you are a zionist pig, you probably think that Jesus never existed. So what would be the point of your comments concerning YBJ's truth about the three major religions having its origins in Africa. It would probably be something concerning RACIST Jews in the forefront of the horrors that Africa went through. And now controlling the field of Egyptology such as Leftkowicz.... What a lying *****!

YBJ's reason is to point out like the rest of those that you criticized.....

That the white man is a LIAR................. That's all they are saying backed up with historical truths to combat historical lies told by racist white scholars working from a field controlled by racist zionistic people. But not to worry, the christian zionist were right along side you all this time. And still you can't stop us from telling the truth to the world.

Dr. YBJ is right!

Also this short note from the Hit and Run Club:

You are just a lazy lying dog making a living by lying to people. You can take your filthy god and go to his filthy hell. I wouldn't want that insane maniac in my neighborhood.

Email from the Fluffy Bunny Attention Deficit Disorder Department:

I had some questions about the trinity and began looking online. I came across your review of "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's self inflicted wound"

I was saddened to see that a person who feels so passionately about God would be so sarcastic and condescending toward another person's beliefs. Even if you do not agree, to treat the matter with such disrespect is a commentary on why we can't find any answers after all the millenia that we have been searching for them. A person truly seeking to understand both sides of the argument and then make a decision about it, would never be able to see past the rhetoric and stubbornness they would encounter.

This came as a response to what I said about Robert Ingersoll:

your arguments here and throughout wouldnt hold water. these people were poor and in a dessert ingersol got leather for his shoes from a store .. which exist in his era. these people in the dessert didnt just stop by the local red dyed badger pelt shop for some red dyed badgers!

This came from the Internal Contradiction Convention:

Several years ago I was in a discussion with a student at a Bible college in Oklahoma. This man was near the age of 40, if not older, proving you are never too old to receive the Call. I was 32 at the time. Remember, the key word here is discussion, not debate, not lecture, not argument. We were discussing variations in Christian belief. I mentioned how the Church of Christ is divided over whether to allow musical instruments to be used during services and how I considered this to be a minor if not petty reason for a schism. I also mentioned some of the books I had read that examined the historical accuracy of the New Testament. As I continued to cite some of their details, this kind gentleman's eyes grew wider and wider. When I finished, he said to me, and I will never forget his exact words, "Your problem is, you're too educated." Our discussion closed on that note because he was about to turn it into a personal attack on me. Why? Because I had read some books that might give someone reason to pause and reconsider their faith? I think so.

I still read those kinds of books, books written by secular scholars; and I read books written by clerical scholars. For the most part, and I give heavy accent to the word "most" here, books written by secular scholars are unbiased; they present substantiated facts with little interpretation. For the most part, and again accent on "most," books written by clerical scholars have an agenda to them. That agenda is to convert readers to their brand of Christianity or to retain those readers who are already believers as firmer believers. Most books written by secular scholars are meant to appeal to the intelligent, the educated, and the seekers of factual truth. Most books written by clerical scholars are meant to appeal to the less intelligent, the uneducated, and the fearful who only want their faith reaffirmed because they simply do not want to think for themselves.

Secular scholars, for the most part, do not make personal attacks on those who disagree with them. Clerical scholars, for the most part, do make personal attacks on those who disagree with them. This has been the CHRISTIAN way since the 2nd Century C.E. The very history the clerical scholars cite proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The question is this: Why do these clerical scholars, and thus clerics, do this? Can you answer this question? Do you want to answer this question? Probably not.

When I was 17, I joined the Church of Christ. The first thing I learned was the Mormons and the Catholics were evil. Three years later I was baptized a Mormon. Ten years after that I married a Catholic after having been married to a Lutheran for seven years. In the 1990s, I had a friend who is a minister for the Assembly of God. I mention these experiences as examples of how I have gained a wide range of practical religious experience over my 60 years of life.

All that experience has taught me one thing: As long as you keep your mouth shut and your wallet open, you can get along just fine in most Christian churches; but if you question anything, anything at all, anything about the church, the church leaders, the church doctrine, anything at all related to the church, you become persona non grata within that church.

Why do clerics fear being questioned about the facts of history? Can you answer this question? Do you want to answer this question? Probably not.

Here is a question you might be willing to answer but will probably come up with the wrong answer. What is the single most important difference between Gnosticism of the first four centuries C.E. and the proto-orthodox Christian sect that evolved into the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church (and the lesser orthodox churches), and the Coptic Orthodox Church?

One more question. If you are so firm in your faith, why do you feel the necessity to attack anyone who might possibly disturb the foundation of that faith? I already know what the real answer is, and I already know what your answer will be. I know the real answer because I have seen it demonstrated by every minister, pastor, priest, deacon, elder, and bishop I have ever met. I know your answer because every single one of them already gave it to me.

If you really believe in Jesus, don't you think you should follow His example?

Next, email from the Association to Demonstrate the Need for Critical Thinking:

I read your C. Dennis McKinsey. Refuted and Squished Like a Bug three times and I am left scratching my head.What on earth did you say?What did you squish and how?

I was not raised in christian home,but have spent the last two or three years reading the bible and reading pros and cons on the web about christianity,just doing as much research as I can.

After all this I am left bewildered.How could anyone believe there is a God let alone the Christian god.I am left believing that if you believe in a god the one you believe in depends on what continent you are born and raised in.If you or I were born and raised in Saudi Arabia we would probably be Muslim.If you or I were raised in India we would probably be Hindu.Those people believe there religion is the right one and yours is wrong.Who is going to hell?Is there really a hell,I cant say,can you truly say?Who can say!

Sorry but I just havent found any true answers except that we are here and we all must be as good to other people as we want them to be to us!

Member of that group also sent:

An invisible magic man that lives in the clouds is the ultimate in stupidity, who could top that? I know that as a Christian you can do terrible things to the truth and still feel good about yourself. I've seen your web site. I've seen you explain away the most damning of evidence against Christianity using all the classic Christian tools, straw man, moving the goalposts, red herring, pious fraud, outdated information, least plausible hypothesis, special pleading and the list goes on. Much of what is in the film in the link below has been unjustly dismissed on your site using those debate tools. Like you say you think you are an expert at looking things up, that is the easy part! lol! You just have a problem interpreting the information you find in a logical way, something goes terribly wrong in your head in other words. This video will help you to properly apply the information in a logical way, something you can't do on your own. Anyway, here is the vid:

The video includes Jordan Maxwell (an Acharya source) as a source.

Then this from the Nutjob Defense Council:

I just found your 'critical review' of Eisenman's seminal work, which I daresay will be read long after your works have been forgotten.

Just a note: 'Sez you' is not generally considered critical review. You obviously have an axe to grind, and I suspect an allegiance to something other than historical truth. Only someone with a vested interest or something to defend would characterize this work, probably the most significant work on biblical textual criticism ever published in English, as a 'conspiracy theory'.

Of course, if history has conspired to finally let the truth out, so be it. To answer Eisenman's points would be one thing: to point out that Eisenman has evolved a completely different paradigm concerning Christian origins is both obvious and the point of Eisenman's book!

To point out that a lot of people won't like it, well, duh.

To tell people not to bother reading it is ripping them off of an opportunity to explore their faith, and a fear-based reaction that tells us more about you than anything else.

The August 2007 John Loftus Collection

As it happens, not John Loftus, but Loftus fanboy Matthew Green, wins the most Gold for his group this month, for a whole passel of reasons:

  • Taking so long to get up to speed on my name change;
  • This (important part in bold):
    I close this month with a important new piece on [Holding] and "faith" in terms of what he considers important for salvation. This article exposes that [Holding]'s claim that Christians need a "patron-client" relationship is inapplicable to modern America because we don't live in a society that is based upon the perception of the "limited good". What this means is that Christians like [Holding] cannot really count themselves among the "saved" because [Holding] doesn't live in an honor-shame society like that in the Middle East or the ancient Mediterranean, which would make such a "dyadic contract" like "patron-client" relationships necessary.
  • This:
    Third, if the disciples would've been expecting a "guardian angel" or a "twin" of Jesus to appear rather than Jesus himself, why is it that no New Testament gospel narrative of the resurrection has Jesus demonstrating himself alive to overcome this mistaken impression? In Luke's passage on the resurrection, it is not an "angel" of Jesus that looks just like him but they mistake him for a ghost or a spirit.

    Um.....what does he think an angel WAS to the Jews but a spirit?

  • This:
    ..why didn't the women at the tomb mistake the angels for the "guardian angel" or "angelic twin" of Jesus?

    Golly. Couldn't be because them angels didn't LOOK like Jesus, could it???

  • His expansion of side mentions of the "evil eye" by Jesus and Paul into a whole package of beliefs they allegedly held about casting spells and making evil projections.
  • For enormous contradiction:
    • In his blog, May 30, 2007:
      I seriously believe that Holding has a superiority complex. This would account for many observations I have seen over the years I have read Holding's essays and watched his response to skeptics and heretics.
    • in his blog, August 7, 2007:
      Indeed, I am very much persuaded that the poor fellow has an "inferiority complex" which I think explains a lot of disturbing observations I have made about him over the years.

    Y'don't suppose he makes this stuff up as he goes along, do ya?

  • For referring to me as "J. P. Hominid" as though that's an insult. Um, Matthew? Every human being on this planet is a "hominid".
  • Because his blog is attracting all kinds of nutcases, who also make good screwballs. Here's one who left him a comment: Every Best Gift You've seen Mel Gibson's movie 'Passion of the Christ'! Now read the book that nullifies the central premise of the film - the 'divinity' of Jesus of Nazareth.

    It is an original and provocative work in that it not only names the biological father of Jesus and systematically dismantles the major church doctrines of the 'Trinity' and the 'Miraculous Incarnation', but also offers evidence that, aside from his extraordinary qualities of character, the New Testament writers regarded Jesus as a normal man in every respect.

    It also reveals the reasons why such 'fabulous' doctrines were adopted subsequent to the crucifixion.

    The work is presented in the form of a novel where forensics, intrigue, romance, betrayal, and the ultimate in conspiracy theories grip the reader from first to last.

    Linkages have been made throughout between historical fact and the fictional events portrayed in the novel. The framework thus created sets the scene for a classic dénouement that integrates the entire work and postulates the existence of a centuries-old 'conspiracy', breathtaking in its scope and ambition, factual in essence but fictional in the detail.

    And another commenter:

    The first ****** Left Behind novel is going to turns out to be fairly accurate, as you'll see below (I'm an atheist by the way). My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions! The Secret Rapture soon, by my hand! Read My Inaugural Address My Site=

    Yep. Just goes to show: Stupid and crazy attracts stupid. Speaking of that, Loftus did win some Gold for these:

    Today I was called an "idiot" and a "moron" for arguing that God should have told human beings a few things he did not so, when it came to the ancient superstitious problem for modern Christians about the evil eye. He said, "If you were this ignorant in the pulpit then I really feel sorry for your former congregation." (Of course, that comment was deleted because our debates will either be civil or not take place at all).
    Christians will object to the following dilemma, no doubt. On the one hand, if they cannot explain how a miraculous event took place, skeptics will deny it happened at all. On the other hand, if they can explain how it might have occurred, then skeptics will say it's no longer a miracle. All I can say here is that this is the unavoidable nature of the case when it comes to reported miracles in the pre-scientific superstitious historical past. Skeptics need sufficient evidence of miracles in today's world to accept the Christian faith. Without this evidence the Christian apologist will always have a near impossible time defending his faith, and as such, I think he should simply abandon this attempt. Without present-day evidence or present day miracles, Christianity probably cannot be adequately defended at all. -- It doesn't even occur to him to check the usages of "father" as found in that social setting (such as a patron being called "father"). Also for having no eye on the meaning of the parable of the lost son (the kid got his punishment already by the shame and disgrace he suffered).

    Isn't it crystal clear God could've described the universe differently in order to teach human beings about the vastness and age of the universe? Why didn't the author of the first Creation account in Genesis start out by saying:

    "In the beginning God created an immeasurable universe of billions of stars, some of which are billions and billions of miles (cubits) away, through a process that took billions of years out of which he finally created the sun, moon, and a spherical earth which revolves around the sun. On it he created water, land, the beasts of the sea, and eventually every living thing on it. Finally he created human beings to rule over everything he created."

    I just don't see why God didn't reveal this, if he exists, or why ancient people couldn't have had a good grasp of what he said.

    Loftus' Useful Idiot Lee Randolph wins Gold for this whine in support:

    Jesus could have given us Ptolemies Tables before Ptolemy (140ce) or got the jump on Dioscorides (50ce) and wrote a little something about pharmacology. Jesus could have told us that the world is not flat and that the stars are not rooted in a dome over the earth. Eratosthenes (240 bc) proved the world was not flat and Tyco Brahe (1577) proved there were no domes around the earth. If these had come from divine revelation from a prophet, just think how much this fact would support a belief in Jesus.
    Instead Zero came from the Hindus and Algebra came from the Muslims (generally speaking) and Jesus apparently erroneously predicted his return before all his apostles died (Mt. 16:28).
    Jesus could have told us about the earths water cycle, precipitation, how to build better materials, how to improve sanitation, how to handle infections better, how to do agriculture better, that God doesn't live in the clouds, etc. Jesus should have come as the engineer/leader/politician type anticipated by the Jews. He could have changed the face of politics forever.
    Jesus could have told us about the Fibonacci series in Nature, Quantum Mechanics (1900), the Chaos theory (1903) that there is energy stored in matter (1905), Jesus could have told us that randomness in a closed system, much like what can be demonstrated by running a 'chaos theory' program on a computer, is common in nature. Jesus could have told us about Evolution (1859).

    Gold also to commenter "jospeh" who adds this foolishness explaining why he thinks Jesus should have related all of this to first century Palestinian peasants whose main concern was whether they'd be able to eat the next day:: would have established the credibility of his credentials, in revealing his divine scientific foreknowledge. Isn't this one of the purported evidences that Christian apologists sometimes use to prove the divine inspiration of Scripture, anyway (e.g. pointing to Old Testament laws regarding diet and sanitation)? I can't think of a better way to convince people of his God-nature than to reveal knowledge that only God could have about his creation.

    But, let's say that Jesus only came to address the salvation issue. Fine, then he could have addressed it definitively with absolutely no room for anyone to get it wrong. And yet, we're still debating it to this day (e.g. Protestants vs. Catholics, faith alone vs. baptism, eternal security vs. falling from grave).

    Oh, so it's clarity we need huh? Maybe "jospeh" can explain why Loftus had so much trouble with the 7th commandment?

    Finally, Loftusite dagoodS, who says many silly things, wins one; here's an exemplary comment:

    Now, given that short historical background-how likely is it that the Governor of Damascus, under Aretas, would have recognized letters from a High Priest in Jerusalem as authoritative? What is the likelihood of said governor working with the Jews?
    They hated each other! Their King's daughter was humiliated by the Jews. Aretas deliberately separated himself from the Roman Empire. He would find a Roman Province (such as Judea) claim that he would have to extradite or assist in their internal problem laughable and insulting.
    This is an excellent example of why Luke is either a poor historian, or is deliberately substituting the Jews for a non-Jewish government.

    Oh well. He'll learn it's better to keep his mouth shut.

    The Random Skeptic Collection -- Gold for Bobbie Kirkhart. Check the link for why.

    Platinum nomination for Hugh Brennan, who posted this review of TIF on Amazon:

    Having debated J.P.Holding (aka Robert Turkel) via e-mail, one finds that he is little different from the other intellectually dishonest Christian apologists that litter the landscape. He is unable to answer the deep, serious problems that are inherent in the Bible, foremost of which is it's legendary historical inaccuracies, lapses in reason and credulity, and as usual resorts to name calling to get his point across (see his website). Those of us who have debated him have noticed that from a Christian perspective he is grossly filled with the sins of pride and arrogance, which hinder his presentation and of which his level of intellect doesn't justifiy. Holding seems incapable of grasping the way mankind thinks and offers no compelling reason why one should believe in "Book gods" whether it's Biblegod, Korangod, or any number of paper deities. All religions and their gods are "impossible faiths" Why would millions believe in Zeus? Is Allah real and Muhammad his prophet because BILLIONS believe it to be so? Surely the BILLIONS that believe in eastern religions have "facts" on why their "impossible faith" is true. Holding did not come close to adequately addressing these issues, and like his fellow apologists, use clever fabrications to sledge hammer the square peg of the Bible into the round hole of reason, and ridicule those who dare to think for themselves. One will find more coherent arguments for Christianity elsewhere.

    Since then, Hugh has entered full-blown JPHOCD and is seeking therapy. Lesser award for Jake S., a reviewer on Amazon who posted this about TIF:

    The writing is fine. The ideas are put together cogently. But it's simple and the arguments are cliche. The author writes from apriori and assertion which is all well and good but something substantive needs to be added to lend credibility to the assertions. Ultimately this is why self publication is a dangerous thing. There are an aweful lot of bad ideas and writing out there and with the advent of the internet and self publication authors who don't have the ability or talent to get published can do it themselves. But really, if you can't get published in the real world perhaps there's a good reason for that?

    And a similar award for "Perceival" for his review of Case for the Real Jesus:

    As with "The case for Christ" this is another fine disaster. Once again, the argument is "look, these Christians have PhDs and they still believe in Christ!" This time he takes on specific scholarly criticisms of Christianity in more detail. But in so doing, he doesn't represent the best arguments or the cases themselves so much as this or that scholar's case against Christianity. I did get the sense that again he soft pedals and misrepresents criticisms of Christianity. I also issue the same warning as with the case for Christ. Please be advised that most universities and scholars within Academia are not impressed with the works of fundamentalist Christian scholars.

    Does this mean you shouldn't believe in Christianity at all?

    All I'm saying here is this is the wrong approach to apologetics. Unfortunately, evidential apologetics tend to fail, classical apologetics fail, presuppositional apologetics fail, cumulative case reasoning fails and so on. Even fideism fails unless it is unspoken and unacknowledged fideism as we generally find in the New Testament.

    The simple answer is this. All apologetic efforts fail. The charter verse for apologetics states we should be ready to have an answer for the faith that lies within us. That answer should be "the bible says so". This is of course circular reasoning so we cannot defend it. But this is what Christianity is. We see contradictions in the bible but we are faithful and continue to confess that it doesn't contradict itself. We have no reason to believe except our experience of what we feel is the Holy Spirit and what the bible says, and what other Christians say, and perhaps some circumstances in life that we interpret as God working. Some part of us knows that's not enough. But we must believe anyway. We may even know deep down that it simply isn't true. No matter. We are called and instructed in the bible to believe, and believe we must.

    Drachronicler also wins for thinking Yahweh and El are two different gods and that Yahweh is a winged meat-eating dragon, and such as:

    Before dismissing this out of hand, I would ask everyone read the whole post., and read it from the premise that Yahweh and El (Elohim) are two seperate entities, (as many serious Biblical scholars have proposed), with El being the Creator, and Yahweh being the most important of the Bene Elohim, which also in include the Creature Satan, long associated with flying serpents and dragons.

    Bottom line, Yahweh is a created creature that was in existence long before mankind could evolve. I realize concepts like "evolution are beyond the understanding of many here, but this is why virtually every human culuture originally regarded their "gods" as dragons. They are the most suitable of the older creations to become the Bene Elohim, apportioned to all the human tribes in Deuteronomy. And I mean the real version found in the dead sea scrolls, that were not change from Sons of God, to Sons of Israel. Ah, but this is already getting over the heads of the Sunday School set out their who do not even know their Bibles are not the same as the original Bible.

    If we only had that "original bible" you would see "more dragons" than at a Harry Potter Convention. But I do the next best thing, and fill in all the missing blanks where the dragons were removed. And not with my own creativity but with ancient Hebrew scripture. The part where Moses is swallowed alive for not removing his son's foreskin is a good example of the "missing dragons", but I bet the Sunday-school level hecklers have no idea what I am talking about.

    Amnouy also nominates for Platinum for just too much to put here...

    The Confused Believer Collection

    Theostudent becomes a Platinum n00b nominee for lots of stuff, like this:

    I can not abandon what the Lord has revealed to me.

    If we are made in the image of God, then indeed God has a right hand and a left hand.

    The Key of David, the Legend that corrosponds to the Bible, the Ten sephiroth which revelas the Heavens and their Structure, showing the Right hand of the Father and his Left Hand, and the Earth which is his footstool.

    For it is written.

    Elsewhere he claims he is the logos incarnate -- and so is everyone else! BurntOffering also wins for stuff like:

    There is No Excuse for you; or reason you should interpret Rebecca as a Goddess. All scripture is given to US as an example; and I contend GOD used this part to Excplain HERSELF. Furhter that God our Father, is Also our Mother or a Female Spirit, Holy Hostess whose womb, waters and heavenly body All come from. Such as Her Son/Sun Jesus Christ and Her Lunatic/moon Daughter Satan.

    Plus, saying that we're all gods and Satan is in the Trinity!

    Rhonda Byrne wins, along with her screwy film "The Secret" for passing along its cult as "science."

    China wins for telling Tibet's living Buddhas to apply for reincarnation

    Blogger "MaxInfidelis" wins for his site, and stuff like:

    Why does belief in an invisible man deserve respect? Your beliefs or anyone's beliefs for that matter do not deserve unquestioned respect, I don't care what or who you believe in. If anything is deserving of respect it's rational thought. Why does science deserve respect? Science isn't based on beliefs, nor is it used to defend beliefs. Instead it is a tool for discerning which results, based on experimental data, are closest to describing observed reality. Science deals with the natural world, not the fantasy world of the supernatural. So when I hear Muslims, Christians tell me that what they believe deserves automatic respect I just have to laugh at their stupidity, you will get none from me. I especially find the Qur'an offensive, the life and times of a barbarian, how interesting. Religion is stupidity, nothing more. If you believe in an invisible man running the universe, that makes you automatically stupid and incapable of rational thought, I have nothing but contempt for you and your phony god. Until you dig yourself out of that *beep* hole of religion, don't expect a lot of sympathy from me, I have sympathy for some but as a general rule you are a lower evolved life form. -- award to the people named in an article here. You have to get the July 27 archive, but here's a quote:

    Just when I thought we charismatics had finally taken enough abuse from the egomaniac ministers in our midst, I've learned that some of our leaders are taking things to a new extreme. We've moved beyond the red carpets, limousines and entourages of the 1990s. A new strain of the celebrity virus is spreading in large segments of the church.
    One friend of mine in Texas recently inquired to see if a prominent preacher could speak at her conference. The minister's assistant faxed back a list of requirements that had to be met in order to book a speaking engagement. The demands included:
    • a five-figure honorarium
    • a $10,000 gasoline deposit for the private plane
    • a manicurist and hairstylist for the speaker
    • a suite in a five-star hotel
    • a luxury car from the airport to the hotel (2004 model or newer)
    • room-temperature Perrier

    This really makes me wonder how the apostle Paul, Timothy or Priscilla managed ministering to so many people in Ephesus, Corinth and Thessalonica. How did they survive without a manicurist if they broke a nail while laying hands on the sick?

    I was relieved to know that this celebrity preacher's requirements in 2007 did not include a set of armed bodyguards-because I just might want to jump uninvited into her Rolls-Royce and say a few words.

    Me, too!;f=2;t=000419;p=1 -- several people in this thread -- Website award to Paul Jacobsen, who since I crushed him in debate has STILL not learned that "how do you know" is not an argument, as he now attacks Strobel's newest book. He also hasn't leanred a darned thing about NT scholarship in the intervening time.

    Use of numerology here:

    Oraclemv, Nazi in training: -- this gets Platinum nomination.

    A unique kit with instructions, scriptures, oil and stakes to dedicate your property to the Lord.

    I read about this in the latest issue of CRJ. You're supposed to draw a circle in the center of your property using the "anointing oil" and have all your family and friends inside for a communion service. Then your bury the unused bread and wine. Metz and tc -- Platinum candidate -- Platinum candidate

    Ted Haggard is back and asking for money: -- Apparently these guys are ultra-Calvinists who think non-Calvinists and even "tolerant" Calvinists are risking hell. Platinum candidate. Sample quote:

    It matters not whether the heretic is John Calvin or John Doe. If that person promotes damnable heresy, then that person is unregenerate.

    Do you bow at the feet of these people and maintain that they are Christians no matter what they have said? Or do you judge by God's standard alone, no matter how famous or how respected these people are by religionists? How you respond tells a lot about you.....

    Finally, people say that when we put people in the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame, we are condemning them to hell. This is a false accusation. We are condemning no one to hell. We are not saying that anyone in the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame is in hell or will go to hell. We do not judge who is or is not reprobate (non-elect) among those who are unregenerate. That is not for us to know. We do not know if God saved some of these people after they made these quotes or will yet save some of these people who are still alive. What we do judge is that a person who confesses a false gospel, a damnable heresy that denies an essential gospel doctrine, is unregenerate at the time he makes the confession. And we know that if God chooses to save such a person, that person will no longer confess a false gospel. When God saves an Arminian, he is no longer an Arminian. When God saves someone who believes in universal atonement, he is no longer someone who believes in universal atonement. When God saves a tolerant Calvinist, he is no longer a tolerant Calvinist.