It's been a long, hot summer, especially for John Loftus and for the star of a new section here at the Screwbies. As always, check here for more Screwballs who didn't earn Gold.

Self-righteous delusion seemed to be the order of the day from folks who wrote's one from the mystic side:
Having just read Finkelstein and Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed", I noticed that they made no mention of the fact that the myth of the baby Moses in the bullrushes closely resembles the Sargon story.

That's why I was checking Sargon and Moses on Google and came across your site amongst others. You seem to think that Exodus is real. However, as Israeli archaeologists themselves now acknowledge (the so-called Crisis of Israeli Archaeology hushed up by Zionist myth-makers) there was no Exodus, no Abraham coming from Ur, no Joshua conquering Canaan and no glorious empire of David and Solomon (who were merely tribal Chieftains of the backward hill region called Judah - rather like today's tribal warlords in Waziristan).

By the way, I am the man who identified the physical correlate of the Inner Light (Divine Light, Godhead, Atman, Buddha Nature, Christ, al haqq, Sophia etc.) with a well-established brain process known to all medics which will eventually lead to the extinction of all mythological Semitic 'religion' as claimants to spiritual authority.

And here's one from the reputedly Christian side:

I just read your review of The Shack at

After finishing it, I was compelled to write this e-mail to you to say how sorry I am for you. It is obvious that whatever your faith, and your beliefs, you have not yet developed a personal relationship with God.

Well, I do have a personal relationship with God, and it is very real. God is not a distant overseer of God's creation, but an active participant in it each and every day. Every day, I walk with God and I talk with God. I do have a very close and personal relationship that amazes me with what God accomplishes not only in my life, but in my church, my community, and in the world around me. I can tell you and show you with many specific examples how God answers prayer and works with me to overcome difficulties.

I can only hope and pray that someday, somewhere, some how you are able to overcome your self-centered, myopic picture of a distant and uninvolved God and that you can become one with God. Then, and only then, can you understand that God can be an African-American woman who can express love and kindness much like a loving mother. Even though God is a spirit, without gender, or race, God can appear to us in a spiritual way in any form that has meaning to us.

Again, I really do feel sorry for your loss because your life could be so much better if only you could understand.

Turns out this guy is a United Methodist minister. Here's a sample from his church's website that speaks for itself:

Our ministry helps people recognize and develop their spirituality bringing them into a loving relationship with God. We concentrate on helping you to.recognize the important things in life in a way that removes unnecessary complexity. We do not tell anyone what to believe. We do not provide a "top ten" list of things you have to do, or what you have to believe, in order to be initiated into a private fraternity of special Christians. We do not criticize what you may already believe, but we can help you shape, strengthen, and build upon those beliefs to.make your spiritual life better. We help you develop your own spirituality in ways that with a meaningful relationship with God. Come and visit us. Let us show you how simple it.can be to begin the process of re-connecting your life with God's purpose for you.

He also wrote Tekton associate Nick Peters about his review of The Shellack:

I think you need to go back and read the Nicene Creed, and the history of the Council of Nicea. It is patently obvious that you don't know squat about the nature of the Trinity, or even the accepted Christian definition, as agreed to by the Council of Nicea. The discussion in the Shack is a lot closer to the reality of The Nicene Creed than your mumbo-jumbo and demonstrates your total ignorance.

Kind of ironic that he accuses me of having a "self-centered, myopic picture" of God The Shack is all about ME ME ME ME in the first place. What's more ironic is that his church doesn't tell you what to believe but here he is condemning our well-researched convictions.

Another slightly less deluded Christian wrote....

I happened on your article on the fish symbol and the Christian / Pagan debate. And for some crazy reason I feel compelled to write this even though I have things I have to get done shortly.

Respectfully, I found it to be rather disingenuous. I would agree that Christianity in fact was not using the symbol as a "pagan" symbol(at least consciously). But to say they just chose it out the clear blue sky is rather naive, considering the worldwide historic use of this very symbol dating back over a thousands years before Christ.

Its very commonality, use, and long history surely qualify it as one of the top ten symbols of the ages. The EXACT can be said of the cross. The circle. Your assertion that in the end it doesn't really matter flies in the face of logic(at least spiritually). The fact that all of these symbols have been prevalent way before Christ directly implies great importance. Regardless of some factions having slightly different symbolic meanings in literal terms, the general spirit of the meanings predominantly coincide. With enough research into the various language and cultural differences, and a historical understanding of the changes throughout time it becomes very hard to deny significance. You seem to suggest that syncretism does not play role, but I simply do not understand. The many mergers that Constantine made thoughout his reign are incredibly hard to ignore(I am not judging right or wrong). It hard to see a time in history that syncretism does not play a role along with noticable(and annoying)changes to the Bible itself, whether subtle or not.

I guess I might be debating over the appropriateness of the adoption the symbol by Christianity in the first place. Then later to the adoption of symbol of the cross. (See Deuteronomy Chapter 4 for images of fish and idolatry.) Why any symbols at all? Why could Chritianity not stand on its own?

I would agree that to most people, this argument means nothing. I'm sorry to say that I see most people as mis-guided fools by choice. That's probably because of the secular ways we are forced to live in. Symbols to most, means nothing more than religious objects with associations to a set of defined ideas. In that context, the symbol plays a role of relative insignificance (regardless of usage)while the ideals(or in this case religion)do not carry general meaning only prescribed behavior and thought.

But to an individual that is aware both spiritually and intellectually the symbol is somewhat different thing. Its meaning stands alone, regardless if there is an association or not. My point is that a real symbol is not religious at all. Its only purpose is to bring a significant thought paradigm to the front of ones mind. It has no mandate after that. But that in itself is powerful.

We live in a world with ancient symbols everywhere. Their predominance suggest more than just coincidence or a progressive adoption chain. In fact, it suggests that syncretism has been regularly used as a tool to further much bigger agendas.

But then again look at the incredible numbers of so called "Christian" leaders and political figures that do not miss their annual pilgrimage to the oak grove to participate in week long celebration ending with the Cremation of Care. Just a little sacrifice to Moloch for his efforts.

Well I won't keep you any longer. Just my two cents.

And the last deluded soul was of an unknown allegiance who wrote me re the Trinity....

dEAR sIR,,i just finished reading a great part of your site regarding the spent a great deal of time in tearing apart the above subject...would you be so kind as to do the same with the TRUTH of Who YAHWEH is vs. Jesus and talk in detail about how a whole race of people have disapeared...THE HEBREWS...and who are the JEWS in reality as the letter J is only 371 yrs old...

if you would devote as much time to the above..many lives who be much improved and ten thousand angels who dance on your grave and you'd live eternally...

The August 2009 John Loftus Collection

John took a lot of time off this month, but he got a new one torn for him by some folks here that deserves attention. His one post worthy of an award went like this:

Am I egotistical? What if I am? Am I a self-promoter? Why shouldn't I be? What if I want fame? Who doesn't? An egotistical person is usually in the eye of the beholder anyway, and since it takes one to know one, the person making that accusation is probably more affected by that disease. The truth about me is that I lack a whole lot of self-esteem. I'm never satisfied with my efforts. I always find fault with them. I continually think I don't measure up. So when people tell me I did something great I get excited about it. If I appear egotistical then it's merely because I'm overjoyed and excited that people tell me I did something great. This is what people are telling me about my efforts to debunk Christianity.

And Michael "Jesus prohibited cussing" Martin wins for this comment on Loftus' upcoming book:

John Loftus and his distinguished colleagues have certainly produced one of the best and arguably the best critique of the Christian faith the world has ever known. Using sociological, biblical, scientific, historical, philosophical, theological and ethical criticisms, this book completely destroys Christianity. All but the most fanatical believers who read it should be moved to have profound doubts.
The August 2009 Lunchback of Notre Dame Collection

Yes, we have a new section here, especially for the artist presently known as Yo Lunch. He's just so screwy that we cast votes and decided he needed his own section. YL gave us two spoiled morsels this round...

Free Will?! Ha! is that something like if I put a plate of food that contains vomit on it and another one that contains urine and feces and then tell my child to choose one to eat and threatens him with severe punishment if he does not choose one to eat?

Obviously, a REAL freedom of will would be to leave the kid alone! Adam and Eve were told to keep the garden, be fruitful and multiply. Then they were told not to eat fruit from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil after first being told that they could eat from ALL the trees in the garden, including that tree and the Tree of Life! Mixed legends!

The point is, your argument of "free will" is a specious one that Christians use to foster their BS specious doctrine!

And this:

No problem! This Daniel fella was big on dreams and visions so let's see what the Lord has to say about these things: 'I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed." Jeremiah 23:25

"Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words...that use their thoughts, and say He saith.Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies...yet I sent them not, nor command them...saith the Lord." verses 30, 31, 32

"How shall we know which the Lord hath not spoken?" Here is how: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken.." .Deut 18:21,22.

Daniels predicted the demise of Belshazzar for not being humble and says that he was slain that same night, he was wrong because history shows us that Belshazzar died peacefully in 561 B.C.! HAURUUUMMMMMPH!

So, all I have to do is show that Daniel failed in a single prophecy and all the others must be dismissed as well! Ahem!

Actually, history shows no such thing. The historians Herodotus and Xenophon testify to a military takeover of Babylon, albeit an easy one.

The Random Skeptic Collection

"mpb1", a newly-minted apostate (whose apostasy I predicted some time ago) came back to TWeb to promote pagan copycat crap, Acharya S, and Wikipedia:

Wikipedia allows NO original research, and anyone who's ever tried posting anything on Wikipedia knows that if you can't back-up an edit with a credible source, it will be deleted.

Wikipedia is collective intelligence at its finest. I seriously doubt anything I quoted would be considered controversial to any expert in the field.

So if you consider the information I posted to be a good example of pre-Christian mythology that looks a lot like Christianity, then all it comes down to is whether or not the information is accurate.

So how many Egyptologists or academic scholars would it take to convince you this information is accurate?

My guess is the number wouldn't matter.

Because if you don't want to believe something is true, you can come up with one BS argument after another - which is what Christians do on a daily basis to argue against any evidence that doesn't fit into their worldview.

If the information I posted is accurate (which you and I both know, 99% of it probably is), the honest response would be to say you accept history for what it is, you recognize that pre-Christian mythologies looked a lot like Christianity, but you still choose to believe Christianity is true.

At least that's honest.

Challenged to debate me, mpb1 declined, for good reason -- he'd lose badly.

As far as debating JP Holding, I would have to spend weeks or months immersing myself in this topic and reading every book available, in order to debate him.

JP is a professional Christian apologist, and because he LIVES immersing himself in these topics, he would have an unlimited amount of Christian ammunition to fire back at everything I'd say - whether or not the information was FACTUAL.

If I could afford to take a month off work, then I could at least consider it. But becoming a debate-worthy expert in this topic is not something I can afford to do.

He did debate one of our people, Nick Peters, on the problem of evil, but laid down some screwy conditions:

Right up front, I'm telling you I will NOT be answering any QUESTIONS. I'll respond to ARGUMENTS, but that's it.

A couple years ago, I got into discussions with a number of people on TWeb who liked to play lecturer / teacher / inquisitor [naughty part removed] using questions for the purpose of condescension, attempting to force me to answer like a child. This was their standard m.o. I'm sure anyone reading this could identify a few of these folks on TWeb.

I refused to play that game then, and there's not a chance in hell I'm playing it here.

So feel free to make your case, but you must do it independent of me, or I will ignore you.

Any BS such as, "Answer me this mpb..." or "But you have not answered my question, mpb..." will be completely ignored. I'm warning you don't pull that crap with me.

State your case, and I'll respond however I see fit.








So I'm warning you now, don't screw with me again.

After being beaten soundly in that debate and leaving in a huff, mpb1 issued this postmortem of his own corpse:

Even the non-Christians here often kiss-up to the Christian bullies.

They want to be liked, accepted, and engaged.

So I'm supposed to take the word of someone who's willing to stick around this place and pussy-foot around all the Christian bullies?

Like that person's opinion matters. To me, it doesn't.

Again, any 100 non-Christians with a brain could write-off every word Nick said as NOTHING MORE THAN CONJECTURE.

He proved nothing.

But again, with Christians lined up to pat him on the back, and everyone huddled around to congratulate themselves on another false victory, what more should I expect?

To close out his nomination for Pretentious Jackass of the Year, here's the intro to his former forum - which he took down after he heard some TWeb folks (like me) were coming there to teach him a lesson:

This forum is intended as a place where academics, researchers, laymen, and inquiring minds can post research, links, ideas, questions, etc. related to various fields of science and a host of other topics, including religion, which I'll discuss a little further below.

Like Wikipedia, where 'collective intelligence' often brings us as close to OBJECTIVE REALITY as possible - based on available facts and evidence - the goal here is to seek and share knowledge, as well as to dispel myths and disprove lies.

...On a personal note, as the forum administrator, I'd like to mention one of the motivations I had in creating this forum. This topic is not exactly appropriate for a forum introduction. But I'm including it here so the intent of this forum is clear - TO SEEK AND SHARE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, whatever that may be. I once believed wholeheartedly in something I now know to be false, and because of this, I have an even greater appreciation for truth - not as I wish it to be, but as it really is.

...In all other fields of knowledge discussed on this forum, hopefully, as happens on Wikipedia, collective intelligence will lead to a consensus of knowledge that is as close to absolute truth as possible - with the knowledge, of course, that in many fields, research is ongoing, and facts may change over time.

On Wikipedia, original research CANNOT be posted (it will be removed). On this forum, original research and theories are welcome. Established, documented, and proven research is even more welcome! To seeking and sharing truth in all fields of knowledge!

Meanwhile, our old buddy jimbo (Brooks Trubee) serves up another winner. He responded to a quote from WL Craig with an ad hominem tu quoque, so was called him on it. He defended himself by saying:

I don't think I am guilty of this fallacy. I think I am only guilty of trying to make my point by asking Craig a personal question.
P>Jaecp is making his mark:
How the heck did atheism motivate those atrocities? Communist political goals, ending the political power of all opponents, was why those things happened. While atheists did commit them, they were not committed because of atheism.

Your describing anti-theism.

While all anti-theists are atheists, all atheists are not anti-theists.

Harris comment was, If I recall, in the context that religion has done more bad than rape has, as well as a good amount of rape as well.

JimL remains squarely fundy atheist and conspiracy theorist:

Again what the bible says is not evidence for the validity of what the bible says.

All texts have been manipulated over time anyway

Seasanctuary just gets fundier and fundier in this nomination for Platinum:

[If The Bible is Inspired... -- thread title] ...why didn't God spare half a page for an inspired table of contents?

Jon Day is still smarting from a beating I gave him a while back...

If you're going to post a source for one to get a clue...maybe you should choose something other than tektonics. It is an incredibly biased source written by a fat guy who sucks at drawing. This guy has no credentials whatsoever, was originally just a prison employee...and yet he dupes many people...most likely those just like yourself...into giving him money so he can further his fatness and sit around at home on the computer doing nothing but being rude on messageboards, and an ass.

Library Science is considered a legitimate credential? I know how to shelve books...does that mean I could be considered an authority on history, theology, logic? Anything really?...other than Library Science? I myself am a graphic designer...I don't pretend to be a preacher.

Not only that...but it covers a wide-range of potential applications, and does not indicate that one who holds a degree in said field, has any knowledge of anything other than how to categorize, store, preserve, and crossreference specific materials

Member 30929 comes aboard with a slice of paranoia:

So get on with it. Pray right now, in Jesus' name, for the bolt from the sky. (It's called Imprecatory Prayer.) I give you my permission to do so. Pray now, or give up your stupid religion, because it'll be clear that you don't really believe in it.

Okay, so you refused to pray for your "god" to strike me with a thunderbolt. (And not out of any kindness, either, did you refuse.) Looks like I'll have to up the ante:

ONE WEEK FROM TODAY, I'm going to BURN A BIBLE. I'll probably cackle, and dance around it, too.

Are you going to let me get away with it? Better stop me while you can. Get praying, y'all.

Just imagine how smug I'll be when I get away with this one.

Kris Kormanitsky raises the bar after I suggest he do some reading:

If you could revise your suggested reading list to one that addresses not whether or not high-context was used in the ancient world, but why Paul would not mention a discovered empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 if the Corinthians doubted Jesus' resurrection, I would appreciate it (and, as I said before, if all such reading material depends on the conclusion that none of the Corinthians doubted Jesus' resurrection, then I would probably not find such reading material very useful).... I am more than willing to follow up on substantive leads at my own pace, but I feel like you do not understand my position on the high-context issue and we simply disagree on whether or not the Corinthians doubted Jesus' resurrection, and so your reading list right now does not seem very relevant or promising.

Brett "Pompus Dumbass" Palmer wins a Screwbie for this whinefest replying to my article "The Clarity Complaint" (which he apparently didn't notice I took down on the revamp):

One of the recession-proof benefits of Christian apologetics is that the Bible is so filled with culture-bound language, archaic imagery, apparent contradictions and discrepancies --hardly the constraints one would think could be imposed upon an omnipotent god were his desire to inspire a handbook for all of humankind regardless of culture or time-that the apologist is assured a never ending stream of skeptical criticisms of the doctrine of inerrancy to which he can respond. And, to the apologists' delight, each of them can compose their own defense of the text and call it legitimate, even when apologists don't agree among themselves on the solution! Instead of battling skeptics, they can battle themselves for a change every once in a while!...

Of course, to an apologist, the Bible is clear and anyone who disagrees -in Mr. Holding's estimation-is a "lower-rent Skeptic." Mr. Holding believes that "the Bible is clear to anyone who wants to invest the tiniest smidgen of effort in coming to it on its own terms." Those "terms," obviously, are those that Mr. Holding (or any other apologist, if you happen to be visiting their website or browsing their book) has determined for correct Bible reading.

...[Holding]He then gives a few examples of people who have misunderstood him in the past and believes this is evidence of skeptical stupidity, or perhaps "laziness." It's as if Mr. Holding has never been guilty of misunderstanding something someone else said or wrote. We know God is supposedly perfect, but does this extend to Mr. Holding: Apologist Extraordinaire?

In all his whining, however, one will notice that Mr. Holding never answers the complaint. He trolls up these few skeptics who have rubbed him the wrong way and tries to imply that because they can't understand him then skeptics generally would never be able to understand a "plain" Bible, should the fancy have struck the All Mighty to have inspired one. Mr. Holding's rather inflated opinion of himself notwithstanding, how on earth does his irrelevant argument get the Bible off the hook of the original observation....

...The question tears into the heart of every apologetic written, whether his or someone else's. Apologetics are written because the Bible is unclear. Were it clear there would be no need for apologetics. Mr. Holding certainly is free to use whatever form he wishes to answer the complaint (sarcastically, demeaning, scholarly, flippantly, meaningfully, etc.) but he should at least answer it. I don't see an answer to the question at all in his article. He merely states that because a few skeptics misunderstood something he said, then those same skeptics (and everyone else in the world) would have difficulty understanding a clear Bible (as if there were some correlation between being able to understand an internet apologist and being able to understand an ominpotent god; regardless of what Mr. Holding thinks, they are not one and the same!). Apparently, Mr. Holding believes that one documented misunderstanding by a skeptic of something he wrote is enough to judge that skeptic wholly incompetent in the ability to understand the plain language of a being who -by definition-can make anything it inspires to be written completely understandable by anyone.

To be fair, the closest Mr. Holding comes to answering the skeptics' complaint is to say one needs to understand the Bible on its own "terms." But nowhere does he explain why we have to come to the Bible that way. We may hear the complaint from apologists that God isn't required to make his documents clear to everyone; why should God wipe everyone's noses and kiss everyone's hiney? But that doesn't answer the question, either. It's just another dodge. Skeptics merely question why the Bible is not clear (and it is the apologist who claims it is not so they can insert their apologetics into the "difficult" biblical passages) if what God intended to say was important enough to say in the first place. God's words, if they truly flowed from an omniscient, omnipotent being, shouldn't need to be interpreted ten different ways by ten different apologists sporting ten different theologies.

He coulda saved himself a lot of trouble by just saying: "Yes, I am stupid and lazy. So what? I like being that way, and that's God's fault too."

A Screwball to Infidelis Maximus, who ries to defend Kearsey graves from Richard Carrier, and so also nominates Platinum:

we need to be more tolerant of works that we now deem "obsolete" or based on obsolete scholarship. Someday history may say the same thing about our work.

Given the many errors and outright fabrications in Graves' The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, I understand where Carrier is coming from, but here's my problem: works like Graves' are more accessible than many more scholarly contributions, and they get people to think.

But I would argue that we need a wide taxonomy of contra-Christianity works; we need lots of varieties of them. There are many different types of believers out there, and not all of them can be reached by a Richard Carrier, a Sam Harris, or even a Brian Flemming.

Certainly historical accuracy, sourcing, and general integrity are critical, and Carrier is right to point out Graves' failings in these areas. But let's not forget about what you might call-at the risk of sounding melodramatic-'the cause.' Among other things, the unbelief cause is about countering the ill effects of Christianity and other religions by debunking them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Certainly, Graves was an enemy of Christianity.

The historical method isn't the only method of investigating a subject matter so imbued with emotion, and, for some, it's not even the best method.

"AIGBusted" (also known Switch89 on TWeb) shows why stupidity is a hobby of his:

I've just got done reading a chapter of the Christian Apologist JP Holding's "Trusting the New Testament".

He argues that Jesus didn't leave behind any of his own writing because paper was too expensive. Sounds plausible, until you remember that Holding believes Jesus was the [deleted] SON OF GOD!!!

[deleted], the guy can come back from the dead but he can't create a scroll from thin air along with a quill that writes what you dictate like they have on Harry Potter?

Holding's argument only works if you're convinced that Jesus was an ordinary person with no magic powers and no claim to divinity whatsoever. And if you take away that, Holding wouldn't even be writing his book. He is just dumber than a sack of hammers.

The Confused Believer Collection

Nick Peters issues this report of screwiness in action:

I just had a Facebook friend delete me because I wasn't nice enough to the atheists and two of them got offended that I called them cowards. Thus, I can no longer help in those threads.

An award also to one-star reviewers of a book that exposes Benny Hinn as a fraud -- such as:





UrbanMonk has a few choice screws loose...the second one earns a Platinum nom in this category:

The Word of God and the bible are not the same. Once upon a time, someone learned to listen to the Word of God. He became legendary. The NT records some versions of the legend. These are a collection of hearsay, rhetoric, sophistry, and allegorical embellishment along with a hand-ful of edited sound bytes. God has not left the salvation of his Son to such a rag tag assembly of disemblance. The Word of God is the Voice of God is the Spirit of the Holy Spirit. This is the Savior who represents Christ to the lost. The Savior is Spirit, not paper and ink. Those who have ears to hear let them hear...then let them scribe.

Could it be that the cross and resurrection was a parody so convincing that witnesses mistook it for the genuine article? Can Christ really be a man? Can God really die? And why would Jesus want to make a parody of the death of God? For that matter, why would he want to make a parody of the return of God from death? I have some thoughts on this, but would like to hear what others have to say about this first.

Because "sin" is a psychological condition, salvation is a psychological solution. Sin and spell are synonymous. Dispell and gospel are also synonymous. The gospel dispells the notion of sin from the mind of the Son of God. It is the notion of sin which compells him to make "the world" as a defense against the Truth. Salvation, then, if for the mind of the Son of God, split against its very Self...a "house divided". The part of his mind that splits from Truth may be called the "prodigal Son". Truth is Reality is Sanity. So the concept of splitting from one's own Truth is the same as to invite lies, unreality, and insanity. So, sin and insanity are synonymous. Sin is not possible...not according to the Truth. "Sinners" insist that sin is the Truth instead of the Truth...and would kill the Truth in order to maintain their impossible existence as the living dead.

And author in Charisma magazine wins for this:

Jesus never argued with anybody. He certainly had His differences of opinion with the Pharisees, but He didn't fight with them.

The Bible says we are called to be witnesses--not debators. To be effective in evangelism we must simply learn to rely on the Holy Spirit's power--and be prepared to respond to the questions others have about our faith.

In my many witnessing experiences on college campuses, I've learned to lean on the Holy Spirit for guidance in my conversations. I've also learned that most people have the same common excuses.

But rest assured, God is not looking for expert witnesses who have doctorates in theology. He is looking for faithful witnesses who are willing to share their faith with others.

ThiefontheCross posts this:

She was never mentioned in the teachings of the Apostles. Paul said, "I have determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:2). Look in your bible before Matthew 1:1. What does it say? It should say, "THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. If it doesn't, you can write THE GIDEONS INTERNATIONAL 2900 Lebanon Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37214 and request a free copy of the Holy Bible; because there is nothing in the bible that suggests that we are to worship or acknowledge Mary, whose real name is Miriam in the original text. Even she said to His disciples at the wedding, "What ever He says to you do it." Jesus never told them, " You believe in God, believe also in My mother and I." He said, "You believe in God, believe also in Me." He always spoke to them of the Father. His mother was never a point in His teaching. She could not have been what the catholics make of her, no disrespect, but why would Jesus respond to the desciple who said, "behold Your mother and your brothers are looking for you." What was His response? "Who is My mother and who are My brothers? He look around at His disciples and told the one, "They which do the will of My Father are My mother, My brothers, and My sisters." (Matthew 12:49-50). I believe this scripture happened on purpose to properly fit His mother in her rightful context. He said that "whoever" does the will of the Father are His mother and siblings. Yes she had plenty of kids the old fashioned way after the birth of Christ. Also, it is the fact that Joseph her husband was of the lineage of David that qualified her to give birth to the Christ; because God had promised David that of his seed He would raise up the Christ. He and Mary becoming one thus made her able to be the one to bear Him. This means she is equal unto us who do His will. Though Christ is the Son of David, David calls Him Lord. Jesus is Second to the Father, as Joseph was second to Pharoah. When the bible says every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father, Mary the mother of Jesus is included...
Other Theists, Etc.

We start with some modalists....Uaz31 says:

Yes, God the Father did die on the cross Kabane. God the Father is a description of God who is in heaven. Jesus is God but He is in the flesh so He is distinct but still completely God.

The Holy Spirit is God the Father and Jesus as well but it is not flesh nor is it in Heaven therefore it is another distinct characteristic of the Trinity Godhead but never ceases to be God.

Do not put God in a box or deny His omnipotence Kabane. You think you can disect the Bible but you miss the spirit.

And NephilimFree said:

Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. All three are one. There is no yes or no answer. There is one God who expresses Himself three ways.

Turning to those with less specific views, Gatsby said:

you do know that the Beatles are a spiritual group, or were I should say.


Satan IS the 5 sense of humankind, that is what Satan means. It doens't mean some evil person.

To believe that you or I or anyone is seperate from God is of Satan, known as the liar because Satan only allows us to perceive things outside ourselves when we reside within the material body. Satan is not a power on its own but it has been made that by Christain orthodoxy.

Stephen goswami smokes something, then posts:

Certainly there is predestination. Hindu Indians make horoscope at birth and it comes true. I witness that truth though I was brought up in an atheist educated Hindu family. It happens because we are a degenerate heaven-fallen people. (Please take time to read my posts). When we are born here the stars representing demigods (devils to which we sold ourselves while in that degenerated heaven) plots our destiny.

But that horoscope is cancelled when one submits himself to Christ. In such cases horoscope's tragedies never happen. I witness to that also.

Yes, Judas was destined to betray Christ that way. It would have been cancelled if Judas really submitted to Christ, but he never did. Majority people want Christ to be used for their interests, not to be used by him. So their predestination is never cancelled.

A special screwie goes to to Stephan Huller, author of The Real Messiah, which may be Platinum book of the year.

God_hates lays out his self-theology:

My theology I post shall be purged of any flaws, So perfect, So holy, anyone who contrdicts it shall do so to their own damnation.

I know God hates all human[sic]

The elect are not human.

I live in zip code 66606, I live in Topeka Kansas, Hell is once called TOPHET, TOPEKa, TOPHET. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against Peter, the foundation of the church. Peter passed away, unfortunatly.[sic]

I hate you all, yet y hate is about as violent as a mother carressing [sic]her newborn son.

I am the last true Chrsitian.

He also doubts atoms exist and says they are the "eptomie [sic] of all CGI".

redforesttwo fixes history for us:

2000 years ago no tribe used crucifying people. This has been scientifically proven. The image of Jesus Christ painted by Leonardo da Vinci is that of a French sailor around 600 after Christ. Crucifying people began about 500 to 600 years after Christ. Most Christians I have met do not look for hard scientific evidence at all. Tommy, if you consider yourself an open minded and factually oriented person, then you have to read research papers and watch those films which document real science.

so does patcondell's clones:

the religious people out number us by any count. They always will. The Zealously religious only breed to spread the religion, that they belong too. Like scientologists , catholics, muslims, mormons, jews, holy rollers the pentecostals, jehovah witnesses. All of these religions brain wash and subvert the freedoms and liberties that are the fabric of America.

America was founded by atheists of protestant christian persuasion, lucifer worshipers really.

MOUNT PLEASANT, Pa. - Authorities in southwestern Pennsylvania arrested 21 people and seized large amounts of drugs and paraphernalia at a concert held by a non-denominational Christian church that says its music events are religious services.

Police executed a search warrant Saturday during the second day of a three-day "Funk Fest" event organized by the Church of Universal Love and Music, said Assistant District Attorney Mark Brooks, coordinator of the Fayette County Drug Task Force.

Authorities asked a judge for the warrant after undercover officers attending separate events in May and July witnessed people openly selling and using drugs and "head shops" selling drug paraphernalia, Brooks said....

Sam Harris:

Kent Hovind: including this comment:

i hate people like u, if u dont like this video then dont watch it, and go and believe all the religious crap they are feeding you. -- Platinum nominee.

NZ Herald: LONDON, England - British swimming pools have begun hosting special Muslim swim sessions during which swimmers, including non-Muslims, are banned from attending if their swimming attire does not comply with Islamic custom dress codes, says the Telegraph.

Under the rules, men must be covered from the naval to the knees, while women, who must swim separately, need to be covered from the neck to the ankles, according to the UK newspaper. ...

After discovering the rules at Thornton Heath one Croydon resident, 34-year-old Alex Craig, said: "I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities" reported the paper.

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion condemned the practice saying "this kind of thing is extremely divisive."

Murray is also quoted in the Telegraph as saying that "it puts moderate Muslims in an awkward position as it suggests, wrongly, that they are not devout enough, simply because they choose not to cover themselves in a shroud in a pool."

Nomination for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, who have just voted to allow homosexuals in committed relationships to become members of the clergy.

This video claims to be made by "the second reincarnation of Jesus" or "Jesus III":