2009 is history, which means it is time again for our readers to select the screwiest of the screwballs. Pop by my section of TheologyWeb here and cast votes in each of the many Platinum Award threads. Polls close Jan. 30 and results will be posted in next month's feature. You can check out the Screwies that didn't make this list here.

From the Mailbag

At the end of November I was a bit in despair because we had no candidate for Platinum in the Christian E-Mail category. Lo and behold, in December, we got two. Here's the first.

Dear Techtonics.org,

I came across your website through Lambert Dolphin and would like to share some of what I shared with him on the topic of music in the church. I read your defense of allowing instrumental music in the church in worship, but I noticed that it was not an in-depth treatment of the subject. Very few "expositional" bible teaching ministries are aware of the amount of scriptural testimony there is in the bible on the topic of music. When it comes to music, there is much that is "lost in translation" because although there are many negative associations with musical terms in both the Hebrew and Greek texts of the bible, the corresponding English equivalents do not have the same negative connotations in English. The following excerpt contains a small part of the "hidden" testimony in the bible on the topic of music. There is much more. (As an interesting short study project, take the names found in the short genealogies of Numbers 25:14-15, put the basic meanings of the names on a sheet of paper in the order they are found in the passage, then form a sentence around them and place that sentence in the context of what Balak, Balaam, and the Moabites were trying to do to Israel at the time) Now to the excerpt I mentioned -

{ The church has been ignoring another area of scriptural testimony in a way that shows just how superficial they are willing to be in an area of teaching that is very important to people's ability to think and reason clearly. That would be the subject of music in the scriptures. I became a Christian after struggling through 10 years of reading the bible from cover to cover before God used a series of people and circumstances to free me from the mental shackles that growing up Catholic had put on me. I am grateful for the people and ministries that taught me what it means to be born again and how to grow by studying the word of God. I also grew a lot by hearing and reading "expositional" bible teaching. But several years ago I came across a website that pointed out some of the biblical testimony on the subject of music, and when I thought back on all of the "expositional" bible studies and sermons I had heard, I realized that every time a verse with a musical reference came up they always switched to bible study - "lite" mode. Chapter after chapter of looking at the meanings of Hebrew and Greek words in depth, but once a musical passage comes up, they stick to the English text and cast everything in a positive light. I imagine you have heard of the "first mention" principle in bible exposition? I have never heard a bible teacher apply this principle to the first mention of music in the bible. The first mention of music in the bible is Genesis 4:21. "And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ." Jubal is one of Cain's descendants, which is not a good start, (Cain's name also comes from a musical root word) but there is something else in this verse that escapes notice in an English translation. The Hebrew word translated as "handled" is taw-fas in Hebrew and means, "to manipulate, i.e., to seize; to wield (as a weapon); chiefly to capture; to use unwarrantably (without authority)". You can look up it's meaning for yourself and trace it's usage through scripture. It is not an innocent word. (Taw-fas is also related to the words tofe which means "timbrel or tambourine" and tow-fawf (Tophet), the name of an infamous location associated with child sacrifice, and is also a code word for the fires of Gehenna in Isaiah.) Why don't "expositional" bible teachers 'expose' these facts? Does this sound like God giving music to mankind as a gift? On the contrary, the first mention of mankind and musical instruments in scripture shows a man seizing them without authority and wielding them as a weapon to manipulate and capture people. Any of the scriptural mentions of music should be looked at in terms of all the information on the topic in every passage. I have never seen any "expositional" bible teaching ministry talk about the meaning or usage of the Hebrew word tophas. Since I already mentioned Cain, I would like to share something I discovered when I began to do an in-depth study of music in the bible. Cain and Judas both have at least 5 things in common.

Similarity #1 - Judas Is-Cariot. Many bible scholars believe Iscariot is a transliterated form of the Hebrew phrase "man (ish)of cities (kerioth)". Judas means "praise". "Praise man of cities". Who is the first man associated with a city in scripture? Cain!

Similarity #2 - Striking a shepherd: Cain, through the meaning of his name (kahyin - "a lance, as striking fast and holding") who struck his brother Abel, who was the first shepherd; Judas, because according to psalm 41 he was the person who "lifted up his heel" against Jesus and was used by satan to try to triumph over or "roo-ah" over ( mar by splitting the ears with sound) and strike the Chief Shepherd, Jesus. (Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered)

Similarity #3 - Emphasis on material gain: Cain through his name which also means "to acquire and hold fast" and "to procure and sell", and Judas through his thieving money from the purse.

Similarity #4 - Funerals: Cain through 'koon', the root word for his name (koon means "to strike a musical note, also to sing a dirge at a funeral) ; and Judas through the "glosokomon" which in addition to meaning a case for musical mouthpieces or a purse, can also mean a casket.

Similarity #5 - music: Cain through the meaning of the root word for his name and Judas through the 'glosokomon' he stole from.

Another area that is ignored are the meanings and associations given to musical terms in the bible. Nearly all of the names for musical instruments in scripture have negative connotations or they come from root words that do. If God is as fond of what we call music as most Christians assume, why would the Holy Spirit have musical instruments denoted by words with the meanings that they have? The commands for musical worship in scripture are not meant to be taken literally. From Paul's writings and the words he used in connection with "psalms hymns and spiritual songs, the early church fathers knew that the musical worship commands in the old testament are fulfilled and done away with as far as a literal sense every bit as much as the commands for sacrifices were. But that is a whole long study in itself.

There is one final thing I would like to submit for your consideration. One of the most flagrant cases of superficial teaching by the church is in the area of teaching people the basics about how our adversary works. "Know your enemy" is a common term and is good advice. So what do most Christians know about the first mention of our enemy in scripture? They know he is called a serpent and he is subtle and crafty. That is not enough. We hear all about the way the "serpent" used a false diversion and outright lies to deceive Eve, but if you look at all of the meanings behind the name of the serpent in Hebrew, it becomes obvious that there was more than likely an attack that started before the serpent spoke his first word.

The word translated as "serpent" in Genesis 3 is "nachash" or "naw-kawsh", which has many other meanings than a serpent. If you look at how the bible describes Lucifer in Ezekiel 28, it becomes easy to see how he fits the three main meanings of the word nachash. The description of Lucifer's "timbrels" (tambourines) and "pipes" dovetails perfectly with the nachash. The sound that a rattling tambourine makes closely resembles one of the meanings of the word . As I understand it, the meaning of the word nachash as an active verb is "to hiss" (hence it's common translation as a serpent). The "hissing" of a tambourine has been used extensively in movies and t.v. as a way to let people know that something sinister is about to happen and to create anticipation and suspense. This is probably how the nachash laid his groundwork for his later verbal assault on Eve's understanding of God's word.

Most people who read Ezekiel 28 don't realize that the "pipes" mentioned there are not musical pipes at all. The Hebrew word denotes "a hollow receptacle or bezel to mount a gemstone in". This mounting or bezel would undoubtedly be made of shiny metal. Shiny gemstones and mountings fit perfectly with one of the other meanings for the word nachash. In addition to meaning "to hiss" as an active verb, in it's passive form it means "the shining one". I believe the nachash in Genesis 3 should be seen in both ways.His timbrel makes a "hissing" sound to create hype, suspense and anticipation of some occurrence. The nachash probably created expectation and suspense in Eve in this way before he began speaking or was even seen by her. Once he had her in suspense and interested, he made his grand appearance, dazzling Eve with the sight of his shiny copper or brass colored coat. (nek-o-sheth is a closely related word which means copper or bronze.)

A double attack of sight and sound was used to get Eve "enchanted" and in a different state of mind before the subtle twisting of God's word began, and then finally, the outright lies, started leading her to disobedience. This is the basis of what "enchanters" and sorcerers do. "Enchanter" is the primitive root meaning for the word nachash. Music, hissing, unusual symbols or objects, weird behavior and other strange SIGHTS and SOUNDS are associated with enchanters in scripture and are used to alter the victim's perceptions. (Advertisers are constantly encouraging people to enjoy the "enchanting sights and sounds" of such and such a vacation spot so the link between enchantment, sight, and sound is not hard to nail down. I also capitalized and underlined the words sight and sound because they are major traits linking Lucifer with the nachash that tempted Eve, and are also prominent later when Babylon's groundwork for expansion begins in Genesis chapter 4 with Lamech's 4 children.) Out-of-the-ordinary sights and sounds make the person less discerning, more open, and more likely to believe the enchanter (mainly by causing the body to release endorphins, dopemine, adrenaline, etc., which are basically internally produced drugs that alter conciousness. The endorphines are nearly identical to morphine. Anyone can be affected by them, but the "weak" can easily stumble into back into bondage to the flesh through their effects). The use of music and sound is one of the fastest (and the most powerful) ways to get these feel-good endorphins and other hormones flowing. Couple this release with dazzling visual images and you have the explanation for the huge popularity of music videos today, and for the nearly universal love affair that cultures all over the world have had with "the performing arts" throughout history. }

You may argue with the inferences I have drawn from the meanings of the Hebrew words or the associations between them, but at least now you know a very few of the negative things associated with musical terms in the Hebrew language. Greek is no kinder in this regard than Hebrew but to delineate both lists would take a lot of reading. If you want, I can send a paper that I wrote a few years ago outlining what I learned when I first decided to do an in-depth study of musical references in the bible. I titled it "Hearing God and entertainment". Let me know if you want me to send it. I welcome any comments or questions you have on what I have shared here. I also have some questions on other topics but this one should probably come first since I believe that everyone's ability to reason and think clearly is being affected by the saturation of music and visual entertainment that we are bombarded with continually.

We'll check out the second one shortly. First, here's one of those "what the heck" emails....

It is obvious that jesus is a fictitious character otherwise the Roman's would not have embraced so called christianity, remember they despised the character and his teachings.

Ok, that was a good buffer. Now the second Platinum Christian emailo nominee. It started with the twit writing me:

I appreciate your list of Christian myths. I heard about it through Moody Radio of Chicago. There's a real big one that I think belongs on the top ten--hell is eternal. This is one of the oldest, most widely held, and most damaging myths in the history of Christianity, in my opinion.

I replied: "Moody Radio? Really? When did that happen? As for hell being eternal....I don't see why it isn't, actually....but with my view of hell, it isn't as much of a problem, based on reactions I've gotten. http://www.tektonics.org/af/annix.html -- and yep, I've seen some arguments on that back and forth...." That's when he started getting loony:

If you do want to know about universal redemption through Christ, now, you can investigate resources like tentmaker.org or "At the End of the Ages: The Abolition of Hell" by Bob Evely. It would be good if you would contribute to getting the word out.

Uhhhhh.....tentmaker.org, by the dodo-brain Gary Amirault, who uses emotion and 19th century sources in equal amounts; as for Evely....http://www.graceevangel.org/ PFFFT! He's leader of a house church. I said in reply: "I've seen tentmaker.org before...wasn't impressed. How about the Moody thingy?" That's when he showed his membership card in Self-Righteous Inc.:

You seem more concerned about a little publicity than whether or not most of humanity will endure endless torment. 2 Timothy 4:3

My reply: "Not a very good excuse for refusing to answer my question. In any event, when the 'anti-torment' crowd comes up with some real arguments as opposed to emotional rhetoric, and also deals with it in terms of my view of what that "torment" is....rather than continually hearkening back to the old fire and brimstone wah-wah....I'll pay attention." To which he went over the edge:

It helps to be civil with someone if you would like them to answer a question. I thought the radio commentator was too quick to dismiss you, but with manners like this you're not projecting much in the way of credibility. There are plenty of arguments that prove the afterlife and the future ages are intended to purify and redeem. You can find them by looking at resources like:

"Hope Beyond Hell" by Gerry Beauchemin

"At the End of the Ages" by Bob Evely

"An Analytical Study of Words" by Louis Abbott

"The Unselfishness of God" by Hannah Smith

youTube interview with Louis Abbott

tentmaker.org

christian-universalism.com

the works of George MacDonald, who C.S. Lewis referred to as his "master"

William Barclay

Origen

Clement

Titus

If you would genuinely like to have a dialogue about this topic I would be more than happy to discuss this with you. This is a very important issue and Christians need to be in dialogue about what the Bible is truly telling us.

Oh yeah, a great list of sources there. A YouTube video, early church mystics who verged on or went into heresy, a 19th century leader of the Temperance movement (Smith) -- Barclay is the only real scholar in the bunch, and he's consistently watery and out of date even when he's correct! Oh yeah I forgot. One is a missionary -- who handles dental stuff:

http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/: "Gerry Beauchemin has been involved in full time missions since 1988. He has served as a missionary in Mexico, the Philippines, and Senegal, West Africa with Youth With A Mission (YWAM), The Luke Society, and Philippine Health Care Ministries. Since 2001, he has been directing Dental Training For Missions in Brownsville, Texas where he trains missionaries to provide simplified dental care with the love, gentleness, and compassion of Christ. He and his wife, Denise, (of 27 years), have three daughters.

What makes Gerry confident He is qualified to write on this theme?

* He has extensively reflected upon, read the works of others, and for many years wrestled with and studied the Scriptures on this theme. He has found solid Biblical evidence for his conclusion of hope.

* He has agonized for most of his life over hell and understands the contradictions it brings upon the Christian faith.

* Gerry asked himself and God, "Who am I to write such a book?" Then he recalled 1Co. 1:26-29, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...that no flesh should glory in his presence." KJV This along with Mt. 10:27 and 11:25 spurred him on.

Yeah, that sure makes him qualified! He asked God and and God said, "Sure you can write it, you're a fool!"

Finally, an email so stupid it may be a prank....

dear mr. j.p.holding.

your website is hilareous, i was recomended it by a christian when i was ripping them to shreads over the obvious similarities between mithraism and jesus. First they went into dineyeal by just asserting that there was no evidence mithras was born of a virgin and raised from the dead. After i told them this was hand waving and quoted dan barker at them they quoted you - as if your in the same credability as dan barker. ha ha ha.

anyhow, i looked at your site and saw arguments even worse than this naive christian was putting forward. I see you have a book called trusting the new testament however i cant see why you would need to right a whole book on the subject when the two words 'not very' would do. The simple matter is that the bible is no more trust worthy than harry potter (although kings cross station does exist so i supose harry potter contains more verifiable stuff than your holy book.) As richard dawkins points out in the god delusion, always a good place to start when finding out about religion, historians don't take it seriously. But it gets worse for you, this argument alone should be enough to refute the bible:

Genesis 32:1 says "Jacob also went on his way, and the angels of God met him." So Jacob found god by going his own way

John14:6 says "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So how did jacob find god if Jesus hadn't been born yet (although jesus in all probability never existed) Do we find god jacob's way or jesus's way? Also, how do you go through jesus - does he have to eat us and poo us out?

finally, how do you explain the growing view in scholarship that jesus, if he existed, was ripped off from druidism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8380511.stm)

one last question - how do you brain wash people into think there is no evidence jesus was plagiarised from mithraism? if there wasn't any evidence then why is it such a popular argument amoungst atheists. us atheist check everything before we believe it so i struggle to see how such a lie would emerge in the fact checking culture of atheism. looks like mjesus was a rip off of mithraism wheather you like it or not,

Have you ever considered becoming an atheist - dropping those superstitons and blind faith is so refreshing. trust me - ive tried it.

In this one, an Acharya S fruitcake tries to answer my question -- Acharya had said: "When the sun is annually and monthly re-born, he brings life to the 'solar mummy,' his previous self, raising it from the dead." I asked: How is the sun "monthly re-born"? The nut's reply:

The sun is monthly reborn due to the fact that it takes about 30 days for the sun to rotate on its axis.

I am a pure "amateur", but thought it relevant to mention this specific point. The reason I know this is because I operated an Aurora Borealis Tour for many years. Since there is a direct correlation between sunspot activity, solar winds and auroral displays, I learned this from a "book" on the subject and was able to verify it for myself given the fact I was observing the night sky on a steady basis during the winter months. So, if a strong aurora display occurred lets say, for the sake of argument on December 1st, I would watch closely if there was one again 30 nights later. Low and behold, it actually happened (of course the night sky conditions had to be clear on both nights). Factually meaning that as the sun circumvoluted on itself, this particular region of the sun, animated by strong sun spot would present its face towards planet earth on schedule and induce a strong auroral display. This is "simplified" as there are other factors of importance relating to the auroral activity, not least of which has to do with the earth magnetic field activity, which scientists apparently are still grappling with.

I realize this is a very small input in a very large subject matter. However, I do feel it important not to disregard any information, hypothesis, theories in any and all matters pertaining to the divulgation of the truth in general. I especially feel it to be important to keep a respectful and humble tone in all communications. Yes some assertions made by Ms. Murdoch might be labeled as "shocking" by some, if not many.

Wasn't it Galileo who was nearly burnt at the stake not so long ago for offering a revolutionary hypothesis that didn't fit the established tenets and dogmas of his time? "course Copernicus started it all, right...Bruno Giordano WAS burnt at the stake in 1600 after the inquisition found him guilty of heresy. Not only was Giordano one of the first proponent of the heliocentric theory, but actually went well beyond that notion offering the hypothesis that the stars we see at night have similar attributes as "our" sun and was one of the first to conceptualize the universe as infinite and being composed of infinite celestial bodies governed by circumvolutional forces. Also in those times, among many others, not so well known German Astrophysicist, Johannes Kepler made a name for himself for determining with extreme scientific precision the elliptical circumvolutions of some of our solar system's planets.

BTW from what I can find the sun rotates about every 25 to 27 days, not 30.

A third Christian won't win Platinum but is funny even so:

I just wanted to say that you did a terrible job trying to answer the questions on your site, http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hello.html I got nothing out of your answers. Perhaps you couldn't answer? I'm not sure. But you addressed most questions like a politician, not a Christian. Thanks.

The December 2009 John Loftus Collection
John isn't producing much Platinum these days, but he's casting plenty of Gold idols in his image, as he did in reviewing Earl Doherty's new book:
It's possible that Doherty is correct though. When it comes to historical investigations like this one perhaps the best we should claim is agnosticism. To claim more than this in the face of contrary historical evidence and arguments may demand more of historical evidence than we can reasonably allow.

Loftus sycophant Tassman blows the irony meter up:

Frankly, from all that I’ve read of and about John Loftus, he comes across to me as a man of integrity.

Once again, I see him as a brave man who sacrificed a comfortable living and prestigious position for the sake of personal integrity....an admirable quality, surely. As I said, Perhaps where one is coming from makes a difference.

It's about double standards. Do YOU think that being qualified to look things up in order to discuss them can apply to under-qualified apologists like JPH or Glen Miller but NOT to highly qualified scholars like Dr Richard Dawkins? All of us are trained in referencing information. Either your point applies to everyone or no-one. You cannot criticize Dawkins for (allegedly) speaking outside his field of expertise while at the same time exonerating undereducated apologists for doing the same.

John the man of integrity -- as can be seen in comments like these he made on another forum:

This is sheer idiocy. With argumentation like this no wonder you believe. No clue. Really? No clue? Why would anyone, and I mean anyone, listen to someone like you who sees things in such terms as all black or all white.

Idiocy, sheer idiocy. If I had the time I could pick apart every one of your subsequent posts.

We are all prone to believing lies. We all believe what we want to believe. We believe what we prefer to believe. We defend lies. We are all ignorant about most things. We lie to ourselves. And we lie to others. All of us. That's why the intellectually honest view is agnosticism. We must candidly all admit we just don't know given our failings as human beings.

Given this I guess you will be given over to your lies. Everyone will.

In my opinion the biggest lie of all is Christianity. It's a self-delusional one that you refuse to admit is a lie.

Nonetheless, II Thessalonians was not written by Paul, so upon what basis do you believe what it says anyway?

Naw, I'll not bother arguing this case. Ignorance knows no bounds when it comes to defending religious beliefs that someone was taught on his mama's knees.

We defend lies. We are all ignorant about most things. We lie to ourselves. And we lie to others. All of us. That's why the intellectually honest view is agnosticism.

An award also goes to Loftus' new kissy buddy in apostasy, Jaco Gericke, who gives this personal anti-testimony:

I was born into a Christian family. From the beginning, I participated in organized Church religion. Like many others, I went to Sunday school and, at home, I listened to stories from the Bible. For the first twelve years of my life, I practised my faith without any real problems. Yet there was not anything magical about it; it was cultural baggage and simply one more compartment of my life. Like most children, I was often more interested in playing and talking with my friends than listening to the minister or to the Sunday school teacher. To be honest, some sermons and prayers seemed real boring and many of the hymns too sentimental and dreary.

However, all this changed when I was about twelve-and-a-half years old. One day I was reading my Bible when I came across the Book of Revelation. For some hitherto inexplicable reason, I was totally gripped and enthralled with the vivid imagery and story line of the book. I did not understand much of the alien symbolism but somehow reading that book triggered something deep inside of me. I was so moved by the text that I experienced something I can only describe as a spiritual rebirth.

For the first time in my life, I felt an utter willingness and obsession to believe in God and to love Him with every fibre of my being. He became an undeniable and totally overwhelming presence in my life and I was flooded with a perpetual euphoria and a deep sense of inner peace and purpose. I had an unquenchable desire to devote my entire existence to the service of Christ.

In other news, Loftus made a fool of himself on Vox Day’s site:

My bad, I said I probably wouldn't visit again today, but the stated odds were wrong. Here I am.

Now where have we heard that before I wonder...John is known on TWeb as the Man Who Wouldn't Leave. Can you guess why?

I dare say that the sum total of JP Holding's apologetic career will never get into the plus column when you factor in how he and his pied pipers threw gasoline on the fires of my passion.

When I trash Dinesh D’Souza in our debate, as I think probably will, then I’ll get noticed. But in fact I was asked to debate him by a head of a department at the University of Illinois, so that means intellectual are already take notice of me. Plus a debate with William Lane Craig is in the works, despite Craig saying he won’t debate me.

I would think you could figure out most of this on your own if you knew what you were talking about. The fact that I responded surprises even me.

Well, I must say that using BizarroWorld grammar am an excellent way to get noticed by intellectuals.

The Lunchback of Notre Dumb

Got one classic from the Lunchback this round: GOD SAID: "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

STATEMENT: Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen."

CONTRADICTION: The Lord is a man of war." EX 15:3

If He goes from one mode to the other, He is a God of change!

Then there is the absurdity of His" creating" darkness! Darkness is simply the absence of light and is not "created." Preposterous!!!!!!!

Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The beninning of what? Obviously, from verse 2, we learn that He did not create darkness because the earth was "without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep..." So we see that darkness was a pre-existing thing and needed no "creating." Besides, it was already dark before He "created" light!

One has only to read those first few verses to see that God did nbot created the universe out of nothing! But rather, He just formed the earth from pre-existing materials such as water and dirt, which emerged from the water. Some "Creator.!" One also wonders exactly where He was before there was all this "nothingness?"

Wake up! This is fiction! You are a grown person--act like one and leave these fairy tales along with Santa Claus and Grimn in the land of OZ!

Mixed Atheist Nuts

User from another board, Mickey, gives us "Religious Purpose Assessment Fail":

Life would be meaningless and depraved if I didn't believe that I was inherently evil and that my only purpose was to worship a being outside of my self.

postroad stretches in for a Platinum before 2009 ends, when I told him he needed to contextualize Paul's writings to understand them:

I do not need any education about the intricate workings of the social order in anciant cultures. I have Paul's own words.

Why must I consult outside of the word of God to be able to understand it.

Plus:

The women had to be the first at the tomb to refute the Gnostic teachings.

That is the purpose of the stories.

They had to touch Jesus to refute the Gnostic teachings.

It does not matter what actually happened the stories support the doctrines not the other way around.

If there are inconsistencies so much the better. Makes the doctrines flexible enough to withstand the tests of changing cultures.

There is alway the appeal to the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Perhaps the whole point of Scripture is deception of the human mind?

...

Why should it be historical truth. That is not its intent.

The whole Bible is code to be read between the lines.

...

From the perspective of an elite within Judaism grooming the faithful to accept a non ritual obsevance, it explains the contradictions in the Gospels and all the hints of hidden wealthy partners within Jesus's orginisation facilitating in fulfilling elements of messianic prophecy.

Paul may have been a partner from the beginning. Promoting a belief system based soley on the first ten commandments to come down from the mountain he calls Gods law. This would be entirely sufficiant to sustain Judaism through a period when the Temple would be destroyed

There are enough contradictions between Paul and the Gospels concerning the validity of the Law that reinstatement of Temple worship could be feasible at a future date.

And so it appears from the vigourous defense of the validity of the Law by persons claiming to be Christians that this grooming is in fact already taking place.

Perhaps the abomination that causes desolation is the ritual Law

Matthew 24:14-16 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Code for When you witness the rebirth of Temple ritual be prepared for absolute carp to hit the fan.

Beavis vies for Platinum late:

Apologetics do not arise from the natural reading of the Bible. To have a few may be acceptable, but when you're talking hundreds, you have to apply common sense on what arises naturally and what and how many apologetics do not..

Switch89 (aka AiGBusted) offers advice for debating William Lane Craig and not losing as badly: 1. Mess with Craig's mind. When you give your opening presentation, steal some of Craig's oft-used debating lines. For instance, Craig will often state that his opponent has the burden of destroying all of his arguments and then building a case for atheism. He does this because he wants to saddle his opponent with a burden that they might not be able to meet in the time given. I say you give him a taste of his own medicine: Give several arguments for the nonexistence of God (the problem of evil, unbelief, etc.) then tell the audience that Craig has the burden of destroying all of your arguments and building a positive case for the existence of God. Memorize the exact words he uses in his debates and then state those same lines, in the same tone of voice, only replacing certain bits of it to suit your own ends, as illustrated above. I have a feeling that this kind of tactic would leave Craig speechless, at least momentarily. Plus, it would be totally funny.

2. Prepare brief but devastating responses to Craig's usual "five facts" case, write them down, and use them in the debate. It'll be a lot easier, and it will mean that you won't have to spend a lot of time rebutting Craig's case, so you can spend more time launching arguments for atheism. This won't be hard: Rebut Craig's Kalam Argument by noting that a being who "acts" outside of time is incoherent and unintelligible. For Craig's resurrection argument, note what Gregory Dawes explained in Theism and Explanation: for theistic explanations to be valid, they must show that the event in question is probable given God's existence. You can turn this argument on its head by finding passages in the old testament that show how God doesn't care for false prophets. Then you construct an evil twin of Craig's argument by presenting five facts that show Jesus predicted the end of the world in his generation. That won't be hard to do, just read books like the following: The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, this blog post, and also read some of the contrived Christian responses to this stuff so that you can destroy them and note how contrived they are (make Craig explain all the facts with one hypothesis, as he demands of opponents of his resurrection arguments).

ApostasyWeb wins for plagiarizing and posting a text titled, "Preterism is a form of Mental Illness" that doesn't get anything about preterism right.

New Atheist drone SimpleSchoolboy defends Sam Harris' ill-informed remarks: I imagine most Atheists would find going to seminary a waste of time and therefore are not well armed for these sorts of debates. Why study something so much if you think its a load of bunk?

Brett Palmer burns the red herrings again: He noticed what he thinks is a reply to him at http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/aug09scr.html and has plenty of crybaby whining about how I don't take him seriously, followed by more examples of why I don't:

In his rude reply to my article, Mr. Holding pouts that I did not notice he has removed his original "Clarity Complaint" article from his website. I suppose I must point out to the obtuse Mr. Holding that when I replied to his article it obviously must have been available on-line at the time and that I am not in the habit of checking his website regularly to see what embarrassing articles he has decided to remove during so-called "revamps." Regardless if he took his article down, my reply to it will remain up as others, not so concerned with removing clutter from their websites, nonetheless share his view of the inerrancy of Scripture. I've no interest in Mr. Holding's website maintenance schedules or practices. It seems apparent that by bringing down his article and replying to me wholly with name-calling and no substantive answer to the skeptic complaint, Mr. Holding is acknowledging that he has no response to what I've written. He simply cannot explain why the Bible is not more clearly written, given that it was inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent being, other than to call those who don't bow to his ruling of what is "true" and "not true" as intellectually lazy, pompus and ignorant and to sweep his earlier assertions off his website and barf up a vulgar reply to me personally as an after-thought.

"Waaah. Sorry I'm so stupid. Waaah. He hit me! Mommmmmeeeee!!!!"

However, it may be said that Mr. Holding has indeed made an effort to answer the skeptic's question regarding biblical clarity in his self-published book, Trusting the New Testament. In chapter 11 of the book he writes on "inerrancy and human ignorance." As in his earlier effort now scrubbed clean from his website, Mr. Holding once again places most of the blame for the lack of clarity in the Bible at the feet of those who read it. Just as certain despots like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or North Korea's Kim Jong-il, defer all blame for any personal misappropriate action, Mr. Holding holds blameless his deity for any perceived biblical historical, scientific, scribal or moral errancy

"I'm not stupid! God is a dictator! It's his fault my panties are too tight! I have no responsibility to change them! That dictator God MAKES me wear tight panties!"

Having made that gift, however, it still seems to me that if God were to have inspired inerrant originals that the effort put into making these inerrant documents would have extended to the copies. It isn't a matter of obligation but rather one of consistency. God is not like an internet author, composing embarrassing articles for a website and then deleting them during a "revamp." Implicit with the notion of God's inspiration of the biblical texts is the assumption that the deity's omniscience foresaw the deletion of the "originals" from human history and only the retention of copies of copies of copies of copies, many times over, of these originals. So, if we grant the assertion of divine inspiration of inerrant originals, then the divine effort to inspire inerrancy in documents known in advance not to survive long after composition would naturally extend to the copies which would follow

"God would be a micromanager fundy WHY? Because I SAY SO, that's why!"

The Bible, however, seems to suggest that even the copies of Scripture should have preserved the texts' original inerrancy. Mr. Holding looks at Matthew 5:18 which quotes Jesus as saying, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."(KJV) Mr. Holding notes that some biblical inerrantists believe that this verse promises no copies of Scripture will be without error, deviating from the inerrant originals. Amusingly, Mr. Holding believes this is reading too much into the verse, suggesting instead that the passage "refers to the idea of God's Word as preexistent and unchanging, and has nothing to do with the copies on earth...the original [copy of the Bible] is still 'on file' in the home office [Heaven] and will not be changed or corrupted." (ibid) If his fellow biblical inerrantists are "reading too much" into Matthew 5:18, what exactly is Mr. Holding doing with his conjured "originals 'on file'" back at "the home office"? Was he given the grand tour prior to writing his book and saw those inerrant originals for himself? Did he speak to Jesus and find out what he really meant when he was quoted in Matthew 5:18? Just how does Mr. Holding know all this? Mr. Holding's unique insight is as mysterious as the number of licks it would take to get to the Tootsie-Roll center of a Tootsie-Pop; the world may never know!

What a remarkable dumbass. He turns an exegetical explanation of Matthew 5:18 into my personal witness that an inerrant original exists in heaven because I saw it. Nah, never mind the defining background of the "Word/Logos" in Judaism, that couldn't be what I'm talking about. And Palmer advertises his site as "rational" and "researched." This is one of the main reasons I don't take him seriously -- having to explain everything to him is like trying to explain nuclear physics to an infant.

Palmer goes on to whine about my analogy of how inerrant copies would be treated, by comparison to the way the Declaration of Independence was treated:

But, Mr. Holding's thinking is very sloppy. "Holy relics" which have circulated in the Christian community can hardly be compared to copies of the Bible. The comparison would have been more accurate if Mr. Holding had compared parchment scraps from the original biblical documents with these other holy relics like "genuine" pieces of Christ's cross or "authentic" vials of Mary's breast milk. Copies of Christ's cross, while cherished and worn as jewelry by many believers, have hardly the same prestige as the original, even though they are faithful reproductions.

Apparently Brett Dumbass doesn't get the point: Inerrantly inspired copies WOULD have the "prestige value" of the original precisely because they'd be created through the same divine process as the original. In other words, it would be as though all those crosses worn as jewelry really WERE pieces of Christ's cross -- or as if Jesus had been crucified on many crosses, and all became relics! And yes, he doesn't get it:

While the truly original Bible may have been worshipped, encased in glass under environmentally-controlled conditions, held hostage by one faction of Christendom or another were it to have survived through history, inerrant copies likely would not have been subject to the same control or political-religious vices.

But, Mr. Holding asks, "...how would inerrant copies of Scripture have been received?" (ibid) Mr. Holding uses the metaphor of the United States Declaration of Independence as an example of what can happen to original documents; and, to be sure, what he says is true regarding the original [3]. However, available in bookstores, online, museum gift shops, and a variety of other places are exact duplicates of the original Declaration of Independence. The copies are inerrant insofar as they reproduce every word, signature and blemish of the original document, suitable for framing!

Are we getting the picture that Stupid here doesn't understand what it is EXACTLY that would cause inspired copies of the Bible to be revered???? HELLO! It's the "divine touch" -- the original Declaration is sacred, where the copies are not, because it was the hands-on product of the Founders! Just like inerrant copies of the Bible would have to be!

Indeed, the National Archives webpage even offers visitors a free download "of the actual Declaration of Independence parchment." [4] I hardly see throngs of security-checked patriots lining up to get their error-free copy of the Declaration at Barnes and Noble. Purchasers online do not have their personal information sent to the Department of Homeland Security when downloading an inerrant copy. Mr. Holding's imaginative solution to why we don't have inerrant copies of Scripture seems to have run amok here

And, besides, copies of the inerrant Bible would have had an added benefit. Inerrant copies would relieve apologists from referring to the invisible inerrant "originals" still "on file," per Mr. Holding, "at the 'home office'". Skeptics are referring to why God did not ensure inerrant reproductions of the holy texts, not the preservation of the original documents or fragments thereof (although, for an omnipotent deity, the latter should not have been any more difficult than the former). It's a question Mr. Holding avoids everywhere he tries to address it [5]. Producing exact replicas of revered documents is obviously easy enough for mere mortals, as a visit to the National Archives website evidences graphically. Scraping for more reasons why God did not ensure inerrant copies, Mr. Holding appeals in his chapter to something he calls "The Coercion Factor." He believes "[t]he presence of inerrant copies would implicitly coerce people into conversion." (p. 123) But how so? Apologists, even without inerrant copies, maintain that what we do have is "sufficient" for anyone to come to faith in Jesus Christ. What would inerrant copies be? More than sufficient? And what is wrong with that? Adam and Eve are said to have spoken to God face to face but that didn't seem to prevent them from disobeying his commands and exercising their freewill

"God should too loosen my panties! I have no responsibility for it! Besides, He gave Joe over there new panties, so why can't I have them too!" He appeals also to John 20:28, which he's unaware (once again) he's mis-exegeting. Nothing like explaining things to an infant.

However, Matthew 5:18 refers quite specifically to "jots" and "tittles." Jots and tittles refers to the smallest letter and the tiniest pen stroke of the text. Do etherial copies of the Bible contain jots and tittles? I suppose Mr. Holding can make up whatever characteristics he wants regarding his imagined "home office" copy of the Bible (apologists do, after all, determine what is true and not true!). It can have jots and tittles. It can have commas and question marks. It can have margins and page numbers. It might even have a ringed coffee cup stain from where God left his drink while attending to Noah and his great flood. It might be printed on velvet, or on bright, hot pink computer paper, or on the dried and tanned skins of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. I'm likely forgetting some colorful scenrio for how Mr. Holding envisions the "home office" copy of the Bible, but perhaps that's due to my imagination not being as fruitful as an apologist who creates parody sites to mock his critics rather than answer their charges and uploads poorly drawn anime characters like a frustrated, wanna-be cartoonist.

Uh, more like you're stupid, dude. Try again with the concept of the heavenly Logos/Word, then get back to us. Them his ultimate refutation of why God should have produced inerrant copies tuned to each of our preferences and understandings:

He asks this of a supernatural being, his "trusted" New Testament of which claims,

"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26, NIV)

"God can too make my panties looser -- He's omnipotent!"

As for the assertion that these copies would need to conform to the "personal worldviews or assumptions" of each individual, that's absurd. The message of Scripture is the same no matter what a person's worldview or assumptions. Either nearly 3 million people left Egypt or they did not. The story is either historically inerrant or it's not. The story's inerrancy does not rely upon a person's personal worldview or assumptions.

Oh yes. So communication is a one-way street. How retarded can Palmer get? In the notes, Palmer decides to whine also that I am under a "delusion" because that Declaration of Independence I saw was not the "original original original":

However, a quick call to the National Archives, where the Declaration has been kept since 1952, and a conversation with "Jane" there confirmed my suspicion upon reading Mr. Holding's anecdote: he did not see the original document. There are a few "original copies" of the Declaration, drawn up shortly following the creation and signing of the original (25 of which known as Dunlap imprints), and a couple of these occasionally go on tour, but the original document, like Mr. Holding's fantasized original Bible, is back at the "home office" (not in heaven, but in Washington, DC). And it does not go on tour.

t's nice. Who gives a crap? I sure don't. OK, so maybe it's one of the early copies -- so what? Visitors were still searched; it was still kept under tight security -- if anything, this makes my point about inerrant copies of the Bible even stronger!

[His] mistake in writing (and memory, probably) that he visited the (not a copy) Declaration of Independence ("that fragile, revered document") during a traveling exhibit would likely have been picked up by an editor had Mr. Holding used one before he self-published, or if Xulon, his publisher, employed them to read over manuscripts they receive prior to providing them for public purchase. Mr. Holding will not be able, however, to delete chapter 11 from Trusting the New Testament as he swiftly and easily as he can remove pages from his website as part of a so-called "revamp."

Let's see....do I care? Do I care?

Nope.

Crybaby Ryan Covington (aka Switch89 and AiGBusted) wins for this:

And by the way, I noticed that you were inviting someone else here to meet you on a website to debate. That website, as I know from personal experience, has no problem allowing you to swear and hurl insults at your opponents but is all-too-willing to remove posts made by your opponents which contain the same. Inviting someone to debate on a website so biased toward you is a sign of YOUR cowardice, not his. Why don't you come debate me on Freeratio.org? It's a secular website, but the moderators are known for fairness, and no one there has ever given me any preferential treatment, which is more than we can say for your website. We can debate pretty much anything you like, whether its the resurrection or naturalistic atheism vs. christianity.

Sam the YouTuber wins for comments:

Originally posted by SamuelMiller1982 I saw your comment on a "Jesus/Horus" video and I was wondering if you could give me a list of reading material on the subject?

Originally posted by danieljliversLXXXIX The Jesus Mysteries is a good book. Also The Golden Bough and Osiris: Death and afterlife are also good.

Originally posted by SamuelMiller1982 Thanks a bunch. Judging by your comments you seem like a smart enough guy. You also sound older than what I though. :)

Dumplin’ Dumbass signs off for 2009:

Superstitious faiths, like Christianity for instance, have a much weaker faith that’s built upside down. In Christianity, someone first affirms a dogma. Then the believer embraces the dogma. Then lastly, the believer tries to get his real-world experience to match the content of his beliefs. It’s a lot of work, and the results are often frustrating and confusing. When the believer is intelligent and intellectually honest, like the commenter, very often the result is that they clearly see the need to make a choice between denying reality and denying Christianity–the conflicts between the two are simply too pervasive and too irreconcilable to embrace them both. And far too often, the believer will choose to deny reality, as the commenter does, rather than give up their superstitious and ill-founded “faith.”

Sam Harris wins for this acquisiton:

Steve Wells, creator of the Skeptics Annotated Bible, Qur’an, and Book of Mormon has generously donated the full contents of his website to the Reason Project. Using this as a foundation, we intend to make the Scripture Project the best source for scriptural criticism on the Internet.

The Pixie doesn't get it, again:

It depends on the circumstances. That includes the type of document. An eye witness account that is later edited by someone else is automatically unreliable. If it "depends on the circumstances" then how can he make the claim that his example is "automatically unreliable"

If we follow Occam exactly, then Christianity gets a free pass. Is that a reasonable corse? I think not, I think this reflects his own metaphysical bias. Occam's Razor has evolved since Occam's time. Atheists use its modern form.

A friendly Skeptic tells this of the co-producer of the whole Atheist message on buses in NY, who replied to him with this:

Hasn't the

- virgin birth

- son of god/light of lamb/etc

-12 disciples/brothers

- crucified/killed

- rose three days later

- etc...

story appeared throughout history in more than just reference to Jesus and Mithra? Like Horus or Zoraster or Perseus?

Bridgeforsale shows why he's in the running for Platinum TWeb Veteran:

What is there to learn anyway? What you call learning rational minds call indoctrination.

hydrogod is a late entry for Platinum n00b:

Hi People

I sometimes think I'm a different species from some folk.

I have no capacity to suspend logic in order to believe in something without a shred of evidence.

Nevertheless, I see many otherwise intelligent folk who seem to have a separate compartment in their heads where logic can be suspended, while the rest of their brain operates much like mine.

Can anyone shed any light on this? I'm sure it has been dealt with before, but I can't find it, exactly.

***

Don't talk such nonsense. Christianity did not exist till a hundred years or so after Jesus was supposedly killed.

The Rest of the Best

RonC, who comes from the same line of thought as atheists who wonder why God doesn't explain how to split the atom or build refrigerators or place messages tailored specifically for people in the 20-21st century in the Bible:

You are so right. Not only is a father-child relationship personal, but there is a bond of love between a father and child... there is none between a patron and client. There is a bond of blood between a parent and child... not so in a patron and client.

Also, given the baggage of the concept of "patron saints"... I think the concept of a "patron God" is truly problematic.

Finally, Jesus could easily have used the term "Patron"... He chose not to. He taught us that God is to us as a Father. We best have powerful reasons to replace Jesus' teachings about our relationship with the Father with some other teaching de jour.

OneSizeFit tilts at windmills:

The main problem is that what is currently considered Orthodox (Calvinist) - was born from the age of reason. So we have devout Conservative Christians who try to rationalize something that is not rational. It's almost comical.

Catholic Orthodox is a whole other ball game (paganism).

stephen goswami wins again:

Gandhi cancelled baptism due to sin licensing predestination theory.

Mahatma Gandhi at first believed in violence. But in South Africa, Quaker friends’ influence turned him to Christian love and forgiveness. He named it ‘Ahimsa’ an Indian word for nonviolence, a rather negative term.

He once resolved to take baptism. But he stopped in his track when a bigoted predestination “Christian” deliberately committed a crime to prove that sins can’t stop his salvation. (Vide Gandhi’s autobiography). Aghast at that bigotry he stopped baptism. But he became father figure to Indians following Christ. He always forbade reading massacring old testament.

If he had become a Christian, many Indians would have followed.

Predestination theory projects a despot God of ultimate cruelty of eternal hell torment to whimsically chosen creatures. They cite O.T. for support which Christ has cancelled. A despot crushes freewill and its good works in their subjects. Fortunately, the intellectuals all over the world, including my father and uncles have rejected that evil God by becoming atheists. But in New Testament excluding catholic interpolated Revelation, Christ has presented absolute love Father. Unfortunately O.T. influence has influenced N.T. too with some despotic idea of God. Still for one verse supporting predestination there are 10 verses supporting good works by freewill.

It is my personal and others’ experience that good works are prerequisite of getting the divine gift of faith. But O.T. influenced Luther and Calvin maintained that not by good works we get saving faith, but by whimsical predestination of God. No wonder it was easy for the Germans influenced by them to mass murder like O.T. God while professing Christ.

OnerighteousNESS pounds the pulpit:

Brother YOU ARE BEING SAVED BY GRACE....(God divinely opening our eyes)

Trinity is an ACADEMIC understanding...VOID OF GRACE!

Other Cheek, a Mormon, explains it all:

Determining context is a human science, subject to the flaws of humanity. And to rave over CONTEXT (human interpretation), while denying REVELATION, is one of those flawed tendencies of men.

This came from a loony on Worthy Christian forums:

I'm always interested to hear just exactly why so many feel they need to be able to defend God and His Truth on the same level as those are rooted absolutely in science and 'evolution'.

I was into apologetics too for a long time but eventually came to realise that Normal Christianity in all its fullness can never be compatible with Christian Apologetics.

We don't have a lot of time here to live for God as He intends and intellectual sideshows are an encumbrance.

Another nut there said:

I dont even know what apologets is, and have no intention of knowing, It is just mans way of saying im smart i know big words, its religion all over, but like seperate areas its just that in knowing the gospel you just cant seperate it into different prts.

Paul never went aound defending his faith, He simply preached the Gospel, the truth, if people accepted it they did if they didnt they didnt, shouldnt be any differenet now. I dont need to defend my faith. If people dont went to believe in Jesus, it is not my problem, i do not have to defend my beliefs, is between me and God not me and man.

Ty Rockwell cements his Platinum Vet nomination:

The man did not posit a single remark about how he interprets Ephesians 1-3. He plainly said that without teachings on the "recognized principles" of Bible study I cannot know how to study the Bible, or relate interpretations of it. It is amazing that Christians ever understood anything, if one where to hold his view, without such instruction. I doubt that 11/12ths of the apostles had to learn those principles.

Mormon RussianWolfe offers a cheer for Mormon epistemology and exegesis:

The Pharisees used logic and scripture to prove that Christ was not the Messiah. You have good company.

Eeset explains how to do textual criticism:

Bill the Cat: Jesus never directly said anything about how a nation should run their military.

Eeset: Jesus is Jewish. So was A. Einstein. I think what Einstein said is probably what Jesus said but the words were never captured by those who wrote the New Testament or if they were then the words were subsequently redacted by those who assembled the texts.

A Muslim, no_crucifixion, gathers Gold: What I will do now is I will prove to you that Jesus did not die according to whatever Bible you have whether the Roman Catholic with the 73 books or the Protestant Bible with the 66 books in or the Greek Orthodox Bible with the 76 books.

My proofs not only are from the Bible but also inclusive of the lips and the actions of Jesus in the Bible that Jesus provided and showed that he did not die beyond doubt. I will use some arguments and some others later. To clarify meanings, I will modern translations of the Bible.

Proof No. 1) I submit to you that Jesus could not have survived the imposed death on him except by a miracle from God. And this miracle by which Jesus survived death is the miracle of Jonah which Jesus promised to perform according to Jesus words in Luke 11:29 and 30 as follows:

As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation."

...the important question is "what was the miracle of Jonah?" that Jesus made it clear in Luke 11:29 and 30 that the only miracle that he was going to give to his generation was the miracle of Jonah.

In other words, the miracle of Jonah is the miracle of Jonah. So what is the miracle of Jonah?

To be fair to you and myself, we need to go to the Book of Jonah to know the miracle of Jonah which is the miracle of Jesus.

In the Book of Jonah, the miracle of Jonah begins when Prophet Jonah asked the people on the ship to throw him into the sea as he found the guilty person for sure after casting the lots, which was a method to know the guilty from the innocent. And now begins the miracle of Jonah.

When you throw a person (Jonah) into the sea, we expect him to die. But this person (Jonah) remained alive because "But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights." (Jonah 1:17)

When this person (Jonah) was inside the fish for three days and three nights according Jonah 1:17, we expect this person (Jonah) inside the fish for three days and three nights to die. But this person (Jonah) continued to remain alive as it is evident from his prayers according to Jonah 2:1 "From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God."

When this person (Jonah) was thrown out of the fish after three days and three nights, we expect this person (Jonah) to be a dead body. But this person (Jonah) continued to remain alive fainting (Jonah 4:8).

From the above verses from the Book of Jonah, it is beyond doubt that the miracle of Jonah is the survival of death. Hence, the miracle of Jesus, which is the miracle of Jonah in Luke 11:29 &30, is also the survival of death because Jesus made it clear that the only miracle that Jesus was to give the Jews of his time was the miracle of Jonah.

The miracle of Jonah (as Jesus miracle) proven to be the survival of death of Jesus and Jonah for the three days meets the definition of miracle because a miracle is each time you expect this person (Jonah) to die, but he remained alive praying to God (Jonah 2:1) for three days and three nights in the fish and fainting outside the fish (Jonah 4:8).

There is nothing miraculous about Jonah or Jesus inside the fish or the tomb respectively if they were dead because a miracle is you expect a person to die but he remains alive.

If Jonah was remained alive MIRACLOUSLY for three days and three nights, then Jesus also ought to have remained alive MIRACOUSY in the tomb as he himself had foretold!

http://www.christian-community.org/library/revelheresy.html

http://masterdebater.limewebs.com/

http://www.informationageprayer.com/index.html

http://deism.com/jesusexist.htm

The Conservapedia Bible translation cements a Platinum nomination:

"The best of the public is better than a group of experts," said Schlafly, whose mother, Phyllis, is a longtime conservative activist known for her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.

Elsewhere, someone changed ‘Pharisee’ to ‘liberal’ to show that liberals were responsible for Jesus’ death. Schlafly changed it back to Pharisee but admitted to the Tennesean.com, “The possibility that Pharisees, which is a term that’s not familiar to most of us, could be better translated as liberal is intriguing. But we haven’t gone with that yet.”

Reader saw this ad in the local paper:

Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Dorothy

Dorothy? Who's Dorothy? She isn't a prophet or a god. Just a member of a Unitarian Universalist church. You see, we draw on many sources for our search for truth. Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Most Importantly, YOU. It's a church for people who question. People who think. People like you.

Davies Memorial Unitarian Universalist Church

http://www.escapetheusanow.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKXGAIDCI-U&feature=popular Platinum nomination

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/08/religion-society-gregory-paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PICEKwnkhA&feature=popular

http://blog.jeremybell.com/2009/12/03/so-i-got-arrested-by-the-swat-team-last-night/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_0WJNElDZ4&feature=topvideos

On one of the blurbs about people donating to Wikipedia (at. Wikipedia.com, no less): "As a professional scientist, Wikipedia is my go-to source for ideas and concepts new to me. Donate for this? You bet!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b3vhTO248&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec91wvUY7Yo&feature=PlayList&p=99C42B6060D81B47&index=0

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10616041&ref=rss At large Platinum

http://jonathanbrink.com/2008/05/20/whats-right-about-atheism-5/

A Platinum nomination screwball to St Matthew-in-the-City Anglican church in Auckland and Archdeacon Glynn Cardy for putting up a billboard with Mary and Joseph in be with the caption "Poor Joseph. God is a hard act to follow"

The archdeacon said the plan behind the billboard was to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story.

"What we're trying to do is to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about," he told NZPA.

"Is it about a spiritual male God sending down sperm so a child would be born, or is it about the power of love in our midst as seen in Jesus?"

"One of the options we turned down had a sperm coming down with the words `Joy To The World'."

He said the true importance of Christmas "is in the radical hospitality Jesus offered to the poor, the despised, women, children, and the sick, and says: 'this is the essence of God'. His death was a consequence of the offensive nature of that hospitality and his resurrection a symbolic vindication".

The archdeacon said St Matthew-in-the-City was at the progressive end of the Christian continuum, and that he believed God was "more like a force but not a being in any sense".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616286&ref=rss

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV2nRgFGq5Q

http://reluctant-messenger.com/main.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/8425420.stm

http://billywrath.deviantart.com/art/ANTIFA-129587547

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article868683.ece

Proof that being at MIT doesn't mean you can't be stupid: http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N51/jesus.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47cHJR_IABw