2011 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. 20 this time so we can have a special award for the Screwiest of the Screwy (what we'll call the Diamond Screwball of 2010). Results will be posted in next month's feature. You can check out the Screwies that didn't make this list here.

There was no screwy email worth Gold in December, so we go right to:

The December 2011 John Loftus Collection
John wins this month for ranting that he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article:


I'll also give John a star on that award for wanting a Wikipedia article about himself.

Mixed Atheist Nuts

YT user ninjabob42 offers this which, even if you think as he does about ID, earns a screwbie:

So I went into Borders last Saturday night, and I stood looking confused, searching the science section. Eventually an employee came up to help I told them I needed a book on Intelligent Design. He pointed me to the religion section and I said "No not religious intelligent design, scientific intelligent design."

- Still not a science

showmeproof solves the Chalcedonian conundrum:

It is interesting that people think the Jesus story resonates because God chose to reveal himself in human form and thus fully appreciate our plight. That he, as a human, suffered and died and through that death fulfilled an ultimate sacrifice. If Jesus was both God and Human he by definition could not have known what it is to be truly human. Surely knowing you have the all power and knowledge at your disposal, as you assume Jesus had, puts the lie to the charade of a god dying. Ultimate sacrifice indeed.

Tell me LPOT what's it like to be an octopus? If you were an octopus could you tell me what it is like to be human? Could one be both a human and an octopus? What's it like to make an assumption so overtly contradictory? God's not an animal...I get it. What is he then? A bunch of muons zipping about...no not that either. Hmmm what is he? Why do I keep using the pronoun he? Because your book, even in its beginning, talks of a patrarichial male figure who smells, hears, walks, smites, is pleased, is angry, is jealous, is vengeful (are these not very human features?)

If Jesus was human, he surely had the same limitations you have repeatedly laid out regarding physics: 'it takes twenty plus years to learn' etc. etc. Oh that's right, he has all that information stored somewhere outside of his brain (how many humans do you know that can do that)... Is this information in his god-head (is that more or less shaped like a bipedal hominid or more like a disk drive on a super computer, or like the cloud of smoke and fire in exodus?). One doesn't need to be an atheist to realize that balderdash...they just have to be anything other than Christian (most people on this planet are not Christian).

Keep keeping with the faith. I'll stick to facts.

Fundy atheist dumbass on YT, on why Deut. 13 actually refers to the end of a flat earth, and not political or natural boundaries:

One reason I find your interpretation hard to swallow is because the totalitarian orders such as that given in Deut.13 very likely don't solely apply to their respective boundaries. By saying you cannot consent to other Gods (or followers) "from one end of your natural boundaries to the other", does that not imply it would be ok elsewhere? This is clearly a command that applies anywhere in the world. And the use of the phrase "the one end" of the earth implies finality.

The Rest of the Best

shadze (whose allegiance I am unsure of) struggles for this validation:

Actually this is incorrect the greatest same sex marriage will be Christ the groom to the Church and Im sure not all are female. Legally on your marriage certificate your husband will be Jesus.

Geisler Kool Aid drinker Joe Hardy squeaks in the last Platinum nomination of 2011 by asking:

Should we permit an atheist to join ETS if he says he believes the Bible is Inerrant, believes in the deity of Christ, and believes in the Trinity?

Ed Dingess still has presupp fever:

I admit to needing no other authority than the self-attesting Scripture to make belief in God and the truth of Christianity rational. The implication of your statement is the Bible is insufficient reason to believe that God exists and the Christian worldview is true. If the Bible is not enough, what is? Whatever "it" is, then it must be greater than God's word. Since God is His word, then it must be greater than God! Your presuppositions, whatever they are, certain are not within the bounds of the Christian worldview.

Pastor Tim Rogers wins for pulling a Loftus with his copyright violations, and his excuses for them.

Blog commentor "John" wins -- after being asked:

You donít have a problem with someone going after someoneís job because of this disagreement.

You donít mind that their reputation is being called into question because of this. (Did Geisler have anything to say when the reader of the Vital Signs blog made a post after reading what Geisler wrote on his Facebook? What did the blogger say? That according to Mike Licona, sometimes you canít trust the Bible. When has Mike said that? Never)

Do you have a problem when Tim Rogers who Geisler eventually met also posted against Mike even though Rogers had not yet even read the book?

Do you have a problem with getting Mike disinvited to speak at conferences on defending the faith even though Mike has written the best book on defending the resurrection to date?

Do you have a problem with cutting off someoneís livelihood thus making it harder for them to even support themselves?

Do you have a problem with having a petition circulating behind the scenes about someone and not being upfront about it?

Do you have a problem with this being made a public issue instead of being handled in the scholarly venues like it should have to begin with?

Do you have a problem that Mike could not focus on preparing for debates where he would be defending the gospel in South Africa because Geisler did not want to wait?

Do you have a problem with going after anyone supports Mike and having them be disinvited from conferences?

Do you have a problem that there are other professors who are not wanting to speak out in this issue for fear of losing their own jobs?

Do you have a problem that Geisler goes after Mike for this, but he does not seem to go after William Lane Craig even though Craig has the exact same belief? When is Geisler going to go after Reasonable Faith for denying Inerrancy?

Do you have a problem that Geisler entirely disregarded that leading NT scholars on the issue agreed that Mike is not violating Inerrancy?

John's reply -- all as it is:

Do I have a problem with....No

ReforedGospel doesn't get social science:

The Greekish church is false. In protestantism we advocate individuality and hence it corresponds to democracy. Greekish church advocates community and hence communism. If you look at what happened, you know that communism has failed and democracy has triumphed over all corners of the world. Therefore, in principle your "orthodox" greekish church is false.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45499321/ns/us_news/t/small-ky-church-votes-against-interracial-couples/?fb_ref=.TthpqxbqgNM.like&fb_source=tickerdialog_oneline#.Tthq_WMk67t -- Platinum nom