Relatively quiet month here. Which means the Screwballs were just more compact is all. See the whole collection here and the best of the

From the Mailbag

The mail was especially slow. Are the Screwballs frozen in snow? The first was a group email of the rattle and bang sort:

Now I wouldn't expect roses in a Christian review of Hyam Maccoby's works, especially his later ones, which directly took up the Christian Mythos (explanation called for here -There is also the Jewish Mythos, Buddhist Mythos, etc.... - Mythos is not a pariah word, it's a good one for summing up written, oral laws, traditions, n years of history, etc. It';s not the put-down that people think it is, I invite anyone to come up with a superior all-inclusive phrase that covers everything about a culture and its interface with other cultures).

But Holding's comments contain almost as many mistruths about HM's work per inch as one of the Jewish Mythos's extreme end (that all one needs is Torah and books interpreting the Oral Law) might find in a follower of the Christian Mythos's 'extreme end' (The Bible as Translated by King James's Talented Literary Crew is Absolutely True) concepts.

2nd Graph: Because BAD scholars find meat in Macocoby's work does not mean all do. While not an indication of his books' stature, an examination of his academic appointments indicate that many who are not Jewish take him very seriously.

The 3rd? "Anyone who considers X false is bad wit sourses, period. Huh? As for the 4th, this was a popular work with few footnotes, unlike a "well-footnoted" book like "The Boomer Bible" (of the Humor Mythos) which footnotes every word.

And because of WHO funded some of Maccoby's work, he is obviously a fraud.

Maccoby's major failing is that he takes some very obvious (to those who have studied from an *agnostic* view) (I do not know, or can prove if there is or is not a Deity and do not believe you can prove the affirmative or negative, let alone, if in the affirmative, the nature of the Deoty either) ... legitimate points and applied pop psychology to them. Was Paul not what he claimed to be? Obviously. Did he succede in taking control of the Jewish Pharasees/rabbis waiting for the return of Jesus? Yep. Does Christian scripture, even best-translated from the Greek along with contemporaneous sources, you bet.

The failures in Christian interpretation of the Jewish Mythos at the time of Jesus and, later, at the time of Paul are many, and need correcting - from those within the Christian Mythos and community at best, though this has not happen. I will give you ONE simple challenge to your thoughts and mindset: What is Baptism and why was John the Baptist pushing this process and where did he get it from?

He got it straght from the T'an'ach (no there is no Jewish "Bible" that term, like "Church" belongs strictly to the Christian faith) as well as interpretations in old Jewish Oral Law. One is Ritually Impure/unclean for a handfull of purposes after touching a corpse, having sex, having one's menses flow, etc. and must bathe by total submersion in natural running water! (the simple Jewish rite of Mikvah). The practice must have been on the outs when John came along and tried to re-emphasise it into the Jewish Mythos under daily or weekly practices.

If you start looking there, you will see why it becomes OBVIOUS to even agnostics with some capability of reading the six or more archaic languages needed to understand early Christian works that Maccoby has come closer to saying what Paul/Saul was than any Christian writer. Now the means by which he got there, that is, unfortuinately, Maccoby psychobabble - whether he had a breakdown, was a great ad-man or influenced by growing up in a Year-God cult, if indeed he did, is something, barring miracle, scientific, or metaphysical, that we will never know. H.M.'s arguments were weakened by his sureness of his own ideas, just as Paul was when he sought a basis for the Christian Mythos's concept of Original Sin, completely absent from the Judaic Mythos.

It's screwy when it makes one like this one from Ed Babiski look normal:

Firstly, J.P. Holding appears on the way each day to becoming more a marshmallow and less a man.

Secondly, Holding's own website appears to contain an admission that he underwent a change of opinion about hell, making it less a place of physical torture and more "soft and fluffy"--hell lite, as it were. On the other hand J.P. Holding's brain is so filled with resentment that he can't help imagining God as an angry alpha male like himself.

Thirdly, when faced with scriptures that do not mention a thing about certain name-calling youths (who called a prophet "baldy"), J.P. Holding is willing to fill in the blanks for us and assure us that those youths were dangerous in the extreme. Only Holding can find such proof however, inside his soft brain tissue, because the scriptures themselves are silent on just how "dangerous" the youths were. Probably just as dangerous as those Canaanite infants. Then there's Holding's laughable added meaning he gives to Jesus's command to "Be as wise as serpents and innocent/harmless as doves." Holding doesn't seem to know what doves were known for throughout the Bible, has never taken the time to study it I guess. But instead invents his own private interpretation, namely that Jesus used the "dove" because it could be both innocent and "vicious." Yeah, that's what Jesus was getting at. Holding's interpretations tell us a lot about Holding. Less about God. In fact the Bible tells us little about God, and it's just Holding's imagination that convinces him otherwise.

Now this from the People Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater:

Perhaps I missed your point. What does the historicity of Gamaliel have to do with anything? If you want to contend that Gamaliel never existed, I applaud you. Being unable to validate Gamaliel in no way validates the existence of Jesus, it merely calls further into question the veracity of the Bible.

This email came with the subject line, "In support of Tony Bushby": just summed up your own fairytale nicely Mr Holding!

"Don't take any critic's word in an age when any person with typing skills can post a website claiming just about anything. Chances are they haven't done a fraction of the homework they need to do to be a reputable commentator"

This nutsy had this comment about something I wrote on apologetics re pagan copycat theories:

Thank you so much for your response. You know i have learned a great deal on my spiritual path, and one very important lesson i have learned is that it is virtually impossible to argue a belief system. Because what you believe is what you believe. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. Belief has nothing to do with truth in alot of cases. Believing in santa claus,believing in the tooth fairy are just a couple of examples. I know your position is that you are a defender of the faith which is suppose to be the truth,but in the final analysis the truth doesn't need defending. It's like defending the truth about gravity. You don't have continue to tell people that gravity is real. The truth about gravity stands alone.

This came from the People in Need of Preparation H:

You sir are a nasty and twisted person. Flush the bile out of your system once a day and before every public display and then maybe we can learn to appreciate your thoughts!

Please do not bother to thank me for these therapeutic proscriptions. Please do not operate any machinery while on your present medications! Get well first. Let's keep our highways as safe as possible!

And last, someone who refuses to be confused by the facts says:

Dear Mr, Holding, Your article on Mithraism is proof you are completely ignorant in regards to the subject matter. If you would like to read from an expert source follow the link below,to the Catholic Encyclopedia.. Of course I know you will not, as most Protestant fundementalist you will also wish to remain ignorant. No need to strike back with a character assasinating email, I intend to avoid reading any more of the nonsense you write.

The February 2008 John Loftus Collection

DJ actually didn't win anything for nearly half the month, but he made up for it at the last half. To start, at he n makes a fool of himself yet again, repeating arguments he's used here that he's been repeatedly thrashed on:

More than a year ago I commented on the Christian eschatology of Preterism by arguing such a view is an admission that Jesus failed to return. Earlier than that I had posted the same thing on a forum and was told this by the owner: "that has to be one of the most ignorant critiques of preterism I have seen." Apparently a knowledgeable Christian thinks otherwise...

It should surprise no one that Christians disagree over theology, but when I as a skeptic can enter into the fray and offer good insights, that makes me feel good. Over at Preterist Heresy my post on Preterism got a thumbs up. The author said this about what I wrote:

I love this particular blog post because it raises serious questions that should not be ignored. Not only does it minimize the importance of 70AD but shows how nothing changed after 70ad that was not already present prior to 70AD. And yet, this is the foundation of Preterism. These questions speak volumes as to how God works and continually manifests himself.

To be honest when I first made these points and was railed against as if I was totally ignorant about Preterism, I dropped it. I wondered to myself if maybe I hadn't understood it. But this affirmation of what I said coming from what appears to be a knowledgeable Christian helps me to think I was dead on right.

Now if the author of that blog could only see that Preterism is a modern attempt to deal with the fact that Jesus and the early disciples were wrong about the eschaton coming in their era. Oh well, one baby step at a time.

This one earns a Special John Loftus Boneheaded Error Alert! Look what the Preterist Heresy blog is actually about:

This site is devoted to sharing heretical or absurd quotes made by Full Preterists to demonstrate the many errors and consequences of this system of interpreting bible prophecy.

Apparently, DJ is STILL too stupid to know the difference between heretical and orthodox preterism! I mean, good grief, one of Dee Dee's articles appears on the blog (the "owner" of the "forum" above)!

Lee Randolph also wins for his comment to the entry:

no one needs to be an expert on anything we talk about here, one only needs to decide that special pleading for religions sake doesn't cut it, and look for reasonable answers to reasonable questions.

DJ also wimns for the argument at Apparently the universe has to be small for God to exist.

DJ's followers also collect. Harry McCall is still trying to figure out patronage:

Now Bob's creative mind comes into play again by injecting a foreign and strange new concept in that Jesus was a "broker" which the business dictionary defines "as an negotiator between prospective buyers and sells … in matters of trade, commerce, or navigation"; or a term straight from Wall Street and Capitalism. Thus, Bob has not only missed used an ancient secular Roman concept forced on to a Semitic Covenanted people (who generally hated Romans rule with a passion), he now had to make up for his deficiency by using an anachronistic modern secular Stock Market term in which Jesus is the go between for a people already called by God!

Harry's fans had some Gold comments too. Lady through the Looking Glass said:

While browsing some sites for Christian apologists, I found his, but didn't stay very long, because I was turned off by his heavily sarcastic tone. Even if what he was saying made perfect sense, it was lost on me, because he came across as arrogant. I believe that truth should be presented with an attitude of humility, highlighting the facts, and certainly not by trying to belittle those who do not share one's views.

AndreLinoge said:

Why does anyone need "scholarship"? Do you mean to say that God didn't make his word plain? Why didn't he?

Gold also for one of DJ's Idiot Fans, insanezenmistress, who said to a Christian who appealed to scholarship:

i doubt that your concerned with the atheist "reading" of the word. Clearly you both have access to the same information and the same use of eyes and memories.

What concerns you is our interpretation and use of what we read. maybe God did give out a picture book, the pictures look like words.

Words hide meaning like a picture hides discriptions. We both see plainly, but interpret differently. Feel differently.

So when you say "get an education" you really mean "learn and believe my understanding."

Finally, DC Useful Idiot Evan wins:

Why can God not make it plain that it is wrong to kill your children? Why can he not make that plain broadly, by putting it in bright letters somewhere on every 3rd or 4th page on the books he writes, dictates or inspires?
Atheist Miscellany

Billywheaton becomes a Platinum nominee for TWeb n00b -- there's a lot he could put on his resume' for this, but these stood out:

  • Billy claimed Gamaliel was teaching Roman law. Asked why, he said:
    he was in Roman Empire.

    Billy also commented on Bible study:

    a book --acts-- than can be read in an hour can be discussed in an hour.

    And this really took the biscuit:

    Well, that is kind of tough, but I think I know what you are driving at so let me give you a basic principle (at least for me) and show you how I think your issue, I think, pertains to that. I try to think, teach (preach!) that one of the biggest cripplers of sound reasoning is having an idea take on 'ontological existence'. So, for example, I think the ideas of pantronage have been used to describe 'real' things, but 'patronage' otherwise is non-existent--it has no ontological existence. The best example I have of this the idea freedom. Many people think you can 'give', receive', 'take away' freedom-- to the extent this explains something is okay to the extent you think it is a real thing (which you would almost have to think it can be 'given') is a disaster. It will screw up your thinking. Chrisitian do this too often with Truth, as in "We have the Truth"-- that is a bad way to think--- if you mean patronage is 'real' in this way, you are on.

    Paul Jacobsen wins for using the arguments of John Remsberg.

    Amnouy racked up a lot of Gold:

    And YOU seem to think you know more than scholars like Bert Erhman, Robert Price, Burton Mack, Karen Armstrong, Jack Spong, Earl Doherty, GA Wells, Richard Carrier, Gerd Lüdemann, and Reginald Fuller and others.

    You are saying nothing more than you prefer scholars who find reasons for you to continue believing Christian mythology. In short, like you, they have a personal faith to maintain and use their "scholarship" in an attempt to do so..

    I HAVE at least read some scholars who are biased towards keeping intact their faith, come what may, instead of engaging in open-ended scholarship like bone-fide scholars. They are pathetic, the worst being scholar/apologist William Lane Craig. What a biased joke he is.

    The savior gods of the mystery religions performed ALL their saving acts in the lowest of the heavenly spheres and these were referred to as fleshly events, given that there was no distinction made in Hellenistic thought between natural and supernatural worlds.

    I have repeatedly said that Paul's version of the Hellenistic cults (they ALL had variations) was based in Judeo/ Hellenistic thought and incorporated the Davidic line giving issue to Jesus. Paul recognized the importance of this, obviously. And it is perfectly consistent that Jesus' fleshly connection to the seed of David occurred in the same place as the rest of his saving acts.

    Now, YOU tell me how, if Joseph of the seed of David but Jesus' father was NOT Joseph, how the Davidic lined could be fulfilled in "the flesh" as YOU think of "flesh"? It sounds like a sleight-of-hand to me, unlike the accepted Hellenistic religious philosophy of having it all occur in the heavenly sphere.

    This was fun, too. When asked to support his claim that over 30 million people died in the 30-Years War:

    You will find those figures anywhere with minimal research. Try Wikipedia for starters, which is simple enough for even you to understand.

    In fact, not even Wikipedia is as stupid as Amway; nowhere in Wiki's Thirty Years' War article is an estimate of total casualties in terms of actual numbers given; all estimates are in terms of percentage of population. They do give at one point an estimate of the total German population, but using those numbers, calculations would give 300,000, not 30,000,000. Unless he's got some other source (no doubt he'll claim he does) that gives the aggregate population of the warring states at the time, his reference to Wikipedia simply shows that he hasn't even done the "minimal research" -- he's done absolutely none at all.

    And there's more!

    The early church, it seems, was persecuted…the two worst persecutions being carried out by two of Rome's better emperors, Decius and Diocletian, I wonder what THAT says about the church of the day?

    I believe Dr Craig about as much as I believe the research of a medical specialist employed by the tobacco lobby talking about the safety of smoking.

    Isn't Amnouy such an intelligent fellow?

    Nomination for Ratnat. When asked to define what she meant by "mysteries," she replied:

    Classic literature like Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Epicureans, etc...

    Brooks Trubee (jimbo) wins yet again with this collection:

    Yes, taking things out of context tends to be a bad thing. I agree. I think that Christians have taken the entire Bible out of context, believing it to be something it is not.

    What makes this really funny is that his statement came shortly after the part where I'm telling him that Papal infallability is/was false doctrine... the stuff in brackets is what I've added because I'm a Grammar nut... Jimbo: Explain why the Pope apologized for the Catholic Church's persecution of Galileo if the Pope actually thought that there was a good justification for the persecution.

    So the Catholic Church's position changes with every Pope that comes along? I thought the Catholic Church was supposed to (Be) infallible.

    Christianity spread throughout the Roman world because it was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and the other religions were persecuted out of existence. If Mithraism had been chosen instead, this would probably be the Mithraism board and you would be here hurling insults at people for not believing in Mithra.

    nickcopernicus had his own collection:
    How many white Twebber Christians want to adopt a black or Hispanic crack baby? Come on, Raise your hands. *crickets chirping*

    Seriously "dude" how many retarded and crack babies are you planning on adopting?

    Concerning the question "When does life begin?" DanDanDan provided the following literally text book definition: "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3] Nick's response:

    Yawn, Shrug. Arguments by authority on controversial subjects don't impress me. Unless you'd like to invite Mr. Carlson here to debate this subject I don't give a crap if he believes that the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny of the individual.

    Godelwood has some Gold:

    Twenty four thousand? I've read the new ain't that big! Are you suggesting that "God" chose which of those "manuscripts" would actually be the 'Bible", or are you suggesting that God ordained an abridged version of his "Holy" word? The 'Dead Sea' scrolls should be attributed to the Jewish faith, not the Christian faith, as would be the Old Testament. The problem here lies in the acceptance of what is "Holy", would it not? My understanding of the process' for creating the 'scriptures' would place all of the manuscripts squarely in the "man-made" category. setzer, I have heard many Muslims claim the very things that you do, as concerning shear volume of manuscripts....tell me, how does that equate to validity?

    Tagryn wins in this convo:

    Tagryn: Any time I set a standard for myself and then proceed to violate that standard, I have damaged my integrity. That's what integrity means. Violating your own standards of behavior is called hypocrisy. No one held a gun to your head and made you adopt the Christian ethic. If you chose it, you should honor it to the best of your ability, or you're being a hypocrite.

    Chaotic Void: So if someone were to become an Atheist and his standard was to rape and murder, then NOT raping and murdering would make them a hypocrite.

    Tagryn: That's true, but irrelevant (see above, as well as post about psychopathy to AP). Do I need to buy you a dictionary, so you don't have to have the definition of hypocrisy relayed to you?

    John Powell wins for this:

    I liked this argument better than John's even though I didn't realize until later that it was a parody. I still haven't finished reading John's much longer presentation.

    Kerouac wins for this comment on scholar Richard Rohrbaugh:

    What's also interesting is that Richard guy claims to be a professor of Christian studies.

    Like we've never seen those people to be biased before. He's not just some random anthropologist.

    Plus on searching for him, the tektonics arguments are some of the main things popping up... I wonder why.

    EvoUK is normally sensible, but wins as someone who has no idea what the implications of the resurrection are.

    Historical Jesus? Meh, I don't think it matters one way or another. Some Jew guy who preached stuff. Big Whoop. It's the water into wine, resurrection, son of god bit that makes Jesus different from Alexander the Great etc. Last I checked you didn't go to hell if you didn't believe in Alexanders death/sacrifice.

    A YouTube comment wins:

    The bible is fake, jesus is fake, harry potter is fake. That is how complicated a argument really needs to get. No one needs to study biblical work or anything related to that, all you need to do is think logicaly for five seconds and everything becomes clear.

    Gold also to someone who wrote this to a Christian who is showing the Zeitgeist movie for the purpose of critique:

    Thank You for sharing that beautiful video with me.Your people are very beautiful and that video seemed to capture your beautiful men,women and SO SO precious,beautiful little children praising their God and having a beautiful time. I also noticed that you forwarded that to several people. I can see you are very passionate about your religion and that is the way it should be. I have to take this time to say that I did watch Zeitgeist and do believe in the truths contained in that film,however the one part that I think A LOT of people disagree with is the downplaying of religion that took place in Part

    1. I personally do not agree with that. Nor do I feel it was in any way appropriate for the film's creator to use the movie to platform is own atheist views. However,Part 1 did not keep me from receiving the true message of Zeitgeist. Which was,that despite the reputation that the United States has had for so long of being a world leader and near perfect....we have problems and dictators just like every other country on the planet. This world will NOT begin to heal unless or until we put religion,sex,race,sexual preference,age and geography aside and LOVE ONE ANOTHER GLOBALY AS PEOPLE. We are ALL human beings,beautiful and valuable and we all have the right to live long and beautiful lives. I think that we can all agree that regardless of what religion we are the few UNIVERSAL things that ALL religions have in common are:

    1. Our God loves us and wants us to be happy.

    2. Our God hates violence and want's it to STOP.

    3. There is ONLY ONE true God and whatever name we call Him, the same God that created one of us created ALL of us and He loves us all EQUALLY and wants us to love each other the way that He loves us.

    So regardless of what our individual views are on religion slavery,murder,lies and ill will towards our fellow man is WRONG AND CONTRARY TO GOD'S PLAN FOR OUR LIVES,IT ANGERS AND HURTS HIM DEEPLY. IT MUST STOP. I thank you as my brother under God to love me enough to want to send the truth to me. I appreciate the time and effort you put into sending me that beautiful scripture and video. They inspired me and reminded me that God loves me. Thank you and live long and well,my friend. I LOVE YOU as God loves you. May your God continue to bless your beautiful life and the lives of your family.

    The previous five e-mails consisted of six YouTube links and one odd e-mail consisting of bolded statements and sections from the Srimad Bhagavatam.

    KingHeathen wins for saying the gospel of Mary is more credible than the canonicals.

    "IN FACT, the Gospel of Mary seems MORE credible in many ways to me than any of the chosen ones....but of course that book makes it seem like a WOMAN could be EQUAL to a MAN. But surely that had nothing to do with it....right?"
    The Christian Collection

    Carico earns a doctorate in psychology with this:

    Secular psychology is no different than going to witch doctors. The theories of psychologists are no different than the theories of scientists. They put people in categories, label them, and give them pills like witches gave people herbs and potions.

    The only solution to the human condition is Jesus. Human nature trying to fix human nature is the blind leading the blind. A fallible human being cannot fix the fallible human being. Only the truh sets us free. When we admit out envy, greed, lust, anger, sloth, pride, glutony, and other sin, Jesus replaces them with love and forgiveness and we are truly free.

    I can't count the people who have been messed up by psychiatrists and psychologists. For example, so many people have been misdiagnosed as bipolar because psychiatrists have pills for that, so they are pharmaceutically lobotmized and have to remain dependant on those drugs for the rest of their lives and those drugs still don't alleviate all of their symptoms! In fact, in some cases, they create side-effects that are worse than the symptoms they had before they took the drugs! One of the biggest ironies is that some of the side-effects of anti-depressant medications cause people to commit suicide!

    So wll we need is Christ.

    Another nomination for Thomas A. Carder of the CAPalert Christian film review site. This quote from their review of Beowulf:

    Beowulf the movie, based on the epic poem of the same name, is quite probably the most heinous culprit for stealing childhood from children ever made. It does seem rather reaching to say the parent poem (text) presents nudity. I have read lots of poems but never have I seen nudity in a poem. Even the nudity in some Bibles was not there when the inspired pen was put to paper; man put nudity in the Bible, not God. That some church approved nakedness in the Bible does not make it acceptable to God. Indeed God speaks darkly and shamefully of nakedness (the display of nudity) more than 40 times from the Old Testament to the New Testament. His Word even advised preists not to build an altar with steps lest the wind expose their nakedness to the people below [Ex. 20:26].

    tlalynet wins, for his thoughtless comparison between suicide and drinking wine at Mass:

    For the sake of the disscussion, "Ethically, there's no question. It amounts to suicide, which is very wrong." This is no universal agreement on this point. In the west you might take it for granted, but I've seen protistents horrified to learn that Catholics actually drink wine in church.

    Personal nomination -- here's the story:

    My girlfriend was telling her father about how the postal service had stuffed up her order for the books she was getting me for my birthday (she's been charged for three of Witherington's and one of Miesel and Olson's, and only got two in the post).

    Her dad read the blurb of the books and told her that the only people who read those kind of books are people who don't have a true faith and don't know Jesus.

    I kid you not.

    Here's an entertaining comment from a Christian who shall remain anonymous:

    Only God knows the total number of young people who have died as a result of Satanic music's influence. This includes all forms of heavy metal, and especially "Christian rock" because it causes people to let their guard down against Satan.

    phaster writes this on Paul:

    one of my undergard degrees was in political science, so since I have an interest and formal education in that field I use the tools I learned to look at religion from another point of view. If you ever make it to vatican city, look for the statue of st paul although he was not one of the orginal disiples, you have realize that it was St. paul a jewish tax collector who saw the light so to speak. In political science I studied various political movement, my own formal interest was in the soviet union. And what I realized way back when is just like a religious movement, the communist system was based on a philospohy of one man (in this case karl marx).

    In the case of st paul, I remember a comparitive lit class of various religious texts back at university where I drew parallels between political and religious systems. Think about the fact that marx like jesus was a singular figure in history, who had followers who believed in a certain philosophy.

    Marx had followers who spread the word that the capitalist system was evil and looked for an economic system to to and have a society that was more equitable. So I pose this question wasn't jesus in effect trying to change the status quo way back when.

    In the case of jesus, st paul made several trips around the middle east to try and spread a message of equality. In the case of st paul, if ya look at how he challanged the status quo of rome, it would not be a smart move to say the roman political system sucks and offers no equality for say jews and he spread the word of the philosophy of Jesus in the ancient world.

    So if look at the problem faced by jesus in terms of political science st paul fought the roman system, using a religious institution. That is why I said for lack of a better term political inequalities!

    As far as the tie in with the environment, consider the only time jesus uses any kind of physical force and that is when he entered the temple and over turned the tables of the money changers. Might I suggest that jesus were here today, he would be fighting the status quo.

    Right now there is lots of pressure by consumers, corporations and even religious right churches to keep "environmental" policy business as usual. There is a book "The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus" written by a Harvard theologian that kinda shows if jesus were alive today he would not be part of traditional church, or a chairman of a large corporation. Jesus was a revolutionary figure way back in roman times, and if he were alive today I suggest Jesus would be a revolutionary figure fighting on the side of unpopualr causes that have less political power (for example he would take the side of wacky environmentalist over big business, take the side of poor illegal immigrants over the side of rich people in the burbs, march with flaming gays in drag and confront self rightious church goers, etc.)

    As far as disagreeing with me how I perceive Christ, it could be that I'm just a super genius and thus far too few people realize that fact!!!!!! hahahahahahahaha

    The aptly named Mistaken said:

    I believe being a rape victim is a sin, even though it is not the victims fault. Being raped is not the victims sin, but the sin of the rapist. No longer being a virgin before marriage is a sin. But I do believe in these circumstances, you will definately be forgiven.

    In a thread about masturbation, John Goddard saids:

    Masturbation is sex with yourself and since you are the same sex as yourself, masturbation is gay and thus fornication.

    When Undying questioned about those who were born with both sets of sexual organs, Goddard replied:

    Then they are twice as gay if they masturbate.

    Goddard also said some other funny stuff:

    Depends on if they saw the life of pigs worth more than the life of the man.

    It's about how some Gentiles will be healed by Jesus, and some will remain pigs and dogs and be destroyed by devils, speaking with the one voice of Legion which is Babel and Rome as a united people of the False Prophet.

    Revelation 18:2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

    Revelation 18:21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all


    There is possibility [Jesus] caused them all to believe they were drinking wine when it was just water, or maybe grape juice.

    gbigbird wins the obsessive award:

    So obviously everyone knows sinning is bad. But I wanted to know what others thought of this...

    Let's Say your chewing gum in class when one of the rules clearly states "NO gum-chewing." Would That be considered a Sin? I want to say no but when I really think about it this is what I came up with

    1. God Thought of the principle [or however he plans babies]

    2. Parents Gave birth to Principle

    3. Principle went to school to be principle

    4. became principle

    5. Came up with no gum-chewing rule.

    Since God guides us [or at least trys to with everyone] in everything we do. he must have guided him to do that So disobeying the one who came up the rule [who God created and guided] would be disobeying God... right??

    wow. Putting wayy too much thought into this. I think I better go clean my room to clear out my head and talk to god...

    Pastor Ken Hutcherson wins for jokes about violence towards gays, especially polite and courteous ones:

    On a Sunday when Tarico was present, Hutcherson was preaching on gender roles. During his sermon, Hutcherson stated, "God hates soft men" and "God hates effeminate men." Hutcherson went on to say, "If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I'd rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end."

    "That was a joke," Hutcherson said Friday, when I asked him about the comment. But it's not really funny, is it? for all atheists in this thead.

    Institutional award:

    What a marvelous coincidense, I found two moronic teachers, one christian and one athiest, caught in the same way.

    "If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong," Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. "He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying, 'Please, accept me, believe.' If you reject that, you belong in hell." Apparently he was freely proselytizing in the class. Apparently that's pretty much illegal for a person in his position. In the end one teen got fed up, recorded a tape of it and showed it to his principle.

    Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

    The same is happening to an atheist history teacher, for similar reasons... SANTA ANA, Calif. - A Capistrano Valley High School honors student is suing his teacher and the school district for persistent anti-Christian comments, including, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

    Sophomore Chad Farnan is suing Dr. James Corbett, who teaches Advanced Placement European History, a class Chad was told he needed for admittance to college.

    Chad had complained to his parents of ongoing bias against Christians during Corbett's class and, after their son recorded numerous comments they deemed offensive, they contacted Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a nonprofit religious liberty organization.

    We had a nice link to s story that people are belieiving Churchill didn't exist, but it is gone. If this was real, the link said:

    Britons are losing a grip on fact and fiction - with nearly one in four believing Winston Churchill and Florence Nightingale are myths and more than half thinking Sherlock Holmes actually existed.

    First Platinum nominee of 2008 for At-Large Website: -- Screwy Christian site, first Platinum nominee for 2008. Sample:

    Answer to the question of the daily sacrifice that was taken away and the abomination that maketh desolate set up:

    1,290 days is the exact number of days from January 27, 1942 when U. S. persecution and internment against Japanese-Americans began, until the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945. (References:;;; .)

    During World War II, after the December 7, 1941 Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, on January 27, 1942 the U.S. government forced more than 120,000 Japanese Americans to leave their homes, farms, schools, jobs, and businesses. In some cases family members were separated. From 1942 to 1945, they lived in internment camps.

    On January 27, 1942, Japanese-Americans were interned by the U.S. On that day, the daily sacrifices stopped. Most Japanese are Buddhists. They offer daily prayers and sacrifices ( No one said the mentioned people were Jews. Open your minds! On August 8, 1945, the United Nations (abomination that maketh desolate) was formed ( ) with the U.S. as the first country to ratify on that day. President Truman, 33rd degree Mason, was the signer.

    The man wrote me saying:

    The prophecies are clearly explained. No one seems to want to listen.

    I can't imagine why not. -- Some memorable quotes include:

    No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts. Tehknologik for that "rebuttal" to Holding and for this:

    Oprah Winfrey wins an institutional award. She will be letting out all the stops on her XM Satellite Radio program this coming year. Beginning January 1, 2008, "Oprah & Friends" will offer a year-long course on the New Age teachings of A Course in Miracles: A lesson a day throughout the year will completely cover the 365 lessons from the Course in Miracles "Workbook."

    For example, Lesson #29 asks you to go through your day affirming that "God is in everything I see." Lesson #61 tells each person to repeat the affirmation "I am the light of the world." Lesson #70 teaches the student to say and believe "My salvation comes from me." -- Platinum nominee And especially the comment from AtheistatLARGE: "excellent video, well presented and researched"

    Bob Larson for making out that having German lineage is equivocal to association with demons: -- Atheist Platinum nominee, for such comments as:

    Notice first of all that Holding is bolting on an entirely extra-biblical framework for interpreting the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible about "honor" being more important to God than the eternal salvation of His own children, nor does the Bible say anything about sin being an insult to God's "honor." According to the Bible, the rules say that the payment for sin is death, not shame. (And, incidentally, the Bible says that at the Final Judgment, God will condemn those who have already died and who, technically, have paid for their own sins, since they've died. But God, the Loving Father, condemns them anyway!)

    Notice too that, as Holding himself points out, it is people who value honor. This is because "honor" (or "respect" or "status") has a lot to do with how much power one has in society. It's a direct result of the fact that we are not immortal and omnipotent, and therefore our safety and well-being depends on maintaining a good relationship with our peers. Whoever harms our honor (or social status) causes us actual harm....

    Jesus' argument sounds like nonsense unless you happen to remember that the Sadducees were still polytheists. The reason why Jesus' argument impressed people so much is because in the original religion taught by Moses, Yahweh was not the god of the dead, a god named "Mot" was. Jesus' argument still does not give any scriptural/Mosaic basis for a doctrine of resurrection, but it was a very impressive way to sneak in an insinuation that the Sadducees' polytheism contradicted their own scriptures....

    All that human scholarship and apologetics does is to refine the art of denial and rationalization. You can study all you want, and think up the most sophisticated apologia, and fill your mind so full of bibliographies and footnotes that there isn't time to consider the real-life fact of God's absence....

    In theory, Protestant Christians (at least) are supposed to hold the Bible as the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice. In theory, the individual Christian is supposed to be able to read the Bible and say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." In theory, the individual Christian is not supposed to need a specialized (priestly?) class of men to read the Bible for him and to declare to him what it "really means."...

    Personally I tend to favor the idea that Jesus was a real person, because there's nothing particularly implausible about the idea that there was a religious teacher of some sort in Bronze Age Palestine. The character we know today as Jesus, however, seems very likely to be an eclectic mishmash of various Jewish and pagan ideas, mythologies, and wishful thinking. So in a sense I can agree that Jesus was a real (if unknown) person, and that Jesus as we know him today is essentially a myth....

    But if there's one thing that Jesus taught his disciples, it's how to have more than one variety of "truth"..You see this same attitude in Christians today, who will tell you without any sense of guilt or duplicity both that Jesus is in heaven and that Jesus is living in their hearts. Obviously, it's not literally, physically true that any of them have a 2,000 year old Jewish man residing in their left ventricle. That would be fatal, if it were even possible. But the fact that it is not literally true does not make the Christian feel like it's lying to call it spiritually true.

    Award for two contestants on Jeopardy last night nominates an at-large Platinum. The Final Jeopardy question was something like this:

    "What city did a certain Biblical character who called up a spirit for King Saul live in, that had the same name as a planet in Star Wars?"

    The answer of course is Endor. One contestant got it right, the winner. The other contestants gave as their answers: "Esther" and "Tattooine". -- Apparently the Bible reveals who the last pope will be, a devil from the bottomless pit who will impersonate John Paul II. Christian website Platinum nominee.

    Michael and Sheri Suec: