Screwballs of the month

January 2006


It’s now been a full year since our first Screwball Awards feature (yes, we began coincidentally in January 2005, at the start of a calendar year) and that means this round we have a special feature: The Platinum Screwball Awards for the screwiest screwballs of 2005. We’ll go over the details below, but for now here’s the best from January 2006.


From the mailbag



Lots of screamers in the mailbox this round. Let’s begin with this fundy atheist who “replied” to my article at with all the latest scholarship. My comments from the article in bold; his response (ahem) in italics.


With that said, does the verse indeed encourage castration? Hardly, even on the surface -- what is made is a statement of fact and observation: some are born this way; some have made themselves this way for men; some have made themselves that way for spiritual purposes, and those who can accept this, let them do so -- it is not saying, "Go out and castrate yourself" or giving directions to the nearest medical facility.  

That is certianly [sic] what it says "those who can accept this, let them do so"  Holding -- the idiot - refuses to read what is red lettered -- jezuz's words in their inerrant holey babble!

There is no opinion rendered either way. 

Whoa!  Who need an "opinion" when you have jezuz' own words -- words that have stood for 394 years in the KJV.

 Oh, here we go, deep into the world of apologetics -- listen up, pay close attention to JP:

However, looking more deeply into the context, we see that this refers not exclusively to castration, but to celibacy as well.  

Bull Hockey JP! Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt. Even your own Strong's shows that "castration is castration is castration" throughout your xian bible -- not celibacy, never celibacy. But, when one cuts his **** off, he will probably be celibate. Good idea for catholic priests. JO, did you ever hear of the castrati? The catholics took old Jezuz' words to heart and castrated young boys for "the sake of heaven." 

JP, you remind me of that great xian apologist -- George Castanza who -- like you -- said ""Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you really believe it's true."

We know that the Jews were horrified by castration (cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.270-1; though eunuchs were well-respected, and trusted, in some Ancient Near Eastern societies). Indeed, how could someone have been "castrated" from their mother's   womb?  

**mn JP, I though the holey trinity could do anything -- like a virgin birth -- guess the holey ghast could deform a fetus. Personally it would be less painful in the womb than later in life with my swinging nuts being cut off "for the sake of heaven." Looks like jezuz was just being merciful in de-nutting in the womb. Maybe jezuz was one of those **** from birth -- no kids huh! This speculation is as valid as the crap coming out of your mouth!

 JP, you should quit while you are ahead. The new testament and jezuz is fiction -- no more real than "The Memoirs of the Tooth Fairy." That is why you are employed full time in futile attempts to cover this crap up!  Your premise of a jezuz is rejected in its entirety.

Blah, blah, blah -- yada, yada, yada!  And you have said absolutely nothing! Really you are really rather pathetic in your feeble attempts to force lies on the public. They have been screwed for 2,000 years by the best -- the catholic theocracy, the protestant clergy, theologians and missionaries. And when literacy finally came to the people, xianity spawned a generation of leeches (apologists) trying to repackage the lies and force feed them to a gullible audience.

Sorry Jack (JP) , the game is over. People no longer have to remain ignorant with blind faith -- jezuz intoxicated. People are using their heads for something besides a hat rack; they are beginning to think on their own for once. Your cover-ups (excuses) and lies no longer work.  You are irrelevant! You are history! You are a loser!


Nice thorough rebuttal, and only slightly better than this one which also came in:


You bring up some decent points but your whole critique of The Mythmaker is rather unconvincing.  You hand pick portions of his argument while leaving vast portions of the book untouched. For instance: his treatment of Paul’s disputes with the Jerusalem element. This is just one example. I could go on for pages. Also, your argument from authority (citing Davies, Sanders, etc.) is a bit disingenuous for I suspect that you do not agree completely with them either. By the way, an author who harbors a motive for writing a book does not always mean he is incorrect. Finally, your whole piece seems a bit defensive and over the top.  You lump this book with the likes of Holy Blood Holy Grail?????  This is not a scholarly approach and makes it appear as though you need to smear the book instead of giving it a fair treatment.


This also came in from the lunacy fringe this month:


Sorry my friend your prose on Tom Harpers Pagan Christ did nothing for me. I'm certainly no authority concerning historical theology, but I have read many books regarding the Gnostic gospels and some of Carl Jungs writings. Prove to me that Jesus was a historical person? Prove to me that he died on the cross and came to life the next day? Don't tell me its faith. Really though thats all you have is faith that it is true.


I was raised evangelical. I hated every minute I was associated with this cult of Christianity. I find evangelicals imperialists trying to take over the world, nothing different than Nazi Germany. Haper is right that the world will never have peace until we unite are religous differences.


The bottom line is that Haper called Christianity from under the carpet. He is right on the money. I personaly believe everything he said and so should you.


And another as well from the “don’t bother me with scholarship” crowd:


You are a typical Christian web site you argue with the "skeptics annotated bible" and can't really use the bible to do so, if you notice to SAB uses the Bible it self and draws from what is written in the bible, you try to explain it without linking it to the bible, just your interpretation.


     If you could find some thing in the bible to prove your point that goes against a Verse in the bible the SAB site had found, then that is a contradiction And you can't even admit that there is any contradiction???????


     You must go past Sunday school and read the verses you don't hear in Sunday school, let me give you an example:


Exodus 22:15   And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.


And another pearl of wisdom:


Exodus 22:17   And he that curseth his father, or mother, shall surely be put to death.


      Explain that away, and please don't give me that cultural difference jive, no matter how you cut it, you treat your children better than that.


      If the bible is the true word of god then we are all in a lot of trouble, Because this one hates all of us so much that he leaves the bible for us, a ridicules nonsensical book about murder, genocide, rape and eternal suffering.  And we are supposed to figure out what god ment, why would he even write a book that so many people can't even agree on, that seems very irresponsible.


     If you leave a baby sitter with your children, you love you children right?  enough to atlas leave instructions for you baby sitter that are CLEAR and UNDERSTOOD and certainly not open to interpretation.


    Sound smart or what????  Is your god so irresponsible he couldn't care less about the bible????????????????


    Hey I know I am god I will leave this book of nonsense to the sheeple If they figure me out they come to heaven if not eternal damnation.


    I think I will stick to a simple earth religion one that is much older  and certainly much wiser.



There was one Christian loony this round as well, from someone who tried to refute my article on Satan not being found in Ezekiel and Isaiah by using the same midrashic techniques I noted were in error, and then by screaming, but not by using any scholarly commentaries – get this as to why:

I am sorry that you feel that way.  Although I am not surprised that a critical analysis of Bible quotations are not good enough for you. 

You say it's "too tiresome" to refute my argument, but actually it is impossible for you to refute it, even privately, or you would have had some sort of objection in your email reply.   I don't think you would dare to allow anyone to see my Rebuttal in comparison to your essay as it is a much better argument than the one you proposed and someone may agree that you are indeed wrong in your 'analysis'. 

My Rebuttal was not based on "loose attempts at association", but I doubt you understood the connections made.  There are many many more evidences in scripture that the fallen angels became humankind, and that view of "the fall" is the only view that ties together the claims made throughout the Bible.

To hold your view, much or all of the Bible is false, and it is apparent that you dismiss much of it as just midrash, because it is incomprehensible to you, and to label it as just midrash is a convenient put-down that allows you to remain close-minded and assert that you are right in the face of all evidence.  

You have no overall understanding of the Bible, or you would not have reached the erroneous conclusions you did in your essay, and that is why you do not understand the material cited in my Rebuttal and view it as simply 'midrash'.

Your argument is seriously flawed and your conclusions rest solely on the unproven assumption that the spirits within humankind have always been in the physical state in which we find ourselves now.  I would like to see you write an essay proving that this mistaken assumption is true.  As I said, your erroneous conclusions were reached due to a misapprehension of the nature of the original sin of humankind and the sin of the fallen angels of scripture. 

I suppose you think that all references to fallen angels throughout the Bible are just pointless extra junk.  There is a point to their inclusion, and that point is so we may understand our original source and our original sin - major points in the Bible.

I've studied the Bible thoroughly for a dozen years, and do not base my conclusions on any other person's analysis, whatever their credentials.  Most people, scholars included, are hopelessly confused by the Bible.

It is appropriate that you call it a Chicken Challenge because you are the Chicken who is afraid to really think and have no metaphorical understanding.  Your attempts at reasoning to refute the Bible text ("Satan is no salesman" - good one) are pathetically infantile and conveniently ignore the Hebrew meanings of the words translated "traffick" and "merchandise" in Ezekiel 28.  Your essay's conclusions show that you're hopelessly confused, and another example of the blind leading the blind. 

Oh, and you might take a scholarly course in spelling - by the looks of your essay, you could stand to brush up on it.

Seems Dan Brown has another disciple. And then there was this one from the Feelgood New Age Club:


I have just started reading your very interesting article about 
Mithras and the comparision with Christ.
I just wanted to point out that Mithras was a different myth in 
different areas where he was recognised. Hence he was believed to be 
born of a rock at one time in one area but the myth changed over time 
and in different regions. The Romans believed he was born of a virgin 
as did the Perrsians. But, they also saw this as a myth not an 
actuality of events. It was not a literal event but an allegory myth 
used to guide the behaviour of their people and lead to gnosis.

Perhaps it is time for the Christians to look at whats important in 
the message of their religion. Christianity´s message is not tied to 
a historical event- so that if you believe it you´re saved and if you 
don´t you´re damned. The message of christianity goes deeper than 
that. All forms of spirituality are different paths up the same 
mountain of truth. To judge and persecuute one another over which 
version of events we adhere to seems to defeat the whole purpose and 
therefore bypass the message.



And finally:


There's no question that you're an intelligent person, and perhaps
even a genius. I have two certified MENSA geniuses in my family, and
they are as crazy as you are. You make sophistry an art form. Too
bad you can't use your powers for good instead of evil, propagating
nonsense. The good guys could use a few people with your powers. I
just think you're on the wrong side, and if you could look inside and
overcome the obvious brainwashing that's affected your powers to
reason, you could do a lot to dispel the ignorance that's crippling




Golden duh award winners



Babbling is my hobby


A reader passed us this post from someone named “Tentayne” on a forum that, if nothing else, alerts us that coherence is on the decline along with critical thinking:

I really can't help but reply to this post so here goes. I believe the true
problem with organized religion is due to the simple fact they are not
"divine" incarnations. Of course this means that they ARE created by man.
And in so doing all of man's faults (and graces) are going to be ultimately
displayed somewhere or sometime. Alot of mention here has been directed
towards the Catholic Church (and for good reason)... the long history of the
church has given ample opportunity for corruption on many levels. ANY
organisation is susceptible to humanistic inconsistencies.

Now... I believe that something has been missed during all of this
discussion. That would be the Bible. As some of you may know, the bible as
we know it today(for the most part) was created by Pope Gregory(6th or 7th
centuries I believe). In so doing the Catholic church(and pope) at that time
created a commission that decided which "gospels" would be included in this
so called bible... and guess what, the rest were ordered to be destroyed.
The bible as we know it today is probably the most important work of
CENSORSHIP ever known to mankind. Many historians have found robustly
factual inconsistencies between what we know of the first century and what
the bible claims. Many of these findings of course have only been found in
the last couple of centuries. IT IS NOT a coincidence that the "Gospel of
Thomas" has been unrecognized and generally deemed heretical by the Catholic
Church. Although the collection of writings that were found that the Gospel
of Thomas is part of is not in first century Aramaic, but in Greek(as is any
and ALL of the oldest known copies of the Gospels... I know of absolutely
none in original first century Aramaic); it is this 'original condition'
that needs to be a point of "enlightentment" in my opinion concerning the
"truth" of the current King James version of the bible(New Testament of
course). The Church has had no chance to alter THESE writings... and as a
result, they DO contradict many of what is considered core teachings in the
Catholic CHurch AND the current form of the Bible. For instance(but not
limited to), the church's(and Bible's) exclusion of a 'divine feminine'
aspect(and no, the Virgin Mary doesn't quite fit the general idea here), the
Church's exclusion of female "priests"(there is ample evidence that there
were female "priests", as well as disciples in the early Church), and the
potentially organisationally damaging idea that the "divine" is within all
of us and therefore the beginning of enlightenment(and not from any external
means... the Church, priesthood, or even Jesus Christ) to name just a few.
Additionally I find it ironic that the fundamentalist christians and other
so called christian organisations have at the very core of their religious
beliefs a document(Bible) that was compiled by Catholics.

I don't mean to just discredit any "christian" agenda or neo-ideal. I am not
"anti-christian" or anti-any particular religion. I do have a problem with
blind interpretation and dogmatic conclusion... and no, "faith" is not what
I mean here. Faith is important in my estimation to the human condition..
period... and has it's place. I have known many christians over the years
that actually understood what I would consider to be the "crux" of christian
theology without putting overt emphasis on the bible. An understanding of
love and tolerance that atually is the core of all of the world's
religions... is just sometimes hard to discern.

"All paths can lead to the fount".... irregardless of being theist(mono and
poly), atheist or agnostic.

It is soley thru human "fault" that religion/spirituality is forever doomed
in any organisational sense. Power corrupts.. plain n simple.

Enough said... this pagan/taoist/gnostic/agnostic will continue to search
for enlightenment without "outside" interference, as well as contemplate the
inconsistencies and intrigue associated with those that do not.


The apostles must have been taoists

LakeGeorgeMan wins Gold for this comment which reflects the latest scholarship showing that the first Christians were not Jews, and that the Romans didn’t see Christianity as a type of Judaism:

The Jews...the people who knew Paul best, the people who trained him in the teachings of the Jewish scriptures, didn't believe he spoke for their god. They rejected him and his exegesis and his authority.



Bible codes boring? Try these


Sherry Shriner of wins a Website Award for all sorts of neat stuff. Such as:

* The Apostle Paul is the devil because her hebrew word-search puzzle says so.

*Turns out that not only Rock Music is of the Devil, but Country music as well. And the motive force behind it is an energy called “loosh”: To obtain loosh people must be deceived, used, abused, manipulated, and even killed in order to become this energy source which is a food source for Luciferians who feed off of other peoples emotions. It can come from deception or terror and horror or any number of….Another way to create loosh is through rock, rap, country, or any kind of music and the musicians who create it are rewarded for it. For those who are in the Luciferian system they feed off the emotions their music creates and how it affects those who listen to it. They get their loosh and Satanic rewards in that way.

Got brains?


A special set of Gold Awards goes to Marshall Brain and his fans. Brain started a website called “Why Does God Hate Amputees” (which we have a parody of on this site) which included such pearls as these:


You already know that God is imaginary. You see it every day. All that I am asking you to do is acknowledge the truth at a conscious level so that you can become a normal human being.



If you are a Christian, you now have a major problem: We have just proven that God did not write the Bible. You have to solve this problem -- if men wrote the Bible rather than God, Christianity is dead. So you do one of two things with these passages:

*You simply ignore the fact that God condones slavery in the Bible. You continue to believe in God and the Bible anyway. If someone asks you about all of the pro-slavery passages in the Bible, you change the subject. Or you accuse the person of blasphemy.

*You try to come up with incredibly convoluted explanations for the pro-slavery

passages in the Bible. You try to find some sort of bizarre rationalization to explain away an all-loving God who openly advocates slavery in both the Old and New Testaments.


A religious person might try to justify these sexist portions of the Bible by saying, "well, if you look at the original Greek verb that Paul used, you can see that it is written in the present infinitive. If Paul had meant for this passage to apply to us today, he would have used the aorist infinitive. What does your common sense tell you about this sort of explanation? It probably tells you that, regardless of verb tense, the Bible's intent is obvious. It probably also tells you that an all-knowing God, if he was going to write a book, would understand that when you say, "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission," people are going to pick up on the general gist of what you are saying, rather than nit-picking the verb tense.


Now it is easy to see that the Book of Revelation is a work of pure fiction, possibly drug-induced.

If a presidential candidate were to stand up and say, "the alignment of the planets indicates that in foreign policy, we should follow a path that…," or if he/she were to end a speech with "Jupiter bless America," we would not vote for this candidate...People who believe in the Bible are in the same boat. Why would we listen to anyone who believes in slavery, hates women and supports a God who is a flagrant baby-killer? Do we want people like that holding public office, sitting on our courts, running our corporations or teaching our children?

The Bible is clearly the work of primitive men, many of whom were insane. Anyone with common sense can see that. Exodus 21:20-21 alone is enough to prove it. When people insist that the Bible is the word of God, we should ignore them and exclude them from public discourse. It's a free country, and people have a right to their superstitions in the privacy of their own homes. But no one is required to take them seriously in a public forum.


If you are curious, here is why Christianity contains this bizarre ritual. It is not the case that an all-powerful God in heaven demands this behavior. All of the rituals in Christianity are completely man-made. Christianity is a snow ball that rolled over a dozen pagan religions. As the snowball grew, it freely attached pagan rituals in order to be more palatable to converts. The process is described succinctly and accurately in the book "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown.



Marshall Brain is entertaining as he is, but for even more entertainment (and more Gold recipients), here are comments from readers of his who saw our parody:



Somehow we have to find the correct Christian scholar, approved of by Tektoonics, and only listen to him. We cannot simply read what God said in the Bible and interpret it as normal English, like we would any other book. When God says something, there is no way for a normal person to actually know what it means. Only the "scholars" know.

By the time I had skimmed the 4th page and saw more mention of the 'linguistic context' and 'scholarly study' of the Bible, I just thought: according to this, only scholars should really be believing in God, because of course only scholars really know the Word of God. We all know Jesus meant his words for scholars. God talks to scholars. Regular people, especially 'fundy atheists', are just too dumb to understand God. How perfect is God that his words are clear only to the most scholarly of us.

The whole thing reeks of arguing from authority -- "Believe it, cuz scholars say so; if you don't yer IGNORANT!!"

The thing is, if humans are supposed to be the ones who solve poverty, who needs God? And why would Jesus specifically promise in the Bible that God solves poverty? See Matthew 6:25-30.

Well, it is God's word after all. Why would an all-knowing being say it if he didn't mean it? But even if you ignore the "moving the mountain" part, there is still the "nothing will be impossible for you" part. There is no ambiguity or literary license in "nothing will be impossible for you", and strangely they ignore that point. From there it goes on into rationalization after rationalization.

Second, look at all the different translations of the Bible. In all of them they seem to use the word "slavery" instead of "indentured servitude." Why wouldn't the translators use the correct word if that is what God meant?

Again, the rationalizations are piled on top of one another to try to explain the beating of slaves, the sexism, the murder, etc. But they never actually answer the questions.

And in that second link, it just seems Holding is bitter because Dan Barker destroys him in every debate.

Why can't we all just leave all this goobly goop behind and just focusing on trying to be kind to each other? If someone puts up a debate about something, we should nod our heads, say, "If that works for you, then that's fine." And walk on.

He also tries to make Mr. Brian look like an idiot who says things like "Huh?" and "Wha?". He's resorted to the same tactics that Mr. Brian uses, and now makes himself look not-too-intelligent either. Besides, trying to make people look like mindless idiots is a waste of time, no matter how it's done.

It's interesting to note that Mr brains detractors cannot refute his book without attempting to ridicule and belittle his work. This should make him very happy as it gfraphically illustrates to any intellectual individual who has read both pieces that the people of faith have only that to stand on. Faith. "To believe in something for which there is no proof". And this of course is ignorant.




any brains in that ten-gallon hat?


Texe Marrs, one of those people we’d be better off without in Christendom, plumbs the depths of paranoia with this commentary on a cover from TV Guide:



Watch Those Hands! Actor Jason Alexander ("George" in Seinfeld TV series) performs a cabala ritual in plain sight of a vast audience. To the uninitiated and ignorant millions of people who read TV Guide and see this cover, Jason Alexander appears to be merely hamming it up. Little do they know of the deeper occult meaning. For example, we find Jason’s left and right hands giving the "El Diablo" satanic hand sign. His arms—one pointing up, the other down—indicate the dualistic (marriage of opposites, or reconciliation), cabalistic magical philosophy "As Above, So Below" (The devil goat Baphomet performs the same sign). We also note the three triangles presented by Jason’s legs and arms.


Plus some more nuttiness from Marrs’ site, so you know this is not unusual:



The "El Diablo" hand sign often is con-fused with the deaf's signing of the phrase, "I love you." While at first this appears an odd resemblance, we register an "ahh, I get it!" emotion when we discover that the person who invented, or created, the hand sign system for the deaf, Helen Keller, was herself an occultist and Theosophist. Did Keller purposely design the deaf's "I love you" sign to be such a remarkable imitation of the classic sign of Satan? Was Keller saying, basically, "I love you, Devil?"



Why apostasy is bad for your brain


Derek Sansone, who showed up as “Monk” on TWeb lately, earned a Lifetime Achievement Gold for his attempt to validate the Christ-myth by arguing, “So what?” again and again, as well as for comments like these:


Why should I thank Jesus for being crusified? I didn't do anything. What's the big deal over his death? What did he really sacrifice?


But I did not choose to be born. So even if I violate his precepts, it isn't my fault. If it is my fault, just provide a clear connection to this fault moment. Just demonstrate where this fault actually took place. And if you say that my choices are faults or “bad”, how can I be blamed when it is by external inputs that I abstract these values and choose according to them. And of course I don’t initiate this process, nor do I cause these events that I observe. I simply watch, abstract and learn.


I have hurt people. But I was seeking a pleasurable end in the process. So hurting someone is just part of my pleasure pursuit. Plus hurt is a very subjective term, don't ya think?



Plus these choice gems from Sansone’s debate with Paul Manta:


"logic is based on me"

"what is logic, why is it such a big deal”

"'s this human convention"

"who cares about a presupposition"

"laws of logic, where are they? Write them down, there they are, they're material"




It’s so much more sophisticated and convincing than that stupid kalam cosmological stuff


Autoartist on TWeb wins Gold for this compelling disproof of  theism:


The Pen Argument:

God is loving, but of course disciplines, for another thread :)
God wants us to glorify Him
God sent his son to die on the cross for my sins
Jesus rose from the grave so that humans might have everlasting life with
Him in Heaven
God’s desire is that we might come to Him through the belief upon Jesus
dieing on the cross and being raised.
God is the creator of physics

If all this is true, and I humble ask (for Christians sake, I don’t’ want to be arrogant towards God):

Dear God stop this pen from hitting the ground (suspend it in air) and then I will believe.

Would not God do that?

Why doesn’t He?

We read, and of course Christians testify He is a personal God so no the Bible isn’t enough, nor is archeology, nor is testimony of other believers, for me to continue to believe.

So lets grab our pens, or markers, or pencils.


Worst of all, alarm clocks are of the devil!


JoLonda wins Gold for a variety of very screwy statements, such as:


It is popular for Christian Youth Leaders to spend their planning and ministry times as an endeavor to cater and sympathize to their youthful charges supposedly having special needs while experiencing this special time in their lives. However, the concept of "Teenage" years is not found in Scripture, as children were put directly into adulthood at puberty by means of a designed schedule.


Day to day, or rather usually week to week, success today in "Youth Ministry" is measured by the amount of positive feedback from parents, the approval of youth themselves, and by the number of event participants. Of course, anecdotal longetudinal examples of sterling successes from any particular Youth Program are always trotted out to justify that program's methods and content, but so called "successes" can be pointed to in any Youth Program, whether secular or religious. These modern parameters of success are not found in Scripture.


Titus 2:6-7 "Young Men likewise exhort to be sober minded. In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity."

This is a clear direction of reproof to Bouncy Little Youth Leaders. People cannot do good works while bouncing around, and God knows this. "Activities" to occupy and entertain the youth, even to "Inspire" them, is not the pattern here.


Prov. 30:17 "The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it."

Nothing could be clearer for correction today with mouthy, argumentive youth. Church Youth events should portray graphic pictures of this verse to illiustrate how God sees rebellious youth. It is the job of a Youth Leader to find one of the youth with artistic talent to do the graphics.






Do we give it to the judge or to the atheist?


A special Gold Award in close goes to the people over in Italy who have got it into their court system to prove that Jesus existed. I coulda saved them some trouble as an expert witness.





Silver duh award winners


Minnesota from TWeb wins the New Frontiers in Defining Doctrine Award for this reply to another member, Sheepdog, whom he asked about the doctrine of inerrancy:


Knock, Knock anyone home in that rather empty brain of yours, or have all the little synapses and neurons gone on vacation? No one, most of all Master Sheepdog, ever qualified the term inerrancy to indicate it conformed to the Chicago Statement. That you do is fine, but so what? No one is talking about your definition of inerrancy.


Plus the Award for Hypocritical Preoccupation, for this:


just what is the Christian god's great preoccupation with sex? Even in matters that have no social ramifications, like masturbation, he gets bent out of shape. And in one case, that of Onan, where there is a social component, god kills Onan because he practiced contraception. Contraception, by the way, that prevented him from impregnating his brothers wife, which was ordered by his father. And, this was an order that was at odds with what god thought about such a thing, which he later expressed in Leviticus 18:16 "Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife." Then there's the matter of consensual homosexual acts. Why should god care where you put what and why? As long as enough people are pumpin' out kids to stay ahead of the mortality rate what difference does it make?

What I also found interesting is god's opinion that only one's marital partner has conjugal rights over one's body. AND more astounding yet, god thinks "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." (It's listed below.)

Sex is a big thing with the Christian god, even private sex. Good thing god isn't around now barking out orders or he would be telling us what to watch on TV and how: Ozzy and Harriet on 12 inch B&W screens, and only between the hours of six and nine PM........IF YOU'VE BEEN GOOD!

Anyway, here are some of the Bible passages I came across that illustrate god's obsession with human sex.


John Loftus earns the Humility in Spades Award for promoting his newly revised book (the one we trashed some time ago):


I was a Christian apologist with several master's degrees set for the express purpose of defending Christianity from intellectual attacks. . . . Now I turn that same intellectual muscle into questioning the things I formerly defended.

. . . I took the Graduate Record Exam (G.R.E.) that all college graduate take upon applying for higher-level master's degree programs. I scored close to a 90 percentile ranking when it came to "Analytical Skills". This guages your ability to analyze and think . . . . I have taught high school teachers how to think. I have taught detectives and aspiring lawyers all how to think.

I guess you'd have to agree that I am at least above average when it comes to thinking skills among present day Americans who are entertained by junk on TV, and cannot comprehend a mildly complex argument. Therefore, most Christian people in America who read my book, will not know what to do with my arguments.One major reason why I have become an atheist,(sic) is because even though I am above average as a thinker I could not answer the questions that I was encountering myself, so I became a doubter precisely because that's where the unanswerable questions led me. I couldn't answer them, and I'm above average, so those who are below average should be warned.


The funny thing is, when I say stuff like this, Brooks Trubee starts a website about me.


Love-Warrior grabs the Divine Moderation Award for thinking the Holy Spirit helps him post:


I don't remember it, but I'm sure glad I got convicted by the Spirit and decided to delete it


Zipperhead gets the Don’t Bug Me with Contextual Scholarship Award for this gem:


Nonsense. The words translated "hate" denote the same state of mind that our "modern" definitions for "hate" do. What you just said amounts to nothing more than a flat out denial of what Scripture says in many places.



A poster at wins the Epistemic Nihilism Award for the following:



The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.


Rationalist wins the Tempermental Rebellion Award for the following:


Creating something doesn't grant one authority over it. You can create a house, a company, a work of art and not have automatic authority to do whatever you wish to it.

Nobody has granted God any such authority, nor is it really provably in our best interests to do so; God's whims being as capricious as they are. The only form of authority God can excercise is through use of force.

Now if he would agree to some form of contract with us, I'm sure we could arrange to grant a being of his power and abilities some sort of useful position based on our common good. Barring that, he has no legitimate authority.


Richard Dawkins wins the "Middle Eastern Savages are so barbaric and stupid. I'm going to apply lead-based powder to my face to make me look pretty for the ball" Enlightened Person Award for some comments this past month, summed up by a friendly source as follows:


He explores the state of the three Abrahamic religions in the world today, from the political influence of rich and powerful Christian fundamentalist institutions in America to the deadly clash of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the Middle East. He describes the Holy Land as the least enlightened place in the world, a microcosm of the threat to rational values and civilisation posed by religion, whose irrational roots, he says, are nourishing intolerance and murder.



A chap at “” wins the Excellence in Discipline Award for this advice on rearing children:


Two things. First, please DO regulate their environment and associations. Over the years as our children were growing up, Deb and I offended about every family member and some of our friends by being “overprotective” of the innocent charges God sent into our care. We guarded them from any suspect company and thoughtfully planned their associations. We have not trusted, “good Christian families.” We have not participated in churches where the children were separated from us. After church, we watched them and their associations. When kids stop running around in circles, screaming, and start talking, or drawing aside, you’ve likely got the beginning of troubles brewing. Keep the little ones standing right beside you after church. They should always sit with you, never with their friends. If they go out to the bathroom, go with them. Never allow them to spend the night with friends or cousins. Slumber parties are sin parties. Never allow them to listen to music through headphones. Three-minute phone conversations, no chat rooms, no surfing the web for any reason. Parents should make it physically impossible for them to even access the web. We didn’t allow our children to spend time in their bedrooms unless they were working on a project or reading. Bedroom doors were always kept open, except for two minutes while dressing



Jorgen wins the Aimlessness in Textual Criticism Award with the revelation that there is no such thing as an original manuscript:

One problem with the 'copyist error' defence (which the Chicago Statement affirmed, BTW), is that it assumes some "original" manuscript. However, if you have a review of recent Dead Sea Scroll scholarship on the issue, it is a moot point as to whether there is any such thing as an "original" piece of scripture. The current scholarly position tends towards a diversity of scriptural traditions at all stages of the text, making the search for an original Ur-text rather futile!


He shares this award with “Pitchforkpat”, a new fundy atheist on TWeb who thinks that textual-critical decisions are decided merely by counting manuscripts.


Penn and Teller (the magicians) win the Out of Order Award for producing a video on the Bible, and for comments like these:


Hearing that so many other Messiahs were walking around is weird, huh. It was a plague of Messiahs. Monty Python's 'The Life of Brian' was more historically accurate than Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ'."



A website award goes to

for using the same old same old and thinking it is new.


Another website award to

for making CS Lewis into a closet tool of Satan.


Finally, an award to the unknown person or persons who searched this site using the phrase:


britney spears fully naked”



Bronze duh award winners





No he didnt look like a middle eastern dark Jew because God the Father was His actual Father. Mary was just the mother. So no DNA of an earthly man was ever passed through. I have seen Jesus on His throne. He has a strong chiseled face like a young Marlon Brando. Fair colored hair up to his colar and no beard. His eyes are endless and terrifying to behold. I was brought to my knees and totally speechless. This was a true vision while in a lot of trouble and meditating in prayer when I was brought before His throne. I have seen God the Son face to face Jan 1999.



I would think that god would have judged people individually based on how they lived their lives and then decide upon that. If god truly is wise then he would do as I do.



I don't think a god exists. And if it exists, we should destroy it.

We must put an end to that mental slavery known as religion.


Captin Woehrle

Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If god has no free will god is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If god stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if god stands above all dimensions god is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void!

Besides there can exist no free wills at all if god is almighty. If you had a free will, god wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent.

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?

My thesis is that people who claim to believe in god do not really do so. They just wish to believe in god. They somehow feel that their lives are meaningless without god, so they choose to close their eyes to evidence against the existence of god.




You must be very careful when you use Josephus to "prove" that Yeshua ben Yosef was the CHRIST....Josephus wrote nothing of the sort! He merely makes mention of a 'wise man' who was condemned, crucified and there were 'reports' of his still being mention of any resurrection, ascent into heaven etc, etc, etc - all these are later abstractions.

Couple that with what SOME scholars claim are mistranslations in Tacitus' 'Annales' - Tacitus NEVER mentions the word 'Christus' (Christ)....he writes 'Christos' - a person know to him, by name.

I teach ancient history. The trouble with it - all history for that matter – as Dr Goebbles, Hitler’s Minister for Propaganda and Enlightenment wrote, if a lie is repeated long enough and frequently enough, it becomes accepted as fact.

None whatsoever in the Roman records (well preserved and extensive) of that mention of Jesus, miracles, his apostles, the crucifixion. Certainly nothing that is not ‘tainted’ (such as the Testamonium Flavianum of Flavius Josephus or Cornelius Tacitus’ supposed reference to ‘Christus’). Nothing from chroniclers. No mention in private papers of prominent individuals of that time.

So the Josephus account is, at best, hearsay. He's simply reporting on what other people told him they believed. He knew full well that this Jesus couldn't possibly be the real Messiah, as he was an observant Jew.

Furthermore, since the passage has obviously been tampered with, and since copies weren't discovered until almost 1,000 years after they were supposedly written, it is a form of evidence that wouldn't even be considered for admission in a court of law or any other. The people who are overly attached to it are the ones who will take anything they see as validation of their religion's figurehead, regardless of whether it's meaningful or not.

And finally, you have great Christian copyists like Eusebius, who proudly boasted of discarding any sources unfavorable to the beliefs of the emerging Christian church, and of embellishing anything favorable to make it more so. Many sources were unknown before the time of Eusebius, and only became known through Eusebius's own writings. Hmmmmm...wonder why.



Zarathustra on the Garden of Eden:


My mistake, yet it does little to change my argument. God set a reward for the consumption; Their death. Hence the fruit became tempting.



Zoroastriumism is the best argument for Christianity

apparently... (and quite possibly up to 2000 years before the world was created) someone prophesized Jesus Christ.... His name was Zorothursta

is it the discordianism in me that makes me want to call him Zorothruster?

just a little joke... for all I know I could be wrong here just read in Zoroastriumism (am I even spelling it right) that a man of virgin birth would be born to help contribute to most against an evil god (>.> well... the new testiment did replace the old testiment).



Dienekes on the Crusades:

The first war started with a letter from Constantinople to Rome asking for help from the possibility of a MONGOL invasion above the Islamic Empire. The letter aparently asked for around 200-300 heavy cavalry knights to help patrol the border. The Pope however had a completely different idea and jumped on it (many speculate that one of the cardinals whose name I have completely forgotten was really the mastermind) he went out to the streets of Rome and gave a huge speech to everyone that anyone who fought in a Crusade to fight the Muslims and create a military buffer state that would have a higher chance of stopping the Mongols would immediatly go to Heaven when they die and they would not have to pay for any indulgences against past sins.

Needless to say when an entire army came to Constantinople instead of 300 knights the Emperor went into histerics especially since the leader of this army was Bohemund (I believe it was this guy, I have a tendency to get my Normans confused) a Norman and rival of the Emperor.

Constantine then sent another letter to the Pope discusing these problems and they both came together and the idea of Freeing Jerusalem of the infidel.

After this both the Pope and Constantine started the propaganda of the evil Islams who would eat babies and so forth, however it is not as well known that the Muslim people were not blind to the gathering of the army and were starting relatively the same rumors about the "evil Franks" (there word for Eastern Europeans)





The contradictory Gospels? Any proof that they existed? Those writers never mentioned them...





i know i'm right.......because i read at the time and concluded it. i didnt deem it necessary to remember it

(on the supposed lack of evidence for the Empty Tomb):

"the lack of evidence IS MY PROOF it didnt happen"

"i assure you, nick, i have studied many hours on all points i speak.........i study for days/weeks - then conclude........then i forget what convinced me......but know i was right"

"historical method doesnt apply to christian theology"




In the Old Testament, in the books of Moses, the stipulations for divorce are laid out. But in the above Jesus clearly states that these rules in the OT are not of God but of Moses, and gives the reason that Moses laid down these laws, in contradiction to the Law of God.

Jesus in many other cases also shows that the laws of the OT and/or the interpretations of them by supposed Godly men are in contradiction to the Laws of God.

So why did men then, and continue to this day, hold these contradictions erroneously up as the infallible Word of God?

I say it is because by doing so, by claiming that these things are of God, they can hide the evil that dwells in their own hearts. As Jesus said, their hearts are hardened to the ways of God.

Jesus said to love your enemies, to turn the other cheek, to not cast a stone against a brother unless you yourself are without sin, to give your cloak to one who steals your shirt, to not worry about those who may do harm to your body.

Yet in most religions men create a 'god' that condones the evilness of men, the hatred and judgment, the wars and killing, that men desire to do. Few in humanity can comprehend a world where men are not evil, where they do not seek for themselves and so they create a god and a Heavenly Kingdom that is just as evil as they are.

I say that not only did Moses adjust the Law of God to accommodate the evilness in man's heart, but so did other keepers of OT scripture. The end result being a OT god created in the image of evil man.




According to the Bible "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." Christians are also called "Children of God" and "Believers" and "church of the first born" and several other names in the Bible. We also see that the church is body of Christ and is called "the church of God" in the New Testament. One things Christians are never called in the Bible is the name Roman Catholic. And there is no mention of any religion called the Roman Catholic religion in the Bible.




It is time to expose the heresy of "Christian" Zionist who are instigating war in the Middle East. The jews are not "Chosen" but antichrists. They have been a curse and not a blessing to America. End all support for antichrists! Denounce all "Christian" zionist. . .as the false prophets failed to "rapture" in 1988, 1997, and 2000, so their teaching are suspect! . . .a bunch of zionist and cult "Christian" zionist says they have permission doesn't override God's commands does it. . yeah I didn't think so. . .I would have posted the verses but I still don't have God's permission yet. .. . Yeah separating the jews from the land of palestine. . . . is the only solution. Oh I wish I knew if God would send me a sign that I could post His verses again. .



Bull calf


Modern television is indicative of the mind of Judaism, since it is wholly owned (with the exception of Rupert Murdock) by Jews.


Steven Carr


Many peole think that because awful crimes fill them with horror, then awful crimes should be prevented.

God says that because awful crimes fill people with horror, then awful crimes should not be prevented, because God wants horror filled people.

Ezekiel 20:26 I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.'

If it is necessary to allow a few children to be sacrificed, so that others may turn to the LORD, who are we to ban this rather unusual method of evangelism?




2005 platinum screwball award winners

Graphic by my little bro, the Toa of Justice!


And now the moment you’ve been waiting for, the best of the worst, shall we say. By consensus these were chosen first by myself selecting a group of the best from each of five categories, and then by vote for the best of each group on TWeb.



Mailbag category


Doctor Doom-dumb

There is a time for everything. Now is your time. From this day forward you can expect that your life will fall apart and your faith will be destoyed. Such is the fate of those who build their house on sand. But that is not your crime, only your weakness. The offense: vilifying truth in exchange for lies. Do not be deceived: you will reap what you sow. Since you are planting the seeds of ridicule and falsehood, you will shortly be exposed to the very same. Groveling before your false 'god' will not help you. Note this day upon your calender. You have no idea what you are dealing with.

You are an idiot.

Have you returned the money you stole yet?



Website category The Jesuits are giant lizards!


Atheist category


Jim Eisele on Theistic Atheists:

You think that you want to go to heaven when you die. Well, so does an atheist. Who’s to say that an atheism god doesn’t exist?


Confused Christian category


MichaelCadry's Fundy Astronomy

In the latter years it is written, "And Michael shall stand up for the children of your (Daniel's ancestors and Israel's children and children's children and further), people and there SHALL BE a time of TROUBLE SUCH AS NEVER was even to a nation at that same time, and at THAT TIME shall thy people be delivered, everyone who is found written in the BOOK. And many of the dead shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to SHAME and CONTEMPT. And they that be WISE shall SHINE like the Brightness of heaven (the firmament) and they that turn many to righteousness SHALL BE AS THE STARS forever and ever." When our spiritual energy inside our earthly body leaves our dead body behind, we go to heaven, for those who are so blessed, and we inhabit the stars with our energy and we can move at the speed of light, but not with wings. Just by God's saying so. And we are a ball of energy among many balls of energy that inhabit each star. And this is heaven, where there are many mansions, and I (Jesus) go to prepare a place for you (Venus). I (Jesus) am the bright and morning star (Venus) and even as I received it from my Father, so I give it to those who honour me.

You Preterists have SO MUCH TO LEARN!! YOU are so FAR from the Lord that you are just Satan's Parasites, confused by him so much that you are ready to die for your false beliefs and you are not one iota of being closer to God than anybody in the earth.


Religious non-christian category


LDSTrue on Mormon internal witness hermeneutics.

(In response to someone saying that the original languages dictate the meaning of a passage and that exegesis is needed to understand them: )

Revelation from the Holy Ghost is my Rock (besides Jesus of course) and REVELATION is my FOUNDATION and not your “sound exegetical method. I would not trade my old friend The Holy Ghost (aka HG) in for a ton of your method! No make that 10 to the millionth power. No make that 10 to the …!

(When told,Jesus didn't speak English, and neither did Matthew write in English, he replied:)

I know, but the Holy Ghost DOES!!! (aka HG) (aka my Old Friend)!!!!!!!!!!