You'd think that Screwballs would take some time off in the summer. They did in our main section (fewer than usual there), but where mail is concerned, FORGET that.

From the Mailbag

Yep, I still got some mail from them, starting with this gem from the fundy atheist realm:

What your faith won't allow you to comprehend is that cultural and historical considerations are moot.

Like the Bible, the Constitution is anotd vague piece of crap in desperate need of an update.

One thing I guess you'll never learn is that you don't get to add information to the Bible to explain or justify it.

Then this one came from the Even Crazier sector of fundy atheism, the Misplaced Expectations and Conspiracies Wing:

Dear Sir,

(biographical stuff left out)

In 1999 I happen to read 2Sam 12:31 in KJV where King David was described as worse genocidal maniac then Hitler and then examined about that verse in about 29 languages including the masoretic Codex Leningradicus in post 1964 versions and translations which claimed that David was a benevolent public works director as good as FDR. My imprinted myth about impermutability of the Word of God was shattered. But I still kept my Faith.

Then I had a misfortune to read Revelations in a Bible which I found red by someone in the bathroom of an Amercian motel.

It was clear that none of the prophecies to the sister churches in Asia were fulfilled and whoever wrote these phantasmagorias was a true schizophrenic or stuffed with poison mushrooms. In Poland I have seen a psychotic patients who surely never red New Testament because for one reason such was there not available then and who have had nearly identical delusions and hallucinations. In USA similar delusions were created in minds of people using LSD but since the NT is widely available, they could possibly triggered by the Revelations.

After reading the Revelations I lost my faith in the Bible and Christianity but still belived that existance of historical Jesus was possible. Then came the shock of the Israeli "James ossuary" fakery in 2003. Not that it broke in transport or that it was faked by some greedy Jew. . The shock for me was that Christians claimed that this was the First physical evidence of existance of Jesus.

Because I was very pious I never bothered with historicity of Jesus. I simply assuemd that there must be a dozens of physical artefacts from His time which proove his existance.

Since then I started to explore which archeological findings suggest existance of Jesus. I was sorry for emarking on this quest. I realized that the Cross and Crucifixion nor Christmas were celebrated for about 500 years. And I was baptized in the Church of the Holy Cross! What a let down!!!! After six decades of being a pious Christian!

Then aobut six months ago while surfing on the internet I discovered jesusneverexisted.com. Sure he writes like a fanatic, so being a skeptic I routinely checked his 'outrageous' facts with Catholic Encyclopedia and the like. He is strongly opinionated but he cites the facts -generaly know to christian scholars but hidden from the flock - clearly and correctly.

You are even more opinionated your citation of sources is extremely confusing an apparent atempt at obfuscation in order to promote you emotional baggage. Humphrey is far more convincing than you Mr. Holding.

Recently I red Mat 19;12 about the eunuchs . I have three bibles in my house and each of them carries completely different verison of the impermutable Word of God.!!! The verse is beloved by lesbians, homosexuals (i.e. priests) and transgenders.

It is written in red letters in Protestan bibles. But these can not be the words of Christ. The allknowing Christ should know medicine well. Historically and medically it makes no sense. Now I understand why John Tyndal was burned on the stake for translating the Bioble into English.

You as a bible scholar tell me who were the eunuchs at the begining of Christ ministry who castrated themselve for the sake of the Havenly Kingdom? Apostles? And if not Apostles then who at the time when very few Jews belived in JC being the Messiah! Perhaps after three years and by the time of Crucifixition there were a few thousand JC belivers and among them a few selfcastrates. And who were the selfcastrates after the Resurection? St Paul? Or some other outstandign priests or deacons? Then some claim that Origen was the first to do it while others claim it is not true. Acutally I do not care about this

From the medical point of view the KJV and virtually all versions and translations prior to Nuremberg trials are idiotic and identical . Cryptorchism is rare but happens, unilateral happens in about 1 in 1,000, bilateral ten times less. Most men with inborn undescended testicle can have errections but usually are infertile. Hundreds of thousands of men are castrated annually in USA as a one treatment for the cancer of prostate and all can have sex as well as many falssettos ( castraed boys singers) because the penile errec tion is governed by nerual center in lumbar spine. Men with broken spines have normal libido but can not have errection. Libido in men castrated before puberty or after puberty have decreased libido but can consumate sex.

So the Post Nurember tirals translations are even more crazy when they translate eunuch as "some men do not marry for the sake of the HK" while others translate some men refrein from sex for the sake of HK"

You are have MS in library sciences. You know how to look for answeres. Look then for me and point me to the true Bible, and then I will be Born Again. This is like looking for the true gas chamber in Nazi concentration camps. One decade it is here and the other decade it is there etc. Some of the more 'pious' survivors claim that they were gassed six times vide Montreal Gazzette at ihr.org. They are like these people who fall down on the stage on religeous TV after being touched and cured by the God. Mass hyseria I am sure you will agree. Or conversely you belive these shows of Faith are real???

What finally tipped the scales in me loosing my Faith was the Xmas Tsunami.

I understand war in Iraq Bush is greedy and loves Freedom so he kills hundreds times more than Sadam to make Israel Arabs free. People are bad and sinners. And stupid.

But God is Allknowing (makes no mistakes) and Allmighty so has ultimate power to fix the world in benign manner, and is Merciful. So why He makes the same mistake twice. He did not improve our race after the Biblical flood. Do you think He will improve humanity by drawning 250,000 people young and old in five minutes? And why He (They i.e. the Trininty) have done it?

It is funny how silly many man of cloth answer that question, while most cringe when asked.

I wonder what was your facial expression when you red this question about the Tsunami.

PS Did you know that our Polish Pope was homosexual (his wife being Rev Stanislaw Dziwisz now cardinal and Archbishop in Poland?

Did you know that the new Pope said to 23,000 pilgrims at the ST Peter square on the occasion of commemorating the suffering of Jews in Babylon that "the biblical faith is not necessary for salvation"??? Even to us Catholics this sounds like heresy. It must sound even more terrible to Baptists.

You better try to fix me up because at present I am an atheist or deist at best. And I think that the Bible is a bull... and existance of biblical Jesus is a Big Joke.

Why zealous St Paul botherd with such a small fish like St Stephan and did not threw stones on Jesus who was alll over the Palestine. Why he does not mention Crucifixicion or none of the Apostles bothere to preserve the wood from the True Cross???? Why he wrote in Greek and not in Hebrew?

Why an illiterate Jewish girl Mary could remember 42 generations of her ancestors while I with doctorate degree have no idea who were my grand-grand-parents!

By this time I simply answered the last one: "Maybe it's because you're stupid and she wasn't?" And speaking of stupid, this too:

As a christian it gives me no joy to say this, but you are missing the point re Egyptian myth and Christianity. The version of the myths the four evangelists were those which had been absorbed into Greek religion by the first century AD.

How convenient that the evidence evolved just in a way that hides all the evidence needed. Then another from the KJVO Atheist Center:

So, I have another, more manageable question, in that it does not require a considerable apparatus of prior philosophical learning to answer: in Matt. 3:17 God is quoted as saying "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," while in Luke 3:22 God is quoted as saying "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased" (I use the New King James Version - my italics, of course). Isn't it unbelievable to you that someone misquoted God! It sounds to me like whoever is responsible is going to spend a very long time in hell, thinking about his mistake! (Really, what could be worse than misquoting God?!?)

I have come across so many quotes, especially in the synoptic gospels, that do not match ad verbum, when quite clearly they should -- I wonder how they are overlooked.

And finally, this from the Probable Future Atheist in Coginitive Dissonance:

We have never read such rubbish in our lives. Your ramblings are pretty pathetic. Your are truly delusional about your scholarship, we fail to see any. It is pretty obviously have you have no academic standing. You like many others out there are free to continue your rantings. We highly recommend that you study up on what the Bible says about the plight of false teachers.

They'll Give You $666 Dollars to Forget They Did This

Some friends of Brian Flemming who call themseles "The Rational Responders" won Gold this round for an offer they made with two prizes. The first one wins because it's one of those "I bet you can't jump over that building" sorta deals:

$666 to first person to prove Jesus existed! PASS IT ON!

The Rational Response Squad is proud to announce that we are giving believers of Jesus Christ a chance (again) to provide sufficient proof that he existed.

We are offering two prizes! One prize for contemporary evidence of his existence, a second prize if you can set a precedent that contemporary evidence might be unnecessary.

PRIZE 1: Provide one single reference that originated during the supposed lifetime of Jesus Christ. This means a single person who wrote about him while he was alive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and for Jesus: a man who walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the crippled, then died and came back to life to fly into the sky, the proof just isn't there. Our listeners are well aware that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ, and because of this, Jesus likely never existed. This is your chance (again) to shut us up! Not only will you win $666, but we'll be forced to tell our audience that evidence exists, and our friend Brian Flemming will be forced to completely overhaul his movie.

Not that they ever explain why evidence has to be contemporary to be any good. Then there was this one, which died the death of a thousand qualifications after it became immediately apparent that there were plenty of easy winners out there:

PRIZE 2: Inevitably when we ask for contemporary evidence of Jesus Christ, some unintellectual spouts off... "You'd have to be a fool to ignore the thousands of writings, evidences, blah blah blah." Yet, none of the evidences provided arise from the lifetime of Jesus. People actually want us to believe a man walked on water, rose from the dead, yada yada yada, and NOBODY wrote it down! Give us a break! However... we are not above being wrong. So, with that in mind. We are offering a $100 reward and an appearance on our radio show where we will admit we we're wrong to the person who can set a precedent that other important historical figures exist without contemporary evidence. Provide us with the names of five important historical figures that were not written about until at least 25 years after they died (like Jesus). Keep in mind, if you do this you haven't proved Jesus existed, merely a good precedent.

They share this prize with a guy named "The Dreamer Dreaming" who thinks Jesusneverexisted.com is a valid source of information, and said:

from experience I find it far more likely that all of the jesus myth traces back to one CONviNcED man, Paul, who preached his desert hallucination as fact and made a religion...the joseph smith of his day...then to believe that a real magical jesus existed and rose from the dead.

Our reader quoted, Michael Grant, Rudolf Bultmann, Will Durant, NT Wright, and Craig Blomberg on their opinions on this "Jesus myth" nonsense; here is what DD said when they quoted these historians:

you are a brainwashed pathetic believer who holds to lies and pretends they are evidence
Do Reese's Pieces Come in Shroom Flavor?

Our old pal Biblischism wins yet again (wait till you see NEXT month, too) for a couple of items:

More proof the OT was written by merciless male dominators and not the inspired hands of holy men who loved children and pleaded for the lives of male suckings when God ordered them shish-kebobbed is found in Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Apparently, fighting among the Hebrew guerillas was quite a common thing. This fighting often led to the wives of these men entering the fray to defend their husbands. Since testes are the most sensitive part of male anatomy, it is no surprise that a woman would target that particular region on her husband's attacker in order to bring a swift end to the melee.

Sounds logical, no? To Moses it didn't:

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity [her]." (KJV)

There's your topic. Talk amongst yourselves.

When a reader pointed out: "Procreation is vital for a tribe/nation. Such actions can cause sterility, which would be counterproductive to a nation trying to establish itself," E. T. sed:

You think I didn't anticipate that lame counterargument, don't you?

Let me ask you this: was the survival of their tribes of utmost importance to the Israelites?

Think carefully. Think really carefully.

But that's not all. E. T. also had this to offer this month:

Behold the origin of religion:

"More than 60 percent of volunteers given capsules of psilocybin derived from mushrooms said they had a 'full mystical experience.'"

We also see it has effects on fundy atheists, too.

Doubting John Converts to Mormonism

Yep. Check out his "God has a body" lunacy here.

Let's Try It -- You Go First

"bassplr19" wins for this scientific suggestion:

I came up with a thought experiment last night that proves there is no god, at least in the judeo-christian-islamic sense.

If every single human in the world was killed, doesn't matter how, the earth and the universe would still be here.

If there was a god in the judeo-christian-islamic sense, the universe and all other things would cease to be, because "God" would have no further use for it.

I also think that if we were ever to find extraterrestrial life, doesn't even have to be "intelligent," that would disprove the existence of god as well.

Buster Drowns

Remember the guy last time who couldn't figure out how to identify witches? He's showed on TWeb and we're already setting him up with Screwball Awards. He's there as "myth buster" and has such gems as these under his belt in just a few days:

How many of you Christians worship the image of a long-haired Jesus? I thought worshiping any "graven" image was a sin, but regardless, does anyone know the origin of this popular image of Jesus? I've heard it said that men from Nazareth typically wore long hair, but I haven't seen any direct reference to that in the Bible. I suspect this image of Jesus became popularized by old paintings and it caught on from there.

The only reference to long hair on men in the Bible (aside from Samson) that I'm aware of is 1 Corinthians 11:14, "Does not nature itself tell you that long hair is shameful on men?" In light of this passage, I find it extremely odd that so many Christians worship the image of a long-haired Jesus. It's also funny that many conservative Christians are prejudiced against men with long hair even though they worship a long-haired Jesus.

Taking all of the above into consideration, it would seem that the Bible insults its own god. I would think most Christians would find this to be extremely embarrassing. It makes me wonder how anyone could believe in a god who would let such a huge, embarrassing contradiction come about. Clearly this is a minor cultural consideration based on Paul's limited outlook, but since the Bible is the "Word of God" intended to apply to all of "God's" people for all time, I have to wonder: what kind of god would judge a man by the length of his hair anyway?

Sociologists Have Doctorates in Excuses!

Kyle Williams wins Gold for this:

Another approach is to accept the contradictions (in the Bible) and make excuses for them. Strobel...and some people on the forum take this approach. They assert that gospel standards are low because low standards were the norm in first century Jerusalem. It was a "high-context" or "collectivist" society.

Oh. Using scholarship is an "excuse". Other dumb comments he's made:

Remember: Outside the New Testament, we have absolutely no contemporary mention of Jesus, pro or con. This is more consistent with the gospel-as-myth hypothesis than the gospel-as-history hypothesis.

Considering the fact that the world is, and always has been, full of religious con artists, I think it wise to demand high standards of evidence before accepting a religious claim.

But before the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, there was no orthodoxy.

"michabo" wins the Enlightened Evidence Award for this diatribe:

Craig is such a mixed bag.

On the one hand, he is right in saying that there is evidence for Jesus's resurrection: the bible, and some weak and scattered writings decades later. He is right that it is the interpretation of this evidence and deciding upon the best explaination of this evidence which is controversial.

He is absolutely wrong when he says:

(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis: o Jesus' burial o the discovery of his empty tomb o his post-mortem appearances o the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection.

Not a single one of these are facts, and none of these are evidence. The evidence which needs an explaination are the writings that we have, and other physical evidence. Nothing more. The best explaination for these might be that there was a Jesus who was burried, but he's grossly mistaken when he says that it is a fact that Jesus was burried. (Even if it is a commonly accepted interpretation, it still isn't a fact.)

I can't tell if he is lying or if he is genuinely ignorant. Anyone want to speculate?

chickenhawkx3 of IMDB boards wins the Cement Head Award for his own diatribe:

I'm going to start a new thread about this. It's an exercise in insanity when you try to talk with Christians, because they have re-defined so many common words that now mean something entirely different.

"Jesus is alive." Oh really. Then bring him to my house, 'kay?

"Jesus is real." Oh really. In what sense of "real" would that be? "Real" the same way that everything else that isn't real is real?

"The Bible is true." Oh really. Well, Jesus made a whole lot of empty promises, then, didn't he? Move any mountains lately, churchie? Done any miracles? Done MORE than Jesus did, as he promised you'd be able to?

Sheesh. In the Bible, it says that ALL believers' prayers will be answered. Yet that isn't true, is it? How many devout parents have prayed desperately for their dying child to be healed, only to see that child die? Where's the God love for them? And it doesn't say, "If it's God's will" or "When God is good and ready" or anything like that. It's utterly unqualified - your prayers will be answered. But we all know that isn't the case.

Go ahead and list other common words that are used in Christianity-specific ways by Christians. There are a bunch.

Guest writer Leonard Ridge, on Loren Rosson's blog, wins the KKK Appreciation Award for arguing that the Context Group agenda of implementing proper hermeneutics leads to ethical relativism, hypertolerance, and racism.

Michael Cadry wins the Space Cadet Award for claiming Jesus is "the man in the moon." Literally.

You will have to look at the moon when it's full and see if you see a face there, one with two eyes and a nose, and a mouth. For those whom He will reveal to, fine. If you're among those whom He doesn't reveal it to, fine. I have certain close friends who know I'm telling the truth. Don't you think it ingenious that He circles His Children every 24 hours? What else do you think is the purpose of the moon---to shed light in the night only?? For half a month?? It is written in Daniel 12:4, "Those who are wise shall SHINE like the brightness of Heaven, and those who turn many to righteousness, shall BE as the STARS forever and ever." I was told that when each of us is ready to go to heaven, that we shall leave our earthly body, and our energy/spirit shall go to live in a HEAVENLY body. And that we shall be able to travel at the speed of light, with no earthly body inhibiting us. It is also written that "the stars are the warehouses of angels."

I'm sorry, but I can't ignore what I've been told by the Lord, so you believe what you want.

And this too:

Don't feel upset if you can't believe that God's Throne is NOT a Great White Chair in heaven. I used to believe that until He revealed Himself to me. He told my I was pure in my heart and that's why He revealed Himself to me. He also told me that He had revealed Himself to a few others in the past and they were called Lunatics.

Rationalist wins the Redefining Religion Award for a reply to Philosophickle, who said, "I think the world would have been better off without Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot..."

Religion is certainly not the only source of fanaticism.. but it's the most common source. The sort of indoctrination that leads to fanaticisim is actually actively encouraged by religion. And the record shows that ordinary people are only capable of committing gross crimes against humanity after they've been indoctrinated such that they see these crimes as serving some imaginary higher purpose. But I would agree.. I would include all overarching utopian belief systems which operate similarly to religion.. this would include communism and Pol Pot's year zero neo-luddism.

n0rstar, who I found out first hand is as stupid as his awards in the past have implied, earns the Skolarship in Action Award for a variety of comments.

First I'd like to apologise for mistaken "Source" as a statement and not a question.

Secondly, Some of the details of the storys according to greek myth might be diffrent then what I said, cause in the latter of my 2 posts I was going by memory of a book I read awhile ago. "The Greek Myths: 1" by Robert Graves. This is also considered as a reference book for students. I just moved and managed to dig some books out to make refrences, as soon as I'm done unpacking my library I'll be able to make more "sourceful" accusations.

What can I say, I quoted a Neo-Nazi for claiming the Sanskirt Manuscripts without a doubt proves that the Gospels of Jesus is a direcet plageory of Buddha. I guess I should have checked my source before I quoted him, my mistake. I don't intend to learn enough about Dr. Christian Lindtner to write an autobiography about him, there for I'll chalk it up as a lose with one of my Sources. It's not like I don't have many more resources to prove my claims that Jesus was simply an elevated man, or even a non existent man, I'm still researching that for myself.

What I do know is no greater good has come from Churches. I've yet to be in one, or hear of one that hasn't been engulfed with Greed & Envy. Every church I've gone to consists of abunch of snakes who will smile in your face then stab you in the back. I can not beleave a Divine being as exhaulted as YHWH or Jesus would allow such things. And it's nothing new, it's been like this for centureys.

Religion has always been a catalyst for political favor. Which gives it its ultimate foothold on societys. Every society held an unseeable, all powerful being over many with only a very select few able to talk to this omnipotent being. Most often then non someone who was a right hand man of the King, Pharoah or Dynasty.

In a sense, Christianity is no better then what Hitler done. If anything, Hitlers diobolical reign pales in comparisson to the history of christianity. Even when trying to decided on which books to canonize into the New Testament there were riots and blood baths. I understand people need a crutch or something to beleave in to break away from the mundane, but it's the fanatics that ruin it. Beleaving they are the chosen person to invade another country, eradicate another race, or slaughter another person as a messenger. I almost pitty those who are actually humble in their beliefs cause the fanatics are going to bring the demise of what once could have been a good thing. However as we become wiser as an evolving society people like me feel compelled to bring evidences forward to dispell the bible. Even when someone brings forth concrete proof that the Gospels are forgeries, that the religion as you know it today is nothing more then centureys of evolution through penmenship; skeptics rise up to place a sheild infront of their power. Priests, Revruns, Preachers, Bishops, Witch Doctors, Rabbis, etc.. They would be nothing without the bible, they wouldn't have their powers and authoritys over major major political matters, over societys, they would lose their glamerous lifestyles and have to revert to *gasp* work.

what I beleave in is simple mathmatics, Numberology, and in my mind I think that if all orginized religions was abolished, if it was all thrown to the wind, we would live better lives, not just solely, but worldly.

Numerology is the parascience that studies the purported mystical or esoteric relationship between numbers and the character or action of physical objects and living things.

It's nothing I base my entire life around, but it's something that helps me to understand things.

I use to be a JW, and I'm all too familier with the tyranny titled 'The Watch Tower'. I am anti-church, but more so anti-orginized religion. Every orginized religion has a specific dogma. And frankly, beleaven whole heartedly in someone elses interpretation of what seems to me to be simply the greatest fictional book ever written would be degrading of myself.

I've studied with various religions, and studied other religions. Every time I try to make a point, someones sources contridicts my sources, or whatever. That's because the bible is of human thought and like human thought it has errors, People all the time take passages out of context, or make a book say what they want it to say by gathering a coalition of these passages and given them a title "The Trinity, Once Saved Always Saved, Born Again" even such indulgences to primitive natures as murdering another man for the sake of your opinion over theirs "God 'sWord".

The bible to my knowledge was still being decided by the middle of the 6th century, the new testament was still undecisive, and wasn't being recognized or universally acknowledged. The first published New Testiment was by Maricon around 145 A.D. who's Gospel is very similar to Luke, only Maricons is much shorter. In the first centuries there were dozens of Gospels, some which were canonical or considered geniune, were later deemed apocryphal or spurious.

What I do understand is, the forgery of the Gospels and several books in the Pauline is well documented through historical documents of these early christians. The fanatic Christian "doctor" & Saint Augustine (354-430), admitted, "I should not believe in the truth of the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church forced me to do so" - Rudolf Steiner, Christianity as Mystical Fact, p 168.

The 4 gospels were unkown to early christian fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writtings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. Rev. Giles says: "The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him (Justin)- do not occur once in all his writtings" - Tim Leedom, The Book Your Church doesn't want You to Read 173.

It's still trickle down mythology. either way the root of the Orthodox religion lies in Rome and was once presided over by the pope. You also have many parallel beleifs to the RCC.

The best gem came when he was informed that there were no written accounts, save one, of the eruption of Vesuvius, from Pliny the Elder, and he said:

Good point. BUT the volcano did kill 3,400 eye witness's ^_^ and the smoke plume at greater distances probly wouldn't have been considered much more then a cloud or at best smoke from a fire. Not nearly as note worthy as say; the sun stopping at high noon for several hours.

And atleast there are extant manuscripts of his writtings --not that his writtings are subject to controversy-- that are originals. Not something that is written in a diffrent language from his own and 150 years after the event.

So, a volcano buried Pompeii, and no one was ever any the wiser as to whether it was a fire or a cloud; and by the way...there are no extant original mss. of Pliny's writings.

Reader wins the Context Group Rasberry Award for this word on their take on patronage in the NT:

FALSE GOSPEL ALERT!

This is simply a sinful humanistic preaching of another false gospel promoting works-righteousness in opposition to the true Gospel of Grace, according to Holy Scripture.

This false "religionist" claims:

" . .we know the future will contain favours being repaid to us. The point of the entire verse being that it is a fact of everyday experience that if we are faithful we will get rewarded for it."

Bah! Disregard please, and continue to trust in God for all righteousness.

Faith is a gift of God, not a means to earn any kind of reward or merit with God.

That is the free FAITH that saves. Faith in the works and righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone.

Tercel shares the award for saying:

But I'm not happy to say that the thing called a broker really exists.

Dark Knight wins the Can't Find His Pants Award for this comment:

No, there is no such thing as time and space. You can more show me an inch than you can an hour.

We start with an instiutional award for the British Channel 4, for the following: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.p...24-073751-2948r

LONDON, July 24 (UPI) -- Britain's Channel 4 will feature a documentary about people addicted to pleasuring themselves during its "Wank Week" block of programming.

Independent producer Spun Gold is still casting the one-hour show, but already has one subject -- a man who claims he masturbates 20 times a day, MediaGuardian.uk reported Monday.

Another show also confirmed by Channel 4 has the working title of "Wank-a-Thon." It will chronicle a charity fundraiser during which thousands of people are expected to gather in London to participate in the title theme, the Web site said.

Jim Walker of nobeliefs.com wins for this take on communion:

How many Christians realize that when they eat that wafer and drink the wine during communion service that they, in effect, practice cannibalism by the partaking in the eating of human flesh and blood?

I certainly did not know that when I underwent communion in my religious days. It sounds so innocent and benign; "Communion" imparts the concept of sharing thoughts and feelings, or so I thought. Oh how the priests fooled me. They used other obscure terms too, like "Eucharist" and "Sacrament of the Last Supper." At no time did a priest or deacon explain to me that I would share in the communal eating of the human flesh and blood of Jesus.

Since Jesus represents an actual human being, and I ate him, that made me a cannibal. And if you have ever undergone communion, then you too fall into that category. The Church tricked me and turned me into a cannibal!

When I discovered the shocking realization that I had eaten human flesh, and drank human blood I felt like vomiting. Where in the world did this morbid practice begin, I wondered. I reread the Bible for clues. Could that explain the mystery of the empty tomb of Jesus (Luke 24:3)? Did the disciples eat him?

Several Christians tried to console me by explaining that Communion only represents the symbolic eating of flesh, not the real thing (I later discovered that many Protestant Christians don't believe in the literal eating of Jesus, although some do). I felt relieved for awhile until other Christians told me otherwise (virtually all Catholics and Episcopalians believe in the literal interpretation). I began to do a bit of research for myself from the Catholic Church's own position. My stomach began to churn again as I discovered what communion and the Eucharist really means.

Not only did I eat human flesh in my communion sacraments, but I also drank the "actual" blood of Jesus. Doesn't this make me a vampire also? Although vampires supposedly suck blood instead of drinking it, this seems an insignificant distinction. On the contrary, the drinking and the whole swallowing of blood as opposed to sucking seems to me a bit more bloodthirsty if you ask me.

If you consider the folklore surrounding vampire stories and compare them with the beliefs of Christianity, the claims appear similar. Vampire myths (see Dracula) and Christianity both believe that by drinking human blood, you will live forever. Actually Christianity goes one step further by requiring the eating of human flesh along with the blood (John 6:53-55). And of course you're also eating the penis of Jesus (does that make one gay, I wonder?) and the small and large intestines of Jesus, and the bladder of Jesus, etc. Only by this cannibalistic act can you achieve "eternal life."

Consider also that vampirism and their drinking of blood and immortality represent fiction, whereas Christians actually believe their communal drinking of blood and eating of Jesus' corpse will earn them eternal life. Doesn't this, at the very least, put Christian vampirism in a more deleterious light than fictional vampirism?

Note that the actual Dracula (not the fictional one) lived as a Christian.... No doubt the real Dracula thoroughly enjoyed his communal ingesting of human blood.

Now I don't know why just one eating of flesh and drinking of blood won't get you to heaven, but I've yet to get a good explanation of why Christians need to eat flesh and blood every week. This continual practice of ritual cannibalism and vampirism brings up even more pressing questions about this gruesome practice. Does the act of communion lead to habitual use or an addictive need for more flesh and blood? Consider that Christians have done more to promote bloody wars throughout history than any other group, and their insistence on evangelizing every human on earth to their faith, should non-believers fear that the Christians might turn them into human flesh eaters too?

Another concern involves the length of time of transubstantiated bread and wine. Just how long does this conversion last? We now know that you must swallow it for its effect to work, but at what stage does it turn back into naturally digested bread and wine? Does it remain transubstantiated even after digestion? Does it ever reconvert? If not, consider what this means as we move our bowels. Should we not treat the remains of Christ as sacred, just as we do the remains of the bodies of dead saints? Perhaps we might consider a better form of elimination of the excrement made from our Redeemer than just thoughtlessly flushing Him down the toilet.

I find the practice of sacred cannibalism disturbing and potentially life threatening, regardless of how many of the addicted faithful tell us it will give us everlasting life. I humbly make the following proposal: that the FDA and the CDC get involved in the study of the composition of theTransubstantiated bread and wine and the narcotic or addictive effects they may impose on the human body.

I hope that I have alarmed you enough to contact your local law enforcement office and state representative about this pressing matter. If you and I don't do it, who will?

Beliefnet.com's Stephen Skelton wins the DC Stands for Dumb Cluck Award as he does the whole "OMG SUPERMAN IS T3H JEEZUS"-thing: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/194/story_19418_1.html And here's a link to Peter Chattaway's blog where he royally pwns him: http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-wacky-religious-takes-on-superman.html

Positiveatheism.org wins one for these comments:

We insist on the right to insist on truthfulness in all discussions.

Positive Atheism is for atheists. Here we learn of the joys and hardships of being truthful about our own religion. We study our heritage as unbelievers, often finding that atheism is no big deal. Still, there exists a class of meddlers who seem unable to resist any opportunity to "tell those atheists a thing or two!"

If you wish to hold us accountable for what we think, do, or say, then you best be certain that we actually thought it, did it, or said it before launching your salvos against us. If you lie to us or about us, we will call you on it, because we insist on truthfulness. So please, think about what you say first. If nothing else, consider the fact that we like to post unreasonable and untruthful letters for comic relief. This way, atheists who visit get a glimpse of what conversion to theism could be like for us.

If you think you have a truly original argument to present to us, we will do our best to give it a fair look. Who knows? Everyone might learn something!

We've heard the rot they feed you in the "Refuting Atheists" videos shown at seminars with names like "Headlong Discipleship: Hook, Line, and Surrender," staged in venues such as The Tambourine Bangin Fundamentalist Revival Temple.

Some of that stuff we've seen time and time again, actually, hundreds, or even thousands of times. "Apologetics" books and videos are spun with an eye toward keeping you from wandering astray from the fold; your leaders know better than to think any of it would affect a thinking atheist. The handful of us who do convert to theism do so as the result of an emotional fluctuation of some sort, not because of the cribbed arrogance sent to this Forum and others like it.

So lay off the Lee Strobel books, the C S Lewis commentaries, the Philip Johnson videos, and those insipid little comic tracts. This is not to disparage those authors (except the last one): we just want you, as a writer to our Forum, to speak for yourself. Send your own original thoughts: do not parrot the ideas of others. To submit Letters and other material, be sure to read the game rules first.

http://www.godisimaginary.com/ wins as a rehash of Marshall Brain's "Why Does God Haye Amputees" nonsense.

Winner also: A new Christian board game that is sure to win lost souls for Christ -- http://www.mission316.com/html/video_intro.asp

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/163437715.html wins for this:

Ready folks? Let's get something clear first: are ALL of you Christians agreed that 'God' is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? Is that in the bible? Let's assume that all the dolts who keep telling us that 'God' is all of the above, really DO know what they are talking about when they tell us that those attributes are in the bible.

1)))) So first of all, can 'God' be omnipotent? No,.... not possible, and I can PROVE it, using the bible. To be omnipotent would be to be ALL POWER. There could be NO other power of ANY sort in the universe (or elsewhere), because 'God' is ALL-powerful. So what does that mean? That means that 'God' HAS to be everything. Stars, plants, grass, planets, galaxies, fleas, humans, chickens.... ALL would have to be 'God' for him to be ALL- powerful.

All things CANNOT be 'God', because we are told that 'God' cannot sin. We are also told that we DO sin. Therefore, according to the bible, 'God' CANNOT be all powerful. He CAN be VERY powerful.... but if he is, his power is NOT perfect,.... which means there are SOME places wherein he lacks power.

If 'God' is ALL-powerful, then EVERYTHING is 'God', and we don't have to WORRY about sinning or not sinning, since NOTHING could take place without it being 'God's' will. 'God' done it! So if he is ALL-powerful he cannot exist, according to the bible, and if he is VERY powerful, he cannot exist, according to the bible,because he would be IMperfect.

Now, maybe you will understand WHY the Christian god, as described CANNOT exist. With this ONE refutation, he is proven NOT to exist.

Website awards also for:

http://mwillett.org/atheism/exatheists.htm

http://www.atheists.net/atheist messiah

http://exchristian.net/1/

http://www.2012.com.au/unlimited.html

http://www.zetatalk.com/index/psdate2.htm (who just claimed the date she was given [May 2003] was a white lie to trick the governments into revealing their true colors or some nonsense)

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=696

Griggsy: If in Heaven there is free will ,yet no evil, why not on earth?Why the tests as even John Hick acknowledges in " The Encyclopedia of Philosophy?"If Yeshua was perfect man andhad free will, why not the rest of us?If his father has free will, why not we. Anyway, there is too much evil to play the Hick's soul-making game, his all or nothing fallacy.We atheists do not play that straw man of HIck. But if if Heaven is Heavenly, then it is the theist who makes the all paradise play and so, again I ask, why not heaven on earth in the first place and not all these evils?[Hick also make s the straw man play when he asserts we atheists would contradictorily die for others, in that his strw man is egotism.] Michael Martin composed this argument and Fr. Meslier long ago. I merely emphasize it as the definitive refutation of the free will argument. [See all of Martin's books on atheism and religion even if they require close attention.] Per haps, this god has free will and does commit evil in that it allows evil on earth an d perhaps on other planets.Zorathrstra surely will respond in force as he is the atheologist here!I just try to give others ideas to respond to , not as final answers necessarily. Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.

thinker_123456: How come mary fogot about the supposed visit by the wise men? And Joseph he didn't remember mary being ****ed by bible god who told him he was bible gods son?

Jim Eisele: Some people still take Christianity seriously. I am beginning to think of these people as prescientific third worlders. Christianity is hardly the first or last fraud.

master_mormon: I know what I will say next is not found in the Bible but LDS don't care about that since we don't limit our knowledge to just the Bible but the event being describe in this passage has reference to the Council of Adam-Ondi-Ahman that will occur in Jackson County Missouri before Christ comes in glory. Jesus will leave the presence of the Father and come come to Adam, Michael, or the Ancient of Days.

Cal-minian: I am not using the term as in the fallacy of the straw-man argument. I am using like a theory that one puts up that is meant to be burnt up, or to use another metaphor, a trial balloon that is meant to be shot down. I am just amazed that this trial balloon is still floating. It is actually not that bad of an argument, evidently.

robhiggn81: Every intelligent American is satisfied that the mythology of India, of Egypt, of Greece and Rome, of the Aztecs, were and are false, and that all the miracles on which they stand are mistakes. Our mythology [Christinsanity] alone is excepted. Every intelligent Hindoo discards all myths and all miracles except his own. The question is: When will people see the defects in their own mythology as clearly as they see the same defects in every other?"

If they thought hard and honestly about why they dismiss those myths, they would understand why I dismiss theirs. I only disbelieve in one more god than they do."

I don't care what people believe, if it doesn't infringe on others rights, but christinsanity does. [Ohio banned abortions even for rape victims, Georgia will allow classes for Bible study in their public schools.] I find it difficult to believe why, when confronted with the evidence, people can still believe in the supernatural.

James Gould says evolution is not uniform, that not all people have evolved to the degree which allows them to comprehrend facts from fantasy..

LakeGeorgeMan:Not to worry...all he has to do is repent before god...and all will be forgiven.

Christianity really is the best system to be in for pedophiles. You can intimidate children with your god given authority, you know others will cover for you instead of risking scandal, and you'll always be forgiven by yer psersonal god if you're caught. What could be better?

Meanwhile, I don't need to remind you, that your sin of unbelief in the mythology of ancient Hebrews, and the messianic saviour of a first century Jewish sect, is unforgivable.

Now that's not to say there isn't plenty of room to cherry pick these ancient people's beliefs, and rationalize away the ones that you're not comfortable with, or that might inconvenience your modern, suburban, philosopher lifestyle.

FormerFundy: If someone could wave a magic wand and eliminate religion completely from the earth, I think the problem in the Middle East would largely dissolve. (Note: I'm sure middle easterners are arguing over whose god is better, just like I'm sure Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism has something to do with it.)

taoist: Meanwhile, you suggest that prostitution is some kind of new phenomena coming out of the 60s when it's clearly recognized as common behavior, and not even criminal behavior, in the old testament. Where are the commandments against prostitution in the Mosaic law? Sex is only regulated in the context of women already married. The penalty for sex with an otherwise marriageable woman is marriage.

Bagger_Vance: It seems that the implications are fairly staggering if it is a true fallacy. I say staggering because taken to it's logical conclusion there is no "true christianity" at all. No one is a christian in an objective sense at all rather just one based on their own subjective definition that is indeed worthless to everyone else.

Sevivion1913 re Isaiah 53:5: The passages is MESSIANIC. It is a prophecy of the messianic age. But it is not a passage about the Messiah. However, even if it WAS, it doesn't prove Jesus, who was a heretic. I like how you quote an anti-jewish source who then pretends to quote a Jewish source. Invariably he will have been selective at best. But again, even if it did refer to the messiah, it doesn't refer to Jesus because Jesus was not the messiah.