Mid-summer, and time for some more hot, sweaty Screwballs just in from mowing the lawn. Look here for the entire archive.

From the Mailbag

Here's an email showing why education is needed in churches. This person wrote me saying they wanted to refute my article on baptism and works. I told them they would need to use credentialed scholarship to write a reply or I would ignore it.

Their response speaks for itself...

I will do my best as I always do to jump through your hoops, as I always do in hope that you will not skirt the real matter with circular logic but will atempt to provide a logical explaination to the question I have for you concerning why you hold to a doctrine that is condemned by scripture not validated (faith alone).

In the mean time perhaps you could explain to me,

1. Exactly why you believe that I need the validation if a schollar to prove what the word of God plainly teaches concerning water baptism as in Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, etc?

2. Was not the very wording in question the product of a group of Schollars using the best english equivelants to convey the message of the greek text?

3. How does the mensioning or not mensioning of water baptism in John 3:16 and other passages become evidence that baptism is not a condition of salvation and therefore unnessary, however this same criteria is never applied by preacher of the faith alone doctrine to passages that do not mension faith as a requirement unto salvation (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Acts 22:16, Heb 5:9, 2Thess 1:8, 1Peter 3:17-22, 2Corith 7:10, 2Tim 2:25, 2 Peter 3:9, etc) Many of these passages mension we must repentance and obediance but do not even mension faith or belief at all according to the faith alone critera since these and other passages do instruct on what is required of us to be saved and do no mension faith at all I guess should I then conclude that I do not need to believe but repent, and not repent where

However I would like you to explain to me exactly why you believe that a schollars opinion is some how more valuble on the understanding of the word of God then simply the common mans opinion. If the common man is then incapable of correctly dividing the word of God by simply reading, believing and obeying that which the scripture plainly teaches and must be assisted by those of higher intellegence who have acredited degrees what exact is the purpose for providing people with the Bible anyway? Human achievements will always be based on human standards

The work credited schollars produce for us to view the scriptures accurately concerning the Bible ultamently boil down to nothing more then a biased but now further educated opinion since as they were NOT present at the time of the speaking or writing of scripture nor we the ones inspired of God to deliever it their authority is based entirely on human standards and wisdom. Furthermore if we must consult the Schollars, as though they standard concerning the Bible, and with out them we are lost.

theipersonal judgements and standards anyhow have to say about the Bible rather then accepting the way the bible actually reads and is plainly understood especially when it was they who translated such passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1Peter 3:17-22 etc to read the way it does in modern translation. Schollars comment on scriptures are definitly worth concideration however they are not inspired as is the word of God and thus are in the classification of human authority and thus are vastly subject to error. Such error is proment amoung those who concider themselves wise based on human standands concider Richard Dawkins, Richard and Louis Leaky, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Fredrick Niche, Dr Henery Morgantaller, just to name a few. These men are studied, world renounded schollars in their fields of study achieving the HIGHEST level of honor they can recieve in their field of study.

Education and training to a point can and has benefited our society I agree. Having standards to live up to and achieve does provide positive returns in human development. However all such MAN MADE standards and LAWS that are used to form doctrine or point of views on that which we base our faith are subject to change at anytime as we gain new information and concider variables to the standards WE created and had not concidered at the time of making such standards. Asking me to provide you with credible sources to base my interpretation of the bible to me is like asking me if you can put on protective padding for a fist fight.

However it seems that it is always the educated intellectuals that hold acredited positions among our society who provide the greatest amount of contradiction and absurdity. just to name a few. These are extremely credited men in their field of study, viewed Highly among intellectuals, however in all intellect and study they have forsaken the importance of ethics, morality, and the truth of word of God.

My point is this education can provide reasoning and understanding however because it is of itself subject to the limitation of human reasoning and thus error absolute truth on any one thing

Here's a similar email from the Pass the Potato Chips People:

MY NAME IS **** I AM NOT A THEOLOGIAN BUT AM ONE. ALL OF YOU THAT STUDY SCRIPTURES ARE VERY FUNNY INDEED. WHY WOULD ANYONE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE AND DOES NOT EXIST. SMITH SHOULDN'T HAVE ARGUED OR PROVE TRINITY WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE, BECAUSE YOU GUYS THAT TALK ABOUT TRINITY ARE ALSO WRONG. NOBODY IS ROGHT ABOUT TRINITY, WHETER IT IS TRUE OR NOT BECAUSE NONE OF THE APOSTLES TALKED ABOUT THAT ,

NOW TELL ME MY FELLOW THEOLOGIAN, IS IT DIFFICULT TO WORSHIP GOD WITHOUT SAYING HE IS A TRUINE GOD?? IS IT A SIN TO WORSHIP JEHOVAH WITHOUT SAYING HE IS A TRINTY GOD?? WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL HERE ABOUT TRINITY OR NO TRINITY?? WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH SALVATION?? INSTAED OF US CONCENTRATING ON HOW TO FIGHT A GOOD FIGHT , WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN A STUPID ARGUMENT THAT DOES NOT IMPART SALVATION, HOLINESS, CLEANLINESS ONTO US.

WHERE ARE WE HEADING TO WITH TRINITY OR NO TRINITY. DOES THAT MAKE GOD NO GOD ?? DOES THAT MAKE JESUS NO JESUS?? DOES THAT TELLS US THE SPIRIT IS FAKE?? COME ON PEOPLE OF GOD, LET US RISE UP SO WHY ALL THESE SILLY ARGUMENTS IN THE NAME OF THE GOSPEL?? DO MOSLEMS ARGUE ABOUT MOHAMMED BEING ONE WITH GOD OR SAME WITH GOD?? PLEASE ITS ENOUGH OF THE MESS. SPARE THE REST OF US THE PEACEFUL ATMOSPHERE TO WAIT UPON THE LORD. ALL WE CARE IS OUR MAKER LIVETH, HE IS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE AND CHRIST HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON DIED TO SAVE US FROM CONDEMNATION AND WE THANK THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR ANOINTING US AND BEING WITH US. WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS TRINITY OR NO TRINITY.

Here's an email from a fan of Joseph Atwill's idiot-book Caesar's Messiah:

Maybe if you had actually read the book you wouldn't have made these obvious and fundamental mistakes:

In your words

[JP]1. Furthermore, it is clear that Atwill fails on the point of ancient social psychology. He supposes that Jesus was invented to attract militaristic, messianic Jews; yet the figure of Jesus is precisely what a dedicated Sicarii would least follow.

[Reply]J. Atwill is not saying that the Romans were inventing a militaristic Messiah for the Jews to follow: To the contrary. The Romans are creating a peaceful Messiah to quell the Military Messianic Rebellion known as the Bar Kachoba Revolt.

He missed it: The point I am making is that Atwill saw this Jesus figure as a way to PACIFY such Jews....just as he said...

[JP said]2. The idea that Christianity was intended to prevent the spread of messianic Judaism to the provinces [19] ignores the fact that Jews of the Diaspora were Hellenized enough that they did not support such a movement in the first place (the misplaced hopes of the rebels, recorded by Josephus [19], notwithstanding).

[Reply]Here you go again: Christianity (Christos = Anointed Messiah) was the Greek word for the messianic movement. Forethermore The Jews had already faught off the Greeks for the very same reasons the were fighting the Romans. That is where the word Christ came from.

That is why I know you didn't read the book.

Uh, no.....the word "Christ" came from meant simply "anointed" and was not "the Greek word for the Messianic movement". It was also used and derived from a Hebrew word that referred to the anointing priests and others received and had no militaristic connotation in and of itself. In addition, it remains a historical fact that Hellenized Diaspora Jews did NOT support such "messianic" movements.

[JP]3. One also wonders why in the world Titus would care to start a new religion for Jews that he had already soundly beaten on the battlefield.

[Repky]Let'$ $ee! Rome won the War and now it wa$ time to get down to bu$ine$$ and al$o win the peace. Maybe becau$e thi$ war wa$ one of the longe$t and mo$t co$tly war$ the Roman$ were fighting.

Titus started this new religion to make MONEY off the Jews?

Wow, that's so stupid there's just nothing to say! Especially since there's nothing to show that donations to the Christian cause went into Rome's coffers!

If you could FULLFILL their Prophecy that the Messiah had come and gone, they would surrender to God instead of Rome it self.

Not a bad idea, considering that Jews had to only prey to one God.

Only problem: Such a "Messiah" would be seen as a faker and a failure, and therefore would NOT lead to any such "surrender"!

Now a drive-by email with the subject line, "Acharya S' Christ Conspiracy":

I suggest you do better to prove her wrong.

I replied: "That seems to be the best you can do to prove *I* am wrong, which is pretty darned pitiful!" His full reply:

I do not have proof anything thing, you must.

Couple of other thorough refutations by email:

You are so full of it!

and

Let go of your hate. It is not too late to step away from The Dark Side.

And here's another one of those emails proving computers can't replace humans:

Hello, my name is [deleted] and I am an internet marketing specialist. I was looking at websites under the keyword gay clothing and came across your website http://www.tektonics.org. I see that you're not ranked on the first page of Google for a gay clothing search.

I'm not sure if you're aware of why you're ranked this low but more importantly how easily correctable this is.

There's no reason you can't have a top three ranking for the keyword gay clothing based on your site structure and content. You have a very nice site.

You need significantly more one way anchor text backlinks. If you're interested I can help you with this...

I'm talking about getting you ranked for ALL your keywords. Adding new backlinks on a steady and consistent basis from high PR quality websites is what produces the rankings you are looking for http://www.tektonics.org.

The right kind of links are very critical in getting top ranking....and I can hand deliver these quality links to you.

My partners and I own 1000's websites and offer private linking to hundreds of website owners just like yourself.

I didn't send this email out to very many people but I am currently reaching out to a list of your 'keyword competitors' as well. But I do favor your website because I can see your website monetizing the targeted website traffic the keyword gay clothing can deliver.

I have your contact information and phone number. Is it ok if I give you a call?

I have a very simple way to prove that what I do works and it's risk free for you to try. Nothing beats seeing the results with your own eyes

Is it ok if I give you a call? I would love to pursue this further over the phone with you or should I go somewhere else?

Sincerely, [deleted]

Imagine that. "Gay clothing" search gives no links to Tekton.


The July 2009 John Loftus Collection

John Loftus seems to be wandering aimelessly a lot these days over at DC; he wins an award this time for propping his readers to "amen" his negative review of The Impossible Faith at Amazon -- which actually resulted in a spike in sales of the book for a gew days. But here's what some of his suckers contributed to the mix:

Dr. Hector Avalos said... I voted. Thanks for helping to expose such poor scholarship.

Thanks, Dr. Stupid! When you coming to TheologyWeb to defend the Christ myth?

jeremy said...

I am a Christian and I added my vote. This guy is horrid, Mr L. You should see what he said about me in your comments..."BiblioBoy" from Amazon.com. I'm sure we could have a beer and share notes over his delusions of persecution. An embarassment to the rest of us. BTW, I thought you were pretty decent on the Unbelievable broadcast out of the U.K. I was disappointed that they had JP on the show though. The quality of speakers is rather inconsistent. Tim Keller and then JP? What a blunder.

Actually, "Blabberboy" here is only a "Christian" in the sense David Koresh was. His reading lists are filled with Zen Buddhist material and crap like Kahlil Gibran.

Christian Agnostic said... I once sent JP Holding an e-mail asking him why he had links to Young Earth sites on his apologetics page, but none to sites of theistic evolutionists. He then sent me an e-mail asking complex but contrived questions about how many specific mutations took place in order to produce horse teeth. I wrote back saying that I was not a biological scientist and neither was he so I saw no point in arguing the detailed science. He wrote back saying I had more faith in Evolution then he had in Jesus (Even though I told him I was a Christian).

In other words, I asked this poor shmoe here to explain why he believed in evolution, and he had to admit he couldn't and was embarrassed by it.

He then said he would ignore any more e-mails from me and report me for harassment. His tone was supercilious, blustering and downright rude. Ironically, he provoked a further crisis of faith in me because I used to go on his site to see refutations of Jesus Mythers and liberals, and in the way he dealt with me and the question of evolution I realized I could trust nothing that he wrote. His real name used to be Robert Turkel. A most obnoxious individual.

That's fine -- one more shallow thinker removed from the rolls will make things that much better for Western Christianity.

Loftus himself said on this:

I want it known by everyone that it was Holding who initially motivated me to debunk Christianity by how he treated me. I decided that I would aim for the jugular vein of a faith that could be used by him to justify his treatment of me. It's to him that I'm indebted to for initially motivating me to do what I'm doing today. I dare say that when we add up his life's apologetical work it will be in the minus column when you factor in how he has inspired me to debunk his faith. Just goes to show you that you never know what can happen if you piss the wrong person off. ;-)

This is actually another Loftus lie, since he was writing books debunking Christianity long before he knew who I was. For the record, Loftus predicted that I'd get a lot of questions about his book. Number so far: 0.

Loftus also deserves a Screwie for recommending or even highlighting these websites or their materials over this past month:

Godisimaginary.com

jesuspolice.com

Religioustolerance.org

Messiahtruth.com

Kind of ironic that below these listings, Loftus has a post:

The Christian Faith Makes a Person Stupid (Part of a Series)

And this Loftus comment is Gold too:

Let me issue a call to apologists everywhere. If you think the arguments are in your favor then link to our site. If not...well, I know why not.

Hmmm....I musta missed those links on DC to my site and places like the ThinkTank, Triablogue, etc.... If you think the arguments are in your favor then link to our sites. If not...well, I know why not...right?

Loftus' Useful Idiots participated also. Harry McCall wins for this:

A. Jesus never calls the deity of his Jewish nation by his personal proper name Yahweh, but simply Theos = El ("El" is Hebrew for god) . El is the same name of the supreme god of the Canaanites at Ugarit.

B. Jesus calls El "Abba" or father: ("And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." Mark 14: 36). Jesus tells his disciples to call El also "father" in the Lord's Prayer. Baal calls his god "ab" or father too. Both divine fathers of Jesus and Baal (El, the supreme god of the Jews and the Canaanites) are fatherly figure gods who live in Heaven.

C. Jesus is called "Lord" many times by his followers in the Gospels and Jesus is identified with God in the Gospels. Likewise, God is Jesus' heavenly father.

In the Ugaritic texts, the term b'l=baal can simply mean "Lord" or elsewhere it can be used as a proper name "Baal" where he is the title of the chief god of the Canaanites who is the son of the supreme god El.

D. Jesus descends and returns from the neither world (Hell) (For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt. 12:40 and "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; I Peter 3:19) so too does Baal descend and return from the underworld.

E. Jesus stills a storm on the Sea of Galilee, so too does Baal control the wind and weather.

F. Jesus intervenes between his followers and God his father. So too does Baal intervene between the people of Ugarit and El his father.

G. Jesus is depicted as King seated on a throne ruling his kingdom and giving righteous judgments. So too is Baal seated on his throne ruling a kingdom with righteous judgments.

H. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus fights and kills the evil serpent / dragon. So too does Baal fight and kill the twisted serpent Ugaritic "ltn btn brh" (Litanu, the serpent or Leviathan).

I. Biblical numbers such as 3, 6, 7 and 40 are used many times in the New Testament are used equally in the Ugaritic text to give divine meaning to these Canaanite texts.

Joe Holman wins for a post at http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/07/science-and-religion-truce.html

Loftus' fan Carbon Based wins for this comment: "In John 8:58 - Jesus said "Before Abraham was I AM! He was calling Himself the "I AM" - God's name in the OT!"

Ooooh doesn't that sound all mystical and deep? I suppose to a bronze age goathearder it does. But it's just nonsensical jibberish in the age of reason.

Corky the commenter wins for this:

Of course, before the gospel of John was written, Christians did begin to believe that Jesus was God. The church scribes "corrected" the early writings to make appear that he was.

Yes, the writings were tampered with and not just a little either. The church even tampered with the Jewish scriptures but the Jews had copies of them too, so that hasn't worked quite as well.

The later church of Constantine persecuting other Christians and destroying the opposition's books is a good sign of pious fraud. If they had nothing to hide, why burn down whole libraries and persecute to the death all opposition?

Rev 1:8 is one of those passages that gives away that Revelation belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature of the first century.

Christians added to the book the letter to the seven churches and other sentences here and there to make it sound Christian, but in fact, it's Jewish.

"Savedbygrace", you should do some study of what biblical scholars and critics know about the book. The knowledge of Christianity's more educated theologians has not trickled down to you. However, you do have the Internet, if you choose to use it.

Anders the commenter wins for this, which also gives an idea the kind of wackos Loftus attracts:

I recommend you to do an extensive research of NT and Pauls doctrines (and learn what the followers of Ribi Yehoshua - the Netzarim - said about Paul; see the below website) to find about its origin.

This below website proofs that Ribi Yehoshua impossibly can't have a uttered a statement that supports anti-Torah doctrines as the trinity-doctrine.

www.netzarim.co.il

"cutupmaster" on TWeb, also known as "Spencer" from Loftus, crews, wins for this novel approach to denying the Resurrection:

The resolution, which McDonald has affirmed, raises two logically distinct questions: (i) Was Jesus raised from the dead?, and (ii) If Jesus was raised from the dead, would it have been God - or some supernatural process - who did the raising? An affirmative answer to (i) does not logically entail an affirmative answer to (ii), and conversely, an affirmative answer to (ii) does not logically entail an affirmative answer to (i); it could be the case that Jesus was raised from the dead but advanced extraterrestrials were causally responsible for the raising, or it could be that God would have been the causal agent responsible for the raising if Jesus was raised from the dead, but Jesus was not in fact raised. The way this topic has been traditionally debated by nontheists and skeptics is to argue for a negative answer to (i), that Jesus was probably not raised, while accepting - often even endorsing - an affirmative answer to (ii). However, in this debate, I will approach the resolution by giving a skeptical answer to (ii), specifically that even if Jesus was raised from the dead, we would still have no good grounds for concluding that God - or some supernatural process - was causally responsible for the raising. If McDonald cannot successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), then the dialectical battle is over: it would be unnecessary for me to defend a negative answer to (i), something which many others have done. In other words, even if my opponent can successfully defend the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, if he cannot successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), that it would have been God - or some supernatural process - who did the raising, then he will not have established what he has set out to prove: that it is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. He would have established, at most, the more modest claim that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, which is emphatically not the resolution under debate.
The Skeptic Collection

"Yo Lunch" is being considered for the honor of his own sectipn, and with comments like these, we can see why:

Moses and Elijah do not prove the divinity of Jesus, Idiot! The God of the OT plainly states that HE WAS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUEGOD AND THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER! All others , including Jesus,were false !!!!!!!

Validation of what? It would not prove that the magician doing the miracle was from god! It would only prove that a so-called miracle had been performed! So what? Since the Devil can perform them also, how would that validate anything divine? The existence of evil forces does not prove a Supreme Being, although one who could perform such things could be construed as being supreme in knowledge and ability.

And this one, which is a Platinum-hopeful:

Nice try! However, I SPECIFICALLY said that the DEVIL and the HOLY GHOST were not in the OT! It was Paul who construed these quotes you give, among others, into the non-existent beings in the NT!!!!!!!! Satan is NOT THE DEVIL! The Holy Spirit is NOT THE HOLY GHOST! You've been duped!

As for the rest...Evolution COV on why he doesn't follow Jesus:

I find the Ten Commandments to be too vague.

MIND_REBEL takes care of our best scholars:

William Lane Craig is dumb, and needs to learn some basic logic. If god created us, then who created god?. Thats the question. He's invoking the fallacy of endless regress. It's like the ultimate 756 from Prof Dawkins TGD. Great to see true atheists standing up for their rights.

SiriusLordoflisan7 does history the Dan Brown way:

Before the council of Nicea 325 A.D. the concepts of Christianity did not have a concept of a Immaculate Conception, Spirit God, Virgin Mary and few other things though. Christianity didn't even have a basis before Constantine. So where did the customes come from. They did not come from the Old Testament!

Your automatically claiming Jesus is the messiah when the name Jesus doesn't appear anywhere in the Old Testament. Isaiah 7:14 is not prophecies about this Jesus. The messiah's name is foretold as Emmanuel. Please read the Old Testament.

Josephus's works the WARS were translated from Hebrew to Greek. I don't know about the other books. But In Jospehus' book WORKs book he speaks about many named Jesus.

It doesn't matter what books of Josephus I am talking about. You need to get your facts togeather. Josephus works did appear in original Hebrew. You need to get your facts togeather also.

An anonymous dork on Ex-christian.net dons the white sheet:

Some Christians probably would make the weak argument that the original Hebrew language of the Psalms was more beautiful. However, even if this is the case (which remains to be seen and which I have no reason to believe), only a negligible percent of Christians can or ever could speak Hebrew (even the ones who speak in tongues-- isn't that interesting.) If a Christian makes this argument, then, he is blowing more smoke (after inhaling?) than hovers above the fire and brimstone in the book of Revelation, expecting not to be challenged by anyone around these days who knows Hebrew. Even if the Psalms were more beautiful in Hebrew, essentially no convert to Christianity since its inception could have appreciated the Psalms in Hebrew, as there have never been many Hebrew-speaking converts, by the bible's own admission, and even the language of Jesus' time and place was Aramaic, not Hebrew. Israel's population in the year 2000 was only about 6.2 million-- about 1/1000th of the world's total population (6.3 billion). Even adding in the U.S. Jewish population-- probably very few of whom can speak much if any Hebrew-- the total Hebrew-speaking population in the world remains nil and negligible. Therefore any supposed beauty of the original Hebrew translation of the psalms is lost on the masses, Jews and Christians alike, let alone the rest of humanity.

And, it shouldn't be forgotten that very much of the praise lauded on the Psalms, like the praise lauded on the rest of the bible, is simply a blind devotion to a holy book. Some of this praise is perpetuated by those who, though they are believers, don't know much more than small parts of, say, Psalm 23 ("The lord is my shepherd.... yeah, though I walk through the valley of death... blah, blah, blah").

Worse still, one must tediously pore through 150 of these Psalms to find the very little that is, to the devotee, so endearing. And many of the apparently endearing parts are redundant, redundant, redundant, with subsequent repetitions adding little or nothing to previous passages. Arrrgh-- One-hundred-and-fifty such Psalms is way too many. Even the best or worst double album or CD has only about 20 songs at most. If their god was any kind of Artist, he would've quit while he was ahead instead of trying to package and sell us all this second-rate material that will never merit any airplay. Even angels would probably rather strum their harps to Metallica's "Sandman."

Newcomer isaone sets some new rules:

Let's end permanently the Nazi, Stalin, Mao school of defense of Theism through attacking Atheism.

I believe we all agree that some people have committed some very bad acts as a results of their religious beliefs over the centuries ? Of course others have done much good because of their religious beliefs. We can debate the net of these two but that is not the purpose of this thread. Instead my position is ; 1. Humans take actions solely based on their beliefs 2. Atheism is the lack of a belief in the existence of God(s) 3. Therefore no Atheist has ever taken any action based on their Atheistic belief

Obviously point two is correct and if you agree with #1 then the conclusion is inescapable . Any disagreement with my conclusion must therefore come from #1

PitBullD on typological scholarship"

That's exactly what it is. Now Christians can say its typology when something doen't make since. Its a fancy word for [censored] lol

elantedronai exegetes for us in a new way:

jesus said the sign of jonah will be mine. meaning the miracle of jonah shall be mine.

to this day no christian can ever say jesus fulfilled that prophesy. by the way jesus was in the tomb for 2 nights and a day.

namethattunetable also adheres to the Dan Brown School:

you do realize we have authentic scripture rom other apostles who didnt know jesus died or was resurrected right? in fact less than 10% of the scripture found was used in the new testament because it completely contradicts the ones they used. so all these scriptures you claim for proof of jesus is the greatest disproof we have.

As does formless777:

Interestingly, the romans have no documentation to support this, or anything else about Jesus. There is only one person recorded as crucified who fits the bill, there was a Yeshua who was crucified for blasphemy and black magic. Which is fine, because as Revelations tells us in 22:16, Jesus is Satan.

KoDT69 sets us straight on reliable sources:

Shwanerd, I'm willing to bet that your opponents do NOT watch the History channel. They aired a special like 2 months ago which said they have documented evidence that the entire New Testament was written as fiction stories about those people the chapters are named for, then canonized anyway. Christians never seem to be able to admit this crap.

But jay666k does even better:

I don't have to do any research for anything. All I have to do is use LOGIC, and common sense. Shwanerd gives emotional responses? [censored] AND HE HAS HIS VIDEOS TO PROVE IT! Everyone check out shwanerd's channel. Type it into the search plz. Crazy behavors????? HOW? What crazy behavor??? Got a SHRED of evidence for this? Your just making up [censored]. Atheism is not "beliefs" its a DISBELIEF. Strawman. Unquestioning? No. Not what so ever.

An Amazon list by Todd Pence deserves a Screwie, for entries like these:

The Impossible Faith by James Patrick Holding The list author says: "Unquestionably belongs at the top of any such list despite the fact that Holding, an internet blogger who had to self-publish his own book barely qualifies as a legitimate apologist and only the absolute least intelligent fundamentalists champion him. Certainly only one ignorant of the history of how early Christianity came to power could imagine that this vacuous thesis had any academic value."

Can Man Live without God by Ravi Zacharias The list author says: "The answer to the question posed by the title is a resounding "yes", as millions have proven. Another thing Man can live without: the moronic drivel found in any of Zacharias' works."

The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity by Lee Strobel The list author says: "Strobel is one of the many modern apologists following in the footsteps of Josh McDowell. Like McDowell, Strobel falsely and dishonestly claims to be a "former atheist" who converted after discovering "the overwhelming historical evidence for the existence of Jesus." The fact that Strobel endorses J.P. Holding tells you everything you need to know about his own credibility."

All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer The list author says: "Lockyer is the proponent of one of evangelical Christianity's more sillier "evidences": that details of the life of Jesus were foretold by amazing prophecies found in the old. If Lockyer had read Thomas Paine's "Examination of the Prophecies", he would have known the utter untenability of this argument and spared himself the embarrassment of writing a book that promoted a long-refuted doctrine."

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis The list author says: "An apologetics "classic" of sorts, a fantasy by a writer of children's fantasies. Lewis' premise is that human beings are born with an innate sense of morality, a notion so contrary to nearly every facet of human experience that its falsity is self-evident."

Screwball to The Atheist Nexus, for this comment on how William Lane Craig fumbled in his debate with Richard Carrier:

WLC was a bit overdressed. He looked like a politician or a business man.

Pitchforkpat gets nominated for a blatant contradiction. First he claims:

I've told you the argument is usually presented in one of two ways "written on our hearts" or "handed down by a deity" and neither one is true.

Later in the same post he says:

"You shouldn't hurt people" is, I believe at this pointing our evolution, in the genes. We clearly have a gut reaction to people's suffering.

So we don't have an inherent moral sense "written on our hearts". Instead it's "written on our guts".

1cattfish also sets us straight:

Hello Kabane, if you get this message, hoorah! I wanted to let you know, I've been posting videos on these "false" parralels, as you put it....And I must say, you boy, did some sloppy work. When I did my research on Mithras, I was jaw dropped at how Pagan he was to Jesus. Anyways, the main point of this message (if you get it) is to get you to watch my videos, and reconsider you "false" parallel's videos.

1cattfish's page includes knock-out punches such as:

If Zeitgeist Part 1 is 100% wrong, then why did they make it?

Add Homonym is still trying:

I notice that 'Jesus' only mentions once, in Matthew, that he hasn't come to destroy the Law, or change the slightest part of it. (I can't find it anywhere else.)

Given that he then says twice, (Mark and Matt), that food or dirt on one's hands has no defiling qualities, how do conservatives reconcile the apparent contradiction?

If food does not defile us, does this mean that the ancients were not aware of trichinosis and bacteria? (and we are wrong to ascribe certain food's unclean status to pathogens?)

Starting from Hillel (~ 0 A.D. ), there was a trend among Pharisees to summarise the Tanakh as "love thy neighbour". In order to summarise a book, it's necessary to understand the motives of the writer. Who was it who first understood God? Why is he not credited as a great sage, and father of Jesus' ideas?

Here's one for Dorothy Murdock (Acharya S) from page 92 of Christ in Egypt. Trying to show that Horus was born Dec. 25th, she first establishes that Horus was a "sun god" -- and then we get this in bold at the bottom of the page:

It is obvious that Horus, as the morning sun born every day, was also born on 'December 25th' or the winter solstice.

Here's a review of Impossible Faith that deserves a laugh:

This book is full of historical misunderstandings. I am trying to decide whether or not Christianity is for me. After reading this, i am starting to doubt the historical claims of Christianity even more than before. This work is certainly a piece of shoddy scholarship that would not survive in any kind of peer-review process associated with the secular academy. If this book is representative of apologetical scholarship on the historical issues of Christian origins, then the faith is hanging on by a thread. And I suspect that thread is the mere emotional needs of the believers.

I did read Richard Carrier's rejoinder, "Not The Impossible Faith", and can tell you that he is a first rate historical scholar. Carrier's book confirmed my own criticisms of Holding's work and added several more, all of them solid.

For anyone interested in the topic, I recommend Richard Carrier's book instead. You will actually learn something. Holding's book is just fallacious apologetic drivel masquerading as historical scholarship. "The Impossible Faith" is a waste of time for anyone interested in learning and not just trying to reinforce cherished beliefs.

The Confused Believer Collection

FredFlanders made a real impression this month:

I see no fault in Benny Hinn. He manifests all the gifts of the Spirit, Prophesy, Knowledge, Wisdom, Teaching, Healing and Deliverance and does it all in the name of Christ. Just as the Scribes and Pharisees criticized Christ when He manifested all the gifts they do the same to Benny Hinn.

My family attended one of his meetings years ago when he came to our country and hundreds were healed and empowered with the Holy Spirit.

We all have different journeys once empowered with the Holy Spirit. Jesus ministered and healed thousands as does Benny Hinn to Glorify Christ and not himself.

Benny Hinn does not do the healing but He is a vessel of the Holy Spirit, the same as all Spirit Filled believers and it is Christ that does the healing.

FrankTalk makes a mark too:

God gave me faith so I would hold back on this world and look to the next. I do not need to use my brain and figure eveything out. The danger in trying to figure everything out is that we will come to a conclusion even when we should not. We become fools who believe our own ideas.

UrbanMonk goes for the gibberish:

So let me make it clear that the truth is what is true NOW. Meaning, what we are truly, we are that NOW.

"NOW" does not include anything with origins or destiny within time. So it does not include anything that grows. It includes Spirit...perfect as always. This means that there is no need for spiritual evolution. In fact, there is no such thing. Spiritual evolution is carrot and stick. It is an imaginative, made-up story about our so-called future and our so-called past. So this approach has much in common with orthodox christianity.

These approaches are all a form of "kabballa"...the latest, greatest b.s. regarding our origins and our destiny. Orthodox christianity is a primitive kabballa whose diabolically magical themes are further developed with treatises like Urantia and Keys of Enoch and LDS expose. Not all kabballas say the same thing, but they all have something in common making them effective tools of mass deception.

The main thing to remember is that there is no heirarchy in the Kingdom of God. Neither is there any learning or growing or evolving or developing or exploring or believing. Use this information (knowledge) as a rule of thumb to separate the sheep (true) from the goats (false).

I'm saying we are Christ (God)...now! Our Being is not time-dependant. It is an eternal fact. There are no "works" with which we can "grow" into such a state. Salvation is about removing the mental obstacles we've placed there which hides the truth from ourselves. When the obstacles are gone, we wake up to what is, was, and always shall be.

John D. Brey is still working on this whole hierarchy thing:

Not taking anything away from Israel and her greatness as a nation and a people, still, truth be known, Israel was a diversion tactic God employed to sneak the Church in under Satan's nose.

thisgoodriddle on his fave verses:

I have two top picks. One is Matthew 13:33 which reads, "Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." The other top pick is Luke 13:21 which reads, "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." The reason that I consider these to be top picks is that they report that additions have been made to the Bible. We therefore need to examine the Bible with a view to finding a way to remove the additions.

Now The self-proclaimed Chuck Norris of holiness, Ty Rockwell, says:

I am of the Holy Spirit. If I lash out, no matter how much you might disagree with the manner, it is always from the side of the Holy Spirit, and it is condemning to say otherwise.

Screwball to this Amazon reviewer:

THE SCRIPTURES FOUND IN THE CAVES OF THE ESSENES AT THE DEAD SEA IS CORRECT. ANY VARIATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES SHOULD BE DESTROYED.

YOU ARE NOT TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL FORE-WORD, LETTERS, NUMBERS, OR COMMENTS. THESE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT TO BE EDITED, THEY ARE TO BE WRITTEN JUST EXACTLY AS THEY ARE WRITTEN IN THE SAME SCRIPT. THE SCRIPTURES ARE TO BE TRANSLATED INTO ALL LANGUAGES WITHOUT ANY DEVIATION OF MEANING, WITHOUT ANY INTERPRETATIONS. ANY VERSION OTHER THAN THE ESSENE SCROLLS WITH ANY DEVIATION IS NOT CORRECT. ANY OTHER VERSION WITH ANY DEVIATION IS TO BE DESTROYED. WHEN PRINTED THE HOLY SCRIPTURES WILL BE PRINTED WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL FORE-WORD OR INTERPRETATIONS. THE PRINTING COMPANY MARK WILL BE PRINTED WITH NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR THANKS TO ANYONE NOT EVEN GOD ALMIGHTY, UNLESS IT IS IN THE SCRIPTURES (SCROLLS) AND THEREFORE AUTHORIZED BY GOD ALMIGHTY. DO NOT DEVIATE FROM THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES EVEN IF YOU CAN HEAR AND ARE A SEER. THE PROPHETS AND DECIPLES DO NOT DO ANY TRICKS TO FALSIFY DOCUMENTATIONS THEY ARE AWAKENED FOR TRUTH. EPIPHANY, THANK YOU FATHER, I LOVE YOU WITH ALL MY HEART!

Miscellany Collection

mastralvarado claims that he knows the Air France flight 447 that went down was a terrorist act..

This is a serious (i.e. world war IV catalystic) issue...

The other items among the debris found were two life buoys not only the wooden cargo pallet. These items did (not) end up in the crime scene accidentally. Whoever perpetrated this coward act of murder not only stole those black boxes in order to make the international authorities waste time finding them, they left a message

"Take that you human cargo, let's see if you can save yourselves now, here's two life buoys."

These would not be average terrorists as rogue06 has already pointed out. Not only did they evade radar, they managed to shot down a high-flying commercial airliner without leaving trace of foulplay.

I can already imagine what uses this pressumed to exist stealth ship may be given. The "Tomorrow Never Dies" (2003) movie illustrates this very clearly.

"Acceptor" wins for this amazing rant against pro-lifers:

The answer would probably be something like "I wish stupid people would quit twisting words when they obviously have no idea what the word killing means when most support the killing of Muslims and people of color other than what they think is "right" and anything they basically don't understand or have a clue about because if they don't understand the concept of words and how the law is written then they must certainly have NO concept of what they are backing, just a way to build their blind platform with no basis and no legal standing and complete ignorance of the terminology and law which really makes them look like uneducated and uninformed radicals with no agenda but their own ego trips...

And a tiny little angel which floats around in the air and welcomes you to heaven and guides our entire solar system with little sprinkles of gold fairy dust was cut down maliciously by a modern scientific version of Satan himself in order to suck the life out of Sarah Palin and her bombing-killing rhetorical attitude that for some reason MOST people see right through, however she and others (ahem) can't, so the sick scum commie-terrorist backing-pinko-who believe in a person's right to decide what they want to do won't get to see that little angel because it was mutilated by...

Radical, right-wing words...

That's what made it what it is...

People who don't take time to read the law and then preach something other than what the law and common sense and reality really define the law as, are totally insane radicals bent on destroying things for others because they don't even understand themselves...

I hope you sleep with little fairy dust angels tonight because I guarantee if that angel has half the freekin' brain of some radical extremist bible thumpers on here, that angel may not be back to hover over you tomorrow...

Oh yeah, bottom line...

I heard Trojan-enz is buying out the abortion industry and they plan to do all medical procedures overseas (near the waterboarding camps actually) even though Fiat originally had a higher bid...

WerewolfOftheWater attempts to explain why nobody has Christianity right:

people thought all kinds of different things, they always did, but back then it was mostly well, not very good in terms of understanding science and the way the world works

it's like I keep saying, even a scholar can't be totally sure of what the original meaning behind a book is, every single piece of fiction and sometimes even non-fiction has a certain level in which the theme can be interpreted in multiple ways, until the author comes out and directly explains what the theme is. It doesn't just apply to the bible. I'm not really saying anything too complicated here.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040310.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoVGMwcOjL4

http://servetustheevangelical.com/ -- Pretentiously heretical egomaniac alert!

http://www.westborobaptistchurch.com/written/reports/20090111_the-lord-is-coming.pdf

http://www.godhatestheworld.com/common/html/openlettertoelectjews.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/30/bjorn-ulvaeus-religion-schools

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

http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3554678

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Qi0Mk2lRs&feature=related

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1906787123/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=14DCSBBFFCDNEDZDK6JN&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846 Not sure if the BibleOrigins website has been nominated yet, but if not, here's a good reason why it should:

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/Articles/Psychology.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO_Mmssa3xM

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A5FB08C737F4D0DB

A HUGE MASSIVE nomination for the Episcopalian Church, who have voted overwhelmingly to end a de facto moratorium on the election and consecration of openly gay bishops.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPxr02qdkvs&feature=related

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1915

America's believers win for this:

But in the Pew survey, only 2 percent of respondents said that science and logic play any role their religious choices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRdYscKX8fk&feature=channel

A major Screwbie nom, most likely a shoo-in for Platinum in the Christian category this year, for the Metropolitan Community Church of Glasgow, Scotland:

A publicly funded exhibition is encouraging people to deface the Bible in the name of art - and visitors have responded with abuse and obscenity.

The show includes a video of a woman ripping pages from the Bible and stuffing them into her bra, knickers and mouth.

The open Bible is a central part of 'Made in God's Image,' an exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow. By the book is a container of pens and a notice saying: "If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it."

The exhibit, Untitled 2009, was proposed by the Metropolitan Community Church, which said that the idea was to reclaim the Bible as a sacred text. But to the horror of many Christians, including the community church, visitors have daubed its pages with comments such as "This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all." A contributor wrote on the first page of Genesis: "I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this."

...The community church, which celebrates "racial, cultural, linguistic, sexual, gender and theological diversity," had suggested the "interactive" Bible and pens and Mr Schrag, 34, [one of the artists who created the exhibit] said he had been intrigued.

http://www.tedisacomingofgodtoearth.org/MainSitePages/Ted_NEEDS_RESOURCES.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1425992609?ie=UTF8&tag=buzz0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1425992609/

http://thegoodguise.wordpress.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXMAnlMmEPw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2009%2F07%2F29%2Fvideo-hey-did-the-bible-give-us-the-name-of-the-antichrist%2F&feature=player_embedded

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10033

Award to Marc Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, for using 1 Tim. 5:8 to claims that stay-at-home dads aren't real men. He also dismisses critics who say its cultural context relevant.