Get the Screwballs while they're hot! Look here for the entire archive.

From the Mailbag

This month begins with a nutsy Christ myther who hasn't learned that these arguments are all stale:

J.P.Holding,Robert Turkel or whatever else alias you want to go by,when are you going to figure out your Library Masters degree can not,does not or ever can hold a light to Acharya S degrees,some of your supposed answers to her writings even makes a peon like me laugh sometime.It's obvious you have done very little study on the Zodiac signs or Sun God type ancient religions.Some of your statements trying to pick apart christianity from copycat Sun God myth claims is laughable.Christianity is such a duplicate of Sun God legends,myths,fables and tales only a biblical mind controlled,brainwashed,blind faith christian would try to wiggle,squirm and lie to get away from it.Evidently you do no research without a Bible in your hand,you state you doubt that the Catholic Encyclopedia says Luke's Theophilus is the Bishop of Antioch,before you claim that Luke's gospel and Theophilus is not from the late second century,why don't you study,research and find out instead of claiming to doubt the Catholic Encyclopedia says that?

There are many reasons to believe the 4 gospels are not first century writings but are mid to late second century writings.For 3 quick examples,the number one being that Luke was writing to the only important Theophilus who is listed in history who lived during the second half of the second century.#2. The earliest church father who mentions the 4 gospels by name is Iraneus around 170-180 A.D.#3.Whether you want to believe it or not they have now proved the city of Nazareth did not exist in the first century but was a town that had it's beginings in the second century,without the town of Nazareth in the first century there could be no Jesus of Nazareth in the first century.And there are many other clues that the 4 gospels are second century writings.You try and also claim that the John Rylands fragment proves the book of John was writen by at least 125 A.D.What foolish mind controlled thinking,we know many anonymous gospels were being cranked out in the first and second centurys,just because this small fragment appears in what is now claimed to be John's writings does not prove John wrote it.

It could have come from any number of the anonymus gospels being cranked out.In fact just a little research and you could prove the authors of the 4 gospels are unknown,anonymous the Roman Catholic church guessed at Matthew,Mark,Luke and John being the authors trying to make them seem more reliable.You and all christianity make to many assumptions trying to make your Bible infallible and God inspired,when i can name over 40 historians and philosophers living and writing during and immediately after Jesus supposed time who know absolutely nothing about a miracle worker,crucifixtion or resurrection.You have the dumbest excuses why Philo even though he wrote about the Jewish religion and lived all the way through Jesus supposed time knew nothing of a Jesus,miracle worker,crucifixtion or resurrection.Even Seneca who wrote about and tracked earthquakes and sun eclipses and who lived in Jesus supposed time knows nothing about the earthquake and sun darkening at Jesus supposed crucifixtion.No reliable historian knows one thing about Herod's supposed Slaughter of the Innocents,no reliable historian or philosopher knows anything about the supposed saints resurrection from the dead and supposedly wandering around in the streets of Jerusalem,but you will believe the wild claims of the 4 gospels and the N.T.and early church fathers claims who were trying to establish the christian religion so the Roman Empire would have a state run don't even get close to proving Acharys S,Doughtery or any of the other christ mythers wrong,your library Masters degree is worthless except for childish non-thinking rants and raves.

Signed by,The Old Man in the Edsel.

Then we have this one from Dunning's, Inc. that nominates Platinum:

Having just read your introductory sections on I feel I must respond...

It would be nice to find a well researched and logically argued rebuttal of Mr McKinseys findings. So far, I have not been able to locate one. I thought your site might be such a resource but from the outset I find you have grossly misrepresented Mr McKinsey's claims.

I want to keep this brief, but here are a few comments...

1. While argument by outrage may not prove a particular point, it does show that there are some serious inconsistencies recorded in the Bible.

2. You criticize his qualifications. Mr McKinsey states quite clearly that he bases his analysis on scripture. It is not necessary to hold a Doctorate to make logical analysis of scripture. Gaining a Masters Degree demonstrates clearly that Mr McKinsey has the necessary aptitude. Where reference to Greek or Hebrew is require, the necessary tools are available. A Strongs Concordance would suffice in most cases. In cases where said Concordance is insufficient, there are numerous other documentary sources available. The thousands of manuscript fragments in existence have been analysed by many experts in the field. It is not necessary for Mr McKinsey to do so.

3. You state: "One would expect a book with 548 pages that claims "encyclopedic" treatment of an issue to have more than just 3 pages of source listings". He makes it clear that the reason why he doesn't like to quote extra-biblical references is that he knows that Christians would not generally place any importance on such sources. Mr McKinsey states quite clearly that he bases his analysis on scripture. In most cases, scriptures are quoted and can be checked by the reader. I have done just that and while I don't agree with all of his conclusions, I agree with most of them.

I could continue but I will conclude at this time by saying that anyone who has spent 30 years analyzing scripture as thoroughly as Mr McKinsey has done should be respected and not misrepresented.

You would do better to be honest with your criticism if you wish to influence the non believer, otherwise you will only be preaching to the converted!

As an aid to your understanding of my perspective, I am a Pentecostal Christian and have been since 1986. Prior to that, I was brought up first as a Presbyterian then later a Jehovah's Witness.

Recently I have started to read the Bible more thoroughly. By that I mean instead of reading only the small set of scriptures as guided by others in churches, I have embarked on an in depth analysis myself and have been extremely troubled by what I have discovered.

Finally, we have one from Lost in Space:

I've read your page online about how he could not (Akhenaten) be connected to the hebrew religion, but you fail to mention how the stories, the hymns, the prayers, and certain aspects of the Atun fit so nicely with the hebrew god.

Nor do you go into how the opening of the gates of heaven by Akhenaten was promised and formed the basis for a messiah and a religion.

Seems to me, you just another person hung up on twisting true history (the new Egyptian chronology does no fit with real time dating which also throws all your ideas down) and looking at things through rose colored glasses.

Maybe you should explore how Ezekiel and the Hindu Mahabharata find themselves with similar concepts.

You will learn that gods referred to possibly aliens, not some loving all powerful deity. Some people cannot live without the crutch you use to make yourself feel important instead of doing something really productive like inventing ways to clean up water and soil from pollution which is increasingly killing humanity. Or did you fail to notice that "god's blessings" only seem to fall in baptist America.

The July 2010 John Loftus Collection

John got really screwy this month after Triablogue released a critique of his latest book, but nothing warranted Gold.

The Lunchback of Notre Dumb

The coot gets a nod for mocking someone about to get married. That's about it. He must be going insane. I mean further insane.

The Skeptic Collection

ApostateAbe, known to be well-versed at idiocy from his postings ay the Secular Web, explains the origins of Christianity:

The corpse of Jesus hung on the wooden stake where scavenging birds picked it apart, his remains fell to the ground in pieces, and wild dogs took them away (poet Pseudo-Manetho). Roman guards stood by to ensure the humiliation and spiritual defeat.

Three days after his death, two female companions, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses (Mark 15:47), went to the site where Jesus was slain, but they could not find the body of Jesus. They knew nothing about crucifixion, so they went into a joyous delirium that Jesus had defeated death, and they told the other companions. Thomas strongly rebuked them for their stupidity (John 20:24-29), and so did Peter at first (Matthew 26:72), but then he saw an opportunity. He encouraged the women, and he spread the word among those who mourned Jesus that he had risen from the grave and ascended to heaven.

These are the best guesses about the historical lives of Jesus and the early Christians. Amen.

When asked how these women had been so deluded especially with the whole of Jerusalem looking, he said:

Firstly, I didn't mean to claim that the women were unaware that Jesus was crucified. They knew he was crucified, and they knew that entails death on a cross (or a stake), but they didn't know anything else about it, as in it involves scavengers feasting on the body. Why should they? These women were from rural Galilee, and crucifixion is something that happens occasionally in the big cities like Jerusalem.

sea of red commits capital irony in two successive posts:

Do you even know what begging the question is? I guess I'll have to explain that too. Begging the question is where the question to be answered is not answered with deductive or inductive logic, but by presupposing an answer in the premise.

And then a few posts later:

A book that talks of of magic curses, invisible beings, talking animals, and real life miracle men has zero credibility. It must EARN credibility before it is to be taken seriously and every attempt so far to establish it, has failed.

Christ myther Bruce Grubb wins for the Amazon review of Shattering the Christ Myth, which is filled with arguments the book already answers:

Those who don't support the Christ Myth theory would be well advised to avoid this book. The old tired standbys of Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the younger are toughted with all the pomp of Don Quixote showing off his "magnificent steed" and about as believable if you know the facts--Josephus is know to have been tampered with, Tacitus use of the wrong title shows that odds are he was repeating rumor NOT history, and all Pliny does is show there are Christians in the 1st century CE something not even the most rabid Christ Myth denys.

Then you hit the hypocrisy of using Lucian as a argument from silence and then later decrying arguments form silence regarding Remsburg. Papas has the problem of it is unclear if the Gospels he knew are the same ones we have. The other points Holding brings up are similarly either poorly researched or not researched at all.

For example, the easiest argument against the Remsburg list is that Remsburg was NOT a Christ Myth Theorist as Holding has claimed on his website. In fact, in "The Christ" Rembsurg no less than three times stated where WAS a historical 1st century preacher named Jesus. Rembsurg's argument was in fact that the GOSPEL ACCOUNT was a historical myth on par with Columbus Sailor West to prove the Earth was round NOT that there wasn't a 1st century Jesus.

Even worst Holding purposely ignores the strongest argument presented by another person Holding calls a Christ Myther: Richard Dawkins and his comparison of the Jesus story with the John Frum cargo cult. In fact Peter Worsley, in his "The trumpet shall sound: a study of cargo cults in Melanesia" (1968) which was quoted and sited in the University of Wollongong Thesis collection said "Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum."

More troubling is there is this passage I found in a peer-reviewed journal article: "It is not possible to compare the above [several quotes regarding Jesus by several authors] with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16)

To anyone not familiar with him or the arguments Holding looks good but the moment you dig below the surface you find he is effectively Captain Vanderdecken sailing about the Cape.

Pitchforkpat sums it up:

Well, as has been demonstrated on this thread by multiple believers, Christians redefine "good" to mean restrictively, "someone who accepts my religious dogma". Therefore, if you're not a born-again, you're not "good". If you help the lame, helpless, homeless, etc., who cares? You may have treated people horribly your whole life and only used people to make yourself rich, fat, and happy, but it matters not. Nothing matters except whether you belong to the right denomination. It's absurd, but that's Christianity for you.

robertb, asked to present the objective rules that govern "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", said also without irony:

Your challenge is nonsensical, as all human devised methods are inescapably subjective.

He also said:

Faith is having full confidence in the fact that our desires will be granted and having no doubt that our illusions are real.

Pointed to a proper definition of faith as loyalty based on evidence, he replied:

If this makes you feel more rational, by all means, use it. The problem is that my definition is really saying nothing different, though you may not like the semantics.

Christopher31 offered this instead of answering some arguments:

You're quite good at answering from within your system, AP. I commend you on your studies. However, once you get out of your Thomistic mindframe, and start observing that the world, morals, human interaction, and scientific evidence doesn't really support Aquinas on quite a number of points, you'll begin to come out of your "closed-system" and open on new understandings. Of course, I fully expect you to reject that possibility because not to would be a contradiction to your present chosen beliefs. So be it.

The original question was "Why are there apologists?" I answered the question, and now I'm moving on. There comes a point when these kinds of interactions are more a waste of time than a useful exchange. That time has come for me.

The Pixie, on being asked why he is criticizing a book he has not read:

Ah the fallacy of the false dochtomy. Anyone who has not read Habaermas must ncessarily be ranting, right?. No, I have not read Habermas. Someone made claims about the "minimal facts" thesis in another thread, and I looked it up. How evil are atheists, eh, to then make threads about these things without reading the book?

And also:

We can only go by what we see. The Bible sees to say that God sent Jesus to Earth so we could all be saved. If that is God's plan, then Jesus making himself known to all the peoples of the Earth would have made it much more effective. If that was not God's plan, why does the Bible suggest it? Is the Bible less than accurate? Is God misleading us?

So to prove that God failed to make his plan known to the world, he appeals to the best selling book in the world.

YouTube nut styled "undisputedgreatest" wins:

There are no gods...there is no "God." I have given Jesus more of a chance than you, as I have actually read the bible (the most worthless book ever.) I KNOW you haven't read the don't tell me you have. Read it..and actually read it. Don't just have it open, staring at the words while you think about your personal life. It is nonsense...and the coherent parts are breath-takingly cruel. The bible condones murder, as does Jesus Christ (whom is simply a rip-off of Horace.)

little monkey is our new spoiled brat, and quickly nominated for Platinum n00b. Samples:

Can you show me evidence that leprechauns don't exist? You can't. And asking you to do so would be ridiculous. The burden of proof falls on the one who asserts, "There are leprechauns". Whether you like it or not, you are asserting there is a God. Now show me "any" evidence. You just can't.

Here's are some evidence that would leave no doubt that God exists:

He shows up at the UN if front of the whole world and shows what he's capable of doing. That shouldn't be so hard for God to do. I can even give him some suggestions, like:

-- make mount Everest disappear over night from its present location and reappear in Washington DC.

-- cure 10,000 paraplegics all in a single day.

-- make the sun rise in the West.

--Turn off the earth's gravity field for ten seconds so we can all fly momentarily.

Blah, blah, blah...

There are thousands of ways God can prove his own existence. No excuse, put up or shut up.

When philosophical arguments make your little atheist brain hurt, instead demand that God puts on a magic show. The simian also had this:

Suppose I claim to have died and then resurrected. Then I go and see only my friends and tell them about my dying and resurrection and some real good advice about life. Then I disappear, leaving my friends to deliver the message. Would you believe any of them that I actually resurrected? Probably not, but if my friends have any charismatic skills they might convinced some people. We know that every year there are new religious cults that spring up. So that my friends can convince some people of my story is not a stretch.

Now let's throw in the mix some history. People in ancient times were ignorant, naive, gullible, and proned to believe in mythology. Very few were schooled, knew how to read or write. So now my friends have a much larger audience to bring in new members. We also have an empire that's been going on for three centuries. It's corrupted, on the decline, and may face its disappearance. A young emperor believes that this cult might save the empire. So he orders my friends and whoever is in charge of the cult to gather around and tells them to put their house in order with their doctrine. And then when that's done, he makes it the official religion of the empire. So we go from a cult to an established religion. The rest is history.

LOL. Josephus is important to Christians but he is absolutely a nobody in the Jewish tradition. Nice try.

This is not a coincidence, but a clear case of emblishment: that is, version X was improved by different groups, and after many years, many versions of the storyline emerged. So one day, (circa 325AD), the church met (At Nicaea) and purged all those versions that contradicted the dogma of the day. Result: only the four versions were allowed to exist, and all the others were destroyed.

See Stevie Carr vs Larry Hurtado and several other intelligent people at -- I need not say more.

Robert Price has said a lot of screwy things in his response to Strobel, but this won Gold. He says that when people put up billboards like: "Keep Using My Name in Vain And I'll Make Rush Hour Longer" - God, with sayings from Jesus, they do so thinking they are real, "as if he had said them in some ancient gospel." In other words, he thinks they think they're channeling Jesus.

Everyone in this dialogue is an atheist, and wins:

JimL: What is the christian doctrine in regards to heaven?

Doug Shaver: Like almost everything else, it depends on which Christian you ask.

JimL: If God can not be contained in any thing then where do you say he is? I think I know your answer, you will say that God is in himself, but that reverts back to the same question, which is; then where is his self? Besides the bible often refers to God as being in his heaven and Jesus ascending into heaven, so if God can't be contained in heaven what is he doing there with Jesus sitting at his right hand?

Christopher31: Well, Jim, this is where we'll get into what I like to call the "Literal-Figurative Switcheroo" (LFS). You've questioned the literal aspect of the scriptures, so it's quite possible the counter will be that the scriptures are figurative. But, if your call-out the integrity of a figurative portion of scripture, the counter will most likely be that those scriptures are literal.

If that happens, you can bet on not winning for losing. It's a game theologians like to play (though they don't really know they're doing it, most of the time), and they inflict it on non-believers with the expectation that because they're Christians they know better, and we're just taking things out of context. That, or we couldn't possibly understand because we're not of the faith.

sea of red is quite the provincialist here:

Hadn't ironed everything out? They were 180 degrees from reality, and that's hardly anything to brag about. Aristotle was a complete and utter fool. He backed so many wrong horses that I can't believe anybody would consider him a "scientist". Hate to break the news to you, but astronomy in the days of Aristotle and company was actually, astrology. They had zero understanding of the motion of the planets, the dynamics of the solar system, or even the freakin sun. That is until Copernicus and Galileo came along(and later Kepler). Copernicus didn't just pull his model of thin air like Ptolemy, instead he constructed his model based on algebra and trig. Aristotle just took desert beliefs and argued for them a philosophical way. Period.

Robert Price wins for this statement in The Christian Delusion:t "We cannot detect probable miracles‘ even if they happened. Historical inquiry cannot touch them, even if time travel would show them to have been real!"(p276)

The Confused Believer Collection

Rainbow (not very) Brite explains why there were two covenants:

To me Torah was designed to reflect harsh attitudes of Jews against each other, by formalizing them it made each subject to God with no room for hypocrisy and if they wanted a double standard they got slammed for it, as Jesus warned regarding destruction by Rome. That's why I think the New Covenant was designed for people who don't want to be mean to each other, and the Old Covenant was.

A "HUH?" Screwball for Kay Arthur...mostly her material has been OK (if designed for infants), but in the Philippians study for Precept Upon Precept, where they get to Phil. 3, v 3: "For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—" The reader is told:

If you do not know what circumcision is, look it up in the dictionary.

gharfish is still historically inept:

But Americans (some Americans) are "special" for claiming that our's is indeed a Christian nation - has always been, and now needs to be brought back to God, when we have very oftentimes not been Christlike as a people..and so just maybe therefore were never with God. Our glaring moral failures as a nation of people goes back to the beginnings of [our] rather young nation.

Let me specific about what I was talking about back there... America never has belonged to God, so this patriotic cry to "Take Back America for/to God" where it was?? is a misunderstanding of our nation's historical moral conduct.

For ex., you know, the native Americans were conquered and killed by the millions and their land was stolen. The survivors were forced onto reservations and the treaties we had made with them were broken over and over and over again. The many millions of bison they had depended on for their way of life had been entirely slaughtered already.

Some six million African blacks were taken to become our slaves. About half of those, perhaps mercifully, didn't survive the sea voyage chained in the bottoms of those cargo ships. After they were freed, once we whites killed each other like there was no tomorow, was America with God in any way / how they were legally regarded (subhuman) and socially treated ? Nope. Hell nope. And then there were our Asian coolie railroad workers who were close to being like..............

These sorts of things. "God bless America!" ? God don't punish us as we deserve to be, for this and so much more, is more like it.

John Shelby Spong wins (and nominates Platinum for Famous Christian/Theist -- hard to say what he is!) for this comment in his newsletter:

N.T. Wright is more of a propagandist for fundamentalism than he is a New Testament scholar, albeit he has the capacity to use heavily perfumed and sophisticated language to preserve the illusion of scholarship. I can well imagine that you need a counterpoint.

Robert Byers wins for this lesson in biology:

Yet this creationist sees rather beauty is not a choice but a observatin [sic] of the right answer to how human beings should look. Women should have that kind of body as it is the real skeleton dimensions. Then only flesh/fat/muscle to be a covering but showing the shape. Likewise men have an exact shape due to skeleton. Selection had no impact on human shape and so beauty. Above the neck again it could only be that the male being bigger have more distortion from the adolenscent . The female being smaller simply keeps the adolenscent look more so. Not selection but mere skeleton size. Likewise the female keeps her original voice more . The male gets a deeper one.

As the author of the thread says here. There is no reason to see selection behind beauty of people as a origin for looks. There is simply a right answer to how a human being should look. A male and a female.

Former Platinum winner, and Mormon, Jo has this:

Does God have thoughts? Does God give names to things? Does He call the this place of HIs existence "home"? Man generally calls (wherever it is - this spirit place of being exists) - the Kingdom of God. So where did the "Kingdom of God" get the identity of "Kingdom of God". Is that what God told His prophets to call it? Or did man make that up?

LDS actually dare to speculate where this spiritual place of being is. I think it is rather more strange that man appears to be afraid to wonder about such things. Man's first gut reaction to something new, or something he does not understand or is in fear of, is to make fun of it. How quick you are to judge. Especially about something YOU don't even dare to speculate an answer for.

You people really need to get a life.

Here's a nomination for a church sign:

U n JC bff

if not y not

Nomination of Lawrence Bishop of Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio for saying that the fire which destroyed the church's giant statue of Jesus was good PR for Christ because "His name was mentioned more in the 24 hours after that fire than probably in 2,000 years.

UncoveringPatmo ends the debate:

Thanks for your continued questions, RBerman. Thomas is superior to the Four Gospels because it provided the foundation for Matthew and Luke, representing half of the Four Gospel equation. Consider the definition of the almost mythical "Q" Source. Now the term used to describe this definition, "Q Source", may very well be a synonym for the Gospel of Thomas. I say "may be" and not "is", because I am unsure whether Q Source actually is the Gospel of Thomas.

According to, Q Source:

" a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. Q is defined as the "common" material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark (i.e., the blue material in the chart). This ancient text supposedly contained the logia or quotations from Jesus."

According to

"The Gospel of Thomas is very different in tone and structure from other New Testament apocrypha and the four Canonical Gospels. Unlike the canonical Gospels, it is not a narrative account of the life of Jesus; instead, it consists of logia (sayings) attributed to Jesus, sometimes stand-alone, sometimes embedded in short dialogues or parables."

So either the Gospel of Thomas is Q, or a copy of it. Either way, Q is credited with providing much of the framework for the Canonical Gospels. So if one denies the Gospel of Thomas, one also denies the foundation for the Canonical Gospels.

This Amazon review of NT Wright's book on the Resurrection wins and nominates Platinum:

The most negative part regarding this book is the picture on the front page of the book. Apostles have left us a record of "WORD" and "WORK" of the Messiah. They have not left us a "picture" of the Messiah. Eshoo has been resurrected and is now exalted to the right hand of the Power. He now has a glorified body. Apostle John speaks of his vision of the risen Messiah and His glorious body in chapter 1,verses 12 through 16 of the book of Revelation"

"12, And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength."

When Apostle John saw him, he fell at His feet as dead. Therefore putting the picture of "Jesus" on the front page of the book amounts to violating the 2nd commandment: " Thou shall not make an image of Him". This gives enemies of the Gospel to speak evil of the "WAY". Having the picture of "JESUS" on the cover really discouraged me from studying this book in detail.

squirley is working on being comprehendable:

...I don't believe that we are the best creations of God. God revealed to Adam and Eve that if they took from the tree of life they would become immortals. This they did and us humans are not immortals. God was referring to a later time that he would make us immortals no matter what we do. If we do good we will go to heaven and if not we will go to hell as immortals. I do share the belief that Jesus was referring to a lake of fire and gnashing of teeth in a literal sense. I share the belief that muslims share on that subject..

Interestingly, the mayans have a belief that after death comes rennaisance and regeneration. imho this was not complete for Jesus since he did not regenerate fully since he still had the holes that those who pierced him (and not harmed his heart of heaven) even till today...

Everything is tied to the three days and three nights. Jesus' resurrection was regenerative since he did not complete the full cycle of life that the mayans considered fullness. So in that sense it can be considered that the seventh day when he returns will be done as it is in heaven. That is the day of Judgment.

He said that he would return in three days and three nights but he did not fulfill the three nights only three days and two nights. So he is in the midst of defeating death because of those scars that those who pierced him and mocked him caused.

Plus, if you consider those who have died and have come back to life miraculously even before Jesus, should they not be considered breakers of the bands of death?

...All you have to do is worship Jesus as I do through assimilation of the Mayan, Esquipulean beliefs and eschatology already set forth.

Nomination to a Facebook Christian who posted: "We can have any kind of relationship with the Lord that we want."

Miscellany Collection -- Platinum nominee, famous Christians -- Skeptical website Platinum nominee -- Platinum nominee -- Platinum nominee, Christian -- contains such ideas as:

# America is Babylon the Great, and Obama is the "leopard-king" with four heads (since America has a president, a vice-president, a Speaker of the House, and a Chief Justice) and four wings (since America has the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and the Air Force)

# Martin Luther sparked the first of the four horsemen of the apocalypse

# Daniel 8:8-9 clearly indicates that the Antichrist will be born in Istanbul

# People who use condoms will not be raptured

# The BP oil spill must have eschatological significance, since "BP" stands for "Bible prophecy"

# The results of sports matches can be used to prophecy the future

# So, so, so much more...