Screwballs of the month

november 2005



As of now, the Screwball feature will be a staple of the site rather than where it used to be. And if all goes well, maybe I can even start making some new toons on the fly for the better ones.




From the mailbag


This first bit came from someone with a pants bug about my article on the fish as a Christian symbol --


To answer your question So What?


2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore get out from among them, and seperate yourselves, and quit touching the unclean thing.... (For example the Dagon symbol)


The standards that the world uses for their money making schemes cannot be compared to the standards that God require of us. So using the analogy of the tiger for Kellogs and Exxon is not relevant. God has a higher standard.


Please look at Deuteronomy 7:26 And you must not bring a detestable thing into your house and actually become a thing devoted to desctruction like it. You should thoroughly loathe it and absolutely detest it, because it is something devoted to destruction.


Also, take a look at Exodus 20:4 You must not make yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters.


There are many other scriptures in regards to idolatry. God does not want any symbols in worshipping him, even if they don't have pagan origins. We have to come to grips that we must worship God the way he wants not the way we want to.


Unfortunately they couldn’t tell me where anyone was worshipping a fish in the church. Speaking of powerful delusions, here’s a set from someone who read my material on Alvin Boyd Kuhn, the esotericist who thinks there are vapors in the air that cause mental evolution:



I just happened upon your sight and would like to offer my 'two cents' after reading your arguments on Alvin Kuhn.  I have read nearly all of his writings that I have been able to get my hands on, with the exception of two.


Out of fairness to Kuhn, I recommend posting comments from readers who, like me, read your critique of his The Esoteric Structure of the Alphabet, and Lost Key to the Scriptures, yet have drawn different conclusions on Kuhn's writings.  I am by no means an authority on Kuhn or religion, only a life-long student of comparative religious studies.  First, I believe it is reasonably assumed that Kuhn was writing to individuals who possess a somewhat keen familiarity of the Biblical texts and variety of translations-  so his omission of "citings" as you refer to in some cases, may not appear so suspicious to some readers. 


Of course any reader of Kuhn's material must proceed with a critical mind, taking into consideration when he did his writing, the prodigious volume of work, available resources at the time, etc.  Yet, your arguments do not succeed to "undermine their credibility", as is your stated purpose when referring to Kuhn (and Massey). Yours is clearly a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  The overall premise consistent throughout Kuhn's works is ignored in your analyses and thus remains unraveled.  I would encourage any sincere and curious visitor of your site to take time to carefully read all of Kuhn's writings in their context and draw their own conclusions before being swayed too quickly by your thin rebuttal.  The points you bring out are by comparison nominal when taking an objective look at the important archetypal themes Kuhn brings to view.  Unfortunately, because his works are little known, there is virtually no legitimate (yet absolutely needed) debate amongst scholarly circles. 


Until then, I think your position could be a little more convincing (at least to the credulous reader) if you omit the character attacks and name calling, i.e. "crackpot".  That approach may rally the naive, and may even appear as a blow to those who share your prejudices, but mostly undermines your own credibility.   Instead of downplaying his credentials, you should not surreptitiously withhold the fact that Kuhn received his Ph.D from Columbia University (nothing to sneeze at, Mr. Holding!).  If Kuhn were alive today, there is no doubt in my mind that he would hardly stand deterred by his critics.  I believe opponents like you would rate as ankle-biters in the same pit as a Great Dane!


I am not alone in recommending to all sincere students of religion Kuhn's writings, especially his major works Shadow of the Third Century and The Lost Light, as absolutely necessary to understanding from where our modern beliefs evolved; and equally recommend to those who have refused to 'swallow the goat' as offered by the church and its various offshoots.


Rebuttal or none, the point remains that some of your visitors may all too hastily fail to investigate Kuhn's writings and conclude for themselves-  it is unfortunate your argument leads one in that direction.  Though it may not be spelled out in specific terms (and you obviously have no control over who ultimately reads what), your argument seeks to exploit impressionable minds.  Just because YOU label Kuhn as a "crackpot," doesn't make it so.  If you truly speak for a legitimate scholarly consensus, then your article had better disclose the details. 


But what may be distracting to you may only be of peripheral concern to other discerning and capable readers.   It's comforting to know that you are among a small minority who allegedly concede reading Kuhn's material is a waste of time.  I know that I am not alone in testifying that I gleaned more truths, and resolved much confusion, from his material than I did from 30 years of conventional fellowship. 


The major ideas Kuhn has brought to the table are monumental, worthy of further exploration amongst genuine scholars; what literalists have offered are nothing more than the same old ideas creatively wrapped in new, neat little packaging.  The handwriting is on the wall all around us, Christianity has long been overdue for serious renovation; apologetics has succeeded in nothing more than reinventing the wheel


Wow. All of that and not one argument answered? Then another on my fish symbol article that made as much sense from the other side:



I just read your article on how the fish is not from pagan origin.  Why would it bother you so much if it were?  It isn't meant to be offensive to use sexual symbols in early religion.  The population wasn't nearly as huge as it is now.  People died of strange diseases that we have made extinct nowadays.  Sex was life.  To reproduce was to survive.  The fact that life sprang from a woman was amazing and celebrated.  Times have changed.  We think differently now, but it's very easy to empathize with their plight.


I asked the fella why it would bother him so much that I had written the article in the first place.  But still no actual arguments.


Then this round of chatter came in….


Basically anyone who has the ability to have a job and buy nice things and to love his family first above all others be it,christ,god,mathew,mark,luke,or john is the spreading of poison even if the conoltation is softened Like-"love less" or loved less than me,who wants to be in heaven with a bunch of people who love eachother less than jesus or god oh I hate you mom dad bro sis dog cat i'll see you in heaven though right? so it's all good now-uhh I don't think so. the only way I see this happening is these deciples of his would have to be the very weekest of people in society they would be the homeless,like dad kicked him out because he dropped out of highschool and mom died from drug abuse his bro thought he was lower than a dog and they despised eachother and sis is a whore so he don't associate with that kinda peep he stinks to dirt hell and has no clothes or currency he's basically shit.So in this light lets talk about the people he did make his desciples they had families,marriages,money,clothes,currency,sounds like contradiction.The reason why I wanted you to read to the end is because all the way up till I read this passage I was able to put all the parts together and the bible was enjoyable reading but this just stinks no matter how you want to lable it so if you have anything that you would like to tell me that could clear this up I might even except hearing "GOD IS SMARTER THAN US PUT YOUR BIBLE DOWN AND NEVER READ IN IT AGAIN" but i'd rather figure a good way of alieviating this pain so I can read forth.



O….kay. How about this chatter then?


In reading some of your articles about "jehoshua" etc, I find this subject to be fascinating. I would like to find our more factual evidence about this stuff, however, it is obvious from your writings that you are wholly incapable of being objective and are not interested in fact. I find name calling and satyrism unappealing and unconvincing and I will on my own look further in to these matters to find out where the facts lie. If your version is correct, you would serve yourself better by being objective and sticking to empirical data. This issue of your credibility and your bias sticks out like a sore thumb to anyone who is seriously interested in find out the truth.


Can’t seem to get anyone who wants to be on point this month. Ah, wait – try this:



was looking up 834 BC because

it falls during the reign of Semiramis who is mistaken

for the planet Venus in founding NInevah in 2060 BC.


834 BC reinauguartes Babylon's Marduk temple,

the planet Mars or Damuzi (Damu) mistaking Marduk for the Jupiter

or Jova at Jerusalem, the Jewish Seder Olam thinks Solomon's temple

was 834 BC (exactly 200 years off). But as Marduk temple it

is Adam's year 3192 AM (2256 + 936), the crossing that is

mistaken in other chronologies as the original 2009 BC Marduk

when Abram was 9 which counts 43 years from Ninevah's foundation

in 2060 BC and thus presumes that Nimrod's son is Marduk or Damu

(the calendar for the planet Mars), which then presumes that Sumer-Amat

(Semiramis) or the planet Venus is Nimrod's wife, and then connects it to

the Semiriamis of 834 BC whose son or husband was general Ninus,

and bore a son Ninus or Ninyas.


Thus i would like to no more about this Druid because its cross of 834 BC

would only support the massive amount of other calendars waiting for the

cross of planets as the savior before 6000 or end of the world in 6000.

Feel free to publish this email, and i hope you help me seek that cross of 834 BC.

Marduk date for 834 BC is the egyptian new year Thoth 1 which falls that year

as a March 20 Marduk. This is why March is named that year after Marduk.

But without leap days the original revived Hamurabi's Marduk in 1770 BC or 2256 AM

when Nimrod died at 500 is egyptian Thoth 1 which without leap days is Nov 9 back then.

Thoth was also the 7th month, not new year, until the Exodus in 1513 BC.

Please note that Psalm of Moses 136:15 says Pharaoh died in the Red Sea. So scholars cannot

use any Pharaoh except one that dies the year of the Exodus. The original Marduk

is mistaken as Thoth 1 Jan 8 in 2009 BC as Adam's 3192 AM from 5200 BC,

but it is correctly Noah's 360-day new year 1-01-966 on July 8 with the rise of Mars

on what was then the day Epagem 3, three days before Phamenoth 1 as new year. The egyptian

calendar being only 21 years old since the fall of 177-year Ur in 2030 BC upon the

death of Peleg Mesanipada, whose son Reu Aanipada then became father of Ur, though

he had ruled as king 80 years from 2207-2127 BC measuring Venus.

During which time the moon was measured

for the Chinese calendar 50 years (2207-2157 BC Feb 2) and by Nahor's life 50 years

2177-2127 BC before king Elulu introduced intercalary months for 25 years, 2091-2066 BC.

This is because the lunar calendar was established as 25 years x 365 days 309 lunar months, before Joshua

upon his death in 1443 BC made it 19 sothic years of 235 lunar months.


I hope this is sufficient study to give you reason to help me on this 834 BC Celtic cross.



Grunt….OK, someone sent me this note:



Margaret Towne's Honest to Genesis: A Biblical and Scientific Challenge to Creationism. She doesn't even cite her sources in the book, which ought to disqualify it from even being eligible for scholarly critique. Not to mention that she produces jewels like "If creationism is scientific, then there should be atheistic creationists. Are there any?"


Few practicing biologists (geneticists embyologists, anatomists, physiologists, ornithologists, mammalogists, etc.), geologists, or paleontologists would question that life has evolved. Disagreement among them centers on the how of creation. All the mechanisms are still a matter of discussion. Creationists' claim that thousands of scientists with post graduate degrees (Morris and Morris, 1996, p. 9) is difficult to believe or prove. Some mathematicians, engineers, chemists, and physicists may disclaim evolution. However, few biologists, geologists, or paleontologists, those who study the subject in minute detail, do. Creationists infer that scientists have weighed the data openmindedly on all sides and have chosen creationism apart from their religious persuasions. Where are the lists? Can there be creationists who are not religious? Can creationism be arrived at by scientific means alone? Then there should be young Earth atheists. Are there any? (page 264)


Here's a few more you might like...


God made the rainbow so he could remember his promise. Does God need help remembering?


In response to the creationist assertion that NT writers believed in a literal Adam:


Jesus became human. He took upon himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7). What does that mean? He was born of a woman. He hungered, wept, slept, became angry, questioned, loved, was subject to temptation, celebrated weddings, needed friends, needed to pray, bled, died. Many believe he was not only confined to human flesh and blood but also to the culture in which he was born and raised. He knew no science, no technology, no geography, no art, no music beyond what they knew. He was reared in a devout Jewish family which studied and memorized the Old Testament texts and interpreted them differently than do modern rationalists. In becoming a frail human he was limited to all that encompasses.


... Jesus was bound not only by the physical but by the mental restrictions of the human condition. Embracing this limitation was part of his deep love and humiliation for mankind. He did not understand all things. Even on the cross he asked "Why?"


This is why non-scholars need to mind their own bidness, eh? Finally at the end of the month, a certain Mr. Happy Pants arrived with these drum rolls:


Stumbled across your site and you may be what I'm

looking for, someone who can offer a real challenge to

my theory.


From a chance remark of "Everyone knows Jesus of

Nazareth" and my recalling there was dispute over the

place existing at that time, I've done a bit of

blissfully ignorant research.


I cheerfully admit I know almost nothing of the bible,

as it struck me as a daft fairly tale as a kid. I

remember snippets only.


But I've discovered the real Jesus. The reason there

is no real evidence is you're looking in the wrong

place. The real man was NOT in the heart of Judea but

a few miles outside and about 100 years earlier. His

religion was so obscure I can't even find the name but

there is, apparantly, evidence he actually existed.


I have a few questions but first, what's your take on

the possibility of this?


I can show you a man who's story matches, as best as

an ignorant chap like me can tell. On 2 different

websites I've proved it in debate but as one guy said,

"I wish we had an expert here". You seem to be an



I warn you in advance, this is 'blue pill or red

pill?' stuff. Be willing to have your faith seriously

dented, if not destroyed.


Up for it?


I told him to show up on TheologyWeb and he signed up as happypants. I expect he’ll give us some fresh material next month…



Golden duh award winners


Dunkel’s duh notes


A character from christianforums styled “dunkel” wins Gold for a variety of wild comments such as:


The point is, do not make a claim about Jesus and then say it must be true because it says so in the Gospel. The Gospels, by themselves, are not an objective source of actual history. I am not make a statement about whether I believe the Gospels or whether I think the teachings therein are valid. I'm merely stating that in order to prove the historical accuracy of a document, ANY document, you must go to outside sources for corraboration.

At any rate, the burden of proof in this case is not on those that have certain doubts about different aspects of the Bible, but on those that insist that it is true. . . Did a historical Jesus Christ exist? Ok, prove it. And, although it might seem unfair, prove it without using as evidence the source of the claim that you're trying to make.

Think about it like this. I go out partying one night and don't come home until the next morning. My wife is up waiting for me, so I tell her my story. Car broke down, cell phone died, I had to rescue a kitten from a burning building, whatever. Oh yeah? She says, prove it. Is it sufficient for me to say "well, I just told you what happened, there's your proof"? No, it's not. I better produce a dead cell phone, a car repair bill, and a sooty kitten. Better yet, let's hope channel 2 news was on the scene of the fire and got me on tape running into the burning building. The Gospels are the claim, the story that need to be proved. Now, how are you going to prove them?


First, we have the Gospels. I've already stated one reason I don't like to use the Bible as "proof" of anything...of course it's going to tell the reader that it's true. Wouldn't be much of a religious text if it didn't. I'm inclined to discount the Gospels, therefore, as proof that Jesus actually existed.


The point of my analogy, which was, apparently, too complicated for you, was that when you tell a story, you can't then depend on that story to validate itself. Any story, whether it's in a history book or I'm just trying to get myself out of hot water with my wife. Yes, there are other writings about Jesus, the creeds, all that good stuff...and all based on...the original story. A few obscure references to Christians, as a group, here or there, but again, that has never been in doubt. A few more references to Christ himself, but none by anyone that actually claims to have met him and no sense of the ultimate source of these references (what sources were available?). And the primary 3rd party source (Josephus) is considered so spurious that the debate is no longer that parts of it were made up but only WHICH parts.

BTW, if I was able to get four friends together to back up my story, but they were as full of holes and contradictions as the four Gospels apparently are, you can bet I'd be sleeping on the couch for a month. So, you went bowling, huh? Who went with you...Frank and Joe? Well, your other friend said it was Jimmy and his girlfriend...which is it?


There were many cults who revolved around a God/man who was put to death in ignoble ways. Some even had the subject of their worship dying through crucifixion. The fact that Christ was crusified does not make him unique by any stretch of the imagination.


I don't think even Biblical scholars believe that Mark was actually written by Mark.

Just for fun, though, here are a few links for your reading pleasure:

Have fun



Back later, I have to pick up my white sheet from the cleaners



A person I usually found reasonable referred me to this site

as a corrective to some of my points about honor and shame societies. I asked someone who had been an exchange student in such a society (Japan) to comment as I suspected this one deserved Gold. I was right:

Dude, this guy is an total freaking idiot who although travelling to foreign countries, really needs to get his head out of the yankee-doodleverse and let go of his ideas of Manifest Destiny. The guy isn't even an anthropologist, he's a geologist.

The sad part is that I saw other exchange students (even myself) have the same kind of attitude of self-rightousness towards the Japanese at times (such as with regards to the importance placed on the observation of certain rules how to wear the school's uniform).

Now as to the Bushido bit, I'm no anthropologist, but I can tell you that this is straight BS: “ In sharp contrast to thar, Bushido was an internalized code of honor. One could be shamed in Bushido even if nobody else knew.”

With regard to what Shintoism has to do with Bushido, one could be shamed before one's dead ancestors (that would have to do with the significance of the Shrine of remorse). Although he is somewhat half, no, make that a quarter right that modern Japanese are different from the ancient one's and may feel guilt (IMO), but they are not a "Guilt-culture" as the values of honor and shame still hold precedence.

Special lifetime Achievement award


God hates people who stub their toes


A special Lifetime Achievement Screwball goes this round to a “fundy atheist” styled Underlings,  for his support of "Why does God Hate" (which simply offerers the a glorified version of the "If God was real prayer would be like a gumball machine" argument, and for that the website deserves a nomination itself). Here are some samples of Underlings’ marked brilliance which earned him this award:


According to the Bible, all you need is a modicum of faith--the relative amount of a mustard seed next to a mountain--and what you ask Jesus for, he will give. NOTHING is impossible. I'm not making up the rules...that is what the Bible says! Those who disagree with the site's position have been skirting around this issue with red herrings (pardon the odd imagery).

So let me try once again.... Given the following:

1. The Bible is literally the word of God and all its contents are true.

2. The Bible says in no uncertain terms that ANYTHING you pray for you will get.

Why is it that when you actually pray for something that can't be explained by natural means (coincidence, human deception, human achievement, etc.), such as the regrowth of amputated limbs, the prayers NEVER come true? (If you do not believe me...try it!!)



At any rate, if someone uses hyperbole to explain the power of something that is unknown to the listener, it is a form of deception.


So the Bible never was meant for other cultures and other time periods, is that it? Well, I suppose that makes sense if it was written by primitive men. After all, if an all-powerful god created it for the whole world (even by proxy) then he would have ensured the book was written well enough to accurately survive translation and not be so confusing to decipher. But, unfortunately, the Bible has gone through a lot of translating. And without a true understanding of the original culture in which it was written--something that is, of course, essentially impossible in this day and age, at least by Westerners--there's not much hope that the true meaning can be determined. Wow...over a third of the world's population is following a religion based on faulty translations. Pretty heavy stuff!

Hmmm. God should rewrite the Bible every year or so because skeptics have busy busy lives.


2 Kgs. 2:23-24 -- He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

(Yes, yes, I know that some people would like the words "small boys" to be replaced with "youths" so the passage wouldn't sound so condemning, but nearly all versions of the Bible refer to "small boys"...not that "youths" wouldn't still mean small boys, and not that even if the boys were older such a vicious act would be justified.)


And one more example is Hell. Hell is supposedly eternal suffering. One is forced to ask...does ANY punishment deserve to last forever, especially if there is no hope of redemption ("Abandon all hope, ye who enter")? If there is no hope of redemption, then there is no lesson to be taught, is there. That's why we have another name for punishment that does not teach a lesson: "torture."

While one might not mind if a murderer suffers forever, the Bible implies that those who fail to worship God and ask for salvation through Christ are doomed to suffer in Hell for all eternity too. Well, what if you don't like God, or have been raised in another religion without exposure to Christianity, or simply don't believe there is enough evidence for the existence of God? Do you deserve to suffer for all eternity? And to what end? Even if you learn your lesson ("Okay, I guess God does exist."), is there any hope of redemption? No, not really. So billions of people will suffer for eternity...for the sake of gratuitous torture. Would a loving God permit such a thing?

Did he just quote Dante's "Inferno" to show Christian Doctrine regarding hell? Underlings was asked:


i . I have a question . Just out of curiosity , if you did happen to find someone who regenerated a limb , would it prove the exsitence of God or Jesus to you ?

Or, would you end up attributing to evolutionary ? Like when a lizard grows back his tail after it breaks off when someone picks him up by it ?

Thanks .


His answer:

That's really immaterial, since the point of this thread is to prove that prayer does NOT work, thus helping prove the non-existence of God. But I'll answer it anyway:

No. After all, if you saw someone regenerate a limb, would it prove to you the existence of the Babylonian god Marduk? Or any other non-Christian god?

What it would prove would be that limbs can regenerate, and the process would then have to be investigated thoroughly. If every time someone prayed for a limb to regenerate, a limb regenerated, then it would be logical to infer a causal relationship between prayer and regeneration.

But it would take further experimentation to determine the cause. After all, it's conceivable that some naturalistic phenomena is responsible. If extensive research reveals no such thing, then the answer becomes, "We still don't know the cause." Some may BELIEVE the regeneration is due to a divine cause, but without evidentiary support there is simply no way to know.


And when confronted with the details of scholarship…guess what…


No historical scholar with any credibility claims to know for certain the contextual use of long-dead languages. Come on, you KNOW this.


If YOUR PERSONAL translations are the only ones that are true, then all those Christians are going to Hell despite all their best intentions.


Finally, Underlings hypothesized that we had a starving Third World Child before us and asked how we would respond to such a child. My reply:


I'd stop wasting time flapping my trap and get him some food.


Which yielded the truly Screwball response:

You're kidding. This is ALL any of you can muster? Your brilliant solution to preventing starvation is feed them? Let me guess...and your solution to preventing crime is to stop criminals? And your solution to prevent pollution is to stop polluting?

Way to go, Einstein. Why didn't I think of those brilliant solutions?

Once again you deliberately sidestep the issue and refuse to answer the very evidence that reveals God to be indifferent, evil or nonexistent. Well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised...after all, if you did actually take a serious look at the issue, you'd doubtless come to the same conclusion I have.


They must have worn out a lot of scalpels when they tried to do the circumcision



From our old Screwball friend Joe Wallack (it says, "Wallace" but it looks too much like his work) comes the news that Superman was Jewish:

Superman was created by two Jews in 1933 (no, that's not a coincidence) named Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Yes, I am talking about the comic book figure, Superman. Everyone has seen the movies or read the comic books, but few understand that the Jewish-created Superman was a Jewish fantasy that pitted Jews, or the Supermen, in an epic battle to destroy Christianity (in other words, Siegel and Shuster were just envisioning World War II where World Jewry united against the last great Christian nation). This may sound a little far-fetched to some, but that is just what these two Jews had in mind. The Jews have long operated this way, creating entertainment that purports to be wholesome or family-oriented but in the background it is filled with various pro-Jew, anti-white themes. Just look at the Walt Disney Co.

...Superman came to America from another planet "whose inhabitants had evolved, after millions of years, to physical perfection." He was born Kal-El before changing his name to Clark Kent. Now if you think that Superman's original name sounds a little Hebrew, you are right. So what we have so far is the story of a Jew who immigrates to America, changes his name so that he can act like everyone else and be undetected, and who believes that he is superior to all of the goyim he encounters. But all the while, he is on a secret mission against evil. And, oh yeah, he has to pretend to be a Christian, another Jewish tactic. Like the Zionist Jew Israel Zangwill said (see "The Mongrelizing of America" on page one of this issue), "No Jew was ever fool enough to turn Christian unless he was a clever man.
So the Jew must infiltrate his enemy in order to destroy him. In Superman's case, his arch-rival was Lex Luthor. Again we see that these two Jews really had a sense of humor. If you haven't figured it out yet, Luthor is just another spelling for Luther, as in Martin Luther. This was their way of identifying Christianity as the arch-nemesis and the object of attack of the SuperJew.

As for the Lex in Lex Luthor, again, this was a carefully thought out attack against white Christianity. Lex is simply the Latin word for law and Lex as a concept represented the white Christian Law that had been in Europe, particularly in Germany, for hundreds of years. There are dozens more such "coincidences" that could be discussed, but this is really just an object lesson in looking out for what the Jew is really saying when he says something. Of course, Superman went on to become the posterboy for War Bonds posters in World War II while Superman battled the Nazis in the comic book series and the Jews went on to make millions of dollars by having millions of white children read their Jewish comic books. We will have to talk about Batman and Robin (created by Jew Bob Kane) and Spider-Man (created by Jew Stan Lee) later.

I can hardly wait for the bits on Batman and Spiderman.


Green acres is the place to be,

Or, you’ll burn for e-ter-ni-ty


Chetrecon, on why living in a city is unbiblical:

Agrarianism is a movement that seems to me makes total biblical sence, I have lived city life before and I absolutely hate it, and I see absolutely no biblical call for it. I think that the tower of babel, egypt, canaan, rome proves at least in my mind that God does not desire city life for anyone. They just seem to be a breeding ground for degenerates. Similiar to public school vs homeschooling. Also in scripture as I think back to Gods judgments, it seems to me that most of his judgments happened within cities. Country life is not only more healthy, but it is also far more scenic and has far less traffic and nonsence to deal with. Why would I want to raise kids in a city when the country gives them far more positive hobbies to learn like hunting, fishing, camping and farming. Gen 3:23 Jehovah God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground out of which he was taken. Gen 9:20 And Noah, a man of the ground, began and planted a vineyard. Ecc 5:9 And the advantage of a land, it is among all; even a king has a field being tilled.



Silver duh award winners


Pythagoras wins the Competence in Scholarship Award for posting a forged quote from Irenaeus, and by responding to a question put to him about translation by citing an article written in 1897!


moses earns the Rambunctious Valorous Vagueness Award for a few lines:


Christianity," in its simplest terms, is the result of previous centuries of Jewish and Greek myth and conjecture about the coming of a “Messiah,” and revolves around the resurrection.

The teachings of Jesus were altered to fit the legend, but definitely took a secondary role.

The gospels were composed many years after the death of not only Jesus, but even of most of the people that knew him directly. Not only were these Gospels displaced in time, but also displaced culturally since Greek speaking Christians composed them.

- And then even further meaning was lost in translation from the Aramaic.

There are now two main, and disparate, schools of thought about the origin of Christianity. The first, and mistaken belief is that Jesus himself, as well as his teachings, was the founder.

The other is that the Christ or "Anointed One" of the Resurrection, as well as Pauline thought, is the bases of this religion. This may seem to be a small distinction upon first inspection, but in the end a very crucial one.

If it is based on the teachings, and more importantly, the example of Jesus, then his words take on enormous significance.

If, on the other hand, the "resurrection" and "Pauline thought" is taken as the bases for Christianity, then it is based on the ideas and beliefs of the people who came after him!

Remember a very important fact! Jesus never personally claimed to be conducting his Ministry to "erase man's sins,” just as he never claimed to be Divine himself. Jesus constantly referred to himself as the "son of God,” just as we all are!

The early Christian gospels are not historical biographies of Christ, and do not really give us insight into the life of Jesus. These gospels proclaim a message about Jesus, and express a significance that the early Christians found in Jesus.

They are written in a way that appeals to historical truth, but they are not history in any actual sense.

Until the recent deciphering of the Gospel of Thomas and the discovery of the "Q" sayings, this knowledge of Christ was the only bases we had to explore the historical Jesus.

As a result, it was very difficult to differentiate between the actual words of Jesus and the words attributed to him by his followers. (Christians) ............................Fortunately, this is changing.


Nathyn (at wins the Spoiled Porridge Award for pulling the old No True Scotsman fallacy over Hitler, saying that since there is no accepted definition of Christian, that if Hitler said he was a Christian, that he was. After all, "people don't lie to themselves about their beliefs".



Provoker wins the Less is More in Education Award for these comments, upon being questioned over calling himself a “lifetime Bible scholar”:


"lifetime bible scholar" simply means that I will always be a bible scholar, and never allow myself to reach a point where I think that I know so much that I can close my mind...LOL

I began personally studying the bible in 1957, I graduated from high school in 1960, and have been studying the bible, off and on, ever since.
I found that orthodox Christianity requires the acceptance of unsupportable, unscriptural, man-made doctrines, as a starting point, so I began to study the bible in the context of it's own story, and worked very hard to avoid any doctrinal preconceptions.

Basicly, my method is to interpret scripture according to the continuity of the story it tells.
I don't expect to be taken seriously, as I test my honest opinions through discussion with other bible scholars.


If by credentials, you mean; who's opinions have I been taught? the answer is that I have not been taught anyone's opinions.

However, the unofficial credentials that I have are; a reasonable command of English composition rules, a reasonable amount of common sense and logic, and a "hopefully" unbiased committment to seeking the truth of the bible.

So the less education he has, the more qualified he is to speak on the subject?


Dr. Babara Rossing, who teaches New Testament at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago (no, we’re not nominating her) wrote of book criticizing Left Behind-esque views of the End-Times. Her book is titled "The Rapture Exposed, The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation". The Security Blanket Award goes to a reader on who gave her book this review:

**** Rapture Exists. People Have to Believe in The Lord. , October 31, 2005
A Kid's Review
The Rapture exists period. This signifies that the coming of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just so close. It has been predicted by the Mayans that the time cycle will change in December of 2012...the Rapture has to exist because His Believers will be picked up. I don't think that Christ will leave His Followers on this Earth in order to face the wrath of the antichrist (who is in the flesh right now, yes, in 2005). And believe it or not the antichrist has a book out right now titled, "Memoirs of Antichrist." It is here, sold on . The signs are everywhere, but the signs point to the Sign: Jesus Christ. Immortality for ever is at hand but just believe in the Son Of God: Jesus Christ. You need the invitation (by Christ) in order to make it to the Party that( God the Father)is having in Heaven. Just pray alot for yourself, and for the poor and sooner or later He will come back. Let the secular or Religious Mayans of the past persuade you through their information that they have done-that the Signs that they have talked about point to the Sign: Jesus Christ. The Rapture is always talked about on TBN and backed up with Biblical scripture. It is best to believe in Jack Van Impe than in this person named "Barbara Rossing." Barbara Rossing should talk to Jack Van Impe.

But he gave it 5 stars even so.


BaggerVance earns the Hard Head Award for:

What does an empty tomb prove? Absolutely nothing. It could have been anything. It wasn't the empty tomb that sold them on Jesus. It was the message of redemption and rebellion against Rome and the Pharisees that sold people on Christianity.


Again, a tomb being empty means nothing. I don't recall many accounts of christians verifying this. They simply believed what they were told. The true question is if it was so easy to verify then why didn't everyone convert straight away? Maybe it was only the people who wanted to believe it or trusted the apostles that converted. It sure wasn't a slam dunk case that tomb empty business. Mass converts came around after they heard about the free ride to heaven and grace instead of works. Even today it is too good to be true. You can act just like a sinner and go to heaven cuz like...nobody's perfect.


They had that in the paganism before Muhammad. Muhammad's initial mass following was not at the point of a sword or because they could steal. They could steal before him and he only gained power through the mass conversions that he then used as an army. Your prejudice is showing though. Nice. The incentive for jews turning to christianity was grace, community, and freedom from overly strict and ridiculous hebrew law. What about all the commune churchs like in Acts where the poor came together and helped one another? That sense of community wasn't incentive even if you were in trouble with the establishment?

Let us not pretend that martyrdom is so unappealing for many any way. That is just a lie.


f the evidence is so convincing for an empty tomb why did the vast majority of his jewish brethern reject that is a foolish notion? Was it the devil? Did God blind them? Talk about claims you can't verify. Why did those that knew Jesus best reject him? Jews didn't go to him en masse. If you want to pretend that the empty tomb argument was the key argument that led to conversion and that it is indisputable go ahead but history says differently. No historians say the resurrection is fact. Most will say Jesus existed but you get none that say you can historicaly verify the empty tomb.

The sad thing is that you refuse to see that other religions use the same exact "logic" and "reasons" as you do and when you step all over there reasons you trample on your own.


Doubting John wins the Twist and Shout Award for a pair, when first he said:

And the client-patron relationship, like the honor-shame one are ancient codes and ancient ways of thinking.

And I replied:


You mean, like held by 70% of the world today, Uncle McWhitey?


His reply:


Yea, but if you want to be in the same company as 2/3rds of the world who are animists, then go ahead and claim they agree with you


Then, claiming that nomination of him for a Screwball meant he was being invited to comment on it, was chastised:


in·vi·ta·tion P Pronunciation Key (nv-tshn)
The act of inviting.
A spoken or written request for someone's presence or participation.

Now, would you please show me where they requested your presence or participation?

To which he said, only:

Oh, aren't you cute. You remind me of the Pharisees, but wait, you would be one of them.



Cognos earns the Atheist Apologists for Mr. Rogers Award for this post:

Imaginary Friends

Between the ages of two-and-a-half and six, children often create imaginary friends to play with. Although this development sometimes perplexes parents, it can be a positive sign that the child is devising creative ways to deal with being alone.
Imaginary friends help children deal with the normal anxieties of growing up. They often come into being at times of change or stress.
Imaginary friends usually have names and well-developed personalities. Often, they are somewhat mischievous or naughty, allowing the child to express negative feeling and actions without having to take full ownership of them. For instance, an imaginary friend may strongly dislike certain foods, letting the child voice opinions about dinner without taking responsibility. Asked about a mess he made, a child may well blame the imaginary friend instead of confessing.
There is no harm in playing along with your child's imagination. In fact, trying to convince your child that an imaginary friend doesn't exist may lead to unnecessary conflict. Most children will say good-bye to their imaginary friends as soon as they feel able to deal with their fears and negative feelings by themselves.

© source where applicable

It seems that believing in imaginary entities can be useful, especially "at times of change and stress."

And, perhaps, the best way of dealing with someone who has an imaginary friend is to "play along".

But what if someone writes a book and says that it was written by a friend who is real, and that everyone has to follow the instructions in that book?

"And, perhaps, the best way of dealing with someone who has an imaginary friend is to "play along"."

If what he is implying about God being an "imaginary friend" is true, then why did he go into the Apologetics forum of Tweb to post this in the first place? But Cognos also earns the Silver Platter for this set of complaints:

It's glaringly obvious that the various books of the Bible do not contain the answers to all the questions.

Nor do they have answers to all the "important" questions.

But if there any answers, where are they? Are they in the words in a physcial copy of one of the various translations of the various collections of the various writings? Or are they in a person's subjective evaluation and interpretation of those words?

The words of the Bible do not explain the world. They don't even explain why people believe what they believe.

People interpret the Bible. And they base their interpretations on many extra-Biblical sources. The Bible, on its own, is inadequate in the pursuit of truth and knowledge. And, in some ways, it interferes with that pursuit.

Oh no!  We need to actually understand context and study the Bible to learn from it.


The list of all important questions that the Bible does not answer would not fit within the limits of a TWeb post. (The list of all questions that the Bible does not answer would not fit on the TWeb site.)

Let's start with yours. Please indicate where in the Bible I can find the definitive answers to these questions:
What is the purpose of the universe?
Why does evil and suffering exist?
What is the afterlife?
What should I eat?
What should I do to be clean?
How should I treat others?

How about some important personal issues:
Should I get married? (Actually, I am married, but you get the point.)
Should I marry this woman?
Should I marry more than once?
Which university should I choose?
Which career should I choose?
Should I start my own business?
How many children should my wife and I have?
Should I move to another country?
When should I retire, and where?

Does the Bible answer the above questions?

How about some health questions:
Which medical professionals should I consult?
Should I undergo that surgical procedure?
Which exercises should I do?

Some family issues:
When should I move away from home?
Should I hit my children?
Should my mother live with me?

Some moral questions:
When, if ever, is it right for me to lie?
Should I tell you everything that happened?
If my father is a diagonosed with Alzheimer's, should I obey him?

Some political issues:
Which political party should I vote for?
Should I run for office?
How should I vote on this proposition?
Should we got to war?
How should the government balance the budget?
What should the government do about the economy, the environment, energy, education, the arts, health, human rights, international trade, foreign affairs, and law enforcement?

Some financial issues:
Where should I invest my money?
Should I become rich?
How much life insurance should I have?
Which tax breaks should I take advantage of?
Should I move my money offshore?
How should I structure my portfolio to optimize my risk/return ratio?

Some cosmic questions:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
What exactly is gravity?
Is time unidirectional?
Is there extra-terrestial life?

Some questions about the future:
When will I die?
When will the world run out of fossil fuels?
What will the temperature of earth's atmosphere be in 100 years?
Who will win the next election?
What will interest rates be in five years?
Which country will be the next superpower?

And, finally, questions about the Bible:
Who wrote each book of the Bible?
When was each book written?
Which books were inspired by God?

Please get back to me within a day with the particular passages in the Bible that answer these questions; otherwise, I'll assume that you are ignoring this post.


Good assumption. We close with three full-site awards: For Mark Smith of; for the site at (speaks for itself), and for, whose owner showed up at TWeb and made a few interesting comments….



Hey wfaber, let me set the record straight. The reason I took a break is because of the PUTRID CORRUPTION of many of the posts on this thread. No self-respecting person has any reason to try to communicate with people who smear their own poop on their posts.

Steadele is the prime example. He posted nothing but vile god-hating mockery and ad hominen time, and time, and time again. In his every post, he violated every principle of Holy Scripture, and by inevitable implication, he conclusively denied its Author. After many such posts, he finally did make an assertion that had sufficient content for me to answer. And what did he do when I answered? He ran out of here as fast as possible, all the while claiming he had "owned this thread."

Of course, steadele did own this thread, in the way that a flatulent cow owns a tea parlour. But there is one thing he would NEVER OWN, and that is his OWN WORD! He utterly disgraced himself. But worse, and almost everyone else posting here, yourself included, let his corrupt posts slide right by without comment. This is why serious minded Bible students don't like TWeb.

Or take yourself as an example. How is it possible that you could be so deceived as to think it valid to simply DISMISS anybody who disagrees with you as failing to be a "serious minded Bible student"? Look at the Poll! There are a dozen folks who voted that they have not seen an error in my work. But according to you, each and every one of them is not a "serious minded Bible student." Nice work, wfaber. Real "christian" of you.



But it gets worse. Your primary argument is to simply ATTACK GOD'S HOLY WORD as presented BY HIM in the 66 Book Protestant Bible! You have an extraordinarily LOW VIEW of God's Sovereignty. You claim to be an "inerrantist" even as you assert (by implication) that God inspired the individual documents and then just tossed them in the wind, hoping weak and fallible humans would succeed in putting them together in the form He wanted. Or didn't want. In your view, Genesis could be tossed in with the Minor Prophets, and Revelation with the Gospels and all would be just fine. God didn't actually ORDER the structure of Scripture! No sir! He's not a God of order, now is He?

That is one low view of Scripture, man!

As for your links - talk about making somebody look STUPID! And its not the Holy Spirit I am speaking of. It is you and the Twebbers who posted the posts you linked to. Most obvious is the supposed "failure" of symmetry. That is tooooo stuuupppiiiidd. How in the world could you let yourself post that?


My proclamation is that the Bible Wheel was designed by God before the foundation of the world and that it reveals the Divine Perfection of Holy Scripture.

If something is perfect, it can not be improved upon.

Therefore, all the enemies of the Bible Wheel have a very simple means to prove me wrong.

All you need to do is rearrange the Books to make a better, more meaningful pattern. If the Bible Wheel is truly random, as many have suggested, then it should be TRIVIAL to use your mighty intelligence to rearrange the Books to make something obviously more "intelligent."


I declare the Bible is God's Written Word, and its fulfillment is God's Living Word, Jesus Christ.

The Written Word is the great Type of the Living Word, Jesus Christ, its true Antitype. He fulfills it all.

The Bible Wheel is the Bible. Everything in the Bible is in the BW, and everything in the BW is in the Bible.They are simply two views of a single object. All I did was roll up the traditional list of 66 Books on a spindle wheel of 22 Spokes corresponding to the 22 Hebrew Letters that God Himself eternally established as a FOUNDATION STONE in the Alphabetic Verses, most notably Psalm 119, the incomparable Psalm of God's Word.

God used Hebrew alphabet as a template for the large-scale structure of His Word (the Bible) just as He used it as a template for the Psalm of His Word (Ps 119).

The Bible Wheel is what the Bible looks like if we simply roll it up![Ed. note: and smoke it.]

The BW is simply a 2D representation of the traditional 66 Book Christian Bible. That's it.

So yes, the Bible Wheel is the Bible, and the Bible is the Written Word of God.



Bronze duh award winners




Sparko is clutching at straws as he usually does, this time with Titus 2:13...

"Theos" here is mistranslated as "God" instead of "lord" and shows the bias of the translators... "Theos" does not always mean "god" as the "trini's" would have us believe as shown by the two gods we get in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 if both words mean "god."

Jesus is indeed "lord" of all but not God of all; there is ONLY ONE GOD...

Titus 2:13, in my opinion, should read: "while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great lord and savior, Jesus Christ,"

Paul does not belive Jesus is God... The word "theos" in Romans 9:5 is mistranslated... it should be translated "lord." it shows the bias of the translators... they want Jesus to be God therefore that is the way they translate the text... to suit their theology.



David Ben-Ariel

Biblical Christians who follow Yashua's example don't eat pork or other unclean foods or partake of unclean pagan practices that pretend to be "Christian."

Biblical Christians know that the dietary laws given at CREATION for ALL MANKIND are still in effect, and will remain in effect as long as there are mortals, until our transformation into the Divine or our return to the dust.

Acts 15:29

29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. (The dietary law against blood reveals the dietary laws remain in effect, which is why Peter hadn't eaten any unclean things years after Christ's resurrection).

Isaiah 66:15-17

15 See, the LORD is coming with fire, (time-setting, the end times, after the resurrection)
and his chariots are like a whirlwind;
he will bring down his anger with fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.

16 For with fire and with his sword
the LORD will execute judgment upon all men,
and many will be those slain by the LORD.

17 "Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things—they will meet their end together," declares the LORD. (pagan holidays with unclean foods like an Easter ham).

Matthew 5:17-19

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Yashua didn't rebel against His Father's commandments but kept them, upheld them, taught them and magnified them to make them even more binding!) 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Those unclean ministers who teach the religious lie professing Christians can eat abominable things will have "hell" to pay and their tainted traditions will become toast! Real Christians don't eat pork!



"Christmas is about giving." SAYS WHO? Who started that BIG LIE? Undoubtedly those with something to sell, the modern moneychangers! Look at the folks about you rushing like sheep to the slaughter, to the "sales" and such that they simply CANNOT AFFORD. Going into debt certainly isn't biblical, so why not break free from the trance? The "Christmas" rush is a "drug" pushed by commercial pimps prostituting a supposedly Christian holiday for their ungodly profits! They hold hands around the cash register and sing, "What a friend we have in Jesus."

The whole idea of giving gifts has gotten out of hand. First it's not Jesus' birthday. Second the wise men didn't exchange gifts amongst each other but gave their gifts fit for a King to the King of the Jews (two years old and living in a house at that time - which is why Herod slaughtered the children two years and under trying to abort the Messiah's ascension to David's Throne).

If Christmas is supposed to be about Christ (and some sincerely believe it is, still in denial that it's a pagan holiday God wants no part of), why let Santa steal the show? Why do folks pretend they care that Jesus was born when they deny His life the rest of the year? Why do folks get angry when you mention these facts and they're not even religious? The herd doesn't want their trance broken, so they'll go broke keeping alive pagan festivals and foolishness that will be the death of many.

"Harmless" Christmas celebrations, abominations to God and rejected by Christ, are setting the stage for our worst nightmare: our family and friends are going to be shipped off like cattle, since our countries are prophesied to suffer national defeat and deportation due to such idolatrous ideas and tinsel traditions! WAKE UP!

Christmas is an ABOMINATION.




Re the question, “Whose interpretation of Scripture? Scripture does not interpret itself...”

It does. People who hold to 'sola Scripture' are not incompetents; they have a record of academic distinction that overwhelms everything else religious put together.

Told,  if it did then everyone with a Bible would believe in the same things”:

They do, if they are honest. Those who are born again know how others who are born again think before they have even met them.


I think what you mean is legalism. Catholics are not justified by faith, and they have to go through the priest-centred hoops of their cult; going to mass and confession, 'Sunday' attendance (and there's no such thing as Sunday), saying rosaries, lighting candles, fasting, etc. It's no different from circumcision; 'Beware of the dogs', Paul wrote, and they're still around, ready to bite any passing foolish Galatian.





You are citing confirmed traditional Christians here and not unbiased secular scholars. Tektonics is the most dubious source.


The argument of contrasting the cultures to justify scripture and the truth of the testimony of the gospels is very artificial and does not reflect the history and nature of religious movements than or today, and the motives behind those who believe. The gospel accounts may be accurate to a T, but they also maybe fabricated based on the emotional desire of the people at the time to believe. There are too many simpliar cults and religions that begin and develop in all societies regardless of the social context of the society. All of the believers cling to their beliefs and testimony through humiliation, torture and martyrdom. There is absolutely nothing unique about an artifical construct of as honor/shame society that presupose that the people believing in extraordinary or miraculous claims, would be any more reliable than anybody else in history. Religions, Religous cults and movements have arrisen in eastern societies as well, which may be considered very honor/shame oriented, based on the testimony of some to miraculous events and claims.

Long laborous lines of reasoning and logic do not help an artificially constructed argument.

The truth of God or God lieing is not the issue here. It is the testimony of fallible humans. They need not be lieing either to believe in miraculous visions that also may be illusions. The word 'mirage' closely follows miracle in the dictionary.


Bandicoot on Jesus:

Christmas is his birthday easter is his funeral. GWB wanted something for the middle part. ( I typed that with a straight face, honest)



Everyone of you who keeps talking about your faith as fact is wrong; Faith can not stand up to fact. You said your faith is fact, you are wrong and aren't worth me arguing with you. You wish to argue your faith against mine and treat your faith as faith, that is fine.

Reading comprehension is your friend. You treat your faith as fact, you are wrong. Your faith limits your ability to form a coherent and decent argument because you, as you have shown many times, are very closed minded. And you laugh off other peoples questions without answering or twist what they say to attempt, and poorly at that, to make yourself sound smart, and then tell others they don't answer yours question when they had answered them three times prior.

Arguments are bias ... because we make them and as humans we all have bias. So using my argument to make an argument off of course is unfit.



That is how your site is bias. If you have one bias site, you should, if you have any sense, look at other bias sites. If you are making a argument of Abortion, you should go to both Pro-Choice and Anti-choice(Pro-Life, if you prefer a PC term) web sites. And get info from both.

Here is the other bias ... I took the liberty of finding for you.



It shows how insecure you are about your beliefs that you have to spend countless hours on the internet arguing about them with people you don't even know



It is amazing that with so much proof of G-d's existance on the BibleWheel website, that people dare come up with such foolish responses. Richard, you are throwing G-d's pearls to the swine through this poll. What G-d has revealed to you through the gift of the Holy Spirit can not be understood by those who do not know the Holy Spirit. They are blinded to the simplest of Truths.




Let me make my position clear from the get go.. I do not believe in any jesis christ, warewolves, hindu gods, Zeus, or any other mythical type stuff..

You know you're a Fundy Athiest when you misspell "Jesus" and use a lower case "J", yet spell "Zeus" correctly with a capital "Z".

But I will say this, the fundementalist are the closest thing to practicing what they preach with regards to religous goofs in general. However, they still don't go all the way.. I am sure they wish they could but they don't have the Gonads for it.. For example, Leviticus in the old testament says that if a man has sex with his daughter in law, he should be PUT TO DEATH, and that if a man has sex with his wife's mother, he and her should be BURNT WITH FIRE.


It also says that if a man lays with another man they shall be put to DEATH..

There's no fundementalists going that far to follow this dumb book that closely.. I'm sure some of them are psychotic enough and angry enough to secretly want to, but they fear a much realer god then their bible god - that god is THE POLICE.

I think it goes to show how silly the freakin book (the bible) is..It's so barbaric.

In anycase, the fundementalist stick to their guns the most out of any of these religious yahoos..


Hey look, there are no gods or goddesses, or at least there is no evidence for any of them. It's so rediculous people still believe that this christ character is going to come to save humanity or that the world was created my magic ant feces (yes, there is a religion that believes that)..

I mean, life is absurd.. Life is meaningless ULTIMATELY. Things are "screwed up" so to speak.. But trying to compensate by adding gods and goddesses into the mix is so childish.. There is no REASON to believe that those things exist.. No gods, no god, no goddess, no goddesses, no transexual gods, no transexual gods, no wind gods, rain gods, sun gods, olympian gods or anything else like that.. These theist just WANT to believe it because it fulfills a need.. Well here news for you.. The universe doesn't correspond with our needs. Why should it? Because we are UPSET otherwise?

I always hear someone say "This can't be the end of life.. There must be something after this.. How could there be no afterlife?"

What do you mean?? You mean "How could there be no afterlife when that means that my awareness would cease to exist forever and I don't want that"

That's what you really mean.. Death is a hard thing to accept.. TO BAD.


Ebolav posted this same message in 8 places on TWeb.



LakeGeorgeMan quotes, in ironic order:

"Crossan is a NT scholar who has spent his entire life studying these texts."

"Crossan is a scholar. So it is accepted."

"You don't "like" his conclusion because he does not agree with your confessional belief that the gospels are inerrant historical records."

"Wright is a confessed Christian minister defending his faith."


Stricly speaking, God did not exist until Jesus was conceived.

Although, I do concede that perhaps it may be said that God does not exist even now, and merely is. It hinges upon the semantics of Chalcedon, and might be beyond the precision of human language.

Put another way, while it is accurate to say that Jesus exists, it may not be precise; and while it is accurate to say that God exists, it is certainly not precise.

Given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, this is to be expected from our vantage point (ie precision being ultimately incompatible with accuracy).




If there is a god, how can you explain the recent discovery of a brother of Jesus? The Bible clearly says the 'only son of god?' The answer? The bible was not written by 'god' or jesus. It was written by jesus' best friends. If you asked your best friend to write several books about how you've done 'miracles', the book would be vagrantly biased and if not you really need better friends. And if the book is biased, how can we base our decisions in life on it? We can't. That takes care of the New Testament. As for the old testament, according to biblical scholars, the old testament was a group of very old stories carried down by word of mouth. How believable is anything carried down by word of mouth? Here's an example: anyone ever played Telephone? You know, everyone sits in a circle and someone whispers a secret in the person next to them's ear and the secret goes around the circle by whispering. If after only 20 people one sentence can go from "Billy is a fast runner" to "I want to run to Phillidelphia", how can so many people trust in, basically, an attempt to write a guide to life through a 100 year game of telephone? They can't. I'm done.


The Creep

But my point was that terrorists are people too and we shouldn't let the anti-art tendencies of a few dominate the samaritanian impulses of the many.