It's getting close to the time when we'll be able to pick Platinum winners. And some people are trying very hard for it.

From the Mailbag

Like these folks...though only the last mail we list this round has a real shot at it. Let's explain why. For example, while a pure rant with no answers like this is categorically Screwball, it's just not funny enough to be Platinum:

As I've read your site I can't help but get the feel that you are an atheist con artist. Your tone through out is completly disgusting. And some of your response are just that. responses, not technically answering the question. I hope that you have a real job, and not just making money off of the weak minded. I'm sorry if this is insulting, but your website is not helping. If the the bible is true, it does't need a defense. Hence, faith...good day

Same here:

Dear blind idiot godless one,

After all your ranting, you forgot the most important piece ever ever ever!

The Eucharistic Preyer quoting Joshua Ben Joseph "take this all of you and eat it" etc etc. was originally found in the writings of Mithras 800 B.C.

These texts take you all the way word for word through the blah blah blah "this is the cup of my blood" mumbo jumbo.

This was a direct documented data strip n' rip of the stoned age by your wannabe dumb (####) peoples. Considering you probably aren't Semitic, you are in fact a wannabe participant of the Jewish sweepstakes like all Christios...incidentally, the real Jews ain't playin' yet.

...and yes, I'm a Native American racist/religiousist.

Your dirt worshiping heathen, Mateo Tan Feo

Fans of Sam Harris (see Gold awards below) can try too, but they seem to lack the intelligence and creativity to go for Platinum:

Dear Mr. Holding, after having just completed reading Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris I was moved to go onto the Internet looking for intelligent responses to Mr. Harris's arguments. I was guided to a particular essay that you wrote and read it with great enthusiasm. What is lacking however, is any actual logical reasonable response to Mr. Harris's arguments against Christianity. Using questionable biblical scholarship and drawing upon dubious translation errors you cast aside his entire argument in a particularly ineffective and unintelligent way. Your adherence to the truth of the Bible despite the numerous contradictions that exist(and there are many scholars that I assume you have read that point out these contradictions who do consider themselves Christians) shows only that your belief is strong. I do not condemn you for that. I do however object to the fact that because you believe something is true you also believe that being a biblical scholar means that you are quoting the truth. Just as a scholar of the Koran is certain that he is quoting the truth. The deficit of this reasoning is that you are using at the very book of the easy in question to prove the truth of the book. Quoting chapter and verse does not change the reality that Christianity is based on belief. Islam is based on belief. There are no Facts that exist in your argument that don't, from the disputed document itself. Your argument was well written, and I enjoyed it.

So likewise, we have again this sort of rant, which while screwy to the extent than it is a non-answer, just doesn't stand out:

I've been particularly interested in this growing debate between the Christian apologists and the agnostic/atheist skeptics, and I've just completed both of Harris' works and your response to them (the piece entitled "Letter to a Misguided Misotheist.") I must say that the excitement I felt at the prospect of reading an astute reply to Harris' nihilism was instantly dampened by your shoddy and unfocused writing. It was disheartening to read such ad homimen fallacies piled upon one another in such a sneering, ugly tone. And even ignoring all of this, it seems like your only retort to Harris is "you don't know the Bible like I know the Bible" or "you don't understand what life was like back in the Old Testament days." You refer to dozens of secondary and critical sources, while Harris sticks with the primary source, which is all that really counts, right? Your petulant and self-congratulatory language makes it very hard for someone like me, who is really earnestly on a search for meaning and a basis for morality, to have much sympathy for your cause.

One question - don't you think it's telling that Harris can dissect the flaws of Christian faith in a few hundred words, then in response the best you can do is a meandering, overlong screed that essentially scrambles to justify the Biblical text in a modern context?

The critique of Harris and his ilk is not to be made in rambling defenses of the Christian narrative. You simply have to point out to the atheists that even if everything they think is true, that Jesus did not rise into heaven and that there's no judgement coming and there's no God, they still must make an act of faith for their lives to have meaning. It's very easy, logically, to use empiricism to wreck the supernatural suppostions of religion. But where does such activity leave you? As a temporary consciousness among an infinity of time; as a tiny body inside an infinite space; as a member of a species that will be gone before a relative blip in cosmic time has passed us by. For skeptics even to consider any kind of value worth holding, they must make an irrational leap of faith that their own lives have some sort of lasting value. This is where you get them, this is where religion starts.

Translation: "I likes bein' stupid better." Stupid also said to me, when I told him of his Award:

So are you saying that I can't just pick up a Bible, read it, and understand what Christianity's about? Are saying that I, the Screwball Laureate, need a team of interpretive experts to decipher it for me, to guide me to the hidden meaning inside, to tell me which words do mean what they say and which ones mean something else? And if the answers to these questions are "yes," then what does that say about the Bible as a sacred text, as a communication between God and mankind? That the Word of God needs to be further clarified for those it was intended to save?

"Hey, I had to learn to READ to know what was in the Bible. And I had to have a decent vocabulary, too! That sure shows it to be a deficient form of communication between God and mankind!" Stupid's final word on this was:

Your insinuation that I have just lazily glanced through the Bible is wrong. I've been studying it hard for years, and I find it counterintuitive that God, who sent his only Son to Earth to die for our salvation, would then inspire his prophets to write a sacred text about that subject that some poor ignorant sap like me might misinterpret. According to you, we need insightful and enlightened geniuses such as yourself to lead us to God's plan. How convenient for the enlightened geniuses. Job security, baby!
It appears to me that hint #1 below is really telling - "People have gotten more ignorant as time has passed regarding the meaning." Or is it that the meaning has become more and more irrelevant as the collective human understanding has advanced into modernity?
Isn't it crazy that an omniscient, omnipotent and timeless God who, according to the New Testament, loves and cares for all humans, would select one specific geographic region at one specific time to send his One Big Message? That the billions of souls that died before Christ was born are, strictly according to the Word, are damned? Same for those not fortunate enough to have been born around the eastern Mediterannean at the time - sorry all you people in modern day Japan, China, India, the Americas, etc - you're damned too. Didn't accept Christ. Didn't even have the chance to hear about Him.

"God didn't make the Bible fun to read like 'Desperate Housewives'. All His fault!"

And you definitely won't win a Platinum if you're constipated, like this guy is:

Your use of caricature on your home page is rather crass, and speaking as someone with misaligned eyes myself, I find the common trope of using the condition to denote idiocy tiresome.

There's a reason we keep using it....and again, you won't win Platium this way, either -- repeating canard I have already answered:

It's amazing to me that someone as yourself could really believe anything the bible says. Only a moron as yourself will believe that it was righteous for Elisha to have a she bear slaughter children in Gods name only for picking on his bald head. Only a moron will believe that a Donkey spoke to a Man. Only an evil man will agree that it was justice to Kill children for what the parents did, and Saul killed off a race of people. It seems to me you are still in a brain washed stage. Responding this E-mail is futile, because it is impossible to prove to anyone how a god can be All good when he orders the deaths of thousands of children. If I were you, I would find the nearest tree and hang myself and you mother for giving birth to you.

Even though there are over 150 Bible contradiction in the bible that you cannot explain, no matter how feeble of an attempt you try. But if this is what makes you all warm and fuzzy inside, by believing a in a religion made only to control weak minded retards like yourself, Then so be it.

You will only be trapped here looking for angels to guide you. Have a nice time in limbo.

No sir -- the way to become a Platinum candidate is to be way out there in space, and also be totally unaware that you are. How? Like this:

Mr Patrick.

The few lines below are not a synopsis but a scientific and theologic discovery, and probably one of the greatest in the history of mankind. There is no joke or hoax, here.

If you believe that some discoveries can shock people, this one will make the Da Vinci Code controversy look like a picnic.

For how long man is searching for his origin and the meaning of life? No one so far has given an answer that gather all the evidences, but if we are here today it is because the world has its history. Everything is observation; no microscope or dissection of holy words needed. Imagine an instant that you would have the capability to place perfectly together the Paleontologic and Biblical "pieces of the puzzle", giving a picture totally different that anything proposed to this date. What impact do you think it will have? Please, I invite you to read the text below.

"From T-Rex... to Eve". The most beautiful Quest of all time unfolds before our eyes for millions of years. From the begining to modern day, the story of our world is unveiled, the meaning of life is revealed. It cannot be found in any book, in any school, in any church. Wilderness is the key. We think that wildlife is just struggling for life and that's all but when we discover why animals are really struggling for... it blows the mind away! Through countless of generations, they are successfully working on three "tasks". Only then, we can read Holy Texts and see their hidden message. Wilderness is doing exactly what that message is about. Do wild animals read the Bible??? Despite the controversy, which is the result of inaccurate interpretations of both sides, the fossil record AND the Bible show in fact an identical story of the origin of life, a very well hidden and astonishing story that has never been told yet. When this discovery will be released, science and theology will be shaken.

Why the Bible so hard to understand? Because It has been written not to be understood! Or not too early. Same as the fossil record. The truth is hidden for a good purpose. I am giving away one of the tasks of wildlife. All animals on earth will be vegetarians, it is only a matter of time. Scientists are very well aware that many species have already switched from carnivorous to plant food eaters and many speculations have been made... except the right one. In fact it is not an entire specie that switches its diet but individuals, the other ones go to extinction. It is happening today.

Here are few statements about the accurate content of the Bible: 1) The text tells of direct creation of mature living beings out of nowhere (dust) and tells also of possibility of transformation of beings into other beings when necessary. 2) Dinosaurs have not been created at the begining. 3) Adam and Eve ARE NOT the first human beings on earth (and we are not talking about cavemen here). 4) Eve (not just the woman) has been created for a specific task. 5) Cavemen are mentioned. 6) Cain has been created for a specific mission. 7) At different parts of the Bible, the text shows that animals are as valuable to God that humans and that animals are the creatures to observe to understand the meaning of life and the final goal. 8) The text tells about resurrection AND reincarnation.

Here is an interesting observation never noticed at the creation of Eden; the text clearly describes the animals of Eden: "... God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air... ". What about the fishes? They are not mentioned. Why? Because there are no fishes in the garden of Eden! What is going on? When we know the story of the world, everything is clear like spring water.

If it was a novel it would be a fantastic one, but it is not a novel... it is the truth. Wild animals don't lie.

Thank you.

No, sir...thank YOU for Platinum quality material! Amen.

Letter to an Atheist Indignation

My recent replies to Sam Harris, as noted, pulled in a lot of wacky people. They didn't all come to me, though. I found out that someone had been posting my replies to Sam Harris on his forum at, without my clearance (not that I mind necessarily) and it's become a Screwball mine. The funniest thing os that the idiots there think it is me posting.

Response 1:

Look sir, no one in his right mind would want to debate with you and a common-sense approach as Sam Harris takes in his critique of theism is aimed at the common, believing theist not at some kind of scholastic, catholic apologist gone mad, i.e., you. It is quite obvious from your long-winded put down of what you call Harris's unsophistication and his poor reasoning, that you will go to any length to defend your religion. You are waaayyyyy beyond the capacity to appreciate any kind of common sense.

The Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith, were not meant for the ten in a billion spectacular text-spinners such as yourself. No, I think Sam's audience and the target for his well reasoned attacks are the other 999,999,990 in a billion theists who inhabit this planet. Theists who realize that the Inquisition was evidence that what is acceptable and sanctioned by religion can sometimes be horrific and inhuman - Sam is appealing to that kind of common sense.

I haven't read part two of your reply but I can almost guess what you have to say about slavery . . . more Orwellian double-speak. It's actually a good life, the life of a slave (and you should know!).

Oh, Sam wrote for stupid people, I see.

JP, I've been familiar with your web site for quite some time. You are, or try to be, to Christian apology what AIG and CRI are to creationism. Like them, you use doublespeak, quotes out-of-context, half-truths and just plain lies to comfort your flock and keep them in the corral.

No support among biblical scholars for a non-existent Christ? Malarkey! Would you please cite a competent archaeologist who has knowledge of a settlement at Nazareth that was existent in the early first century? Oh, and while you're at it, could you produce a single Christian writer prior to Eusebius who quotes the Testimonium Flavianum? That's right, none of them do. The passage is obviously forged (probably by Eusebius), and was known to be such as early as the 18th century. It has only been in the last hundred years that desperate apologists, such as yourself, have reopened the "debate" and tried to redefine the passage as authentic.

The main problem you have, other then credibility, is that you don't speak for all of the 34,000 different Christian sects. You would like us to forget about the fundies who take every single word of the bible as absolute literal fact, wouldn't you? And yet you criticize those who lump all of you together in one pot don't you?

Well, you are in one pot, whether you like it or not, and the inquisition was just as much an expression of Christianity as the folks who protest at military funerals.

By the way, why is Wikepedia about to delete your bio page?

Oh wow. Harris attracts idiots who think that Nazareth didn't exist and think Josephan scholars have some sort of plot for showing that the TF is valid. Including Jewish scholars like Feldman. (I actually like that Wikipedia is deleting its entry about me, by the way. I asked them to, if they couldn't keep idiots like this one from defacing it with nonsense claims.)

JP, evening, I have but one question. You criticise Sam for his disbelief based on a poor "understanding" of the Bible. Do you, as well, criticise those who believe based on an even more superficial treatment of the same book? Do Christians who do not "understand" the book as you do have any rational basis of belief?

Yes I do. No they don't. And I have said so many times. Next.

So on the one hand we have the view of hell held by those who claim to have spoken with god in ancient times and the view of hell held by educated christians in nowadays. Well, stupee, if the ancient people were wrong then the whole christianity is wrong, that means yours too. Or are you a new breed of priests that hijack old concept to gain a little power? You know, just like ancient christians hijacked the concept of "Word" from the greeks in order to "sell" their god, you are hijacking Jesus in oder to "sell" a new hell. You should be ashamed of yourself now, not in the after life.

Hmm, someone seems to have never heard of ANE hypostases.

Welcome, *****. TheChamp sometimes gets weary spewing his ridiculous lies all over the place. He needs your help trying to keep us all as stupid as you are. Please expand a bit more on the circumstances under which it's ok to specifically target and murder little children. And then tell us all about the evils of moral relativism.

Yep, Harris sure attracts the intellects over there. And on TWeb as well, where "Gaytheist" wrote:

Speaking from a position of absolute bias, as a committed atheist who has to hold my intellectual nose to get through Christian apologetics, differences of position aside, Sam Harris is a brilliant writer, and JPHolding is an elephant footed hack. Harris is so terse, acerbic, and pointed, and Holding so obviously overwrought, vicious and brick-handed. Just on style points, Harris is the bomb. Which might explain why Harris is a best-selling author while holding is...not.

I mean, to start out telling Harris why you don't like him before you even opened the book, because he spoke in a movie espousing an unorthodox position--it's so obviously shooting yourself in the foot. There are such strong arguments in favor of religion and Christianity, why start by exposing your own bias, as though the whole point was you, and as though Sam Harris gave one darn whether JPHolding likes him or not. It's like tying your feet together before the race starts. So much more effective to appear calm, well reasoned and kind-intentioned, and then blow the opposition away with the brilliance of your concise argumentation.

Here's the opening of the Harris book: "Thousands of people have written to tell me that I am wrong not to believe in God. The most hostile of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally imagine that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible. How do I know this? The most disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse."

Compare Holding: "Greetings to you. I am writing to you because I am in possession of your latest work, Letter to a Christan Nation, and I have been asked to deliver a detailed response to it, which I intend to do over the next few days. Before I begin writing you letters in earnest, however, I thought I ought to let you know when the first time was I ever heard of you: I saw your appearance in Brian Flemming's film, The God Who Wasn't There.

"Now if you know this, you will understand why, quite frankly, I consider you a non-starter as an ideological opponent, rather than any sort of informed, worthwhile threat. For you see, it is my policy as a defender of the Christian faith to ignore those who show little or no interest in presenting a fair, accurate, and above all informed critique of Christianity."

It's so stilted, so self-centered, so deadly boring. Harris is vivid, understated and ironic.

So on style points, I give it all to Harris. That would be IMHO, FWIW. I realize neither of them is waiting with bated breath for my personal evaluation of their work.

Yup. Harris attracts those who value style over substance...and we award his fan base the collective Gold.

The Stench that Sold Xmas

A reader's wide got this Goldie from a free Christian magazine she receives called The Good News. The article is titled "The Top 10 Reasons Why I Don't Celebrate Christmas."

1. Christmas is driven by commercialism.

2. Christmas is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

3. Jesus wasn't born on or near Dec. 25. (This point was followed by an explanation that hilariously started with "Surprising but true!")

4. The Christmas holiday is largely a recycled pagan celebration.

5. God condemns using pagan customs to worship Him.

6. Christmas is worshipping God in vain.

7. You can't put Christ back into something He was never in.

8. The Bible nowhere tells us to observe a holiday celebrating Jesus Christ's birth-but it clearly does tell us to commemorate His death

9. Christmas obscures God's plan for mankind.

10. I'd rather celebrate the Holy Days Jesus Christ and the apostles observed.

The Delusional Quartet

The next four entries are together because they reflect a common theme: Atheism makes you insane, and makes you think others are insane.

First, cmui said:

Wake up Mountain man. Truth is just that truth. When the sun rises in the east that's a FACT that everyone agrees is a truth. That you are going to die one day is a truth. Truth don't go UP and then DOWN as public opnion. Only beliefs do. The very fact that less people believe in a god is a proof that it is not a truth.

Then, aegis said:

A Theology Ph.D is like having a Doctorate of Teletubby Anatomy, a BS in Warp-Nacelle engineering or an Advanced degree in Republican ethics.

Then, "rational responder" Sapient said:

Ok, well neither Yellow or myself would likely have someone committed for belief in God, in large part because most mental health clinics would likely not admit the patient. Even if they would, we never proposed committing everyone. We were specifically referring to people we were very close with. If I could have my mother admitted for her theism, I would.

I'd never advocate brainwashing anyone. If I could get a mental health clinic (I couldn't) to admit someone for fervent belief with no evidence specifically Christianity, and I could get my mother to go(I couldn't), I'd take her, pay for it, support her, be there for her, whatever. It's moot however, as like I said, she aint going, and I don't know of mental hospitals that yet accept people for theistic belief with no evidence. However if you replace every instance of the word Jesus with the word troll, I could get a mental health clinic to take her with no problem.

And finally, Earl Doherty ( wins Gold for finally becoming too stupid for me to address. His latest effort has him barking at the heels of real scholars like Michael Grant for not taking the nutsy Jesus myth idea seriously.

Another One Rides the Bus

The nomination is for a nameless (to us Muslim bus driver (not for either of those reasons) in a reader's city for the following exchange. He had apparently started on a fellow Christian friend of our reader's on an earlier bus trip, and the day that our reader was there they were continuing the conversation. But he quickly got onto things that the friend was less than well-educated on, so he beckoned the reader to join into the conversation. The main point being made was: Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus, but lived many years later and didn't know Jesus' teachings first-hand. I'll let our reader continue:

I pointed out that at a point only a few months, or no more than a year or two, after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, Paul (Saul) as a "young man," perhaps no more than in his 20s, was present at the stoning of Stephen; therefore, although he never met Jesus in the flesh, he was contemporary with Jesus and did know first-hand people who knew Jesus first-hand. The Muslim disagreed with me, and here's his reasoning: Paul's earliest writings were written more than 50 years after Jesus' death, that being the meaning of A.D. -- although he did know that it was "anno Domini" (or something pronounceably close to that!), he insisted that the years A.D. were numbered starting after Jesus' death. Nothing I could say would shake him on this. When I stated that "anno Domini" years started with Jesus' birth (approximately -- I didn't even want to try to bring Dionysius Exiguus' mathematical foibles into the conversation), he not only insisted that I was wrong, but he guaranteed me that I was the only person on the bus that thought that (without actually polling them on the question, of course)! I pointed out that he could look it up in any reasonably well-known encyclopedia under "calendar", but he was adamant that I was a fool. I asked him then, if B.C. means "before Christ" (and he agreed that it did) and A.D. means "after death", then how were those 30-odd years in between labelled? He had no answer of course, but that bit of sophistry wasn't about to derail his total confidence in his opinion. Luckily, my bus stop came about that point, and I was able to escape.
The Devil Loves Scholarship

Reader nominates "Nang" for his response to our reader's recommend of Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Following a positive reply from another member, our reader suggested a book study group, and Nang said:

Why not? Get peoples' minds off the Holy Book.

Yep. Background study into the setting of the Bible is one of the Devil's tactics.

Jesus Also Offers a Free T Shirt (John 3:76)

Add Homonym wins Gold for the following exercise in Idiotic Consumerism:

I can't help feeling that what we are being asked to believe about Jesus, via Paul, is a crucifix brand name association. Paul knew almost nothing about Jesus, or so it appears, so it's Paul who reduces Jesus to a name, a crucifix, and some assertions that don't mesh really well with the almost human Jesus in the synoptic gospel.

John 3:[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have a problem with this statement: when once I subtract the brand name association components, I don't know what is really being said.

If Jesus is God, then what is really being said, is that God has done something around 30AD, which now saves us, whereas before, during our entire evolution, we weren't saved. We should truly thank God that he finally got around to it. But why should our being saved depend upon us knowing that he did this? (If not for the reason of selling the Bible under the crucifix logo.)

When the Jesus in the synoptic says "follow me", I assume that he means do as I do, rather than just believe in my brand name association.

Assume we now belong to a distant culture where the brand name has been forgotten, and all that people know is that God forgives those who ask, and then repent and follow his laws. What is the semantic difference between that and Christianity? I know that "God" is spelled differently to "Jesus", and Jesus is spelled differently to yahushua.

Paul's adoption of "love thy neighbour" to replace The Law, seems the only ambiguous problem. Is this now not Judaism because of this, or because Jesus, the prophet tacitly continued the Pharisee belief of an afterlife, where before there was none.

As far as I can see, the brand name association is to confuse gentiles enough so that they don't ask "How is this different from Judaism?", and then the next question, "When did God formally tell us about an afterlife? Who was the amazing prophet who changed all that?"

He gets bonus Gold for this remark made elsewhere:

The Bible is supposedly self interpreting. (No matter what the cultural context.)

Reality is NOT published. Reality is NOT self interpreting.

If you draw an analogy between internal bickering in religion and science, it means that you are saying that religion is STILL IN THE MAKING BY MAN, and hence proven our case.

On second thoughts, I happily accept your assertion that bickering in science and Bible writing are similar, but that is only because I know that men make the Bible up as they go along, honing it to what people will fall for.. without any evidence.

You Win!

Clifford the Red Dog is Satan's Other Best Move

And now a few words from the Department of Rectal Broomstick Toters on the subject of the Chronicles of Narnia....

Bro Randy: We have done some more in-depth research on Chronicles of Narnia, and have some comments:

After his resurrection, Aslan said, "If the Witch knew the true meaning of sacrifice, she might have interpreted the Deep Magic differently. That when a willing victim who has committed no treachery is killed in a traitor's stead, the Stone Table will crack and even Death itself will turn backwards."

1. It appears that the 'deep magic' is the code or law of Narnia. If we were to assume the parallel between Christianity and the world of Narnia existed, we would have to assume that the 'Deep Magic' is a type of the Word of God. In fact, Aslan said, "Do not cite the Deep Magic to me Witch. I was there when it was written." So, we have the first blasphemy: If the author is attempting to parallel Chronicles of Narnia then the 'Deep Magic' is a parallel to the Word of God. We cannot compare any magic to the Holy Word of God! To do so would make God Himself a liar as God pronounced witchcraft (the practice of using magic) to be a sin!

2. Aslan's sacrifice was to save the life of Edmund alone, not for the sins of the entire race. Aslan laid his life down as a substitute for one's transgression. When he did this, it was the result of a bargain with the White Witch - it was not a result of the penalty required for sin by a holy and just God. The stain of death is a requirement on mankind as a result of the curse of sin. This requirement is upon all men, even to this day. Aslan's claim was that a fit sacrifice would in turn reverse the curse of death upon all men.

3. While the sacrifice of Christ is available to all men, Aslan's sacrifice did nothing for those who were followers of the witch. Christ's sacrifice causes men to be drawn to him from serving the enemy. There were no convert's as a result of Aslan's sacrifice.

While it is quite clear that the witch used witchcraft, it is argued that she is evil and using the tools of evil is only expected of her. What of the other witchcraft in the movie?

1. The whole plot of the movie is based on the magical wardrobe. Were it not for the wardrobe, the two son's of Adam and the two daughter's of Eve would never have made it to Narnia.

2. After they began their journey to find Aslan, Peter, Susan and Lucy were given tools and weapons (we'll get to who gave the gifts in a moment). Two of the weapons were a bow and arrows and a dagger. Both were described as weapons that 'could not easily miss'.

3. Lucy was given a magic potion that would 'heal any wound'. Later, in the presence of Aslan, she used this to heal her brother's wound. Why was this needed? Could not Aslan himself heal Edmund's wound?

Where did Peter, Susan and Lucy get their magical weapons and potions? Along their journey to meet Aslan, they met the 'Prince of Christmas'. This 'Prince of Christmas' was a jolly, fat man with a bag of gifts riding in a sleigh.

When the final battle took place, who were the combatants? Of course, there was Peter and his siblings, but there were others as well.

1. Satyrs - the half-man, half-goat animal of Greek mythology.

2. Centaurs - the animal from Greek mythology with the torso of a man and the body and legs of a horse.

3. Werewolves - A werewolf in folklore and mythology is a person who shapeshifts into a wolf, either purposely, by using magic, or after being placed under a curse.

4. Giants

5. The Greek god of drunkenness, Bacchus, is represented.

Throughout the tale, there are Influences from the Wiccan religion:

1. The river God

2. Trees with souls and humanity

3. Animals having a role which is equal to or higher than humans (Aslan, the centaurs, etc.)

The climax of the tale was the great battle between good and evil. I can see how some would parallel this to the battle of Armageddon. However, in the battle of Armageddon, the battle is fought by Christ, not by the saints with Him. Moreover, it is not a fight at all - Christ speaks and the enemies fall dead. Aslan had to physically attack the witch.

Everything listed above is reason enough to avoid the movie / books. But if you assume there to be a parallel between this fiction and the Word of God, and if you assume Aslan is Christ, then there are some key elements that are wholly blasphemous.

In the parallel, it is assumed that the battle is between good and evil. Where Aslan is the leader of the good and the witch is the leader of the evil. If the parallel exists between the fiction and the Word of God, then you would have to assume that the witch represents Satan. The witch killed Aslan, and some power higher than Aslan allowed him to come back to life. There are several problems with this:

1. John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. Jesus willingly gave his life for the sins of all mankind. Jesus' life was not taken from Him by His nemesis - Satan. Satan does not have the power to take the life of any believer, let alone the Lord Jesus! John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. (18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

2. Aslan's life was restored by some other power or grace alluded to by the 'Deep Magic'. Jesus overcame the grave of His own accord and power. (Jn 10:17-18)

3. Finally, Aslan crowned the four children and announces, "To the glistening eastern sea, I give you Queen Lucy the Valiant. To the great western woods, King Edmund the Just. To the radiant southern sun, Queen Susan the Gentle. And to the clear northern skies, King Peter the Magnificent." Later, Aslan proclaims, "All hail the kings and queens of Narnia." Not only is Jesus the King of Kings, but He never lays His kingly mantle upon someone else!

In conclusion, I will just say Chronicles of Narnia not only should not be in the Christian's home, I believe it is completely blasphemous.

Having read this article, you should now be able to clearly see how Chronicles of Narnia is wicked. Now, it is up to you. It is not a matter of a personal standard, or even a family standard. It is a question of whether you will endorse a paganistic, blasphemous movie or stand with Christ. I do not believe there is a middle ground here. I believe the choice is one or the other.

I am not the Holy Ghost, I am only one preacher. But, from my point of view, the claim that this movie is a parallel to Christianity is blasphemous. If you are not making that claim, then you must admit that the movie / books are full of mythology and witchcraft - neither of which should be a part of a Christian's life.

As for our research - none of the research I have done on this matter involves other Baptists or their opinions. Yes, Mrs. Kellie did quote some of Bro. Cloud's articles, but my research was from purely secular sources. As of this moment, I have invested about six hours in this filth. Did I misquote something? Oh, and, what if I did use some other Baptist's information? Is there not wisdom in a multitude of counsel? Should I seek my wisdom, my counsel from Mormons? Catholics? Atheists?

One last thing - While Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, there is another lion in the Word of God: " Ezek 22:25 There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof. " 1 Pet 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

missions2005: Here are a few reason why I won't be watching and won't endorse his books or movies.

1. C.S Lewis is a heretic. I mean come on guys, the guy believes in life on other planets, he believes we're the highest of animals. All in all, this guy is heretical nut.

2. Some things that I've heard about the book disturb me. I'm not going to dwell on C.S Lewis' quotes in this post, but am going to focus on the books. Here's a quote from one of the books, small but very dangerous:

"The future of Narnia rests on your courage." (Talking to the children who play roles in the novel)

Now, the future does not rest with us. In fact, God could do anything he wanted without a single soul on this earth. If Asylan is God, then he wouldn't be saying this. God's intentions does not rest on our courage. Plain and simple.

3. Imagination is evil and wicked. You call it an imagination, God calls it evil. (Genesis 8:21) It doesn't matter if you think that a little imagination is okay, it's wicked.

4. Remember, the Devil used a bit of truth, and also enticing lies, to decieve Eve and detroy the whole human race with sin. This is EXACTLY what the devil has done here. He's gave us a bit of truth with a bunch of lies, and the church is swallowing the fruit whole.

5. Using animals and man to represent God is totally unbiblical. Consider these verses: "For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts [or 'vain in their imaginations'], and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals...." Romans 1:20-23

6. It's a fable and the Bible doesn't just ask us not to give room for it, it demands us to deny room! 1 Timothy 1:3b-4 "...that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine. Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do."

7. It's witchcraft. God doesn't allow ANY witchcraft. I found this interesting thought: "The crowd and dance round Aslan (for it had become a dance once more) grew so thick and rapid that Lucy was confused. She never saw where certain other people came from who were soon capering among the trees. One was a youth, dressed only in a fawn skin, with vine leaves wreathed in his curly hair. His face would have been almost too pretty for a boy's, if it had not looked so extremely wild. You felt, as Edmund said when he saw him a few days later, 'There's a chap who might do anything, absolutely anything.' He seemed to have a great many names - Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram were three of them. There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he. There was even, unexpectedly, someone on a donkey. And everybody was laughing: and everyone was shouting out, 'EUAN, EUAN, EU-oi-oi-oi.'"

Those strange words EUAN, EUAN, EU-oi-oi-oi are an ancient witches' chant used to invoke the power and presence of the god of drunkenness and addiction, who is named Bacchus. But wait, as the story goes on, it gets worse as the witchcraft increases and becomes more obvious. Consider the following: "'What is it Aslan?' said Lucy, her eyes dancing and her feet wanting to dance. 'Come children', said he. 'Ride on my back today.' 'Oh lovely!' cried Lucy, and both girls climbed on to the warm golden back as they had done no one knew how many years before. Then the whole party moved off - Aslan leading. Bacchus and his Maenads leaping, rushing and turning somersaults, the beasts brushing round them, and Silenus and his donkey bringing up the rear… Then three or four Red Dwarfs came forward with their tinder boxes and set light to the pile, which first crackled, and then blazed, and finally roared as a woodland bonfire on midsummer night ought to do. And every-one sat down in a wide circle around it. Then Bacchus and Silenus and the Maenads began a dance, far wilder than the dance of the trees, not merely a dance for fun and beauty (though it was that too), but a magic dance of plenty, and where their hands touched, and where their feet fell, the feast came into existence. Sides of roasted meat that filled the grove with delicious smell, and wheaten cakes and oaten cakes…"

The above is clearly a description of a witches' sabat of Midsummer or the Summer Solstice, and it is described as such in perfect detail. Certainly by now enough is known to denounce this work as satanic and antichrist.

Now, after showing you guys ALL this. I ask you, what is the difference in this and Harry Potter? If you're going to read this, don't bother stopping here. CoN is not Christian. CoN doesn't represent witchcraft as being good. CoN is a heretical book with a heretic as the author. And finally, CoN is against the very word of God. Do with this post what you may, but don't you ever think for one minute that God is within a million miles of blasphemous and heretical mess.

All I can say, I can hardly wait for someone out there to write me claiming that Sheila Rangslinger is the scarlet prostitute of Relevation. Maybe they can ask this guy for help, even though he's an atheist. His name is "boo_radley," and he said:

IRFH: what an intriguing site... You have turned into a Jew and say "G-d" for the sole reason of not saying "God". And then there's the FURRY VIOLENCE JESUS BUNNY.

The last line being a link to the page where I have this toon:

Obviously another nutcase who thinks Wile E. Coyote promotes blowing yourself up with TNT.

The Turkey Lands Early

Minnesota falls to depths of dumbness otherwise unattested:

Well, glad to see you finally agree, which answers the OP: "Anyone Care To Claim Thanksgiving Is A Christian Holiday?" Unless a group has exclusive claims on a "property" it cannot claim that "property" in its name. Simple as that. Whatever else you've written--I glanced very quickly over the rest--is just so much tap dancing. As long as you've admitted "Thanksgiving was not exclusive to Christianity" you've admitted that Thanksgiving is not a Christian holiday. Thank you for your answer, as long in coming as it was.
The Alien Told Me, So There!

Moose7237 wins for his posts which lay out critical sourcework as it needs to be done:

You don't need a reliable source if a blog does the job. This guy, who is a debater or a scholar, is quite credible enough to prove the existence of God.
Where would I get documented proof that constantine had anything to do with the bible. That's like me saying I need documented proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, wrote the gospels themselves and not anyone else. Or I need documented proof that the author of Hebrews was really inspired by God since no one knows who he is. There are sites that talk about Constantine's role in the compilation of the bible. Here's a decent site to look at:
Loftus Cleans Up!

John Loftus has collected so many Screwball Awards for himself and his crew that he'll need to knock down his old house and build a new one with more shelves.

Loftus himself wins again, of course, for a lot of stuff, such as for telling us how "scholarship" led him to reject Christianity -- in this case, how he consulted all of one work (Ray Brown's) to arrive at his rejection on a subject, then was dumb enough to come to TWeb and start a thread on it knowing I'd kick his patoot. Supplemental award also for his treatment of slavery and the Bible in which he totally rebuts Glenn Miller's detailed treatment with a soundbite from Bible scholar Sam Harris.

Loftus also has several new useful idiots on his crew, on of whom, S Burgener, won one with their first post:

How can one so entrenched in Christian belief for so long turn so rapidly from Christian theist to agnostic to atheist over a period of a year and half? One might as well ask the opposite question,"How can someone who has studied the Bible, theology, and philosophy take so long to disbelieve?"

First,one must only seriously consider arguments which arguments which support the case for Christianity. Thus essential reading is C.S Lewis, Geisler, Moreland and decidedly conservative scholarship.

Second, one must treat those who argue against Christianity and strongly oppose Christianity as straw men. One must read their books as if they are already guilty of error. The job of a Christian theological/philosophical critique, in my mind, was to poke holes, take potshots and think that the whole secular ediface had been discredited, much as Phillip Johnson does in his book Darwin on Trial. On the whole, the validity of the secular arguments must not be analyzed on its own terms as a viable option.

Once I deviated from this formula, I found that Christianity is a historical, theological and philosophical "house of cards" whose arguments for validity can be defeated by even the most sophmoric of ex-apologists.

What were the arguments which convinced me of the falsity of Christianity? There are too many to list in any reasonable amount of space at this time. However, the primary reasons were first historical, then theological and then philosophical/scientific.

As mentioned at the end of part 1, it was a systematic study of the Bible with frequent cross-referencing and comparative study of passages which lead me to the conclusion that the Bible is an inspired book of divine origin. Rather it is a book easily proven to be filled with errors and of obvious human origin. The Bible in I Tim 3:16 claimsthat all scripture is to be taken as of divine origin and divine inspiration. In order to consistently argue this point, one must perform numerous theological gyrations and offer ad hoc explanations.

The watershed moment for me was a comparative analysis of 2 Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21, which both record the event of David taking a census and thus bringing a devasting pestilence on the people of Israel. The book of Samuel was written during the Babylonian captivity. The books of Chronicles were written later during the Persian period prior to the rebuilding of the Temple. God's inspiration is clained by I Timothy 3:16 to be behind both accounts. However, there is a major change between the two accounts. In the Samuel account, it is God who incites David to do evil by calling for a census as an excuse to punish him. David later realizes that he has sinned in performing the census. But it was God who incited David to commit this sin in the first place. However, one must remember that Israel at the time of writing this document had no concept of a devil. Good and evil were seen at that time as proceeding from God. Thus one is struck by the account in I Chronicles which attribution the evil incitation of a census to Satan. Why the change? Here one must remember that at this point that Israelite theology had been exposed and influenced by the Persian religion, Zoroasterianism and had incorporated the idea of a satan who opposed the goodness of God. The authors of the Chroncles wanted to clear the God of the barbarous charge that he was directly responsible for David sinning and then punishing him for a sin which he caused him to commit. Thus they interjected the Persian idea of divine adversary which was probably known to their reader to avoid the contradiction presented in II Samuel. This change is perfectly understandable for the perspective of historical research but presents a nearly insurmountable peak to be climbed by those who want to uphold the verbal inspiration of both of these passages. Can any amount of theological gyrations cogently overcome this problem and maintain divine inspiration with a straight face?

Oh wow. Zoroastrian influence (never mind the late date of Zoroastrian documents), ignorance of the honor-shame dialectic; ignorance of the use of the word for "adversary" as a general term....and this was his "watershed" moment! DJ, you got yet another winner on your hands! Congratulations!

LDSTrue picks up the Sports in Prophecy Award for the following:

Talk about Isaiah and Micah seeing our day; what happened in 2002 in the top of the mountains that caused all nations to flow into it?

Allow me to provide a hint; does the Winter Olympics ring any bells or come to mind? How many nations do you imagine flowed into Salt Lake City, Utah for the Winter Olympics? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Nations participating 77 Athletes participating 2,399 (1,513 men, 886 women). Relatives of those participating and the all the fans numbered in the ten's of thousands from all over the world.

Source: The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce: "Some four billion television viewers watched the Games and 1.6 million tickets were sold. There were 70,000 visitors to the Olympic corridor a day, and the 15,000-seat grandstands at the venues routinely filled to capacity. The Games were the best attended, most watched, and most secure in history".

Yep, Isaiah surly saw our day when "all nations shall flow unto it" in Salt Lake City, Utah, the world wide headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Several thousand out of state and out of country visitors visited the Lord's house on Temple Square during the Winter Olympics.

Yep, Isaiah was really interested in the Olympics. Didn't you hear about the Dead Sea Scrolls version where Isaiah said: Verily I say unto you that the Jamaican Bobsled team will bring forth a mighty victory unto the Lord, and yea, the sky will fall like ashes and lo, there will be played the Jamaican National Anthem on the harp and the timbrel and the lute, and then will be the Lord's return, swift like the bobsled they rode in on.

Tiggy (and others) win the Whack-A-Missionary Award for such comments as:

Christian missionaries prefer more sugary descriptions like 'convert and save the heathens' rather that the more accurate 'eradicate the native religions and the accompanying culture, and force Christianity down their throats', although the net result is the same.

Um-hm. All that work they do to learn your language and come up with an alphabet, it's all so that they can destroy your culture and force you to assimilate!

Revenant wins the Beer and Peanuts Award for this response to Impossible Faith:

This argument is a nonsense. It's essentially arguing along the lines of "It's so improbable it has to be true". Er, no, it doesn't. It's so improbable it remains, er, highly improbable, and you've got to be pretty fanatical not to stop and think "Er, hang on....."

[Holding] asserts that people could go check the facts. What people, and what facts? Sure, the litterati might have been in a position to do so, but early Christianity overwhelmingly consisted of ignorant peasants and slaves - a point Celsus raised in True Doctrine, and this state persisted until the third century, by which time it is rather unlikely that the facts could be checked at all: by the third century, many local records, if there were any, were most likely destroyed in the Jewish War, and anyone living at the time would most certainly be dead. And "True Believers"™ would have had no incentive to check the facts for themselves (it would demonstrate a lack of faith, after all! and there's always the risk of finding something one doesn't want to find), and would not, in the main, have listened to some "arrogant know-it-all" tell them there's no factual basis for their faith. Indeed, Paul explicitly warns against worldly knowledge and warns that people will scoff at them and consider their "faith" foolishness (which didn't require a crystal ball, it has to be said.) Not much has changed in two millennia, it would seem.

[Holding] is, essentially, operating on pure assertion. Example: "The empty tomb would be checked." What "empty tomb"? We don't even know if there was a tomb, empty or otherwise! For all we know, Jesus could have ended up in a mass grave along with the other criminals, and the whole empty tomb story was either a fantasy constructed by grief-stricken followers, or an urban legend that developed at a later date. Or the critics of Mark were right all along, and someone really did steal the body, and didn't tell anyone else, and then of course when the tomb was later found empty, most of the followers bought the idea that something mystical must have happened. (Which makes Matthew's rationalisation either an urban myth or an outright fabrication.) People do all sorts of crazy things in the circumstances of grief. We imagine people simply can't be dead, and sometimes we'll even see and hear them in our less lucid moments.

And it all, essentially, goes back to the hidden premise that followers wouldn't lie. The problem is, this simply isn't true. Believers will lie and even deceive themselves for something they strongly believe. True Belief™ isn't concerned with such petty and trivial things as factual data, any available factual data would most likely have been beyond the reach of the ignorant poor and slaves who most eagerly assimilated the Christian doctrine, and the doctrine itself peaches mistrust of those in authority who might contradict any of their own "facts" - indeed, the rationalization goes, those evil worldly authorities are simply set against the True Faith™, so it must be they who are lying or deceiving. Christianity, like any religion, didn't need facts. All it needed to do was stick around long enough that the true facts of the matter were no longer available.

Of course, I don't expect a fully paid-up member of the cult of [Holding] to accept this, but hey.

Drachronicler earns the Dragon His Butt In Award for promoting his book, so:

You might like to read my upcoming book Sher, for it is all about the dragons of the Bible. In the original Bible, untainted by the later "mythology' added to it by the Catholic Church, winged reptilian dragons are the highest heavenly creatures. The word seraphim means "fiery flying serpents" in Hebrew, and this is why ancient Christian Art portrays dragons surrounding the throne of God. Even the ancient Egyptians believed in a Fiery dragon with the exact same name (Seraph). And when the ancient Hebrew scriptures were translated to Greek by both Jewish Rabbis and early Christian leaders, the creature called the Seraphim was translated to the Greek word Drakon which is where Dragon comes from. Ancient Christian scriptures, such as the Apocolypse of Baruch, describe the dragons who reside in heaven whose job it is to consume the souls of the wicked, and this is probably what Jesus was alluding to with the "worm" that would torment the wicked. The only creatures who sing praises to God are the Seraphim in Isaiah, and the dragons in Psalms, because they are one in the same. Every authentic, ancient depiction of the creature commanded to swallow Jonah is clearly a dragon, not a fish or whale, and Jesus even calls it a dragon, using the word Ketos instead of a great fish.. St. Augustine said that when people saw the magnificence of dragons (and everyone claimed to see them back then), to consider the greatness of the God that created them, and said nothing to suggest they were "evil". St. Thomas Aquinas stated Satan was once "the most excellent dragon" of ALL the heavenly dragons, implying they are a common heavenly creature, and was clearly referring to the Seraphim, who are never called angels in the bible.
But during the middle ages when so much of the Bible was reinterpreted, the role of the Biblcial dragons changed, and modern Christian aplogoists have went so far as to invent entirely false definitions for the word Seraphim, that contradicts both ancient and modern Hebrew. The Isralis Army calls their attack helicopters the Seraph, and paint a serpentine dragon on them because that is what the Biblical creature really is in the Hebrew language...... NOT a swan winged "cartoon" angel. BTW, no angel in the Bible has wings...... only the Heavenly dragon servants.
Satan is a dragon for two reasons: One, the book Revelation draws heavily from from Zoroastrian apoclyptic literature, and here, an evil dragon called Ahriman is bound and cast into an Abyss by an angel.
TWO, Jesus knew Satan was a Seraph-dragon, the highest of heavenly creatures and probably told his Disciples this when he warned that Satan sought to devour them if they proved to be unrighteous. (Since man-eating "angels" is a rather strange concept). He does not become a "fallen angel" until the lucifer myth was invented hundreds of years later. This is why no Lucifer is mentioned in the NT - the OT verses that supposedly refer to a fallen angel called Lucifer, actually refer to a the King of Babylon and Prince of Tyre, two secular enemies of the ancient state of Israel.
The only OT references to Satan state he is an obedient servant of God, and even called a Son of God. There is nothing about fallen angels or rebellion in any Jewish theology until they returned from the Babylonian captivity filled with pagan Zoroastrian mythology. This is an invented heresay first seen in the book of Enoch, which would be imitated by the Christians.
But if terrrorizing potential pagan converts with stories of an evil, but clearly plagiarized, Persian-turned-Jewish Dragon that can somehow defy the Creator of the Universe will get people to join the new Christian religion, then maybe it was a good thing to perpetuate the Zoroastrian myth, even if it meant giving "dragons a bad name", when in truth, they are the highest of heavenly servants, and perhaps even the greatest, universal theological evidence of the existence of God, since these same Seraphim dragons were believed in by virtually every world culture for thousands of years. And this what also explains why they have been reported everywhere for centuries, by not a single dragon bone has ever been found. For being heavenly creatures, like angels, they are apparently immortal (despite lame fairy tales pf dragon-slaying heroes to the contrary).

FirstSunday33ad wins the Public Policy Award for saying that to be a Christian, you have to vote for the Democrats:

Helping the poor is a cornerstone of Christian calling. The obligation is so great, a Christian can lose their salvation based on how well they carry out this obligation. Therefore, every Christian is absolutely required to support, enhance and expand poverty elimination programs such as subsidised housing, welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, guaranteed annual income, tax elimination on poverty and below poverty line incomes, subsistence level minimum wages, subsidised education, daycare and other programs that would alleviate the burden of poverty. Further, this obligation extends beyond the borders of their home countries and includes all poor everywhere. Which is why the Christian demands that standards be incorporated into trade agreements that prohibit importing or selling articles manufactured by people being paid wages far below subsistence level.
Helping the sick is also a cornerstone Christian obligation the failure of which can also result in a loss of salvation. Therefore, Christians are obligated to support universal health care and to demand that every person has access to competent, effective and affordable health care. Christians see as immoral any system that deliberately or as a matter of consequence prevents a person from getting the medical care that they require. Further, Christians regard any system that allows another to profit from the sickness of others as evil.

Sylvius wins the No Time At All Award for the comment:

reading-rule:"there is no earlier and later in the Bible" (i.e. the Bible is not a (profane) history-book).

A book called The Unknown Terrorist by Richard Flanagan wins the Misplaced Anachronism Award for describing Jesus Christ as "history's first ... suicide bomber".

Member11491 wins the Utter Stupidity Award for his performance over the last month, which incldes such gems as:

If you go around screeching how this book was written by god, it should be perfect, not needing a defense. It also shouldn't have parts that need to be removed (e.g. "special ending" of Mark), and it shouldn't contradict itself, and it shouldn't need to be "defended" by an obese prison librarians, preachers who sleep with male hookers, and a whole gang of fraudsters trying to make their fortunes by bilking the mindless.

Praxeus earns the Reasonable Request Award for this one:

However if the translators had stated -

"our translation will be used in a mighty way by God, becoming the standard of measure for all future Bibles. Our translation will be used and accepted all over the world as His pure and perfect word - centuries from now it will be the central focus for those seeking the majesty and authority and accuracy and perfection of the word of God"

understandably they probably would have been critiqued severely (in the unlikely case that they even had that sense to give). I will offer the analogy of the letters of Paul and Jude and Peter or the Psalms or other writings. Did the authors actually know the full import of each letter when they were written ?

Vampire earns the Gratitude Award for the following:

So, go to hell. What are you whining for? Pay your own da**ed debts, you freeloader. and forcing him into the position of having to choose between being tortured and killed himself OR to allow every one on the planet to suffer in hell/or a spiritual death (depending on which silly dogma you follow).

You have to condone the torture and death of an innocent man just because you stand to profit from it.

This is the cost of admission, for you to condone such behaviour which in turn is to renounce any rational ethos.

The cost is for you to renounce any sensible form of morality. Which makes sense in full context, since morality requires moral choice and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil. The "Eden" story is about Adam and Eve gaining the ability to make moral choice, which is synonymous with the actions that is called the fall from grace of all mankind. The alternative to having the ability to make moral choice was for A&E to remain slaves to 'god's' will...a position coveted by "Christian fathers" throughout the ages.

Ruthrush wins the Fried Chicken Nitpick Trophy for this diatribe:

That is no legitimate reason to change the meaning of ekklesia to church.

There are acceptable synonyms, like meeting, congregation, group, gathering, etc. that could have been selected to still translate correctly but indicate a difference in types of groups by the translators without bringing in a word that has a clearly different origin and connotation.

Using different synonyms can still be considered translating. But church was not a meaning of ekklesia and therefore cannot be considered a synonym for assembly.

But church is not a "translation of ekklesia. "Church" is a commentary. The translation is "assembly". What kind of assembly it is, must be left up to the individual to decide or the translators become commentators.

Commentators look into the context of a passage and other things to ascertain the meaning of a word or phrase and communicate their assertions to the reader. Ekklesia has a clear and appropriate meaning to the text, "assembly". To deliberately change (in translator selected passages) to the word church which was not a definition of ekklesia when the text was written, is pure commentary and not to say so is fraudulant.

It is adding to the Word of God. And that's a sin.

Look at the implications. A church today is primarily a gentile gathering. A Jewish gathering, we normally call a synogogue. Look at Acts 15:3. Ekklesia here is translated as church. This "church" was Jewish! To call it a church, gives the reader a wrong picture.

I go to a Messianic synogogue. Because we are all believers in Yeshua, does that mean we must call our assembly a church? It is not a church. We meet on the Sabbath, observe the Biblical Feasts, call Him Yeshua, keep the Biblical food laws. What church does that? To call ourselves a church would give newcomers a false impression.

Just like calling the assembly in Acts 15:3 a church does that same thing. And calling it a church, falsely legitamizes the non-Biblical church that has developed separate from it's Jewish Biblical roots.

Boy, we got lots here this time. Let's start with some snapshots. First, you never knew spam could be this holy, or who out there might help you with debt relief:

And if you're in the market for some new faith, why not try where everyone else goes for everything else:

For sheer compromise value, nothing beats this invitation from Rick Warren's church:

And we're not quite sure if this is a parody or not:,2933,229641,00.html offers this report with some screwiness within:

Nevertheless, 82 percent of gay marriage opponents say it runs counter to their religious beliefs. For Jeff Ellis, the Bible was clear that being gay, much less being gay and married, was a sin in the highest order. Rev. Bob Hudak, of the Church of Nativity in Fayetteville, Georgia, puts it even more bluntly."If I were to take the Bible literally," says Hudak, "every homosexual should be put to death because of what Leviticus says."

Nevertheless, with some interpretation, the Ellises have found other passages in the Bible that have given them hope, such as John 8:7, in which Jesus says to a crowd criticizing an adulterous woman, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Jeff asks: "If the story were to be exchanged with a gay man, would Jesus have responded differently? Would he have said, 'You have my blessing in stoning this man to death?' I don't think so." -- Pro Bible commentary by a freethinker. (He does all the books, this is just 1 Cor.) I'm gonna throw away all my commentaries and use this instead.

Global Orgasm For Peace --

The Global Orgasm for Peace was conceived by Donna Sheehan, 76, and Paul Reffell, 55, whose immodest goal is for everyone in the world to have an orgasm Dec. 22 while focusing on world peace.

Yep -- that'll do it, all right. -- The Great Physician's Rx for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. So not only do I have to invite Jesus into my heart, but my lower intestine as well. -- why evangelists should perhaps not do apologetics. Note how chances are that if he got that banana from a grocery store, it came form a plantation where bananas were bred many years to be that way unlike their wild relatives that have large, hard seeds. Not to mention that people in other countries don't peel their bananas from the "divinely ordained" end. (Perhaps we should send missionaries to other countries to teach them God's good and perfect way to eat bananas. -- Marshall Brian has another video out, this time dedicated to debunking the mentality that God answers prayers with a yes, no, or a wait. Except to do this, he compares God to a milk jug. That's right...a milk jug.

Let me show you how this illusion works. Imagine that I put a jug of milk on the counter, and I say to you, "Pray to the jug of milk." I tell you that if you pray to the milk jug, it will answer all your prayers. You are skeptical, but you agree to try it. You pray to the jug of milk to give you $1000.

Now I say to you, "The jug of milk answers prayers in the form of 'yes', 'no', and 'wait'. Let's see what happens." What is going to happen? -- The JESUS Database, dedicated to "working together for the future of faith" by removing evidence in support of it courtesy of the Jesus Seminar. Sample screwiness:

Research on the history of the synagogue in second Temple Judaism has also suggested that there may not have been any synagogue buildings in Galilee during Jesus' lifetime. While it is possible that Jesus taught in the synagogue gatherings (as distinct from synagogue buildings), it is more likely that the gospel accounts reflect tension between Jesus missionaries and the Torah-observant synagogue communities later in the 1C

Author Gene Wall Cole:

From Deep Inside The Vatican Vaults -- JESUS' DIET FOR ALL THE WORLD. Hidden within the greates "whodunit" of all time is an ancient roadmap that will lead you to the Perfect Diet, Optimum Health, and Quickest Weight Loss imaginable.

So...Atkins 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall be able to discern between good carbs and bad carbs. -- screwy story:

Santa Claus Deemed Too 'Religious' for School Fundraiser

A Christmas-themed event to raise money at a public elementary school in Warwick, N.Y., has been altered to accommodate a parent's complaints that the program would illegally spotlight a "religious" figure - Santa Claus.

"Breakfast With Santa" has since been changed to "Winter Wonderland Breakfast," and -- in an effort to be inclusive of all beliefs -- the bearded one will now be joined at the Dec. 9 event by Frosty the Snowman.

Sevivon1913 piled on Bronze this time. Barely out of his teens, heo can outperform any goy Biblical scholar you'd care to name:

...and I seriously doubt there are any *Chrisians* with more competence than me. However, there probably are some Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures with more competence than I.
But Europe is no longer Christian and that is hopeful. You Americans can pretend your on some moral highground because the persecution of the Jews happened in Europe, but the people who did that bloody murder (i.e. Christians) are all in America now... America today is full of fanatical Christians who are, by their very nature, JEW-HATERS.
It is my understanding of the Christianity is that it is essentially a totally male-orientated religion, atleast OBSESSED with MEN, and ANTI-WOMAN. It represses women, refuses to acknowledge the feminine part of God Almighty, maintains that God is male, encourages the worship of a MAN (Jesus Christ). Christian men "love, worship and adore, with all their hearts" a MAN. Christian scripture is full of anti-feminine lies about the corrupting and immoral nature of women. They are removed from power roles for their sex. The Christian scriptures are also extremely obsessed with condemning heterosexual sex whilst promoting male fellowship (to avoid women and sex). All in all, I'd say Christianity is a bi-product of repressed Western sexuality. Then there is Jesus Christ. Why didn't he marry or have relations with a woman? Isn't that NATURAL and NORMAL? If he was indeed a man in all regards he ought to have been inclined towards women. I can only guess what this means. BUT, I can say -- it's set a bad example to future generations that we should repress sex. Look at all these priests, loads of them are just closet queers who use the abstinance as a cover so nobody finds out. Hmmm. This is why I find christian anti-homosexualism to be disingenuous -- it is OBVIOUS that the authors were all homosexuals (and I am serious).
Smart, clever people believing as you do IS a sign that your belief is the intelligent, clever way. There are NO intelligent people who are genuinely Christian. All the "smart" Christians of the past were so by virtue of their birth/parents only.
Sorry....I thought by "European" you meant human beings. Little did I know you mean't the French (who, by the way, are a mamzer race with arab and all sorts in them).

Kenny1279: I dont respect people who believe in god, as soon as someone starts talking about god I lose respect for them and either think they are an idiot or evil(probably evil)

EssGee: We were brought to this country as slaves. The people who brought us over here and mistreated us were Christians. We were whipped and lynched by Christians. We were made fun of by Christians. We could not eat with Christians. We could not use the Christians restrooms. I could keep going on and on. You probably already know my question. Why are so many of us Christians? What is it about this religion that attracts so many of my people after all that has happened over the years? Please help me make some sense out of this.

noturningback: I think about Christian parents decorating their baby's nursery in the Noah's Ark theme and I am disgusted. Truly disgusted. Never, in the history of mankind, has there been a more grotesque display of power. I don't think anyone will object to the idea that genocide is morally wrong. Hitler, we all agree, was a pretty bad guy? But when genocide is exercised at the Lord's discretion, it's somehow a wondrous thing. And what makes it even more glorious is that it wasn't just genocide, as any human could arrange. God was responsible for nearly wiping out every species on the planet.

I've asked my Christian friends how they can call their god a loving god when he is capable of such mass destruction. They tell me it was justified, because all of mankind was bad. I'm sure Hitler said the same of the Jews, but somewhere it was written that God is all-knowing and all-loving, so we'll just go ahead and take his word for it. All of mankind was bad and deserved to die. I won't argue whether that was the best approach God could have taken and simply assume he did it out of love for us, or something involving infinite wisdom. After all, he did give us the rainbow as gesture of good faith.

That leaves us though with all the other creatures of the Earth being completely annihilated, save two. Why don't we have a problem with this? If you looked over your neighbor's fence and saw him drowning little puppies in his swimming pool, you would probably react negatively. Animal cruelty is generally frowned upon in our society. And yet, you praise a god who tortured every dog on the planet, save two. A god who drowned every elephant, every monkey, every kitten, every creature on the planet, save two of each kind.

You're surprisingly okay with the idea that God murdered almost all of mankind. It was justified because mankind was doing bad things (as far as the babies go, they probably hadn't been baptized yet and therefore deserved to be drowned to death). But how do we dismiss the drowning of little kittens? Go ahead and picture it… picture holding your beloved cat under water and watching it die. Its a horrible thought, and I cringe to type it, but I don't think anyone should just glance over the word "drown" and not think of it as torture. I can think of no better word than "cruel." And as far as I know, they didn't deserve it, as they were never aware of any tree of knowledge of good and evil. I think we can agree the only nonhuman creature that ever was aware of this tree was a species of talking snakes.

How do you then, justify God torturing innocent animals? Was there no other way? Is your god not capable of punishing the bad without enacting cruelty upon the innocent? Surely he is. Surely, this makes him a cruel god, not a loving one. And what does this say about you, who worship him?

Hellbore: Please. You completely ignore the deaths of all those innocent animals that nogoingback brought up. They weren't warned. They weren't doing anything wrong. Nor were the plants. But they still all died.

Bob Jenkins: ...and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. ...and the two will become one flesh'[b]? So they are no longer two, but one. Sure sounds like the commiited relationship the occurs today in the gay community.

Thumper: The nature of reality is complex as I see it. I have personally investigated many religions and the works of many "mediums"; I have found some truth, yet, much is still complex; the nature of reality is the most complexing subject I have ever encountered.

What I find is that many actually believe they "know it all" and bury their heads in a religious sand; yet, I cannot condemn anyone to much as in this "religion" they are currently creating thier own past-present and future as they percieve it.

Who am I to tell someone they cannot creat thier own reality as I and others creat our own?

Your true expectations will come to be.

There is one single concept that I beleive holds truth; simply put, Consciousness creats all. If you place this in front of your present belief system(s), the rest comes into a more clear focus.

Your consciousness and the consciousness of others, has created everything at this level of consciousness. We made it all happen, each "day". Religion(s) aids in the acceptance of what you see and hear and percieve. Darwinian theory is placed in "history" to place a hurdle where you wanted it. Those with faith clear the hurdle while others flounder...

God, Jesus Christ, Allah and Buddah are Valid, yet, we limit thier role in reality to a Singular religion or purpose; whom are we to do this? Imagine that Jesus is much more than you percieve, Imagine that God is more than you give him/her/they credit for. My consciousness, like yours, is Restricted; we are focused on a pin-prick of light we call consciousness and reality, we see what we wish and hear what we wish; Imagine that "God" is everything beyond that pin-prick of light and then say "I know God".

terriblelusardi: Like all christians you make the mistake of substituting what you believe to be true with that which has been shown to be true. You argue until you are blue in the face that god exists and Jesus was either god incarnate or gods' son or both depending on your mood at the time. You cannot prove any of these beliefs to be true and your pro god arguments are illogical in the extreme.

1. Nothing written about your god in the bible is has been shown to be true.

2. Nothing you personally believe to be true about your god has been shown to be true.

3. Faith is not a substitute for logic and reason.

You don't have to be a watchmaker to understand enough about a clock to use it to tell the time and in the same way you don't have to be aware of every tiny nuance of christian ideology in order to understand enough about it to realise it is based on nothing more than wild and unfounded speculation.

mastralvarado: As an ex-christian I still remember the emotions of the reenactment of his calvary, sacrifice and resurrection. This is a recall of my thoughts in my childhood's Catholic boys-only school's reenacment of via-crucis:

When Jesus resurrected in "triumph": This was my first ex-christian thought after Jesus resurrected: Wait a minute, why are all of the present "so-called" christians not sadenned (with joy) at all (except me) by the circunstances of his sacrifice, death and resurrection.

Makes you wonder: Are most christians ever really "christian". I changed my religion to muslim in my mind, but in my heart those thoughts of suffering of Jesus and his resurrection, only painted a reminder of the ultimate sacrifice of the innocent and that the world is full of reasons for not begetting children so that they can too be witnesses to the suffering in a manner which Jesus would not have approved.

Evil, sexual thoughts: maybe that's what those so-called "christians" where thinking/feeling...G-D knows best.

TheS3xiiness: hhahaa ponder? are u retarded? WOW!! your a [string of expletives] im speechless wow! look at the history ever since isaac and ishmael made their own religion (christianity)and (muslims) there was always WAR!!! more like 89.2% of war were fought on matters completely related to religion!!! Go learn the history and come back and talk to me lol!! Google president Iran speech he says he will wip Isreal off the map with a mushroom cloud. And he says he will create chaos and jesus and allah wil come down and muslims will win the war at armegeddon and jesus will convert to muslim at the shrine. Also why is Iran so angry about U.S. and Israel? they hadnt done [expletive] to Iran and hes already planning WAR! so there u go.

I'll let you ponder that one for a while.

Mrs Paige: Why are CHRISTIANS not working to take back the SABBATH DAY in this COUNTRY!? GOD DOES NOT APPROVE!!!!!!!? Yesterday, the PASTOR had a sermon about how this country needs to TAKE BACK SUNDAY for the GOD! I agree with him! For TOO LONG this country has not recognized the SABBATH DAY as a HOLY DAY of REST where we HONOR GOD and spend time with our FAMILIES!


Alex: on myspace: I have read what you said, and it has no scriptural weight at all. The scriptures do not argue 'read the bible in context, for in context you will learn the deep things of God.' That is heresy to the bible, and i have said this before however you have failed to present an argument through scripture which proves that context is what is needed to unlock the deep things of God.

The bible infacts state quiet opposite of what you say. It says that it is the spirit, the holy ghost, that teaches us to compare spiritual things with spiritual. That the invisible things of God are clearly made seen by those things which do appear, and that to the things of the spirit are foolishness to the natural man because they [the word] are spiritual DISCERNED, as Christ has said it; 'My words they are spirit and they are life.'

Yet you and the satanists, and athiests all come to the same conclusion on the Word, and i have seen a different side to it. What does Christ say about athiests and satanists, pagans and heathens when it comes to the wisdom of God? He says it is FOOLISHNESS to them, that is because it [the word] is spiritual discerned, and that they CANNOT know the things of God. That the carnal mind is deep seated hatred against God and does not obey the laws of God and neither can be subject to them.

I don't know mark, Gods word tells me quiet a different story, so i'm trying to understand how you 'discern' the word, if not spiritualy.

God be with you and i mean no offence in this post, if i have offende dyou i apoligize.

LGM: God's "chosen people"...until Christians stole their god and starting perscuting them. Ha! In India, the call that karma....I find it all pretty amusing given how butt ugly most of the inbred Orthodox Jews of NYC are. Maybe YHWH should have chosen the Swedes as his chosen people?