Platinum awards loom on the horizon....everyone wants one!

From the Mailbag

Will I ever get one of these kinds with an actual argument? Nah...

I just read your article on Dan Barker, and want you to know that you did not make a good case for your religion. You presented no facts or logic, and you used character assassination and inflammatory rhetoric. Your article is not very intelligent. He is a much better writer and thinker than you.

At least three people sent me this one:

We acknowledge now the passing of Studs Turkel.

HE was a great man.

YOU are a [foul language word].

Had this email exchange with pseudo-Christian lunatic one day:

How can you explain that :

"to the older women as to mothers, and to the young women as to sisters, in complete purity"

do you really thinks Paul had to remark Timothy to treat "young women as to sisters, in complete purity"" ???

mmmmm, poor Timothy ...and poor Paul , they do not deserve this

I explained about the nature of ancient exhortational letters, and how they regularly offered advice of this sort not because people needed it, but to encourage, and this is the sort of response I got through the day:

"moral exhortation "? I just can´t think a Paul giving moral exhortation to Timothy at all , it does not fit , Timothy was his best colaborator and almost his own son , the Pastoral letters are better understood as a general advice to young "rulers" in the first christians comunities , not as a letter from Paul to Timothy, the Paul I beleive in could never gave such an advice to the Timothy I Believe in, I´m not a scholar, I´m simply a Christian being critic with the scripture , just that,....

do you think that after crossing all Turkey from Derbe (or Listra) to Greece , aftter founding churches in Phillipi, Thesaloniki, Corinth, Ephesus an so on , after so many years with Timothy as his main colaborator Paul still gave that kind of advices to Timothy?I think Paul would have many others things to write about, time and again I read the letters to Timothy and i conclude that almost all the author writes was well-known by Timothy and there was no need to elaborate in those things.

your "regularly offered" it´s based upon what others say this people said , the fact that the pastoral letters are personal letters DO change this and you knows it.

Scholarship, as we all know, is best spelled with a K. Meanwhile, this from Bigots, Inc.:

Please don't link Christians with the inquisition. A Christian who follows the commandments would never have followed the inquisition (NEVER). And it was also those Christians who would not follow the teachings of the catholic church (which are twisted) that were also burnt at the stake and tortured by the catholic church. The catholic church is about power on this earth and control of every nation...none of this is important to a Christian who follows the teaching of the bible because the bible (from the beginning to the end) talks of a new kingdom where evil cannot enter. Jesus said love every man and woman as yourself, even your enemies. We don't, or shouldn't, judge. Judgement is under GOD only not us.

Yes I will agree that religion as caused suffering but only by those who use it for their own ends. Religion as become a tool for politicians and the power hungry of this world. But the bible is not interested in this. It only talks of the new kingdom to come and it is not interested in the politics of this world. The catholic church is way out in its own little world and it seeks to control every nation under one church...this is what you have to look out for...when a symbol of Rome moves to Jerusalem and is placed within the sacred temple of the Jewish nation then we have to be ready!

Here's an email from the Society for the Advancement of Zeitgeist Scholarship:

I don't agree with you. Prof. Eisenman is not a charlatan with a big thumb. My personaly biggest concern is when we are death and are welcomed above the story of Christianity, of Jezus and Paul and all the venerated man of Christianity are one big lie. Imagine the stupidity of this proposition. For almost 20 century's the western world believed in a fake story. But it still can be true. So I am grateful that men like Prof. Eisenman with the new data of the death sea scrolls and the old data of Eusebius and the like tried to connect things. For me it all makes more sense. And by the way the way in which you denounce such a book is more telling about christianity as such. Always defensive. Always trying to ridicule. But in the and if christianity doen't change their approach to this kind of data they wil loose the game in the near future. In old days no-one read the Bible outside clericy and theologians. But now the whole of what is available can be read on Internet. So the old way of responding isn't enough anymore. You need to tell the facts. It's that simple.

Also from that group:

I recently stumbled across your laughable essay regarding the comparisons between Mithraism and Christianity, and I felt compelled to congratulate you on managing to write one of the worst attempts at historical and religious analysis that I've ever read.

First of all I'd like to offer you some advice for any future literary projects, and that is, you don't need to use so many exclamation points! (I used that one myself purely for ironic comic effect) It gives the impression that you are shouting every other line at the beleaguered reader, which is such a rudimentary flaw as to be embarrassing. Secondly, you use language so loaded with emotive connotations as to make it clear that you are speaking from a position of defensive bias, as opposed to any sort of objective investigation, therefore damaging the credibility of your 'study'.

You make claim to 'digging' for information, what were you using for this metaphorical digging? A trowel? As you don't appear to have dug very far as you reference a very limited number of sources, even by the standards of such a poorly documented religion. The 'digging' you have done is confused at best as you seem to have fallen into the same pitfalls as the genuine scholars, namely that there are a number of different variations on the Mithraic mysteries, and therefore quoting one source on the details of one particular event is essentially meaningless as you are unsure as to which perception of Mithras you are referring to. You even acknowledge the different incarnations, but then stop making a distinction between them when it suits your argument, even though there clearly is a huge difference, easily a bigger difference as between, say, Protestantism and Catholicism.

To talk of Mithraic scholars as offering 'outdated' information is ridiculous, how are their sources outdated? They can only be perceived as outdated if they have either been altered since their discovery, or if new evidence has come to light, evidence that you don't appear to point to. One of the greatest pieces of information regarding the time and intensity of Mithraic worship comes from Plutarch in the 1st century AD, who identifies such a level of worship within Roman society as to suggest that Mithraism either travelled further and quicker than Christianity, or that it pre-dates it. Should Plutarch be thought of as outdated? If so then collectively we've got a lot of revising to do as we get a huge amount of information regarding that era in history from him.

Your Tertullian source on Mithras resurrection is hilarious. It’s clearly written from the point of view of a die-hard Christian (he identifies Mithras as being "in the kingdom of Satan"), which is obviously about as reliable a source as asking a Nazi about the holocaust. You then proceed to make a huge error of perception on the basis of a linguistic misunderstanding, you claim that the initiates of Mithras don’t enact the resurrection scene, even though the source describes Mithras 'soldiers' as doing so, who do you believe these soldiers of Mithras to be if not his initiates? Do Christians not often refer to themselves as the soldiers of Christ? Because I have witnessed many do it myself. You also conveniently ignore the "celebrates also the oblation of bread" part of the quote, which is unfortunate, as the comparisons with the Eucharist is another indicator of the plagiarised nature of Christianity.

I could continue, as almost every paragraph that you've written shows a misuse of sources (something you hypocritically criticise Acharya for) and more importantly, a willing ignorance of crucial factors (There ARE many surviving statues of Mithras slaying a bull, clearly identifiable as Mithras as described by the relevant sources), but there is clearly little point. Your argument is flawed, horrendously written (as if by a child) and is inspired by a desire to defend your own beliefs, as opposed to sincere and objective study. Thankfully you are only preaching to the choir, your own choir, and your views will be ignored or ridiculed by any serious historian. I'm not surprised Acharya stopped responding to you and your readers, I would too if I was being pestered by someone with your extremely limited capacity for logic and reasoned thought. It would be irrelevant how much evidence was presented to you, as you are speaking from a position of faith, and therefore will doggedly refute or ignore anything that challenges the authenticity of that faith. You have rendered your argument meaningless with your sloppy, incomplete research that you only refer to selectively and in a confused fashion. From a scholarly point of view you might as well have just written "Christians are great and Mithras sucks, ‘cos I say so.: and saved yourself a lot of time and effort.

I will leave you with this final thought, when you discuss Mithras potential miracles your argument is 'Big deal!', and that it is necessary for any religious leader to perform such acts. Surely that is an acceptance of another deity isn't it? A figure not related to Christianity performing miracles on behalf of another god, surely that's not only blasphemy, but an acknowledgment of more than the one 'true' god. Oh dear, you seem to be falling foul of your creator, as well as insulting historical study.

I hope you apply the same scrutiny to your own beliefs, as then you can enjoy the historical inaccuracies and contradictions of the so-called word of god as contained in the Bibble (Strange that, that god should make mistakes, so much for that old infallibility theory).

P.S. Don’t even get me started on Christianity’s stealing of concepts from Zoroastrianism, a religion which DEFINITELY pre-dated Christ.

A reader got this email from a true scholar:


This came to me from an even brighter light:

I have better things to do than waste time on theologyweb. I've taken a look and saw nothing intelligent posted there.

This email collection from the Ku Klux Klan Kommission, re my article on the claim that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers:

If they kissed one of them was likely a homosexual. Maybe Jonathan corrupted David. Being the King's son, it he may have had undue influence over him.

David murdered and committed all kinds of sins, but was forgiven. So it does not matter if he had sex with Jonathan or not. It was just another sin he committed. That is not seeing the forest for the trees so to speak. While your arguments are sound for the most part, if the Hebrew translation said they kissed, then something was up. I do not put a lot of stock in that local custom stuff. What kind of custom calls for two men to kiss and hold each other and weep?

But even if they had an affair that hardly means it was not a sin. It just means you can get forgiveness for all sins.

And that is what you should say somewhere in your rebuttal. It is not like David was an angel.

...And yes, men kissing is not natural. And I think if you delved to the root of these so called "customs" you would likely find an ugly truth about their origin.

Open your eyes so that they can see.

Buck Cash (current sponsor of the Christian Crimeline) on our reply to it:

Your so-called "replies" are ridiculously thin straw man apologetics without true foundation, so there’s no reason to answer any of them. I’m sure you’d like me to, so that you can pretend they have legitimacy and must be answered, but it’s simply not the case. Your work is amateurish, even by apologetic standards, which are pretty low to begin with.

That said, the list and the many items on it stands without a challenge worthy to actually debunk the claims put forth, which are quite straightforward. You can wave your hand and claim "political" or "insignificant" but it doesn’t change the fact that the items on the list did actually happen. Refute that these things happened, and you have something. Oh, but you can’t because – they DID happen, and anybody can look them up for themselves and find that they did.

You also completely misrepresented my position on how the items on the Crimeline should be viewed and used, saying that I bought into it all hook, line and sinker, when I’d made the exact opposite claim right from day one when I put the list up. Neither did you include a link to the Crimeline, where folks would see for themselves that you misrepresented me in that regard. That was completely dishonest of you and shows you to be a coward who cannot stand behind his own words.

Even now, you cannot bring yourself to discuss this in a civil and scholarly way. You continue to show that you have the mentality of a schoolboy with an ax to grind. I have no desire to entertain your desire to troll me in this manner, so don’t bother again.

A Tom Harpur fans shows off for us:

If you believe your views to be accurate, what would be the harm in providing a forum for discussion of the topic on your website for others to decide for themselves? If christianity really is what you believe it to be, you should have faith in your beliefs and allow others to discuss it amongst themselves, rather than telling them what is right or wrong. If christianity really is all that you believe it to be, individuals should be able to find that it is a valid belief through intelligent discussion with others, rather than a ranting HTML page proclaiming that you are correct, and everyone else is wrong. I have sent a similar email to Tom Harpur, and I believe that he will take to my idea. I am not entirely sure about you though, as I am reluctant to trust any religious zealot who asks for money from an address.

Finally, this from the Land of Epistemic Train Wrecks:

Christian Symbolism whether you like it or not did not originate with Christians, I knew this when I was 5.

If functional retardism qualifies as intelligence and you believe in intelligent design, Christians are obviously the worst example. And it is deserved of them, as they never take any responsibility for the way the behaved in the old world and never do now. Nobody respects them, not because of the beliefs but the folly of them and the ignorance and hypocritical behavior. You can't share the world with people, why not leave it?

How are you sure that all information is inaccurate and how do you assume we lie? Maybe we feel the same way, and because your blind faith and arrogance you deserve it. Because you believe in a evil god also, 'Satan' who may just be covering up evidence, he may even be living in your body. That is the problem with Christians ever becoming intelligent and knowing nothing of what they are talking about and never will learn until they understand the mental problem. You are a tad immature either way.

The November 2008 John Loftus Collection

Loftus wins as he argues once again that his own private stupidity (and that of others) is an argument against Christianity:

Most Christians have not thought deeply about their faith. Most of them just believe in God and the resurrection of Jesus. They claim to do so because of the arguments and the evidence. Based upon these two beliefs they believe the whole Bible. And so ends most of their attempts to understand what they believe.

But behind these Christian beliefs are a quagmire of other ones that can best be described by an outsider like me to be nothing short of Bizzaro. Let me explain.

Christian scholars wrestle with trying to make sense of the trinity by arguing over how such a being is best defined who exists in the first place. There are social Trinitarians and anti-social Trinitarians. Both sides accuse the other side of abandoning the Chalcedon creed, either in the direction of tri-theism, or in the direction of denying there are three distinct persons in the Godhead. Then there are some Christians who maintain the Father eternally created the Logos and the Spirit, while others claim that three persons in one Godhead is simply an eternally brute inexplicable fact. [It’s hard enough to conceive of one person who is an eternally uncaused God, much less a Godhead composed of three eternally uncaused persons that make up the Godhead].

This Godhead is also conceived of as a timeless being who was somehow able to create the first moment of time. How a timeless being could actually do this is extremely problematic. For if his decision to create a first moment of time is an eternal one, then there could be no temporal gap between his decision to create the first moment of time and the actual creation of the first moment of time. If there was no temporal gap between God's eternal decision to create a first moment of time and the creation of that first moment, then his decision to create would alone be sufficient for a first moment of time to be created. God could not eternally decide to create at any future point since there is no future point for him to create since he's a timeless being. Hence, either the universe is eternal or God never decided to create in the first place.

It doesn't seem Loftus will ever learn that "duh, I don't get it" isn't much of an argument.

Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall has plenty to be Platinum over, such as:

The apologetic defense of religion is so illusive and illogical that it is a basic mental default; a remnant left over from the mystical and superstitious childhood years fed and modified by the professional (paid) clergy. The rush to lock a young mind into a god complex is the main goal of all denominations, sects and cults. The old Catholic maxim "Given be a child to the age of twelve and I’ll give you a Catholic for life." can also be seen in fervent missionary movements especially in the LDS Mormons, who, like the Blues Brothers Jake and Elroy, are "on a mission from God".


Those who have remained religious have commented here at DC representing one of two Positions:

The Deist and Theist Position: Easiest to defend since there is no religion or cult attached to it and this position draws in many agnostics.

Without a Bible, there are very little, if any dogmas or doctrines to defend, and, thus very little emotionalism (if any) is found here. All one need do here is take a past event and say, "It’s of god!"

A good Comparison would be: "A cat died. God killed it." When this cat lived and how it died are not relevant to this apologetic defense. The debate is simply, "It’s of god". (An example here is our agnostic commenter Charlie.)

The Biblical Religionist Position: This apologetic defense is associated with an established belief usually either Judaism or Christianity. Unlike the Deist or Theist position, some form of salvation is involved in that since God is now personal and has a plan for all his creation (especially humans), thus he demands morals and ethics.

These apologists usually feel empowered by the Holy Spirit and debate believing that religious truth is singular and orthodox. This position has an evangelical goals in mind, usually viewing Jesus as a personal savior and God as a "Heavenly Father". (An example here is our fundamentalist commenter Rick.)

Finally, no matter how much time John, Evan, or Lee puts into writing a very logical argument, the apologetics that defends this illusive God are still just as un-phased as the magical and religious Ouija Board which spells out the future and the unseen world for its believers despite logical fact against it for the last 120 years.

So, just how would an atheist defend God? Easy! An ancient nonfunctioning entity is so illusive, it simply defies logic. As such, any illogical mental construct that is pro god is good to go!

Simply remove the Bible and the Biblical Religionist position becomes the Deist / Theist position. Remove the illusive term "god" and the Ouija Board now has all the answers.

Lee Randolph wins for a series of posts on the theme, "my ignorance is a good argument, duh":

The originators of scripture had a remarkable lack of insight when creating scripture considering it was revealed to them by God. Apparently God didn't reveal to them some fundamental principles in ensuring they were creating quality information and data that would stand the test of time and generations.
This article will show how the concept of the Trinity was derived from the Design Deficiency of incomplete representation in scripture leading to "Garbling" causing Scripture to map to a meaningless state. The Bible has many instances of incomplete representation but for the sake of brevity, this article will focus on "Jesus as God". It highlights some disconfirming evidence which refutes the proposition that "Jesus was God" can be rationally determined from the text....

Presuming that Jesus was Jewish, and that Jesus was a rabbi, and that Jewish rabbis were experts in Jewish theology, and Jesus was an expert in Jewish theology, in John 14:6-11Jesus was not referring to himself as god but more likely referring to a Jewish teaching regarding their view of the relationship between God and Man with respect to the soul. It can also be seen that Jesus did not clearly and unequivocally state that he was the incarnation or personification of God.

Jesus never clearly said that he was God on earth, and he never said that he, God and the holy spirit were one substance. Therefore, if it is true, and it was not included in the scriptures, it is the design flaw of incomplete representation

Lee's primary source for all of this? Why, Wikipedia, of course! But wait, there's more!

While acknowledging that Jesus' usage of the term "son of man" has no consensus, this article shows how the term "son of man" was historically used to refer to mankind or Humans as a category, was never generally considered by the Jewish community to be a descriptive phrase for the Messiah, and therefore seems to be used incorrectly either by Jesus, by the authors and/or translators of the gospels as something like a personal pronoun for Jesus. In any case, presuming the Bible is the Word of God, the term still maps to two real world states fulfilling the criteria for Ambiguous Representation which is an Information and Data Quality (IDQ) design flaw.
How bad is this? Lee appeals to all the OT uses of the phrase "son of man" in ENGLISH! The original Aramaic behind the phrase is different in Daniel than it is in almost all the other- OT cites.

Randolph also shows his ignorance of how people establish their identity in a collectivist society:

Here the gospels have Jesus using the term "son of man" incorrectly and using a deceptive rhetorical persuasion technique just as Numbers said God wouldn't. Here he uses the bandwagon fallacy because who the people say he is is not relevant to who he really is, and he uses an improper appeal to authority because since the disciples have never seen a God on earth, and since they have not attempted to distinguish between Jesus and a Con Man, they are not qualified to assess.

The term messiah, and christ, and the concept of a god in a human form pre-existed and he could have used them. When he said "who do you say I am?" he would have been more straightforward to have said "I am the messiah, the christ, god in a human form. Do you believe that?".

When I go to professional meetings, I introduce myself using my name and what role I have in the organization, and what role I will play in the process.

I don't go to meetings and say, "Hi there, my name is Lee, what role do you think I play in this organization?......Oh, good guess. Now, don't tell anyone."

Platinum on a roll, Lee!

The Rest of the Skeptics

"MudLobster" takes some cake with this:

The arguments for "proof of god" and "proof of no god" are identical. It is only a matter of interpetation.

Tassman babbles on:

I did not say that Paul wrote about ancient mystery religions In my post of Nov 10th that you clearly felt unable to answer, I said that a viable case can be made for the mythicist view and has been argued by the likes of Doherty, Price, Wells, Gerd Lüdemann, Burton Mack, Carrier and others. It is clearly a reasonable case but I remind you that I am NOT arguing this view.

The point is NOT whether a mythicist Jesus OR an historical Jesus OR no Jesus at all is true. The point is that this inspired book of yours is so ambiguous that a viable case can be made for any of them and such ambiguity does not point to the NT being inspired by an omniscient God.

And, as I said previously, the same applies to the different eschatologies. Given that eternal life is the big carrot you would think God would at least make that bit straightforward for the faithful in his ‘inspired book’. But no! We have scholars who earnestly study God’s Word and come to the considered conclusion that the bible teaches: Post-tributional Rapture , Pre-tribulational Rapture , Pre-wrath Rapture, Dispensational , Hyper Dispensational, Progressive Dispensational , Futurist , Historicist , Idealist , Orthodox Preterist (Partial Preterist) , Hyper Preterist, Amillennial , Pan-millennial , Post-millennial , Pre-millennial……………………..

Which is it? What exactly does your inspired book say about your eternal fate?

Just in time for the season, "mercypoo" compares God and Santa Claus:

Children tend to follow the idea of religion based upon what they are told at a young age. As are those who believe in Santa Clause.

Both are likely to believe in unruly concepts. Santa knows what you're doing, when you've been bad or good, and will make his judgement based upon how you act. God knows what you're doing, when you've been bad or good, and will make his judgement based upon how you act. (presents/heaven vs. coal/hell).

These outlandish concepts are backed by delusional explanation. Santa can fit down the chimney, see what you're doing and fly through the air because of magic. God can do what he does because he is all-powerful.

Santa has elves. God has angels.

Santa lives at the north pole, and you will never see him. God lives in the heavens, and you will never see him.

The main difference between these groups of people; when children find their parents putting presents under the tree, they realize just how outlandish the claim of Santa Clause actually is. When presented with the idea that the concept of God is outlandish (through various ways), children (regardless of age) continue to contribute delusional reasoning to "prove" god's existence to themselves.

It's as though, when faced with the concept of Mommy putting the presents under the tree, one simply deduced that Santa must have given the presents to mommy (or perhaps the store from which mommy bought them).

And, just like Santa, one becomes wiser once they understand that, perhaps, mommy and daddy weren't telling the truth about God.

jason hystead makes it simple for us:

The only thing hermeneutics (a.k.a. the art of equivocation) ever proved was that even after thousands years religious people still don't know what the hell they're talking about.

dougofcal argues for his own ignorance as an argument, too:

What we're not picking up is the part where any of the Bible's authors explained how to tell the difference between the laws intended only for the nation of Israel and the ones intended for all of humanity.

Simpleton calling himself "N. T. Wrong" wins for this:

The Relative Unimportance of Oral Culture for Interpreting Biblical Books

You read it here, there, and everywhere: literacy levels in 'ancient Israel' were less than 5% '... less than 3% ...less than 1% ... etc, etc

One percentage is quite assured and of great significance for understanding the way Hebrew Bible authors composed their works, however: Of those who wrote biblical books, the literacy rate was 100%.

Yes - surprising, but true.

ENEGMA shows atheist compassion in action:

I'm not of the opinion that everyone who wants to commit suicide necessarily should be talked out of it.

MikeWright piles on as he heads towards a special Platinum for either Best Parody or Dumbest Atheist Ever:

C S Lewis is often given by gullible xians as one of there most intelligent apologists. Well I thought that today id demonstrate how he was a complete thicko by examing one of his most famous arguments. Namely that narnia could be hidden in a wardrobe.

How big is a wardrobe? 2 meters by 1 meter seems like a good estimate. How big is narnia? thousands of kilometers by thousands of kilometes. So how could a massive place like narnia fit into a tiny wardrobe?

Now some people might jump to C S Lewis defense and claim that he didnt really believe narnia existed however that is not the point. If he couldnt get his maths correct in a story, fictional or not, the how could he anywhere else? And is beliving in a sky daddy and less stupid than beliving narnia is in your wardrobe?

Aparantly JPHolding (Bob Turkel) has written a book called blowing the doors off Now Im not certain how he intended it to be taken however in a world of religious terrorists, crusaders and spanish inquisistions his book could easy be understood as an instruction manual on how to blow doors of things. Now maybe he only meant his book as a joke however will he be laughing when an abortion clicnic bomber buys his book and decides to go around their town blowing the doors of all the atheist houses in there area. I think that people like JP Holding (who is rude and obnoctious anyway) should be encouraging people not to do do terrorism rather than writing books encouraging people to blow doors of buildings.

mikeledo is still getting a clue:

I am confused by the statement, "history is reallyabout probability." History is true or it isn't true regardless of probability. For instance, a snake can not talk. No matter how often someone wrote about a talking snake, it never happened.

Also people lie and others swear to it. The bigger the lie, the more it is repeated, the more people believe it.

Myths about Jesus we know to 100% certain because they violate the laws of science , irregardless of any mathmatically probability. : Virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection. Once you remove what we know to be 100% false about Jesus, do you really have "Jesus"left?

It has been once said, "figures lie and liars figure."

Tektonics is not a source.

Plutach writes about Romulus and Remus as if they were historical people, citing real places. Ohers write about them too. You could come up with better probabilty they are real than Jesus.

Other people who are myths: King Arthur, Robin Hood, William Tell.

The Christian and Theist Collection

A Jewish (?) user with a name composed of Hebrew characters wins for these:

I subscribe to the tradition which believes that Satan is a brutally faithful servant of the Most High. This tradition is held by most Jewish scholarship, I think. I am discouraged that Olmert is so influenced by Christian and Muslim concepts that he called Ahmadinejad Satan. That is a complement to the Iranian president, in Jewish theology.

...Justice(din) is an attribute of G~d, so is Mercy(chesed). Yet pure justice results in evil. While pure Mercy results in turmoil....

In my interpretation, Satan represents pure Justice. The ever faithful unmerciful prosecutor and universal law enforcer. Police brutality must have had origins from Satan. Therefore, it is true that Satan is an adversary to the human race, or to any creation that has tendency to deviate from universal order. But Satan is not an adversary of G~d. Yet, delegated such immense power, Satan is ever faithful and fears G~d, to the extent that he/she would would allow disrepute to taint his/her name in order to discourage being worshipped....

Question: is it possible that Satan is female?


Five years ago, cell phone companies started yelling at customers to encourage them to subscribe to the new "digital" plans versus the old "analogue" plans. The cell phones companies were lying or at least engaged in oversimplification. The new phone plans are actually more analogue than the old ones. The discovery of advanced analogue technology has actually enabled the new "digital" technologies for higher bandwidth signals in cell phones, disk drives, computer intraconnections, etc. In fact, all these "digital" signals are actually carried as analogue signals.

Digital signals are discrete and pronounced. Analogue signals are salient and silent, rounded to flow and adapt to its surroundings.

Discrete logic are pronounced and clear. Analogic is salient and silent and flows with the task. When a husband asks his wife why she made certain decisions, she barely explains it. So people started explaining that the reason why women cannot explain their decision is because men are logical and women are emotional.

Mini-rant from an anti-preterist:

The preterist view basicly calls Christ a liar...Well not basicly..It does!

Okieshowedem wins for this one:

Since the Scriptures were written in Hebrew the Hebrew Messiah must have a Hebrew Name. Jesus is a false name and can in no way tell the story of a Hebrew Messiah.

infide also joins the Kooky Christian League for Circular Reasoning:

God is the greatest conceivable being.

A Nonviolent God is greater than a violent God, therefore a Nonviolent God is the greatest conceivable being.

Therefore, God is a Nonviolent God.

Gold also to NeilUnreal for his constant evasion of questions and attempts to turn God into his personal masseur, and comments like these which nominate Platinum:

You’re missing a subtle point: I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong, I’m trying to convince you that I’m not.

If we had to rely on God because His character was logical, then there would always remain the possibility of contradiction. On the other hand, we know we can rely on love because it is not bound and does not require being bound; love simply acts out of its own nature.

humbledan explains why Jesus looked poor, but was actually rich:

He [Jesus] is not wealthy like Herod. But I don't think he was a poor homeless person either. Being a carpenter was more significant at that time. So were fishermen and tax collectors. People were jealous of his status. His disciples wanted to make him into an earthly King.

Beside if he was a poor homeless person, the Jews won't listen to him. They associated poor person as sinful. And they can't find fault in Jesus. So he was either of average wealth or above average.

But the important thing is Jesus sided with the poor, he gave his wealth away to the poor and asked the rich to do the same and follow him. Remember the whole creation was an act of charity of God. God wants us to participate in this act of charity. Being wealthy is not sinful, indulging in wealth and failure to take part in charity and following Jesus is sinful. with special note to the statement:

One of my key reasons for believing in the pre-tribulation rapture is the fact all other views are always trying to undermine pre-tribulationism. see the relpies. Platinum nominee