See all the turkeys that were around for the holidays here. Platinum collections for 2009 coming soon!

From the Mailbag

We start with one from the eBay Scriptures Department:

The lies: Jesus wasn't his name Christ was from a satanic cult from the land of Hellene that Saul then change his name to Paul gave the name to so Christianity is a false believe created by the bafath pure evil to control humanity

the truth in the bible go to Isaiah 7:14 that was his real name Emmanuel spell ( Jmmanuel )and born on Feb.-3 not dec-25

so if you want the real truth read this book Talmud of Jmmanuel still waiting for your false Christ to come then get ready cause what you will get is your anti-Christ who is really the real Christ turn to the truth and you will be set free spiritually the real teachings of Jmmanuel time to be awaking worship your self spirit who is the only savior the omnipotent you are responsible for what you do stop the ignorant earth human and be one cosmic unity for peace on earth.

Here's a long series from an obsessed Tom Harpur fanboi whose perception of his own importance is inflated to 1000 psi:

My goodness, Harpur must have hit a nerve and threatened your life long conviction for perpetuating the lies of Christianity. I read through most of your long winded and over use of jargon on you critique of his works and find that most of your de-bunking of his works is based on a literal accuracy of what he wrote.

I think you've completely missed his point and pulled inaccuracy of what the truth are. Take for example that Osiris is really actually 2300 BCE rather than 10 000 is all academic. I mean so what of the difference in years. You are just strengthening Harpurs point anyway because who care if it's 100 years, 2300 years or 10 000 years, the fact still remains that it is before the time the Christians can lay claim to the ideology.

I can go on and on about the inaccuracies of both you and Harpur and in the end, Christianity is shrouded in a body of lies all designed by Jewish people to scam 10% of your cash anyway. Christiantiy is the sole reasons for all war and the perpetuator of evil in this world.

Christianity has always been based on lies. If not, than explain the burning of inocent people at the stakes accused of whichcraft. Or poor North American Native people being abused sexually, emotionally or mentally. Jesus was supose to be sent to man to help him understand the true teaching of God!

But what did they do to him? They hung him to a cross and all in the name of their undertstanding of God. These are the same people that took their bible and forced it on the lands they concoured saying that theirs was the one true way.

Perhaps if everyone would quit trying to score their own little claim to fame over this and start foccussing on the truth, pure spirituality would save the world of all the problems we now have. You see the problem is that people like you have your point of view based on what you have read or aquired in your studies as Gods honest truth. You conform as do 1/3 of the people of this world and in doing so you have to follow some rules and laws making up Christianity. There in lies the problem as sometime pure spirituality and the love of God and mankind is put aside in order to follow those laws of your religion.

This is the very reason why the Islamic Fundamentalists have no trouble with killing inocent people or why the European chruch of the dark ages though it was perfectly normal to burn inocent women as whiches or even why communism had to be defeated in vietnam, etc. It is also the very essense why it is so easy to change something to suit different people. If you don't like something in Christianity, just create a new denomination that answers what you personally think is right.

Harpurs main point is, "who cares when Jesus or Horus, or Jahova, or Alah walked the earth. It doesn't really matter because the love of God and your fellow man should be the main foccuss. Your re-buttle of Harpurs works confirms my point as you have definately placed so much time and energy in setting the record straight and yet you say nothing of the the spiritual nature of Gods love.

You do not realize that Hockey became so popluar because the essense of it's nature is what make it what it is. If any of it is based on lies or rules changed to suit your personal needs as you go along, it would not be what it is today. Unlike Christinity, it does not need any help.

And finally, just a word of advice in your critique. if you want to reach more people try to use simpler words and concepts that the normal person can understand. Read Harpurs works again if you don't know what I mean.

That one nominates Platinum, especially for the last line. But it didn't stop there; after receipt of our Baloney Filter letter, he kept on:

When I e-mailed you about your critique of Harpur I gave you pure and simple constructive criticism of your views. You reply to me with a very childish and immature attitude that lacks any degree of scholastic aptitude. Did you get your mommy or daddy to write that critique for you? (How else do you explain such big words strung together in a very educated fashion to calling me an ignorant moron in your reply to me?)

That does not make any sense and only leaves me to think that you didn't write the critique it self. You are really an idiot if you think I would entertain you in any other debate that you and your cronies would have. I can well imagine what kind of comments you would say to anyone who proves you wrong.

I see that you like to criticize other people and their views but when someone finds mistakes and holes you make, you sling childish phrases at them. I am very happy you chose to reply to me that way as I originally began to question Mr. Harpurs take on Horus the Sun God. But after what you called me, I now question your integrity instead.

You think you can block me? You are every bit the ignorant moron you are accusing me of as you can never block me. I have many email addresses as I run the Internet service provider here so if you want to report me to me, please feel free to do so. I in turn will direct your e-mail to the my personal junk filter pile.

Not that it will be possible as I am blocking you from ever being able to contact me anyway. Judging by the reply you sent me, you are obviously not worth the bother of any real effort or constructive solutions to anything worth while. In the future I will refrain from every paying any serious attention to anything with your name on it.

[deleted] it's so good to get the last word in there when I know it's making your teeth clench tightly together as foam oozes out of your mouth and tears roll down you face and you yell out, "Mommy, he's a bad man!" Hahahahahaha. Good luck buddy cause your gonna need it.

10 days later, he cried "Mommmmmy!" again:

Sorry it took a while to respond. I just had to share your email with a few online communities to show the level of intelligence here. I hope you do not represent Christians, the Christian faith, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or any form of well-mannered, respectable human group. I was taken back by the so-called Christian love you expressed.

I don't mind being the public joke on your website. I'll just turn the other cheek. I guess that kinda makes me a better Christian than you. Of course, being Christian is so much more than that...but I'm thinking you're not a servant of Christ anyway, with the kind of language you replied with. Okay, you're right. It is out of context, and yes, when I was a born-again Christian, I practiced it literally and truthfully. Probably didn't have to, though. But now that I'm no longer a Christian, it doesn't mean I can be ruthless either. So, I stand corrected, and I will withdraw from any further communication from you. Should you reply to this email, I will report it to the proper authorities in your area and will also send your ISP a request to deal with it appropriately. I have logged your IP address (or at least the IP address from which you are sending these emails). I have also taken screenshots of your last two posts to show others (who may be considering Christianity), just so they know what kind of company to expect in heaven. Thanks for the resource! And I didn't even have to work hard for it.

And so, this correspondence is finished. Do not reply. Take care,

Jesus Christ.

And finally, one other nut who made the cut:

Dan Barker had a pretty convincing case that Jesus never even existed. You had no rebuttal.

His examination of the geneology of Jesus was also telling and you did not challenge it in your rebuttal.

He also made a case that the earliest biblical manuscript has no mention of the resurrection. That it ends when thy go into the cave and Jesus is not there.

You did not take his challenge and go back and state exactly what happened on the day Jesus was crucified, step by step.

I lost fait in God once I actually attended church and saw all the phonies there.

The November 2009 John Loftus Collection

Tons of awards for John this round, starting with a post where he says, "Judges 19-21 is a Major Obstacle to Why I Cannot Believe the Bible":

Can someone tell me why I should trust ANYTHING that these people wrote? I know, you'll say God didn't approve what they did and that these chapters merely record without comment what happened. But my point is that they depict the barbaric nature of a people who also claimed to have a divine revelation from God. I will not listen to what they have to say about God if that's the kind of people they were. Q.E.D.

So let's get the logic here:

1) Judges 19-21, which Loftus apparently assumes accurately reports something that actually happened in the history of the Jews, records something bad that happened.

2) Because it ACCURATELY reports something bad done by other people (not the person who wrote Judges), we can't trust the author of Judges to be accurate in what he reports about God.

Well, there we go. The news programs can't be trusted on anything else because they report bad things done by other people in this country accurately.

Funny posts otherwise: -- John begs for money so he can go to SBL.

Here's a point for consideration. Loftus makes this huge deal about, "I wuz a student of William Lane Craig, duh ah" as a way to sell himself as some sort of premier anti-apologist, yet here he admits:

* He only had one class with him

* in which there were no tests or notes

* He greatly disagreed with his methods

* This was before Craig was a major name in apologetics

And yet, Loftus rides this "I was Craig's student" hobbyhorse as a way to cheaply promote his books, letting the reader fill in with their imaginations that he took multiple classes with Craig and was one of his best-reckoned students.

Well, it would probably sell books better than, "I brushed by Craig in the hallway while heading for the student lounge." Let's just face it: This "I was a student of Craig" song and dance is about as relevant and honest as, "Geisler recommended my book."

Speaking of SBL, Loftus wins for defending Bill Maher there -- here's the screwiest highlights:

I intend to defend this movie from most of the criticisms made against it today. If you don’t think this can be done then please stay tuned.

Combining the words Religion and Ridiculous, Bill Maher’s movie Religulous is a fascinating documentary comedy about the perils of religion in a world that has weapons of mass destruction. As an atheist, I found his movie to be funny, educational, and helpful, and I appreciate being able to respond to the excellent papers read today.

Just like the civil rights and the gay/lesbian movements before them, so also Dawkins argued that atheists must follow in their steps. The New Atheists are tired of being patient and respectful with believers while religion marches onward, wreaking havoc with the world. Enough is enough. We live in a modern world. It’s time to give religion in all of its forms a swift kick in the butt.

That’s exactly what Maher is doing in his movie using his stock and trade, comedy....

While professor Reed is correct that the New Atheists need to become better informed by secular Biblical scholars, I myself question how much scholarship it really takes to reject any given religion. The Joe six-pack’s of our world do not have the time to research into any given religion, much less all of them, nor even become literate enough to read the scholarly works. And yet they can still be justified in rejecting one, or more, or all religions based upon all that they know. That best explains why Dawkins probably thought it was a waste of time researching into religion for his book. He already knew from the fact of evolution, his stock and trade, that religion is a delusion. Until someone can show him that evolution does not explain everything in the biological world, he has no need for the God hypothesis, and no need to put a great deal of time researching into it.

Why treat other religions differently than you do your own? I don’t find any way around this test. In my opinion this is the test by which to assess the various religions that Maher uses in his movie, despite professor Dennis MacDonald’s claim that his movie lacks such a test. And I think Maher did a good job of it.

If anyone is troubled by the movie Religulous, then perhaps one reason why has been described best by cultural anthropologist David Eller: “Nothing is more destructive to religion than other religions; it is like meeting one’s own anti-matter twin. Other religions represent alternatives to one’s own religion: other people believe in them just as fervently as we do, and they live their lives just as successfully as we do. The diversity of religions forces us to see religion as a culturally relative phenomenon; different groups have different religions that appear adapted to their unique social and even environmental conditions.” Eller goes on to ask the problematic question: “But if their religion is relative, then why is ours not? [Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker, p. 233].

Professor MacDonald argues that “one learns as much about religion watching Larry Charles’ “Religulous” as one learns about the American family by watching ‘The Simpsons.’” I think differently. Why are we here in the first place if Religulous doesn’t teach us something important about religion? He claims Maher is ignorant about religion because true religion has beauty, flexibility, and humility in it. While I do agree there are benign religions, at least non-violent ones, I don’t think Maher is that ignorant, nor are any of the other New Atheists. I respectfully challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. Maher even interviewed liberal Catholics. Perhaps they just don’t know how to respond to people who continually undercut the historical foundations for their beliefs and yet continue to affirm them anyway.

So let's get this straight. Maher denies germ theory and promotes the pagan copycat Christ myth, and that's just a start. Yet Loftus doesn't think "Maher is that ignorant"??

Loftuscite sure does weird stuff to your brain!

The Lunchback of Notre Dumb

Yo Lunch had a couple of winners this nmonth:

Here's something else for you to apply your exegesis on:

"All men are liars." PS 111:11

Jesus was a man

Therefore, Jesus was a liar

"It is impossible for God to lie"

Jesus was a liar

Therefore, jesus was not God

"All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Rev 21:8

And this too:

You criticize my use of "outdated sources" yet you use Luke 1:1-4 as a self-proving source! It is much older than my sources and pats itself on the back! The Bible cannot be used to prove itself! What is your source outside of it to prove the veracity of the work?

Sadly, he's running out of original material already.

The Rest of the Skeptics -- Yankee Doodle wins for just about everything he says here.

Cpt_pineapple takes Gold for this:

I don't think people can be "barely Christian". As long as they believe in God and hold Jesus as their saviour, then they're Christian regardless of other beliefs/actions

Seasanctuary continues down Screwy Street:

God wants faith despite a lack of critical evidence or even what looks like counter evidence. Otherwise you would be forced to obey him, just like you have no free will when it comes to obeying traffic laws you know really apply to you.

aspirnietzche is trying to be coherent, but failing:

When did I state any nonsensical unsubstantiated theories? As far as I know the only nonsensical theory posted here was that Jesus rose from the dead. I might note that there is far, far more evidence of alien abduction than there is for Jesus' ressurection. I'm talking about documentation, reputable people in eyewitness accounts, multiple confirming stories. Yet I, and much of America- maybe even you- discount these as unlikely. Now, why is that? What is the distinction between the two, and more poignantly, 2000 years from now, what will the difference be?

Jaecp earns a nomination in the "Irony so perfect, it almost qualifies as art" department:

Making fun of the trinity does not mean they don't understand the concept. You can fully understand something and still make fun of it.

Its a harmonization of monotheism with having what looks like multiple gods. Simple enough. Is there some deep insight you feel skeptics are missing?

So we've got where its technically correct to say the bible is one book. We've also got where is technically correct to say its 66. We've got it where its technically accurate to say 66 sources, yet we can also be technically accurate by claiming it is 40 sources going by author.

[Paul] wrote multiple letters, but his works are still only a single source, a single take, on christianity.

Fundy atheist Christ myther "Alocksee", on another forum, after being challenged to come debate me on TWeb:

In Response: If Holding wants to debate me he will do it on my terms. It will be according to the rules established at the outset on the venue I choose, not him. He can contact me if he is willing to do so and must at the outset agree in writing prior to the start that he will abide by the rules and that upon completion that his prior assent to this debate will result in an outcome based upon those rules.

So if he is interested then it will be on my terms or not at all, I don't trust your side to play by the rules since you haven't in this thread. So tell you friend if he wants to debate the essay he should contact the author, if he simply wants to try to sucker me into something I don't play games in that manner.

So, my way or the highway, and I chose venue, rules and make the final determination on all material, I follow the rules, you don't, I make the rules and if he is willing he will follow them to do this.

He will of course have to agree to the terms in writing prior to the start and if I determine any violations of the rules have been committed I will show where it has happened and he loses immediately, case closed. This will assure he doesn't play any games and I will insure i am treated fairly.

Got it, good, my rules, my venue, I am the final judge. So as you put it no excuses let him come to me and you can watch the final outcome.

If he can maintain a civil demeanor I will afford him the same, but there will be only the venue I choose and there will not be any other discussions, nor locations covering this or reporting on it.

Darwin's Dog should be kept away from children:

The truth or untruth of natural selection, or evolution by natural selection, doesn't depend upon their consequences. But the inability of biologists to recognize the obvious logical implications of the freedom from the limits of traditional morality that they celebrate only serves to demonstrate their complete incompetence as philosophers. If it's no longer evil to freely fornicate or worship idols, it's no longer evil to freely rape or murder either. And a description of a theorized process of historical moral development is no rational basis for subsequent cherry-picking between those developments you happen to believe are positive and those you happen to believe are negative.

Rape can be a good thing, and so can murder, it all depends upon the circumstances.I guess I'm driving at situational morality here, assuming morality is a beneficial trait as in the darwinian view.

Pixie closes this section with a pastiche:

There are natural explanations as to why cancer disappears, does this disprove every single miracle claim about cancer disappearing YES OR NO?

Yes, because even if God did it, it is not a miracle. It can be explained by the mundane.

I have no doubt at all I have read far far more books on the Bible then you have.

Your 21, that is a child in my books.

Gee unless Malina has a time machine they cannot possibly know that about ancient society, they are at best making an educated guess by studying modern primitive societies .Of course it is a huge leap of logic to think modern primitive societies act the same way as ancient Judean society did. And saying something cannot happen in a society is ludicrous for obvious reasons. Jews in the 1st century were not supposed to believe in singular resurrections now where they? Clearly something outside the norm of 1st century Judaism just happened now didn't it?

... Someone doesn't have to deny being God not to be considered a God!!! Do you go around telling people on a daily bases you are not a deity! Do you think your friends are possible deities cause they haven't said they aren't deities!

As I have pointed out again and again those verses deny him being a deity which is perfectly appropriate for a Jew and is by far the best reading of those verses. You have done nothing to show why my argument on why that verse is wrong. I will challenge you to find one verse from Mark showing Jesus clearly believed in his divinity. Just one.

And of course there were early Christian groups which did not consider Jesus to be a deity for example the Ebionites. What do you think the Arian debate was over?

So all these Christians failed to recognize the clear divinity of Jesus, but hey I guess they didn't have Hurtado's book to guide them in the 1st through 4th centuries.

You found a book which supported your pet philosophy and your argument (Hurtado's actually) was shown to be wrong. Why do you think mainstream scholars have no problem seeing a progression in the nature of Jesus between the Synoptics and John? Maybe cause they are right, is that possible.

This is apologetics in action folks. Read one book, think you know it all then twist a document to say what it doesn't. Oh throw in a few absurd arguments like he didn't say he was God ( well maybe I am divine too, I have yet to deny my divinity.)

Mix that up with a basic ignorance of history and what do you get, you get a [name].

The Christian and Theist Collection

John R. Franke wins for saying this in his book:

"Put another way, the goal of reading the Bible is not the attempt to identify and codify the true meaning of the text in a series of systematically arranged assertions that then function as the only proper interpretive grid through which we read the Bible. Such an approach is characteristic among those who hold particular approaches to theology and hermeneutics in an absolutist fashion and claim that such procedures will lead to the arrival of the one true and proper conception of doctrine contained in Scripture. The danger here is that such a procedure can hinder our ability to read the text and listen to the speaking of the Spirit in new ways."

jo7241974, a Mormon, wins for saying:

Heavenly Father has a physical and a spiritual body. Jesus has a physical and a spiritual body. A physical body does not prevent them from being omnipresent; it does not comprimise their power in any way. We have been created in their image.

You deny "gnostic's" true meaning because you have accepted Christendom's version of gnostic which WAS purposely degenerated to a negative meaning in order to differentiate a politically incorrect presentation and manifestation of christian beliefs by denying history. This does not surprise me because you also deny how many people have died within christianity at the hands of other christians by denying history. You also deny how the teachings of Christ have become perverted by denying history.

Do you deny that Jesus has a physical body?

Vivian, a reputed Christian, wins for replying:

I don't think your question is clear, because the LDS are not the only ones who believe that God has a physical body. There are many here on Tweb who argue that Jesus still exists in physical form. Now you might be asking about Father God, but then in the Trinity if one part is in physical form then all parts are in physical form, yes?

I do though understand the spirit of your question - how two apparently contradictory ideas are both 'right'. To this I would answer perspective, or the place from which we view and/or experience God.

The problem is not these different views, actually, but fear and ignorance (or lack of experience) that causes man to accept one view and reject others - especially men who have no experiential knowledge of God! Believe me, when the disciples met Jesus they knew in that moment how God could be Spirit and be flesh, at the same time! For they, in being opened and receptive, were able to see God in the flesh, or the Christ, and simultaneously 'see' or experience God in the Highest - having a multidimensional experience of God that validated that the man standing before them was the Christ!

There are many ideas of mormonism that do appear to conflict with the ideas of mainstream Christianity. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but if you would like to try with another example, I would be glad to walk through it with you.

Ty Rockwell is trying real hard to win:

The outrageous judgmentalism of AP, Teluog, Sparko, RumTumTugger, L'l Punkish, One Bad Pig, and others must be shut down and strongly opposed. My posts are RESPONSES to attacks and interruptions to my threads that have been carried out for months by these few self-congratulating, wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked muck-rakers.

They are weighed in the balances and found guilty. Tell them to leave me alone, since they refuse to be constructive, at all. They are at least as bad as those they criticize.

And now you jump in with no history or understanding of their, especially AP's actions. Get a clue. He is as wrong as the day is long, carrying out a vendetta for months over at least three of my threads.


You just don't get it! Although I used the term "Apostasy" in my play on words, playing with how I could find a word that is a play on "Apologia," I was not really calling Nicky an apostate.

Do you not see that both words have "apo" at their beginnings? Do you not see that "stasy," with its long 'e' pronounciation is a play on "gia" with its long 'e' sound?

Get a sense of humor. People that don't have a sense of humor, or, who are wearing their feelings on their shirt sleeves, don't qualify for an apology.

Its too bad you all were offended. What's worse is that you don't move on.

stephen goswami is trying too, but not so hard:

Satan killed Annanius and Safira to draw Peter into his trap.

We see in the Acts that they were killed for their lying. It destroyed the early commune of the church, the best example of Christian principles at action. Would Christ have done it? Never! He had forgiven much grievous sins and never condemned like that way. God certainly could replenish what was lost by their action – money and faith. Every lie is a lie to Holy Spirit but Heavenly Father forgives if repented

But the fact is that Satan was following close at the hills of apostles. He knew their weak points- glorify themselves by striking terror- a most unchristian action. So he struck and Peter accepted it as Heavenly Father ordained action- a most false and pernicious idea! Rather he should have prayed to God for making them alive and forgiving them. It would have been the most appropriate Christian action. He had done it many times. But he did not, to let Satan’s work prevail!

Apostles were people like us. They failed often and were rebuked. Certainly Christ rebuked them in private for this unforgiving attitude and other failures. In this way Satan struck at the early church from inside. From then on countless saints and evangelists had fallen in his trap and came to harm themselves and harmed the church. Though Christ heals those harms, it would be better if harm was avoided in the first place.

Heavenly Father is not child killer but the Hebrew and heathen gods are. Former is consistent latter is not. Sorry! Catholic Church compiled and edited bible is not my God, but living Christ is. His cross message of forgiveness is the supreme teaching superceding everything. His Heavenly Father is not killer. Millions of Christians have lied to the church including popes and almost clergy as devil is in humanity. He is in Peter too as well as in Ananius. Did not Christ call Peter devil?

Christ cancelled O.T. but they cling to O.T. and its killer god. No wonder A-bomb was invented by such “Christian” people.

I have 5 years seminary and 50 years bible acquaintance. As I am following Christ by serving enemy Muslims for 30 years Christ rose in my life and all holy books waned. Now, I can counter their O.T. derived Allah and Koran, by his living message of cross. When sun rises, moon and stars wane. Majority does not prove their genuineness. Real Christ followers are alone as me.But Christ is with me otherwise i wouldnot have survived bodily and spiritually.

Unitarian dumbass "Servetus the Evangelical" wins for revealing himself as golfer Kermit Zarley. He wins automatic special Platinum for being this much of a Screwball.

HeyDuffy459 wins for this:

As to the gnostic gospels, some of them meet the same critera that Tommy is using to assert that the 4 NT gospels are historically viable. The point is, Tommy believes what he wants to believe and he is not applying any rational or even consistent standard of evidence.

When asked to name one that met the same criteria as the canonicals, she replied simply: "The Gospel of Mary."

Sinaiticism gets his feelings hurt:

And for some they look at the way they were beat down. If one uses demeaning and belittling tactics to get their point across then it goes further to show of what character and integrity one is lacking rather than their wisdom and knowledge of the truth. Their point becomes a mute-point as it is of no meaning or interest to the one receiving it, even if it made sense to begin with. They themselves are viewed as the wolf with a voracious appetite to do harm to another by spewing detrimental remarks toward them personally, and toward their belief system, instead of showing proof or evidence scripturally to combat their misunderstandings and misconceptions. They instead show their lack of couth and social skills when dealing with others in such situations. They lack in the proper education and upbringing of a civil and just society. Just because one cannot sway them to their way of thinking doesn’t mean that one should stoop to the level of a school yard bully and act as a complete moronic derriere. I was raised southern baptist and what I remember of those years wasn’t like this at all but was more of people speaking to others with love and compassion. Not ridicule, hate, guile, and disgusting comments about them personally or of their own beliefs and understandings. Though I have to admit that since then, and throughout my path I took seeking truth, I have seen allot where christianity has changed and become more and more like the mentality we see here. Physiologically I see no difference than the mentality of bigotry and racism involved here as was the mentality of the 50’s and 60’s. I suppose what is said of history tends to repeat itself is true. One can disagree with another and not push these attributes to the forefront. It is a choice that one makes once they have the social skills to employ. This is very lacking within this forum as it is with many others around the world. Not to just place such things directly on the head of this forum as it is also something that thrives in everyday life. We see it on the news day after day with all the fighting and wars around the globe. I guess I really shouldn’t even complain about it as I know it falls on deaf ears and has little to no effect on anyone. It is written that many will be given over to a reprobate mind to go after their own lust, their own thoughts, their own feelings above and beyond that of the wants and wishes of Elohim. They will make every sin, and abomination, right in their own eyes and will also worship that of the created over the Creator. It has all been foretold and will all come into being as it is here today without any discourse or obstacle. There is nothing that will sway these judgments that have already been enforced from the beginning and will proceed until the end. It is prophecy in action today and there is nothing we can, nor ought to, do with it because it is part of the grand plan and scheme of things from the great architect of all existence. Why should I stand in the way of his great providence in trying to correct something that is well meant to be in the course of his creation? I shouldn’t, and therefore ask for your forgiveness in this my sin against you and others here. Have your ways with each other and do as you see fit. I will no longer care to say another word again as to your actions and perversions toward one another. Enjoy it while you can. For there will be a time and a day that even this will be as the dust and the dirt of time as we all find ourselves in sheol awaiting that day and that hour of our judgment. Then will we see all that has been and that which has been written down in that book of remembrance which in concert with the other two books will stand as witness as to whether we will receive that beatific vision of immortality or the sure and swift destruction of the fire that awaits in that lake which burnith with sulfur and brimstone. I now take my leave from this discussion and only now hope and pray that Yah’s will and plan will come quickly and swiftly for the sake of those of the righteous to be able to enjoy one another and gather close to that of the warmth and brightness that my Father Yah has so gracefully bestowed upon me and that is His son, and my Master and King, Yahshua Ha Moshiach Ben Daweed.

Rey says, screwily:

Only religious people say that having sex outside marriage is a sin, so why do you perverts even need to get married other than rile religious people up? You don’t mind sinning. Now, the state gets involved in this religious concept of marriage to ensure that society’s best interests are being served. At least that used to be the reason. But today the only reason they are pushing queer marriage is population control. Tyrants need a small population they can control. The state wants to convert as many white and black school children they can to being queers so that they can bring the white and black population, and all other populations that speak English, down to almost nothing and then they can exploit the exclusively Spanish speaking population that will be left as slaves. And if Maobama can’t accomplish that then there will be forced sterlization and death camps.

Steven Morales is still figuring things out:

Sorry but you are wrong. There is a difference between killing in the name of GOD and killing for other reasons. Yes, Stalin was an Atheist, but NO he did not kill in the name of Atheism. Neither did any of those numbers you boasted. An Atheist killing is not an Atheist killing in the name of Atheism. What it seems you are doing, and it is clear, you're trying to label a war or killing without religious reasoning as an Atheistic one. That sir all all wrong.

Mark Roberts closes the collection:

That depends on what you include in your definition of religion. Modern university studies of comparative religion include (amongst other things) sport & political dogmas within the definition of religion, as they inspire the same kind of illogical reactions. That would include almost all conflicts between differing political dogmas under the category of religious wars.

A piece of madness in the Guardian about comparing Scientology with the Catholic church (!)"

But when I think of Mel Gibson building his $42m church compound in Malibu, blithely telling interviewers at the time of the Passion of the Christ's release that his then wife would unfortunately be going to hell, because she was Church of England … well, I can't find it in myself to find him any less barking than Tom Cruise.

Book Screwie goes to James Crossley's Jesus in An Age of Terror, which cleans out an entire wardrobe of tinfoil haberdashery as Crossley argues that certain Context Group descriptions of honor-shame persons encourage racism, us vs them thinking, etc and contributes to the evils of the war against Iraq. He also wins for this:

There are plenty of evangelicals doing excellent stuff and in certain cases you’d never guess they were evangelicals. Then some do the kind of history that can only be described as the equivalent of Intelligent Design. God directly intervened in history, made Christianity happen, bodily raised Jesus from the dead etc. etc. These are the kinds of explanations professional historians wouldn’t touch, just as professional scientists, at least so it seems to me, wouldn’t touch Intelligent Design. -- A British man on the run from police sent a picture of himself to his local paper because he disliked the mugshot they had printed of him as part of a public appeal to track him down.

Rev. Chuck Queen (who used to be a pastor in the area, now at a church in Frankfort, KY) for his recent book The Good News According to Jesus: A New Kind of Christianity for a New Kind of Christian. The title alone was sufficent to set off alarm bells, and this excerpt from the introduction is ample confirmation:

John’s Gospel reflects a kind of theological synthesis of Jewish and Greek ideas and beliefs about Jesus that emerged as Christianity made inroads into the larger world. It contains little of what Jesus actually said and did, reflecting more of what the church, close to a century later (possibly in Ephesus), had come to believe about Jesus. Even a casual reading of John makes obvious that the Jesus of John’s Gospel talks and acts differently than the Jesus in the other Gospels. I am not suggesting that the Gospel of John is not true; rather, its truth is in its theological presentation of the Jesus story, not in its historical portrayal of Jesus.

He claims that Evangelical preaching overwhelmingly focuses on Paul's letters and the Gospel of John,. -- According to Stuff Christians Like, there’s no “exact scripture reference” banning normal hugging. But the Side-Hug does significantly lower the “risk of two crotches touching,” which has got to be in the Bible somewhere. Platinum nominee.|aim|dl1|link5| 2F788476 - Platinum nominee -- nominates Platinum for Christian website, for contents like these:

This website is a clear and present danger to Satan's cause. Are you aiding and abetting Satan by rejecting any of the truths presented in this website?

Beloved Christian, you can learn more relevant, important, scriptural truths reading all the articles on this website than you could learn by attending any church, seminary or Bible college on this planet. The problem is, more than 99% of all Christians cannot handle most of the scriptural truths presented herein (especially so-called pastors, seminary professors and Bible teachers). YES, REALLY.

The Apostle Paul told not only the church in Corinth about the commandment of the Lord that women are to keep silence, they are not permitted to speak, that it is a shame for women to speak in the church; he also wrote to Timothy, who was overseeing the church in Ephesus, concerning the same thing. The inspired apostle said to Timothy, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [Why?] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:11-14). But many pastors are saying, "Yea, hath God said, Women are to be silent in the churches?"

Another thing many pastors are saying is, "Well, Philip had four daughters who prophesied." Yes, Acts 21:9 says that, but one thing is sure---they did not prophesy in the churches and be in the Lord's will, because it was a commandment of the Lord that women were not to speak in the church.

Satan spoke to Eve in the Garden saying, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" And pastors all over the world are saying, "Yea, hath God said, Wives be subject to your own husbands in everything?"


1. Because there are many very important scriptural truths herein that aren't taught in any Bible college or seminary, nor by any pastors or Bible teachers.

2. Because the truth will set you free.

3. By reading, comprehending and applying these truths to your life, you will benefit for all eternity more than you would otherwise.

4. Embracing truth makes you spiritually powerful. If you embrace anything that isn't true, then to that extent your spiritual power is diminished. "If that 'light' within you is darkness [false teaching], how great is that darkness."

5. Being set free from doctrinal error not only empowers you, but brings more glory to Jesus Christ who is the Truth personified.

The entire earth was evangelized before the end of Paul’s ministry and will not be evangelized by Christians again before Christ returns.

What you are about to read, after this brief and necessary introduction, is irrefutable proof that all pastors are teaching many significant false doctrines, with dire eternal consequences.

The reason your pastor does not want you to know all these things is because the pulpit committee or deacon board or whoever called him to be your pastor would fire him and get another pastor to tickle your ears, and he would be looking for another job in order to pay his mortgage payments, car payments, insurance premiums, ad nauseam (and like all the other pastors in these last days, not being a disciple of Jesus, he would not know all of these truths anyway).

Many Christians enjoy watching sports on TV. Identifying with these highly paid or highly esteemed athletes brings joy to their souls. But Jesus said, "... That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Lk. 16:15).

power of the Holy Spirit is not manifested in competitiveness, but rather in humility---God gives grace to the humble. Jesus is our Example. Can you really picture our Lord running down a football field knocking down his opponents, headed for the goal line as the "fans" (short for "fanatics") jump up and down and yell and applaud?