Mail was top-heavy again this month, and we got an unusual amount from Christ-mythers who appear to be circling the wagons. They can borrow some pistols from the guys who stump for Atlantis.

From the Mailbag

The very nuttiest email this past month came not from a Christ-myther, though, but from someone who illustrates the maxim that no matter how much education there is in the world, stupidity can always overcome it somehow:

My theory is that Francesco Petrarch wrote the New Testament. This is a -none- threating item; unless you are afraid to hear information like this.

I have presented it in a VERY logical and reasonable fashion using common sense. I am NOT a "religious" person. Have never gone to any church. Have no opinion one way or other.

I am just showing you here I have found a "secret code" in the New Testament, very similar to the Da Vinci Code. It is just a code mystery I have solved that I am showing. Look up in Wikipedia or Google the "Biblical Names" meanings. This is The Petrarch Code main "keys". Just put in the meanings.

Besides I do NOT know you. You are just one in hundreds I am communicatiing with on The Petrarch Code "keys". Look up in Wikipedia "Petrarch". He is the Father of the Renaissance". Renaissance means "rebirth" or "born again". Petrarch used the term "Jesus" to mean "innovation" (new ideas). Being "born again" in -Jesus- is just having a renewal or rebirth of new ideas; which we sometimes call now "innovation".....

FYI: I have solved the mystery of the "Jesus Genealogies"! Interested........ (I'll send you -answer- in simple text).

I told him he'd won a Screwball Award on that basis alone (no mean feat) and the reply was:

Since you could NOT come up with -anything- SPECIFIC, just like the other several hundred "scholars" that I am in communication with, THEN you have confirmed my theories.

Only IF you could have come up with something SPECIFIC would there be any debate. Just all you had was very vague comments and only general comments, THEN you could not -disprove- what I am saying. You needed to -use- logic, reasoning, and the most important item of common sense.

By the way, I have communicated with over 10,000 clergy on this subject of "the Holy Spirit". I have come to the final conclusion that it is nothing other than just plain -everyday- common sense (a.k.a."horse sense"). Good sound judgement.

I am thinking you are lazy and will not fill in the Biblical word meanings to see the real message, so I have done it:

Example placing "Gospel of Luke" to year 1361: Luke 3:1 "In the FIFTEENTH year of the reign of Tiberius the Emperor, Pontius Pilate being lieutenant of Jewry, and Herod being Tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip Tetrarch in Iturea, and in the region of Traconitis, and Lysanias the Tetrarch of Abyline: Luke 3:2 When Anna and Cayphas were the high priests: Word of God was published to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness."

Using Petrarch Codes and the Biblical meanings behind the names: Luke 3:1 "In the FIFTEENTH year of the reign of good vision the ruler of tradition, of a formal contract of belonging to the sea, being lieutenant of the praise of self-subsisting traditional customs and the hero of the time being Petrarch of revolution, and his brother Philip, Petrarch in guarded and in the region of stony, and that drives away sorrow, the Petrarch of the father that is in mourning." Luke 3:2 "When gracious and he that seeks with diligence were the high priests: The word of a moral lifestyle and good honest living was published and attributed unto Giovanni (John), the son of the memory of the normal practiced traditions in deep thought."

Tiberias, good vision

Emperor = I say is "ruler of tradition" or of the local customs.

Pontius, belonging to the sea

Pilate, armed with a dart (written or formal contract/agreement)

Jewry, Judaea, Judah, the praise of Jehovah ("self-subsisting")

Herod = I say is "hero of the day" (hero + d) or "hero of the time"

Tetrarch = Petrarch

Galilee, revolution

Iturea, guarded

Traconitis, stony

Lysanias, that drives away sorrow

Abyline, Abilene, the father of mourning

Anna, gracious

Cayphas, Caiphas, he that seeks with diligence

God = I say is a derivative from Old English of "god", off "good".

God = I say "good" honest moral lifestyle or "good" moral living.

John = Giovanni

Zacharias, memory of the Lord (of the normal practiced traditions)

In wilderness or mountains or desert = deep thought/contemplation.

In the Fourteenth Century it was "good vision" and the traditional customs to have prearranged marriages ("self-subsisting") for the sake of combining royalty, land acquisitions, and political power.

This was customary tradition then for Philip I, "Duke of Burgundy". Search in Wikipedia or Google: "Philip I, Duke of Burgundy". The most important feature is death age of Philip I, being "15".

If you can -SPECIFICALLY- with logic, reasoning, and plain "common sense" explain where any of my DATING methods are wrong --> I will assume then they are correct and on track. For example, explain away the above death deaths of "1361" for BOTH Petrarch's son (John) and that of Philip I; if you can. Also explain your debate then for the "temple" of -46- yrears. This then -DATES- the Gospels to the -exact- year of "1362". Also explain your theory of the word "Tetrarch" for "Petrarch".

Apparently I stumped you, since I didn't hear back from you on these very simple -DATING- methods that I am using.... I have decoded "Acts of the Apostles" -> would you want any chapters? I stumped you on the Straight Street = Appian Way. (ref: "Parallel Verses") ("Tarsus")

Yes, there's nothing quite like insanity to give one reassurance.

Then we have this in the lessons learned category: Why computers should not replace people, ever:


I was wondering if you would be interested in placing an ad on your website The specific page I am interested in is: I'll give you $30 to place a small text ad on that page. The advertising would be for a company that sells Spanish real estate. Would something like this interest you?

For those who don't recognize it, that's my article on the Spanish Inquisition.

Similarly, the following email offers lessons learned in paying attetion who you write to for a scam:


I know that this letter may not come to you as a surprise since your Organisation is well advertised. However, I am writing based on the Prevailing information I gathered concerning your esteem company in your Country's chamber of commerce.

I have full confidence that you can execute this business to our mutual benefit and I believe that you will not let down the trust and confidence I am about to repose on you.

I work with an ivoirien based public relations firm "AMIC". I work as the corporate affairs manager, between the 12 - 19 of January 2005, a seminar was held at BOUAKE, COTE D'IVOIRE of which I attended. In this seminar I was lucky to meet ALHAJI.A.U. BOSTRA, The president of MACDOWELS ETS.

ALHAJI.A.U. BOSTRA is an accomplished businessman. He is a multi-millionaire farmer with cattle farms in Mali, Niger, Kenya, Burkina Faso and Chad Republic. Moreso, he is the Greatest supplier of cattle And diary products to the whole of West Africa. On knowing my profession,he told me about the huge amount of money he spends on the purchase of a particular but very important cattle medicine.

Precisely, he buys at $5,000 a carton, sometimes he buys up to 1500 Cartons. He asked me if my organisation can source for a cheaper supplier. Back to my office, I discussed the business with my boss, he decided to handle the supplies by himself. We did market research and discovered that we can buy these medicines in EUROPE for $2,000 per carton. We moved a proposal to Macdowels to supply him at $ 4,500 per carton which he accepted. I agreed with my boss that he will give me 15 % of the profit.

On the 21 of February 2005, we made our first supplies of 420 cartons to Macdowels. My boss never gave me a dime. Instead he bought an old model and second handed 504 Peugeot car for me. Since then, my relationships with my boss have seized to be cordial. He never talked to me about Macdowels again.

Recently,I intercepted some letters from Macdowels to my boss. I was surprised to learn that my boss had made five more supplies to Macdowels which I knew nothing about. Moreseo, Macdowels is requesting for more supplies of 800 Cartons before the end of next month, these letters never got to my boss, instead I called ALHAJI A.U. BOSTRA, The President of Macdowels and convinced him that I can arrange for an international supplier who can supply him at the price $ 4,000 per carton, but that he (A.U. BOSTRA) will pay cash before lifting the goods.

ALHAJI A.U. BOSTRA is presently waiting for my foreign contact and me. For the moment he has stopped all contact with my boss. If you can handle this project please contact me immediately for details and negotiations as regards my commission.

Note : We buy 800 cartons at $ 1,600,000.00. We sell at $3,200,000.00 & our client pays cash before lifting of goods, and he ( ALHAJI)must not know our purchase point at EUROPE.

Thank you and best regards.

Kamah Suleiman.

It's nice to know that the US Chamber of Commerce recommends Tekton as a reliable broker for cow medicine.

Then we had this from the Department of Frustrated People:

Good evening. I've just read your review of Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." My hope is two fold. Firstly, I hope that you've since stopped doing drugs since they are occluding your ability to think, write, and assess clearly. My second hope is that you don't accidentally breed.

Also sent from another person in that Department:

You are such a fraud. Instead of refuting and debating points. You seem to cover your non answers with sarcasim. A true man of god would have real answers. You just show yourself to be one of the false witnesses you seem to cry about. You are only proving the opposite of that which you claim Please don't reply with such


Your bigotry is beyond belief! Your venom is vicious. Yet you have the audacity to call yourself a "Christian"?

This too:

i just wanted you to know that. your insights are not nearly as scholarly as you would like to imagine. you are a typical christian sophist believing that since you have AN answer, that the question is no longer viable. most of the problems that non-christian apologists have is that christianity has problems, it really seems that you fail to see that. your attitude is condescending and harsh. you dont give anyone any credit. you are brainwashed and annoying. also, having a masters degree does not make you an expert. and being self published, how does that mean anything? anyone can be self published. i know my title is harsh, but knowing your type, i thought you might enjoy it as it will give you a little fuel to feed your fire of righteous indignation.

But anyway, let's now get to the Christ mythers, starting with a Disturbed Tom Harpur Fanatic of the Month:

Reading your 'Critical Look' at Tom Harpurs 'Pagan Christ', I am not at all surprised that TH does not wish to correspond with you.

Your aggressive, insulting language, highlights your position as bigoted & intransigent. I guess he feels, as I would in his position, that he would be wasting his precious time talking with you!

Words such as 'Let his cowardice speak for itself.' indicate to me hurt & fear on your part. Perhaps he has created some doubts in the back of your mind that you find hard to handle?!

As a neutral on the subject, your (as I said earlier) aggressive & defensive stance tell your reader a lot!

The article also reads like a desperate statistician grasping at ways of presenting poor figures in a favourable light.

If you are not as bigoted as you appear, try reviewing the book looking for things that could be true or useful or interesting...please let me know how far you get with this.

OK, I found something useful. Harpur's book makes a good paperweight!

Next up, a Disturbed Fan of Nietzsche (is there any such thing as a non-disturbed fan of Nietzsche?):

If you really want to tackle an important argument against Christianity, why not review Nietzsche's "The AntiChrist"? Seeing the product of such an undertaking would, no doubt, be so amusing, that I am willing even to mail you a copy of it myself.

If you could produce a decent critique of his argument in that book, surely you would elevate yourself from hack internet apologetic to serious religious thinker.

Oops. I just found your Nietzsche essay. Looks like you already wrote one and thus confirmed, once again, that you are only a hack wanna-be theologian.

I will be writing a response to your Nietzsche article soon -- if it can even be called a response, you ignorant twerp.

Oh well. I suppose I'll miss how Nietzsche debunked the honor-shame connection to atonement theory. Then we had this from the League of Teenage Christ Mythers:

I am writing in response to your article entitled Shattering the Christ-Myth. Unfortunately, your article is a bit light on facts, and I would like more clarification.

You simply focus on a single quote from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, then copy and paste a few quotes against G.A. Wells and declare victory. Huh? It made me smile reading it, since the implication is that those are the only pieces of evidence needing refutation.

You kind of hobbled together a final argument on why no one noticed Jesus while he was alive. Most of it didn't even make sense, as it was simply the same argument repeated six times. The crux of which is:

"Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises"

Well, I'm sure performing feats of magic, coming back to life and stopping the sun would have been a bit significant!!!

After reading about you on Wikipedia and other various places on the web, I expected a much more academic argument, systematically countering each point the jesus-myth movement put forward. What I got, unfortunately, was an 7th grade level.

J. P. I want to help. I want to push you, to challenge you to do better. Right now there are many "lost souls" like myself who believe, simply, that Jesus was a myth - a synthesis of other mystery religions that were very prominent during the first century AD.

So here is my question to you. What firm evidence do you have that Jesus was an actual historical figure? Your "highly reliable sources" - Tacitus and Josephus are laughable. The Tacitus quote is disputed and was written 60 years after JC died, a thousand miles away. The Josephus passage you are referring to is also highly disputed, and definitely not contemporary with the life of JC.

Now try to understand it from my perspective. I see a mountain of evidence indicating that the legend of Jesus was an synthesis of existing gods during the same time - many of which parallel exactly the life of "christ", and you give me two tired old dubious quotes from decades after this guy was supposed to have lived? The only people who would follow that logic are people who already believe anyway. If you want to convince non-believers, you need a bit more fact on your side.

So please JC, answer my call. I'll post this letter to the forum at, as an open letter awaiting your reply.

This lunatic joined TheologyWeb and is presently receiving the beating of his life. Come join in. He prances around on the forum under the handle "Jesus", too.

Then from the Clueless Compost Department:

I just read your article on Jesus - Destroying the Christ Myth. In it, you take the position that Gamaliel never existed, while your position was to be taken as sarcasm, why do you think that he did exist? And what bearing would that have one way or the other on the existence of Jesus?

Just wondering. I was hoping to get something conclusive from your thesis but I did not read much that would drive me to think one way or the other and that is the perplexing situation facing everyone - believe based on tradition and faith or wonder based on the lack of credible evidence?

But the highlight had to be not an email, but fundy atheist who sent me this postcard from Gainesville, FL

You are an idiot! Ha ha ha ha! You are an idiot! Ha ha ha ha! pwd by B. Holtz -- how's that Trilemma Debate going? PS: When you die worms eat you

It'd be nice to reply, but there was no return address. Oh well.

And When Your Skull Cracks, Bang Harder

Slactivist (not a screwball) tells a funny story about his days at Timothy Christian School in a footnote in his blog entry titled "The Language of Religion":

True story from back at Timothy Christian School:

We were studying evangelism and the teacher was going over something called the "Romans Road" -- a series of passages from St. Paul's epistle to the Romans that described humanity's sinfulness and need for salvation. Evangelism, by definition, involves talking with people who do not already share our faith. Such people, I had noticed, also tended not to regard our Bible as their Bible, so I asked the teacher what we should say to someone who tells us they don't believe in the Bible.

"You show them II Timothy 3:16," the teacher said. And then she quoted it, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

When I suggested that someone who didn't believe in the Bible wasn't likely to believe in II Timothy any more than they believed in Romans, she responded by quoting another passage, II Peter 1:21, and then another from the 119th Psalm.

It went on like that for a bit, like something from Abbot and Costello, with both of us getting more frustrated as she quoted Bible verse after Bible verse about the authority of the Bible and me not doing a very good job of expressing that someone who doesn't believe in Bible verses won't be convinced by a Bible verse that tells them to believe in Bible verses. Until finally she said this:

"Well if they still don't believe in the Bible after you've showed them all those verses, then I guess they just can't read."

For An Encore, He Sticks His Head Into His Armpit

"freethinker" wins the Disco Boogie Award for this dodgeball. He cited a 3rd-4th century source listing cities that didn't list Nazareth as proof Nazareth didn't exist. I said:

Uh, before you said that Nazareth existed in 135 AD, so I dunno what the heck you think you're helping yourself with here.

His reply:

In the interest of brevity I shortly mentioned this as the earliest possible record of habitation without qualification. The settlers were probably fugitives of the latest revolt and did not stay. They probably did not name the place.

And he also said:

The gospels were written between 70 AD and 1563 AD

Hinduism Makes You Dizzy
A reader submitted this experience:

Dear Mr. Holding:

I thought you might like to use the nebulous text below as an item in the October "Screwballs of the Month" issue....I was corresponding with a "Christian" who denied all the miracles in the Bible and tried comparing Christianity to Hinduism.

First, our man bashes "rapturism" (I'm guessing that's referring to dispensationalism). I know that you're a preterist, so this won't interest you as much, but I find it rather humorous as to what he says next:

Bring in a rapturist and basically you have a person who is brainwashed and believes in jesus walking over a lake and snakes talking, Moses parting an ocean....CRAP like that.

He went on to explain his point:

True Christianity is much like Hinduism, in their myth figures stories. But those who wait patiently with faith, not convinced about these will be able to hear the Truth when the seals are opened and the mysteries are revealled.

At this point, it was clear I was talking with a screwball, so I figured it would be fun to continue correspondence. I told him that Christianity was nothing like Hinduism because, first of all, Christianity is monotheistic and Hinduism is polytheistic. Also, I told him that Vrshnu did not die on a cross like some people like to claim. He responded by saying:

christianity is similar to Hinduism, in that they make a mythology out of mans records of other men. The gods of hinduism, started out being ordinary men and the literal use of words caused many to sound like they had supernatural powers. When using symbolism to portray the characteristics of men then suddenly ordinary men can become beasts and instead of walking into the horizon, the walk upon clouds, or in the specific case of Hanuman a former hindu hero who 'jumped from one island to the next', became pictures of a man who could fly in the air over miles of air space, called 'jumping from one island to the next' to deliver a message.

Taking words out of context and using then literally as opposed to understanding how to apply them to the Text with common sense, is rampant in the minds of men who want to control others with concepts of MYTH GODS.

And no Moses did not part and ocean and thousands of people could watch as waves 50 feet high danced over by the sides of a desert.


The Itchy Butt Argument

From Richard Carrier we learned that buxom females are an argument against the existence of God. Now we have a new revelation from "rickyroma":

With the childish egocentric sting of "your life isn't perfect" changed to "the world isn't perfect" then yes I would consider the briefest and mildist discomfort of the smallest insect an utterly devastating argument against the existence of a loving creator deity.

There you have it: My neighbor had an itch on his butt this morning. Therefore God either doesn't exist or is a hateful sadist.

And of Course, One Gold Loftus at Least

John Loftus just can't seem to break his streak. He wins Gold for this on his "Duh! Bunk and Christianity" blog:

I'm just tired of pompous [edited] on the internet who go around claiming they are superior to me in terms of intelligence and faith. Such arrogance makes me vomit. I'm an easy target, because they simply didn't know me. People like [Catholic apologist] Dave [Armstromg] would've looked up to me back then, but he has the audacity to go around claiming he is superior to me in both intelligence and with a deeper faith. I seriously doubt that he is, given what I've read from him. I was a much better apologist than he is now. And there probably are people smarter and with a deeper faith than I had too, so that doesn't bother me. It the self-assured arrogant idiots out there, like Dave, who prefer to proclaim off of my personal experience that they are better than I. The fact is they do not know this! I'll say it again. They do not know this!

John shares the award with dagoodS, one of his useful idiots, for complaining that Proverbs is not the Magic Happy Fun Bible, and with Joe Holman, who wins the second "Pistis in the Wind" Award for this:

By faith, radical Muslims fly plains into buildings, killing thousands. By faith, suicide bombers explode themselves on sidewalks full of people and on school buses full of children. By faith, large groups senselessly riot over the publishing of stupid Muhammed cartoons and call for the life of the artists that produced them. By faith, Jewish and Arab teens throw rocks at each other, stab each other, and get together in mobs to beat their enemies to death with makeshift blunt objects, in the absence of a handy gun or sword. By faith, dedicated Muslim families place their own babies and young children in front of U.S. tanks as they roll through town, trying to clear out terrorist cells. By faith, reporter Nick Berg had his head sawed off by extremist Muslims while videotape rolled and caught his silenced screams and gasps for breath as he died. His severed head was placed upon his body. By faith, Muslims, Jews, and Christians gather in large numbers, to assemble at the Wailing Wall, nodding and praying, rocking back and forth, in adoration of a god who sits by and lets the never-ending holy land dispute go unresolved, allowing the respective religions to remain bitter enemies for centuries, even amidst the desperate cries of some of their own representatives for the senseless violence to stop. By faith, a Muslim man is moved to throw acid in his sister's face, grossly disfiguring her, because she was raped and is no longer a virgin. By faith, a Somalian Muslim man brings his young daughter to the village elders so she can undergo cliterodectomy before she reaches sexual maturity to help ensure that she will never be tempted to know sexual pleasure, and therefore, be tempted to cheat on her future husband....

And also with Jon "Goat" Curry, who at plagiarizes Bart Ehrman and uses a host of the same old canards.

"brad from detroit" wins the Hard Head in an Obscure Corner Award for this exchange with a reader:

Brad: like i said to fran, you know as much as i do about "truth".

Reader: Oh really? You can read my mind? You know everything I've studied? Or are you saying truth cannot be known? Because if you are, then your claiming at least that statement is true and to have knowledge of it. In other words, you cannot say truth is unknowable without also claiming to know a truth.

brad: i don't know or care really what you've studied. because someone else may have studied the exact opposite. i'm saying (and please, don't think too hard on this) in this particular subject (religion) no one knows who is right. that's why i quoted "truth".

reader: How can you say that without even looking at arguments or data? You're only talking out of thin air.

brad: you realize that you sound like an atheist, right?

reader: No, I'm a rational Christian, one who has studied enough of the claims against Christianity to know they are not sound and that there is sufficient evidence in favor of the faith. All you;re doing is making an unsupported assertion about knowledge and not even engaging the arguments or data for anything.

And for good measure, apparently a Christian - archangel, replying to the last comment above to brad, with this:

you sound like a freaken scientist or something... which is completely the opposite of christianity.

Carpedm9587 wins tne No Dictionaries or Scholarship Please Award from the following:

Coherent core?... the collection of people who claim the title "Christian" can't even agree on a theological foundation. You expect them to agree on a moral one? Every subsect of Christianity has a theologically nuanced belief system and most of them think all of the others "aren't Christian." And they will argue vehemently that THEY are Christian and have THE Christian core tenets and the others don't. They will all site historical precedence, teaching of the bible, and so forth to defend their claim.

A reader provides this description, for which I'll give the Nero Zero Award to the author named:

I'd like to nominate author Richard Holland for excerpts of his book "Nero- The Man Behind the Myth" published by Sutton Publishing, who normally produce decent history books. BH Warmington (an expert on Nero) Mr. Holland is not.

"Loyalty to the Emperor would have to be replaced by submission to an evidently fearsome and vengeful deity, who was personified in some mysterious manner by a corpse that got up and walked away after being executed in Rome's name by due process. A strong element of ill-wishing is apparent in the apocalyptic beliefs of both Jews and Christians in the imminent destruction of secular Roman power... Jesus may have taught some of them to love their enemies and turn the other cheek, but hatred, in the guise of righteous indignation, flows in waves out of the apocalyptic literature, including the canonical Revelation of John. These authors cannot wait for the ethical cleansing to begin.... What is beyond doubt is the excitement that supposedly saintly author shows when contemplating the fate of all those sinners about to be trampled on by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or plunged into a pit of everlasting fire. Nero's decision, inspired by fear, to apply the laws of his country to tiny, obstinate and deeply misunderstood minority, was by comparison neither malevolent or deranged.... If the Second Coming prophesied by John of the Apocalypse, involving the immolation of almost the entire population of Rome, reflected the true aspirations of his fellow Christians in that city, Nero could quite reasonably claim to be acting in the interests of the vast majority of his subjects. They and their Emperor can hardly be blamed for wanting to go on living."

"Nero was predicted to be about to come back to earth as Antichrist, lose the final battle of Armageddon and be submerged alive in a lake of fire and brimstone... St. John's Gospel is possibly the most sublime work of religious literature ever written. Although it contains a number of beautiful and sublime passages, the Book of Revelation, as a whole, is a radically different work- often shockingly different.... Leaving motives to one side, John of Patmos has been more responsible for the suffering of innocent Christians than Nero was.... There is a prophetic whiff of Auschwitz about the smoke that rises day and night from this sinister Lamb's brimstone incinerators.... In the face of this genocidal ethical cleansing, who would not be tempted to take sides with Nero if forced to choose between him and the Apocalyptic Lamb?"

"To liberate him [Nero] fully will require the patient demolition of those entrenched positions. [The position of the Church and the Bible on Nero as well as that of the Roman writers themselves, such as Tacitus.] That may need to be the work of more than one generation. But in the immensely long perspective of the history of religious ideas, it is certain we have not heard the last word in the supposedly cosmic conflict between the Beast and the Lamb. Nero awaits his apotheosis."

One day I will write a detailed essay on this and other screwball remarks which he made in the book, and show why he is wrong, even if he conveyed all too accurately (and shares many of) the prejudices the Romans had aginst Christians. He says for example that the Christians could easily have avoided martyrdom by offering incense to Caesar and the Roman gods, and that they only had themselves to blame. Apparently Jesus' Resurrection made Him an animated corpse, akin to a vampire. He says that Jesus had divine titles given to Him by others through guesswork.

It obviously escapes his notice that Paul seems to have explained to Nero and Seneca the full Gospel including some eschatological teaching. (Which is probably the real source of inspiration for Nero to stitch-up the Christians as arsonists.) In which case Nero knew fine well that the Christians really meant in their teaching and knew that they had no evil intentions. See 2 Timothy, where Paul indicated that he was released by Nero in AD 62 and so escaped the persecution after the Fire, in referring to escaping the Lion's Mouth. It is clear that this enabled Paul to go to Spain after all (see 1 Clement) and go on a last missionary journey to Illyricum and other places which is not mentioned in Acts before Nero changed his mind, had him hunted down, brought back to Rome in AD 67 and beheaded. (The use of Christians as scapegoats for the Fire of Rome hints at his knowledge of Christian teaching as seen in 2 Peter, and this is why I believe that Paul did face Nero himself in AD 62 and not a representative of the Emperor.)

A fellow with the handle "ICB4_GG1" wins the Rat a Tat Tat Award for this discussion:


ICB4_GGI: the holy scriptures say ~ 10 are 'lost', or unknown to themselves as a tribe...

ICB4_GGI: HE named Himself ^YESHUA^... the pope re:named him jesus... *Whose Report Will You Believe!?!*

ICB4_GGI: Yeshua means 'Salvation'... jesus means 'horse'... but, i'm not trying to make issues 4U

ICB4_GGI: christ means 'highest-spiritual-office'.... Messiah means 'God in the Flesh....

ICB4_GGI: Holy Scriptures were Only`0riginally written in HEBREW... greek is 0nly 1`of~many translations of our Language...

ICB4_GGI: Shaul (paul) was a tellite maker, you believe he was a tent`maker... lol

ICB4_GGI: New Testament WAS only written in hebrew, not a foriegn pagan-language... but, you'll believe 'whatever-your-pastors-senimary' taught you....

ICB4_GGI: insteed of Consulting THe People whose religion IT`Is...

ICB4_GGI: Matthew- Mark-Luke & John, fisherman, wrote in a forreign pagan language????? that's crazy...

ICB4_GGI: Complete Jewish Bible `ONLY...

ICB4_GGI: it's all 77`books


ICB4_GGI: look, even in the scripture yuz`all have, there are many 'books' that are referred`to as scripture, by the writers themselves... yet, they're not in 'the-gentile' veriosns...

ICB4_GGI: the book of jasher, for instance

ICB4_GGI: the book of enoch... ect

John Powell, who is normally saner than this, wins the Doppleganger Award for this theory:

I dismiss Acts as far as Paul goes because it's the conversion story of some Saul of Tarsus, not Paul. The story in Acts 9 appears to be an exaggerated retelling of Paul's conversion of Gal 1. Acts 9 is obviously related to Gal 1 since so many elements match, but the story in Acts is significantly different in the direction of the fabulous.

Paul received the Gospel through some unspecified "revelation of Jesus Christ." That could refer to a hallucination, a dream, or merely an inspired change of view while reading Old Testament passages. There's no indication it was accompanied by a miracle like Paul being blinded and later healed.

Saul is blinded and hears Jesus speak to him.

Paul didn't confer with any mortal, but immediately went to Arabia, perhaps to avoid both the Jews and Christians in Damascus until he could figure out what to do with his life.

Saul doesn't immediately go to Arabia, but is guided to Damascus where a Christian mortal comes to heal him and, apparently, confer with him.

Paul returned to Damascus from Arabia where he spent 3 years, perhaps studying the Old Testament to learn more about Jesus.

Saul spends mere days with the saints in Damascus, apparently conferring with them about preaching and such things, and then begins to preach a powerful message in the Jewish synagogues, proving that Jesus is the Christ.

Paul, after the 3 years in Damascus, went to Jerusalem to visit a couple of weeks with Peter, perhaps to get to know him and others there, to compare notes on Jesus, and to get a recommendation to begin preaching. There's no indication in Gal 1 that Paul went to Jerusalem to avoid an assassination attempt in Damascus or to relocate to Jerusalem. Apparently, Paul's problems with the ruler of Damascus occurred later, after Paul began to preach.

After preaching in Damascus for many days (but not 3 years), Saul flees to Jerusalem to avoid an assassination. He goes to Jerusalem to relocate there.

Of the apostles, Paul only sees Peter and James during his 15-day stay in Jerusalem.

Saul is formally presented before the apostles (presumably more than just two) with the apostle Barnabas defending him.

Paul then leaves Judea and goes to Syria and Cilicia perhaps on foot to begin preaching in Damascus, Syria and from there northward to Cilicia.

Saul preaches in Jerusalem for a while but the Greeks in Jerusalem want to kill him so the Christian leadership send him to Caesarea, perhaps to put him on a boat to sail to his home area of Tarsus, Cilicia where he will be safer in the early stages of his career.

In Paul's story, the Christians of Judea (where Paul hadn't preached) were amazed by his conversion.

In Saul's story, it's the Jews in the synagogues who are amazed. I guess the Christians of Acts aren't amazed by such things.

Richard Carrier wins the Good and Senseless Award for his essay on Pascal's Wager, which is up on

It is a common belief that only the morally good should populate heaven, and this is a reasonable belief, widely defended by theists of many varieties. Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven--unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.

But only two groups fit this description: intellectually committed but critical theists, and intellectually committed but critical nontheists (which means both atheists and agnostics, though more specifically secular humanists, in the most basic sense). Both groups have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about god (for example) are probably correct, so that their beliefs about right and wrong will probably be correct. No other groups can claim this. If anyone is sincerely interested in doing right and wrong, they must be sincerely interested in whether certain claims are true, including "God exists," and must treat this matter with as much responsibility and concern as any other moral question. And the only two kinds of people who do this are those theists and nontheists who devote their lives to examining the facts and determining whether they are right.


For example, in the bible Abraham discards humanity and morality upon God's command to kill his son Isaac, and God rewards him for placing loyalty above morality. That is probably evil--a good god would expect Abraham to forego fear and loyalty and place compassion first and refuse to commit an evil act, and would reward him for that, not for compliance.


Statement One: "People who are mentally retarded, but help out the poor and are humble, caring people won't go to heaven because they aren't smart enough. Oh, and I don't have a clue as to what the actual stance is that Christianity takes on sin and heaven.

Statement Two: "Those stupid theists never, ever test their beliefs; they're just dolts who consistently believe everything that the Bible tells them without ever having a dissenting thought and searching for the right answers on morality or any other intellectual matter. Atheists pwn teh stupid theists. 'Cause, you know, I, Richard Carrier, am looking for truth and teh stupid theists aren't."

Statement Three: "Hmm. God, being the only infinite, intelligent being that exists, sets the standard for morality? I don't understand that either. Morality in the Biblical world stems not from the infinite, Almighty God, but from humanity's previous evolution. Why should the will of God be higher than human evolution in the moral realm?"

Carrier also earns extra silver for his new blog, and the Rational Responders share the award for saying this on their website:

World Renowned Historian and Philosopher Richard Carrier

Our old buddy Steven "Stevie Weevie" Carr wins the Still Don't Get It Award for this one:

There are a small minority of religious people who feel that genocides committed in the name of their religion are justifed, and justifiable.

An example of such a group is the Christian Cadre. Here is where they justify the genocidal killings in the Bible.

They genuinely believe that if they think that some people are enemies of their religion, then those people should be killed, men, women and children.

A Wonka's Tasty Fudge Award goes to "headheart" for this diatribe:

Just say for a moment you believed in God.

Just say that moment was the same as waking up from a dream and as you sat on there on the edge of you bed you remembered three words.

You had heard those words spoken by your mother and then your father, by your sister and perhaps your brother, or incase you were an orphan by your friends, and intimately once or twice by a lover.

Just say for a moment you believed in God.

And inside that moment you heard the three words that were spoken by many throughout your life, and sometimes they carried a lasting commitment to faithfulness and trust, but mostly they ended up being hardly reliable.

But inside that fleeting moment, a dream but not a dream, you heard as if in a dream but not a dream, for it was as if you had been dreaming and in your morning misty state heard three words that conveyed an otherworldly sense to the meaning you had associated with these three words, a sense that they could never be anything else but completely what they were in terms of complete faithfulness.

How quickly a lover changes or a friend may change, when stubborn pride or things just get in the way, but no in the words you heard out of your moment, there was a complete awareness that what you had heard you had believed as a child when your mother or father or close friend spoke to you, and bond, a trust, a lifetime pact.

There was something otherworldly in the phrase, so emphatically definite and assuredly full proof. It was like the combination of all the genuine trusts, almost a giant source from which your truest friendship had flown to start off with, but yet the dimension to the words was greater more sublime more emphatic, as if you had heard them for the first time and the conviction that fell upon you that whoever had spoken this phrase had been more aware of you by far than you were aware of the speaker.

You sat there wondering, and thinking and then tucked it away in the recesses of your mind, until now.

There were simply tons of these this round.,,20542442-5007200,00.html -- award for this school, and a honorable mention for "Minnesota" who thinks that complaining about it is "whacky".

Jim Eisele for the no-bats-in-the-belfry dialogue

The anti-Christian doofuses who write the script for the show "The West Wing": And the people who write secular television.

You guessed it: Marshall Brain has another YouTube video. And it's just as solid in how it argues:

If you are a Christian, you are about to begin a fascinating journey. In the next ten minutes it will become clear to you that your belief in God is delusional.

The problem is that your delusion, combined with the delusion of billions of other religious people like you, is hurting us as a species. It does not matter if you are a fundamentalist Christian, a moderate Christian or a casual Christian. Your delusion is hurting us.

The goal of this short video is to help you look in a mirror and understand the delusion of Christianity. Once you can see what is going on, the hope is that you will be able to start healing your delusion. With each healing, we make our world a better place.

Why do you need to heal your delusion? Because all these religious bubbles harm us as a species. A planet full of delusionary people is not healthy. Just look at how Christianity skews your thinking.

Problem #1 The delusion of Christianity makes you outrageosly supersitious. Chances are that you believe in "the power of prayer", even though every valid scientific study shows that prayer has absolutely no effect. The belief in prayer is complete supersition.

Problem #2 The delusion of Christianity radically devalues human life. We routinely send soldiers into battle with the message that it's okay to die, because once you die you get to go to heaven. In reality, Heaven is a fairy tale fantasy.

Problem #3 The delusion of Christianity replaces rational thought with dangerous mythology. For example, 60% of adults in America believe that Jesus will return and destroy the planet. Myths like this grossly skew your thinking about the future of our species. They also slow scientific progress.

And more of Brain's silliness at -- and he still hasn't answered our material on him.

YouTube is the place where any idiot can post video, and here's another screwball for this person who uploaded a video just for Acharya S onto youtube:

And another video uploaded by the same person and also for Acharya S:

Award for a report on the webiste which says:

DNA's simple and elegant structure - the "twisted ladder," with sugar-phosphate chains making up the "rails" and oxygen- and nitrogen-containing chemical "rungs" tenuously uniting the two halves - seems to be the work of an accomplished sculptor.

Yet the graceful, sinuous profile of the DNA double helix is the result of random chemical reactions in a simmering, primordial stew.

Say what?! Care for some evidence?

"These molecules are the result of evolution," said Egli, professor of Biochemistry. "Somehow they have been shaped and optimized for a particular purpose."

Apparently he can't decide between evolution and ID.

The first one is a screwball for New Lows in Web Design, as a quick perousal will prove; the second is for the actual content: Stupid, ill-thought-out tracts with an obscene number of exclamation marks? Check. Extremely shallow theology that results in heresy? Check. According to them, TrueChrisitans™ do not sin. At all. Which is really funny, because in their tracts they frequently mention 1 John 1:5-7, while completely ignoring vv. 8-10. To top it all off, they're going around to college campuses, holding signs that say "no homos in heaven" and "all homos go to hell," and generally being enfant provocateurs, making actual Christians look terrible in the process. -- the comic itself -- Darth Vader versus Jesus discussion -- full of screwy stuff like:

If you wanted to convert me you'd have to demonstrate the following:

1. That the majority of Christians are intelligent on the topic of religion.

2. That the Bible offers intelligent explanations.

3. That the Christian concept of God is that of an intelligent being.

This fellow also has an article called "Christian are stupid." In it, he states:

Saying that "Christians are delusional" is probably more accurate than saying "Christians are stupid", however the latter statement is more satisfying when you've got all that pent up frustration from debating with a Christian. They think that atheists are going to hell after we die, so we might as well poke fun of them in this life.

Say I told you I saw a man come back from the dead - you'd ask for evidence of it right? However say it was written in a book 2000 years old that claimed to be the Word of God, and all of a sudden 95% of the population would believe its true. Is it just stupidity? I'd like to say so though perhaps not in anyone's face since they'd probably be offended.

It's things like this that make me angry. Rather than trying to rationalise their beliefs, the Christians resort to saying things like "I pity them". As an Ex-Christian I view such statements as a means of making them feel superior to others.

Christians are so stupid that they believe that anyone who doesn't believe in their mythology is being controlled by the devil or evil. It's such a childish belief but it is shared by so many. Never do they consider the possibility that the Bible is not actually true and that is the reason why we have rejected it. I've not read one post on that forum that considered that possibility.

The Ex-Christians have had their say about that Christian post on the Ex-Christian Forums. Perhaps when someone pities you for being intelligent, the best response to is to laugh back. I guess there's always a funny side to everything.

Even though God is all-powerful, he is restricted to do things within his nature. But God is nothing more than a black box. If God's actions are bound by something, then pretty much everything that happens could be explained without resorting to the black box of God. And by Occam's razor there's no need to assume God. -- seems to think that Hal Lindsey is the apex of Xtian eschatological thought and that Christianity discourages people from building a better tommorrow.

And some clips from the "Jesus Camp" film -- Harry Potter is an enemy of God:

Rev. Becky Fischer, when thinking on how to run the camp, asked herself "What Would Osama Do?":

News flash: Jesus smoked dope!

As doubtful as the following hypothesis might first seem to the reader, I might as well boldly state my case right from the start: either Jesus used marijuana or he was not the Christ. The very word "Christ", by the implication of its linguistic origins and true meaning, gives us the most profound evidence that Jesus did in fact use the same herb as his ancient semitic ancestors, and which is still used by people around the world for its enlightening and healing properties.


After the fall of the Jewish kingdoms, and the bloody purges following the forged discovery of the Book of theLaw (1 Kings 23), the cannabis holy oil was prohibited as associated with pagan worship. Yet it seems that certain sects retained the topical entheogen, and continued to practice the older religion, silently awaiting the return of a Messiah-king in the line of David.

The ministry of Jesus marked the return of the Jewish Messiah-kings, and thus the re-emergence of the holy oil. Jesus was called the Christ because he violated the Old Testament taboo on the cannabis oil and distributed it freely for initiation rites and to heal the sick and wounded.

Apparently he had to feed the 5000 after they got "the munchies". which is:

Because nothing is a grater witness for Christ than causing others to get an instant mental image of Cowboy man-on-man backdoor action.

These two for crass commercialization:

Guy in marketing: Hey! I know how we can make T-shirts that bring Glory to God. Let's compare the Saving Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ with soft-drink logos.

atheistthoughts: If you think about it, you could use a Pascal's Wager type argument against christianity, showing that Atheism has a 50% chance of being the "correct" choice, even assuming that Christianity is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only difference between this argument and Pascal's Wager is that, as far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with it (Which I hope will be rectified, since I have a strange feeling there's something wrong with this argument). For the sake of argument, I will asme it's a discussion between me and a Christian. I could replace Christian with any religious organization, but Christians have the majority, so they're the targets.

Let's assume that there are three and only three arguments that prove the Christian God's existence (there could be any number of arguments and my reasoning would not be affected). Let's use a Cosmological argument, an argument for the Christian God specificly (let's say prophecy), and an argument from personal experience, say you grew another arm after you prayed for it. Let's asume that I'm having a debate with a Christian, where I'm taking the possition that, yes, a god exists, but he sends atheists into heaven instead of Christians. Not only that, but he also tests our "faith" by giving these proofs of his existence. Now, when you look at the arguments for a Christian god, thew first is no trouble for me to explain, since my god solves the cosmological problems the same way the Christian god does. The second two can be explained by my god testing our "faith".

Now, consider this. All arguments for the Christian god work for this tricky god, but not all arguments against the Christian god work against this god. Like the problem of evil, since this god might not be omnibenevolent. Occam's Razor, surprisingly, supports my god over the Christian god. Many questions are far more clear cut with mine than with a Christian god. For example, the problem of where babies go when they die. The bible doesn't say, so there are several possibilities. But with the tricky god, babies go straight to heaven, since they are atheist.

This is why I'm always asking why God does stuff. Why did he want to create humans? Why did he create us the way we are? Questions like these, if left unanswered, leave open more posibilities, and give the Christian god no more evidence than the god who rewards atheists. Until Christians can answer these seemingly pointless and picky questions, Pascal's Wager can be used to show that being an atheist increases your chances of getting into heaven.

Take note that I don't believe in this god, but it shows how Christianity cannot be justified.

Sevivon1913: Given the unique position of Jewish monotheism, as having no history of associating deity with 'the heavens' (like platonism, Christianity's forerunner), has Judaism ever associated particular stars and constellations - or the zodiac - with angels/other? Is this in the Kabbalah?...Platonism was the forerunner of many Christian doctrines AND the cults of Attis, Bacchus and mithraism - which did associate stars with deity - were forerunners of Christianity (so there!)

His source for this? Freke and Gandy's Jesus Mysteries!

drachronicler: Just as there are virtually no original pre Christian era scriptures, so too, there are virtually no Zoroastrian ones. However, there can be no doubt that the "Good Ahura Mazda vs bad Ahriman Dragon" story was already well known because Persian wall reliefs at Persipolis, prior to the conquest of Alexander the Great clearly depict this story.

Also, Satan does not become the opponent of God in Jewish theology until the Babylonian captivity and exposure to Zoroastrian dualism. The Enochian literature was a direct result of this trend towards dualism, but then Judaism reappraised these ideas and largely dispensed with them. No so Christianity.

It should be understood that John of Patmos' plagiarism of Zoroastrian mythology does not negate the authenticity of Jesus. Revelation is obviously not inspired for the book is very clear in its stating that those events were supposed to take place "very soon".

Jesus' mission was to save the Pagan world, and to do this he disdained his prophesized role as the Jewish Messiah. This was the real reason Satan came to Jesus, to fullfill the OT prophesies which Jesus refused to do.

His birth was ochestrated at the moment of a heavenly conjunction to woo the pagans intended to flock to the new religion, certainly not the Jews who considered such things a pagan abominaton.

The similarity of his birth to that of Alexander the Great was also no coincidence.

All of these pagan abominations were necessary if Jesus was to save the pagan classical world. This is why John of Patmos imitated Zoroastrian mythology. It was all far more palatable to the pagan target audience. But the Jews could not stomach any of this abomination and rejected it.

But what was more important? Accepting Satan's offer to make Jesus the Jewish master of a world pagans would not accept and which would result in millions upon millions of deaths, or betraying the relatively small Jewish population, but in doing so insured virtually the entire "pagan", population of the former Roman empire and surrounding areas would flock to Christianity because it was filled with pagan ideas familiar and acceptable to the pagan world.

The final consensus is that Jesus did the right thing in rejecting his role as the Jewish Messiah and courting the pagans instead with a mythos filled with pagan beliefs, lifted verbatim from hellenistic and persian mythology, He essentially saved the otherwise doomed mass of pagan humanity that populated the classical world. Nor could God fault the Jews for rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, for he clearly chose to the the "Pagan Messiah" instead, for we gentiles. So everybody wins, except the authentic Satan, who would have dealy loved to be loosed upon the world as Jesus command to destroy the pagan world as Jesus should have permitted if Jesus chose in fact, the true Jewish Messiah of Biblical prophecy.

cmui: I want a serious reply from the theists on this one. HOW DID THE WORD OF GOD say that the Earth is FLAT. "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" Matthew 4:8 " Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him:" Revelation 1:7 " The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: " Daniel 4:11 Although the fact that the Earth is the centre of the universe is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, the Catholic church BURNED repeat BURNED GIORDANO BRUNO alive for his views on the geocentric teachings of the church. If Galileo had not recanted he would also probably have been burnt alive!!

In my country the biggest GOD is Krishna. Read his story. It is so similar to that of christ that it sometimes sounds that we are talking of the same individual. According to me Gods represent myths created by the ancient to represent various phenomenon that they saw around them. For example we have a God known as Indra (the God of thunder) and from him comes Indradanush - rainbow. Indra - thunder, Danush - Bow.

Similarly we have ganesh , the two faced God which is the same as Janus of the Greek philosophy.

Christ is the same as Krishna which is Christos which is sun.

Here are a few more (especially concerning the title , virgin/child etc)

  • Alcmene, mother of Hercules who gave birth on December 25th
  • Alitta, Babylonian Madonna and Child
  • Anat, Syrian wife of "the earlier Supreme God El," called "Virgin Goddess"
  • Cavillaca, Peruvian huaca (divine spirit) impregnated by the "son of the sun god" through eating his semen in the shape of a fruit
  • Chimalman, mother of Kukulcan
  • Chinese mother of Foe (Buddha)
  • Coatlicue, mother of the Mexican god Huitzilopochtli
  • Cybele, "Queen of Heaven and Mother of God"
  • Danae, mother of Perseus
  • Demeter/Ceres, "Holy Virgin" mother of Persephone/Kore and Dionysus
  • Devaki, mother of Krishna
  • Frigga, mother of the Scandinavian god Balder
  • Hera, mother of Zeus's children
  • Hertha, Teutonic goddess
  • Isis, who gave birth to Horus on December 25th
  • Juno, mother of Mars/Ares, called "Matrona" and "Virginalis," the Mother and Virgin
  • Mandana, mother of Cyrus/Koresh
  • Maya, mother of Buddha
  • Mother of Lao-kiun, "Chinese philosopher and teacher, born in 604 B.C."
  • Mother of the Indian solar god Rudra
  • Nana, mother of Attis
  • Neith, mother of Osiris, who was "worshipped as the Holy Virgin, the Great Mother, yet an Immaculate Virgin."
  • Nutria, mother of an Etruscan Son of God
  • Ostara, the German goddess
  • Rohini, mother of Indian "son of God"
  • Semele, mother of Dionysus/Bacchus, who was born on December 25th
  • Shin-Moo, Chinese Holy Mother
  • Siamese mother of Somonocodom (Buddha)
  • Sochiquetzal, mother of Quetzalcoatl
  • Vari, Polynesian "First Mother," who created her children "by plucking pieces out of her sides."
  • Venus, the "Virgo Coelestis" depicted as carrying a child

For more ....

LGM: Sorry...You see the bible states that women should remain silent about such matters, and submit to the will of their husbands. If an ignorant women such as yourself has a question about the scriptures or theology, she should ask her husband at home in private.

If your husband wants to discuss something with me, I would be happy to do so. Now go do the laundry or clean your house woman, stop interrupting the men while they are talking about things you don't understand.

Mickiel: I was looking at 2Tim.3: 1-5, which is really a list of the Fruits of the Flesh. It kind of struck me that most of the fruits on this List, are used in Conversations by People. They have been incorporated into our everyday speaking in life, espically on discussion Boards. People love the way they Talk ( Lovers of Self) they brag about how they Speak ( Boastful) They get upset if you disagree with them, or show them the carnality that exist in their ways of Speaking ( Arrogant) Of Course you cam mix ungratefulness with that one too.

We Speak very unloving to each other and use our Mouths to Gossip with. We get irritated at times when talking, and loose control ( Without Self-Control). Some even get Brutal with someone if the conversation does not give us our way. And even when the few who try to talk Good, do so, they are often ridiculed for trying that ( Haters of Good).

The Fruits of the Flesh have Jumped all in our conversations. We strat talking Conceited and Reckless, we even get to read our own Writting online at these Discussion Boards, reveiwing what we have written, we become Lovers of ourselves, our Writting ( Lovers of Pleasures rather than Lovers of God).

Yes, a very interesting Scripture, and a very profound influence these fruits of the Flesh have had on our Speaking and Thinking.

okcitykid: One day Jesus returned to the earth and he saw an Atheist in the street and he said, "Come, I have a place for you." The Atheist said, "Me - I never even believed in you." Jesus said, "when you fought for peace and helped the poor you believed in me."

Just then an SUV pulled up and a man stepped out and said, "Jesus, I've been waiting for you." Jesus said, "And you are?"

cavegirl: Actually this is one of the main reasons why I reject Christianity. You can steal and kill all your life, but if in the end you truly repent you'll stand a good chance of going to heaven. On the other hand, you can live all your life according to God's moral code -whatever that may be- but if it's not done with Jesus in heart & mind it's no heaven for you. To me, such a god is not just, let alone infinitely just.

Minnesota: Teachers are involved in the enterprise, big No No. "Although teachers at Neil Armstrong Elementary do not teach the class, they are involved because they collect parental permission slips to attend the program..."

Apparently involvement of teachers for Minny means collecting permission slips.

bill78: Is singleness a gift of God? 1 Corinthians 7:7, to me, indicates how singleness is a gift and also marriage is a gift...of the Holy Spirit. It is in God's love, though...each is a gift of God's love is.

So it's in God's love where you get the benefit of being single, and in God's love where you get the benefit of being married.

Jesus says, "'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29) So, with Jesus, you learn how to deal with your gift. AND He uses other Christians to help you to learn...YES.

But God does personally share with you, in companionship with us...very intimately > helping you to know and deal with your gifts included...personally guiding each of us, using others to help with this, of course, but along with Him >in v-e-r-y intimate companionship > "but he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17) > so, each of us is actually ONE SPIRIT WITH God Himself...quite intimate, I'd say > ALSO > this being in God's very own love >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5) so we have God's very own love in us...right in our hearts, this clearly shares > again, very intimate and personal with God Himself...and this ministering through other Christians, of course.

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13) So God is personally working in each of us to get us to WILL to do what He desires, AND works us to do what He knows He each moment. So-o-o-o > I'm offering that whatsoever God really desires of you, He will IN you personally work and guide you to do such close companionship with each of us...YES!!!!!!!

So...for what He wants of you...His love will fill and satisfy you to go the way He desires. He's our Father. He does NOT leave us on our own. And the guiding feelings and emotions of His love are gentle and humble, nicely how Jesus in us is "gentle and lowly in heart". So God's drives and instinct, I offer, are NOT dominating and demanding attention, and distracting and degrading our attention away from God.

And we have "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body, and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15) So, yes, God wants to personally rule us with His very own peace, at every single moment...or every MARRIED your hearts, it says; so this is VERY personal of God, and INTIMATE.

So singleness as a gift has much more to do with being single-hearted and of a single MIND, than it has to do with just whether you can handle having no sex or not. I'd say people gifted to be single can have problems about wanting sex...WHY? Because there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience", Paul shares in Ephesians 2:2 > this spirit works people to do what is not right for them. Those dominating and tyrannical passions of Satan work VERY hard. They can make us argue and hurt each other, even though we don't really want to. That explosive temper, and my nasty criticizing are NOT in God's love. There are things that are NOT of God's love and His creation, including certain drives that MIMICK what is natural, but are Satan pushing our buttons in a confusing and distorting and frustrating way. Only God can take care of us right; we need Him every moment.

So, we ALL need to learn better to stay "with God" (in 1 Corinthians 7:24) in His nicely quiet love having Heaven's own pleasantness of sweet rest. As we learn this and GROW better in this, "you will find rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:29) Kissing the LORD with thanksgiving, God bless you, too. Thanks for that very helpful stuff to provoke me to be more pure and honest.

Howie: This thread belongs in Politics. Put it where it belongs.

For some to claim the right or authority to judge who is or is not living a Christian life is more clearly antithetical to the teachings of Jesus than abortion itself.