The Blasphemy Challenge

Closing shop

2008-01-27T13:45:00.000-08:00

But don't forget to checkout our other blog on atheism or the Rational Response Squad.

Awesome link: conservapedia.com/Atheism

2007-09-26T00:32:00.000-07:00

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_Quotes

http://www.conservapedia.com/Weak_Atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Strong_atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/New_Atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution

New Book by JP Holding!

2007-09-25T00:31:00.000-07:00

How To Get Rid of Jesus: Prove He Didn't Exist! A popular question posed by Christians today asks, "WWJD?" - which stands for, "What Would Jesus Do?" For more and more Skeptics of Christianity, however, the answer to this question is, "JDNE" - which stands for, "Jesus did not exist!" In this volume, edited by prominent Internet apologist James Patrick Holding, a team of Christian authors provide a series of essays giving detailed answers to those who argue for the "Christ myth." Though rejected by mainstream scholars, this theory continues to grow in popularity among popular writers and Internet antagonists. The need for Christians to be ready to give an answer to it will only become more urgent. "Here's a clear and compelling rebuttal to fallacious claims that keep resurfacing in books and on the Internet. It's well-researched, expertly presented, and ultimately convincing.

- Lee Strobel, author, The Case for the Real Jesus

Filmmaker Brian Flemming was too scared to debate him. Plagiarist Rook Hawkins (of the ir-Rational Response Squad) libeled him. Atheist John W. Loftus couldn't take him in forums. Farrell Till nearly endangered his life by publicly publishing his address, phone number, and wife's name. Who is this man who drove atheists batty? None other than Christian apologist JP Holding. He has a new book out that challenges the view that Jesus never existed! The book is entitled Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? (and the hubpage) This is a book pseudo historians and naive atheists will try to ignore because it takes their arguments and smashes them to smithereens. Get it now at amazon.com!

Our last post here... it was fun!

2007-09-24T00:48:00.000-07:00

Brian J. Cutler (aka Brian Sapient) said he wanted the "Blasphemy Challenge" to last until the end of Christianity. Well, that'll be a llllloooonnnnngggg time if it ever happens (it won't). And needless to say we don't intend on bloggin 'til then. It was fun while it lasted though. We certainly exposed RRS and some of the youtube atheists who took part in the "Blasphemy Challenge." It just goes to show that denying the Holy Spirit makes you foolish:

Well, most youtube atheists say they deny the existence of Santa Claus... so I'm not so sure what to make of this atheist. However, atheists have believed in even more wacky stuff than Santa Claus. But thank God this man made himself an example of what we were demonstrating about atheists all along! I guess something good came out of the "Blasphemy Challenge," huh? Thank you, RRS!

Also, for all of you who want more of RRS, checkout our blog on them.

More and more atheists are coming out against the Rational Response Squad!

2007-09-23T11:23:00.000-07:00

So I was at an atheist forum and they were basicly making fun of RRS saying that "The RRS impedes any progress atheists make by being so staunchly anti-theism."

Now heres my question, why?

- Submitted by religioniswar on Fri, 2007-07-20 10:25

The answer to that question is easy, it's because RRS are not intelligent or rational. I've met many atheists who are darn smart and bright, but I can't use those words with RRS.

MyRationalResponse.com

2007-09-23T00:08:00.000-07:00

Still coming on strong:

Link.

RighteousResponders.com!

2007-09-22T10:51:00.001-07:00

Forerunner on the Jesus Myth

2007-09-20T14:15:00.000-07:00

Refuting the Jesus Mythists once again
Update on the Real Jesus DVD
Two Questions for the Jesus Mythists

An atheist catches the Rational Response Squad in a smoking gun lie about theism being a mental disorder

2007-09-19T20:40:00.001-07:00

The Rational Response Squad uses the DSM (you can see the video here) to prove that once and for all Christianity is really a mental disorder. But are they using the DSM correctly? Nope:

Related:

Brian Cutler wants his mother in a mental institution.
Brian Cutler wants Martin Luther King Jr. in a mental institution.
Albert Ellis doesn't believe in absolute truths, stupid.
GoldenGun85 responds
Are Christians Delusional?

Random Rant Regarding Rational Responders

2007-09-18T19:04:00.000-07:00

sablechicken on the Rational Response Squad's recent banning

2007-09-16T15:30:00.000-07:00

As some of you know the Rational Response Squad recently got banned again (we write about it here and here) but Sablechicken has a few words to say (dude, she rocks!):

PS as of this writing RRS' youtube account is back up.

Rook Hawkins misuses a source to bolster his ego! But then gets caught!!!

2007-09-13T18:32:00.000-07:00

We have a collection of Rookie Hawkins's never ending list of lies, deceit, stupidity, cowardice, and plagiarism. But this is yet another shameless low-down dirty action done by the lights of him. As some of you know, Rookie will have a self-published book coming out (since no reputable publishing house is interested in his work). In so many words, he thinks his non-intelligent, shallow-thinking, unscholarly, high-school level, no-BA thinking brain poured out on a dubious thesis is well and good enough for a "peer review"! Okay... okay... okay... stop laughing and keep reading, please. You guys may have recalled where Rook Hawkins claimed he had a JBL membership card that gave him the privilege of publishing in the journal. Uhm, it doesn't allow you to do that.

But to hit the point home our source (who is an atheist!) had his moment with Rookie and this is what he had to say:

You're probably aware that Rook posts little bits of smug self-congratulation and masterbatory ego-stroking on YouTube. On finding this little gem I posted a comment under the name "Sextus666" asking him why he was accepting congratulations on the fact that he'd merely subscribed to a journal and why he was claiming his subscription gave him the right to publish in the Journal when this was a lie. Someone else called "Atheist Sage" agreed and so Rook had to rapidly go into censor-mode and remove our comments.

Then I found this item, where Rook talks about how his book is going to be "peer reviewed". Both "AtheistSage" and myself posted asking what kind of academic press was accepting submissions from an amateur with no education or training beyond high school-level. He replied that the press in question was "the Copenhagen International Seminar". I knew that the Copenhagen Seminar was run by Dr Thomas Thompson of the University of Copenhagen and a quick Google showed that he was the Editor of the Copenhagen International Seminar series. It also showed that all the other publications in that series were by professional academic scholars with teaching or research positions at universities, not by uneducated, totally unqualified dweebs who think that because they put "Ancient Texts Expert" on their MySpace page they are some kind of scholar.

So I dropped Dr Thompson a quick e-mail (Sept 10) alerting him to Rook's claim, pointing out that he was making this claim publicly as part of some kind of pre-publicity for his book and asking if this claim was correct. He replied to me on the same day:

Dear [DELETED],

Thank you very much for your letter. I appreciate very much your taking the trouble to write to ask about this book. I knew nothing of these announcements. No, I have not accepted this book for publication in our series. I have asked to read it, but I have made no judgment concerning its suitability for our series. As far as I am informed, it is not yet finished. Without referring to your letter or to you, I have written Mr. Hawkins and asked him to remove this advertisement. I am most grateful for your help in this regard and for your very quick reply.

Thomas

Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen

Not long afterwards he wrote to me again:

Dear [DELETED],

I have just been informed by Mr. Hawkins that he intends to remove the reference to publication in the Copenhagen International series immediately. Again, thank you very much for your help and concern in this.

Thomas

Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen

Sure enough, on heading back to YouTube I found the reference to the Copenhagen International Seminar series had gone, but so had my comments. When "AtheistSage" noted the sudden disappearance of Rooks claims about publication and asked if he was going to explain why they had gone (guessing the truth), that comment was rapidly censored by Rook as well. When I tried to post a reply questioning why Rook was frantically censoring all evidence of his humiliation and his original lie I found that "Sextus666" was now blocked from comments on all of Rooks YouTube videos.

So feel free to publicise this little drama and to cite "Sextus666" as your atheist source.

Hey Rook,

You done got caught! I'm glad you had a little bit of dignity to correct the wrong you did, but you have waaayyy more wrongs to correct. So, get busy, buddy boy.

By the way, my man Bodhitharta says it like it is:

***UPDATE***

Frank Walton has been caught lying?! Say it ain't so!

Alright, RRS has responded and Thomas L. Thompson wrote the following letter:

Dear Rook,

Before I received your letter this morning, I had never heard of Frank Walton and, as far as I can recall no one with that name has ever written to me. I did receive a letter from a certain Tim O'Neill, who, after asking him to identify himself, replied that he was an amateur researcher, interested in questions of the historical Jesus, a claim which I credited as, among other things, his assumptions about academic credentials were, at best, naive. I receive such letters frequently and so, after a cursory check of the name on Google, I responded.

He reported to me that you had made a public claim that your book was to be published in the Copenhagen International seminar, a monograph series for which I am responsible. Since, as you know, I am in fact currently reviewing your monograph and considering it for publication, I wrote you immediately and asked you to remove any such claim from your web site, which you immediately agreed to do, without objection and without questioning my request. With that I was satisfied. Such misunderstandings frequently occur, I felt, and are easily corrected.

However, I must thank you for referring me to the criticism you have received on Frank Walton's blog, which I have just read. Dated September 14, this person claims that he had written to me--apparently, I now assume, posing as Tim O'Neill to prevent me in identifying him or his blog. In Frank Walton's blog, following a rather scurrilous description of your academic interests, he accuses you of lying regarding a claim that the book you now have in progress is to be "peer reviewed" for the Copenhagen series. This statement of yours, however, is true and I hardly have any objection to this description--as it accords well with our discussions in the past.

In quoting my letter (without my consent or knowledge), not only has Frank Walton deleted the name of Tim O'Neill in the address and claimed that the letter was to himself, he also has deleted the question he in fact had asked in his letter to me--not whether your book was to be "peer reviewed" and under consideration for publication in our series, but rather, whether the book had been already accepted for publication. That he has switched his questions is, of course, unknown to the readers of his blog and thoroughly dishonest.

If you consider it useful to cite this letter in responding to Frank Walton's slander, you have both my permission and best wishes.

I hope the blog-storm that the unethical misuse of my letters has created will not effect your consideration of our series for your monograph and that you will allow me to continue with my review of the book as heretofore planned.

Yours sincerely,
Thomas

Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen

Uhm, okay. For the most part the letter sounds good to me. *SHRUGS* But I only have a few responses:

1. Notice that in Rook Hawkins' blog and in the Rational Response Squad forums they refused to post a link to my blog, thus not giving their readers the whole story. Typical RRS tactic.

2. I'm not Tim O'Neill (aka "Sextus666"). He asked us to keep him anonymous, but now that his name is out...

3. Mr. O'Neill was the one who gave me the expose on Rookie Hawkins. As you can see above we quoted him verbatim, subtracting his name.

4. Mr. O'Neill gave me permission to post his email in my blog. I find it ironic that Mr. Thompson would be concerned about his letter being published without his consent yet at the same time would allow Tim O'Neill's letter to him to be published (see below) without his consent. But whatever...

5. As for the peer review being published in the journal, well, read what Mr. O'Neill wrote, he never said it would be published in the journal. He was questioning whether Rook Hawkins was correct about being peer reviewed in the journal, and if his book was to be published by the Copenhagen series. Because that's what Rook claimed. That's all! And Rook Hawkins was wrong. Otherwise why would he have taken away the "Copenhagen International Seminar" reference! I mean, to me that's the smoking gun right there! In fact, that's pretty much the point of this whole fiasco.

6. If Mr. Thompson wants to put a review of Rook Hawkins' book in their journal, well, go right ahead. Mr. Thompson will be the laughingstock of the ages.

7. I'm glad that Mr. Thompson vindicated our story that Rook Hawkins misused the "Copenhagen International Seminar" name.

8. I would like to thank RRS for providing this letter. As far as I'm concerned it has bolstered our claim that Rook Hawkins still misuses a source to bolster his ego, and then was caught.

LOL! Honestly, Rookie, you hurt yourself more than helped yourself by providing this letter.

Speaking of Rookie, we would like to thank him for providing the following letter exchange between Mr. Thompson and Mr. O'Neill:

Dr Thompson,
I'm inquiring about a book that is apparently being published by a certain Rook Hawkins called Discovering the Gnostics. The author has posted videos on YouTube doing some kind of pre-publicity for this book in which he says it is being published as part of the Copenhagen International Seminar series put out via Equinox Books. On checking out this series I've noticed that the other writers it has listed are all professional and fully qualified academics. Yet this person is not qualified at all, has no education past High School level and is an amateur with a web-based radio show aimed at promoting atheism and "proving" Jesus never existed.
Is the Copenhagen International Seminar series really publishing this guy's book?
Thanks in advance,
Tim O'Neill

Dear Mr. O'Neill
You neglected to identify yourself.
Thomas
Thomas L. Thompson
General Editor: Copenhagen International Seminar

Dr Thompson,
I don't understand. As I mentioned in my e-mail, I came across a video on YouTube where this person claimed he had a book being published by the Copenhagen International Seminar. Given his lack of credentials, I found this a little hard to believe. So I thought I'd check with you. Given you're the editor, I figured you would know if this claim is correct or not. I'm simply an amateur researcher interested in the issue of the historicity of Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Sorry to bother you with this, but I was intruiged by his claim.
So is this book being published by the Copenhagen International Seminar series?
Tim O'Neill

So, uh, where was Tim O'Neil being dishonest? *SHRUGS* He was just asking questions. And so, Mr. Thompson wrote the following back:

Dear Mr. O'Neill,

Thank you very much for your letter. I appreciate very much your taking the trouble to write to ask about this book. I knew nothing of these announcements. No, I have not accepted this book for publication in our series. I have asked to read it, but I have made no judgment concerning its suitability for our series. As far as I am informed, it is not yet finished. Without referring to your letter or to you, I have written Mr. Hawkins and asked him to remove this advertisement. I am most grateful for your help in this regard and for your very quick reply.

Thomas

Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen

And:

Dear Mr. O'Neill,

I have just been informed by Mr. Hawkins that he intends to remove the reference to publication in the Copenhagen International series immediately. Again, thank you very much for your help and concern in this.

Thomas

Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen

But all in all, uh, dude, where did we lie?

Still, Rookie Hawkins tried to use "Copenhagen International series" and later deleted the reference after being caught. There's just no denying that. What more does Rook want? But Rookie does say, "Not only is there no video posted about the publication of my book anywhere in any monograph (It was actually a COMMENT posted to one of my videos dealing with my book...so automatically he is lying to Thomas here)." Uhm, yes, Rookie indeed it was in the comment section. We already said that. Are you feeling okay?

Anyway, on a completely different topic Bodhitharta has more to say:

This just in:

Tim O'Neill RESPONDS!

9-14-2007

Frank,

The funny thing about liars is the way they compound their lies with more lies. Having lied in his YouTube comments by claiming his book was to be published by "the Copenhagen International Seminar" Rook has now lied again to Dr Thompson by claiming that you e-mailed him posing as me.

How could you have posed as me? Prior to my first contact with you on Sept 12th, you didn't know I existed. Rook knew I existed - because I e-mailed him about one of his historical errors (he claimed the canon of the NT was set at the Council of Nicea) back on July 23. And if he was checking with his heavy-handed enforcer, the "High Level Moderator" (is that like a Dungeon Master?) "todangst"/Chris Smith, he'd know that Smith banned me from the RRS Forum for "being a troll" (ie daring to question the pseudo scholarship of Rook "I'm an Expert!" Hawkins) back on Aug 12th.

So Rook knew I existed almost two months ago. And Rook knew that I was not you and had nothing to do with you. Yet he's run to Dr Thompson telling him the e-mail he received from Tim O'Neill were from you?

In other words, he's deliberately lied. Again.

This guy doesn't seem to realise that when you're already in a hole the best idea is to stop digging. From Dr Thompson's e-mail:

I had never heard of Frank Walton and, as far as I can recall no one with that name has ever written to me.

The good professor is correct - as far as I know Frank Walton has never written to him. As far as I know Frank Walton didn't know Dr Thompson existed until I e-mailed him about Rook's YouTube lie on Sept 12th. Thompson goes on:

I did receive a letter from a certain Tim O'Neill, who, after asking him to identify himself, replied that he was an amateur researcher, interested in questions of the historical Jesus.

He sure did. That e-mail was sent by me on Sept 10th at 10.29am Sydney time. This bit from the good professor was weird though:

who, after asking him to identify himself, replied that he was an amateur researcher, interested in questions of the historical Jesus, a claim which I credited as, among other things, his assumptions about academic credentials were, at best, naive.

Eh? What "claim". The "claim" that I'm an amateur researcher? I am - unlike Rook I have university qualifications, including a post-graduate degree. And unlike Rook I fully acknowledge that I am an amateur and not an "expert" in anything. What Thompson is trying to say here is unclear - not least because the sentence above is ungrammatical to the point of being totally obscure. "(A) claim which I credited as, amongst other things, his assumptions about academic credentials were, at best, naive."? What? Perhaps he posted when he was tired or something and accidentally deleted something from that sentence, because as it stands it makes no grammatical sense.

He reported to me that you had made a public claim that your book was to be published in the Copenhagen International seminar, a monograph series for which I am responsible. Since, as you know, I am in fact currently reviewing your monograph and considering it for publication, I wrote you immediately and asked you to remove any such claim from your web site, which you immediately agreed to do, without objection and without questioning my request. With that I was satisfied. Such misunderstandings frequently occur, I felt, and are easily corrected.

All that is perfectly true. Rook did make that claim in his (now removed) YouTube comments on this video. That claim was a LIE (how Thompson can call it a "misunderstanding" is a mystery) and Thompson asked Rook to remove his LIE which Rook quickly did.

Dated September 14, this person claims that he had written to me--apparently, I now assume, posing as Tim O'Neill to prevent me in identifying him or his blog.

Here Thompson assumes wrongly that Frank Walton was posing as me. How could he? He didn't know I existed until two days later. It seems he assumes this because of something Rook wrote in the "letter" Thompson refers to in his opening sentence - though Rook hasn't been good enough to share that letter with us. It would be interesting to see what he wrote to Dr Thompson, since (i) Rook knows full well that Frank Walton and myself are two different people on opposite sides of the planet and (ii) if Rook told Thompson Frank was posing as me, that was another LIE, since Rook knew full well that Frank and I were different people.

In Frank Walton's blog, following a rather scurrilous description of your academic interests, he accuses you of lying regarding a claim that the book you now have in progress is to be "peer reviewed" for the Copenhagen series.

And this is wrong - I stated quite clearly what Rook claimed: that his book was being published by the Copenhagen series. I wrote to Dr Thompson to check if this was true, he confirmed that it was not and Rook removed the claim at his request. Rook's LIE was his claim the book was to be published by the Copenhagen series and his removal of that claim at Dr Thompson's request is proof that this was a LIE.

This statement of yours, however, is true and I hardly have any objection to this description--as it accords well with our discussions in the past.

The statement was NOT that the book was simply being read by Dr Thompson as a favour to Rook (which is true and which was acknowledged in the e-mail quoted on Frank's blog) but that the Copenhagen series was peer reviewing and publishing the book (which was a LIE). That was what Thompson objected to and what Rook removed.

In quoting my letter (without my consent or knowledge), not only has Frank Walton deleted the name of Tim O'Neill in the address and claimed that the letter was to himself,

Frank Walton simply posted the e-mail that I sent him and claimed nothing dishonest at all. Either Dr Thompson has wrongly assumed that Frank pretended to be me (someone he didn't even know existed on Sept 10th) or Rook has LIED again and told him so. Either way, this is wrong. And Frank posted it with my full consent and knowledge. I can post what I like of my e-mail correspondence.

he also has deleted the question he in fact had asked in his letter to me--not whether your book was to be "peer reviewed" and under consideration for publication in our series, but rather, whether the book had been already accepted for publication. That he has switched his questions is, of course, unknown to the readers of his blog and thoroughly dishonest.

And this is also wrong. Frank simply posted what I sent him. I didn't ask if the book was to be "peer reviewed", I asked if it was to be published by the Copenhagen series. Because that's what Rook claimed. Dr. Thompson made it clear in the very e-mail I quoted that he was intending to read the book, but that's not "peer review" and it sure as hell wasn't an indication that it was being published by his monograph series. Which is why he acted so swiftly to have Rook's LIE removed and why Rook scurried to remove that LIE.

What we see here is a frenzied attempt at arse-covering of a fairly pathetic nature.

I hope the blog-storm that the unethical misuse of my letters has created will not effect your consideration of our series for your monograph and that you will allow me to continue with my review of the book as heretofore planned.

I hope Dr Thompson's academic peers don't get wind of the fact he's even considering publishing a contrived piece of Jesus Myther crap by an inarticulate and blundering kid with no education past high school level. If they do, Thompson will be the laughing stock of his field. Perhaps when he gets Rook's manuscript and sees Rook's hilarious claims that the canon of the New Testament was set at Nicea in 325 AD and that the Arians denied the divinity of Christ Thompson will realise what a bumbling clown he's dealing with.

So there we have it - a LIE compounded by more LIES. Rook would have been smarter to have just taken this one on the chin. I guess being smart just isn't his style.
Yours in vast amusement,

Tim O'Neill aka "Sextus666"
Sydney, Australia

Like the Energizer Bunny, Rook Hawkins keeps going and going and going with lie after life after lie. He's telling everybody that Tim O'Neill and I are the same people. Of course he knows this isn't true. To prove it, you guys need only look at our IP addresses and see if they match. You'll see that they don't.

*SIGH*

Yet again the obvious thing that Rook Hawkins is still ignoring is the fact that he claimed his book was to be published by the Copenhagen series. His claim was found to be false. And so he took away the "Copenhagen" reference. Why? Because he was caught lying.

Related:

Rook Hawkins - the plagiarist
Dennis McKinsey's response
The Stupid Mind of Rook Hawkins
Paul McFarland catches Rook in a smoking gun lie

The Rational Response Squad get banned from youtube again!!!

2007-09-13T01:18:00.000-07:00

Link.

Some people never learn.

Radical Response

2007-09-09T23:08:00.000-07:00

Christians are still fighting back:

Link to their youtube site.

Brian Sapient is Brian J. Cutler!

2007-09-03T12:47:00.001-07:00

Thanks to Uri Geller's public lawsuit against Brian Sapient, Sapient had his real name published. Brian Sapient is actually Brian J. Cutler. Indeed, I deny Brian Sapient, and, you know what, even Brian Sapient denies Brian Sapient because he knows he's actually Brian J. Cutler.

Looks like Rational Response Squad member Greydon Square isn't doing too well by preaching hate

2007-08-30T13:00:00.001-07:00

Ever since Greydon Square took the blasphemy challenge he hasn't been doing any better. I'm telling you guys, it's like a curse, the moment you take the challenge the more stupid you become. As some of you know Greydon is a wannabe rapper. But his constituents are limited. Just recently he did a concert to a no-show crowd:

This had to be one of the most funniest and most pathetic sites I've seen. Normally, I'd say that Greydon Square (very ironic that his last name is "Square" by the way) was rapping to a group of on-lookers, but, uh, hardly anybody was looking. Don't throw your pearls before swine, Grey. Actually, not even the swine were interested. My favorite part was when Grey said he was a fundamentalist Christian's (to Greydon - every Christian is a fundamentalist) nightmare. Uh, yeah, we are soooooo scared of you, Grey. I'm so frightened of you, it makes me want to post your video in my blog.

Break a Mirror Challenge?

2007-08-28T23:06:00.000-07:00

Are the Rational Response Squad misusing their donations?

2007-08-24T12:30:00.000-07:00

What do televangelist Jim Bakker's PTL club and atheist Brian Sapient's RRS club have in common? They both take their donations for granted. Could the state bust Sapient then like Bakker? Well, the trick is, Sapient may have not claimed a non-profit 503 (c) status, so he can pretty much use his donations any way he wants. We looked all over his website and there's nothing we can find about a "non-profit organization."

Michael Stradley brought this to my attention. He may have caught the RRS misusing the money that you, Mr. and Mrs. atheists, have donated to him:

Like any good cult, the leaders of the Rational Response Squad don't lift a finger to finance their own operation--instead, they manipulate the misguided zeal of their young and naive followers into paying for every aspect of their existence. Yet, with no oversight, there's no way for any card-carrying member of the RRS to know with any level of certainty where their hard-earned money is actually going. As an example, few weeks ago the RRS posted a call for donations to pay for an advert on a "major atheist website", costing a rather arbitrary amount of $480.00. The "major atheist website" was never disclosed despite many members demanding to know what the site was. Curiously, this was about the same time that Brian, Rook, and Kelly were taking a vacation--could it be that this supposed advertisement was really just a cover to garner donations to cover some aspect of their vacation plans (airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc.) ?

As of this writing, I haven't seen any new ads by RRS. Besides, does it take hundreds of dollars to make a simple ad? $480 bucks?! Get real! Why can't RRS use their own time and money instead of yours?

Also, couldn't they have used the money to fight the "mental retardation" known as theism? Apparently not. We proved time and time again that the RRS are intellectually shallow and cowardly debaters. They just won't debate in a fair format. You figured if you give them money they'd do better in standing up against confrontation (but they don't). Don't they believe they owe it to their constituents?

Finally, the RRS have a history of taking people and their resources for granted. Sapient relied on his girlfriend to pay his bills, and at the tender age of 30 he still lives with his mother in her house. Could it be he's using you guys the same way? It's amazing that people don't see that Sapient and the Rational Response Squad are in this "atheism-vs-Christianity" game only for money!

The Anti "Blasphemy Challenge" Challenge!

2007-08-20T12:59:00.000-07:00

Molly telling it like it is:

Another one bites the dust

2007-08-12T11:40:00.000-07:00

Welp, it's Margaret Downey this time who decided to join the so-called blasphemy challenge. It's sad if you ask me, to see more atheists openly show what mindless activities they'll do. Oh, well.

Christians still coming on strong!

2007-08-08T12:03:00.001-07:00

Rook Hawkins on the Apostle Paul

2007-07-29T11:56:00.000-07:00

Was Paul actually a Gnostic? The idea is taken seriously by no one in NT scholarship today; even Elaine Pagels, the Gnostic-promoter premier, declines in her book The Gnostic Paul to say yea or nay to whether Paul was actually a Gnostic, instead concentrating on how the Gnostics interpreted Paul's letters. A Gnostic Paul is a figment of the Christ-myth crowd, which needs Paul Gnostic in order to explain away certain problematic contentions.

- JP Holding
the man Rook Hawkins is too chicken to debate

We've already proven with "smoking gun" evidence that Rook Hawkins is not a thinker, or even comes close to being a historian. Yet he just keeps going and going with these videos and articles about the historicity of the Bible and such, ignoring virtually all reasonable refutations and responses. The man does not do his homework. All he does is read a bunch of books and takes them at face value and throws them off as if he is an expert at a topic that hardly anybody knows about anyway. But he ain't a expert. And we'll prove it again. This time, Rookie decides to take on the Apostle Paul.

On Paul: part 1:

Basically, Rook Hawkins will be making these points:

1. Paul didn't know the earthly Jesus.
2. Confusion of the early church
3. Jesus' resurrection was spiritual not physical.

Paul didn't know the earthly Jesus

Rook mentions that Paul talks about his conversion in Galatians 1:11-18. Verse 16: ("to reveal his Son in me") is significant because Paul makes no mention that he met Jesus in the flesh but by revelation (verse 12). This isn't all together true. Yes, he did mention a revelation but that revelation was still physical. Can't visions be physical? After all, Paul, during his Damascus conversion, was blinded by the light and heard Jesus speak. Even Paul's companions heard Jesus' words. Are "blindness" and "hearing" not physical matters? Not only that but in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul writes:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Why did Paul say "according to Scriptures." Obviously Paul, as a faithful Jew, knew that the coming "messiah" predicted in the Jewish scriptures entailed a physical resurrection! Jesus' vindication as the messiah assumed his death and physically resurrection. Why do you think the Jews and Christians were at it about Jesus' physical resurrection, Rookie? It's because they knew that the messiah had to physically rise from the dead.

Paul continues:

5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Jesus appearace before the twelve was obviously a physical one. After all, Tom placed his fingers into the scars of Jesus. If Paul thought that Jesus' resurrection was spiritual and not physical he wouldn't have used the twelve to back up his premise, lest they mention that they physically saw Jesus! Get it, Rookie?

Rook makes the point that Paul said he received this revelation (in Galatians) not by man but by God. Had he received this revelation by man, wouldn't Paul had said Jesus by the flesh? Well... he did. Because everybody knew that Paul was assuming a physical resurrection.

Rook Hawkins mentions that Paul never refers to Jesus in the flesh. Wow, that's just way, way, waaaaaayyyy false! Romans 1 says,

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,

concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

Here it is again in the RSV (you know, the version you recommended):

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God
which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

Rookie, dude, you're stupid.

What about Romans 13:11-14 and the putting on of Christ? You can't do that physically with Christ can you? Christ isn't a suit. And how about Galatians 3:26-27, again, it elaborates by putting on Christ. You can't put on a flesh suit of Jesus. Or what about 1 Corinthians 1:30 and this thing about being "in" Christ? This is gnostic stuff, isn't it?

Nope. "Putting on Christ" comes from the baptismal liturgy where a person took off their clothes, dunked themselves in water, and after they came out they put on a new garment. This physical act symbolized a spiritual reality, that one has been joined to Christ's body. Yes, this isn't literal but figuratively and spiritually speaking. However, I don't see how this counts as gnostic talk because Paul uses a physical examples to describe the spiritual. Also, the expression "in Christ" refers to the spiritual union in 1 Corinthians 12. Christ, as an omnipresent divine person can be an inclusive personality and we can be "in Him" just as he can be in us as well. All in all, Paul was not the "proto gnostic" as Rook Hawkins described. And Marcion was not exactly a good example of gnostism as Rook would have you believe. Why? Because gnostics were matter/spirit dualists. This doesn't describe Marcion, dude.

Aside notes:

Rook says that Gnosticism was developed out of the Pauline corpus. Nope. Paul's affirmation of the goodness of creation and materiality contradicts gnosticism. For instance, reading 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, Paul speaks of the human physical body being the temple for the Lord where as Christians should flee from sexual immorality.

Was Marcion the first to have a collection of Paul's letters? Nope. 2 Peter 3 hints that there was already a collection of Paul's letters.

Rook Hawkins says Acts was written in the 2nd century. Nope, first century. Luke finished Acts two years after Paul arrived from Rome. Which would have still been in the first century.

Rook Hawkins prefers the RSV and ESV. I find this rather peculiar because the RSV is one of the worse versions of the Bible! It's way shallow, and too casual in language in my opinion. And it's way different than the ESV. Which has me thinking if Rook Hawkins actually read the ESV version. I totally love the ESV. But the RSV is the last book I would give to a Christian. You hardly ever see a Christian reading that version at all. But I would recommend the NASB which is a more literal and academic translation.

Rook Hawkins suggest to his listeners that they learn Greek. Me, too. However, judging from Rookie's works, he doesn't know Greek. He has done no formal studies of it at all. Merely reading a book on Greek doesn't count, Rookie. Dude, we know you don't know the language. You may have some of your gullible readers tricked, but you don't fool me for a second.

On Paul: part 2:

Here's Rook Hawkins' interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:13:

"This spirit has to come through to teach us these things, because he (Paul) cannot describe them through the flesh." [00:20]

I find this interpretation by Rook Hawkins rather peculiar seeing how Paul is using his flesh to describe the spirit! Paul physically had a writing utensil in his hand, and physically wrote this letter, so that people can physically read it. Duh!

Regarding Romans 8:1-3, Rook's interpretation here, again, is just plain bad. Here he reads Romans where Paul talks about Jesus being in the likeness of sinful flesh (uh, meaning that Jesus was physically in the flesh), then Rook admitted that the Gospel accounts spoke of a fleshly Jesus. Yet from this Rook concluded that Paul was not relating Jesus to the flesh?! Here's Rook's own words:

Hmm, isn't that weird he uses that language again? That sort of mysterious language: "in the likeness of sinful flesh." But if we look at the Gospel accounts Jesus had a natural birth, right? He was born in flesh, right? He was actually a human. He died like a human in the Gospel accounts. Paul doesn't seem to relate that. Paul says in the likeness of sinful flesh, that he wasn't actually in the flesh.

Uh, Paul said he was in the likeness of flesh but actually wasn't in flesh? Rook, please, stop hurting yourself.

Confusion in the early church

Galatians 4:14 - why would Paul be confused as Christ Jesus? Probably because people didn't know Christ as person but as a spiritual being? All wrong. Paul wasn't being confused with Jesus, stupid. They received him warmly like Jesus. That's all.

1 Corinthians 1:11 and 12 - Why would people be confused as from who they were from if Christ had just lived? Wouldn't they have some understanding who to believe and follow? Not necessarily. First off, the people in Corinth did not represent all Christian churches at the time. Secondly, Corinth was very diverse and had plenty of paganism in it. Paul was setting them straight, Rookie. So the idea that no one was setting them doctrinally straight is false.

Romans 16:17 - Why are their people in the Christian community telling them to follow Christ? Because Paul was talking about the Jews and Gentiles in the book of Romans, genius. Why wouldn't Paul suggest Christians be careful of wrong doctrines? Even Christians today defend essential Christian doctrines. In fact, that's what I'm doing against you, Rookie.

Why does Paul rate James and Peter among them as dissenters of Christ? He didn't. I wished Rook Hawkins cited book, chapter, and verse to back up his claim. But he doesn't.

**************************
In the following Corinthian and Romans verses below, Rook Hawkins fails to realize that when Paul used the word "flesh" he meant the sinfulness of human nature, not particularly physical flesh. If you read Paul you'll know when he means the flesh of human nature and also the flesh of the physical body. Note: Paul has time and time again praised the physical body as shown in 1 Corinthians 12 where he talks about members being like a physical body.
**************************

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 - Here Paul is condemning the flesh and going toward the spiritualist idea. Correct. But, again, this isn't the physical flesh. Remember, Paul has always praised the physical body. Again, check out 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 where he speaks of the body as being a temple for the Lord. That sure as heck sounds good to me.

Romans 8:13 - Why would Paul have this idea of the flesh being wrong and sinful? I repeat: Because he was talking about human nature, not physical flesh.

Romans 8:1-2 - Again, Paul refers to Jesus in the spiritual sense. Yes, he does. Brilliant observation. But in order to fulfill the "righteous requirement" Jesus had to physically die and physically resurrect for our sins.

Also, Rook Hawkins says something rather peculiar:

"He (Paul) never refers to Christ's deeds on earth."

[7:46]

Sure, he did. Galatians 4:1-7:

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,

but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.

So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

Philippians 2:5-8:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

See, Rookie? You're wrong. And you lied to a bunch of gullible atheists, too.

Romans 6:4 - baptism of death? Seems spiritual doesn't it? Yes, it does, but it's not like gnosticism.

Also, I find it odd that Rook Hawkins recommends THE EMPTY TOMB by Jeff Lowder and Robert Price! Lowder for one actually believes that Jesus existed and that there was some historical merit to the Gospels! Anyway, here's a great review of THE EMPTY TOMB.

On Paul: part 3

It's interesting to note that Rook Hawkins is using verses while skipping many more where Jesus is described in the flesh by Paul. But let's deal with what Rookie has to offer us...

Regarding Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 - The term "made" in these verses don't mean "birth." The Greek term for "made" means to make or create, it doesn't mean "birth." The Greek word for "birth" isn't the same as "made." It's funny how Rook skips the fact that something indeed strange happen with Jesus' birth. He came from a virgin, dude. Saying that Jesus was made then wouldn't serve as a problem. Heck, many Bible versions used the word "made" for Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 and it still fits with scripture (for instance, the KJV uses "made" for Galatians 4:4)! *SHRUGS* So, I'll concede this point, but the verses still entail a physical being. Can't God make physical people? This "made" and "birth" dilemma really is no dilemma at all. It's just making people like Rook look desperate. I have to say, this is one of the most pitiful examples of trying to use the letters of Paul to form a gnostic view, and it's easily refutable by merely agreeing with the actual literal Greek word.

Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 - The Greek word used for "brother" is used figuratively, like how Christians use the word "brother" and "sister". But, was the Greek word for "brother" ever used in a physical sense though? Yes. If Rook Hawkns had studied Greek (which he obviously hasn't) he'd know that adelfo can be used as a figurative brother and as a literal brother. Check your sources, Rookie. And adelfo is different than adelfa.

Were Christians socialist? No, stupid.

Rook mentions 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 as verses Christians would use that Jesus was a physical being. Really? Not too many of them do. I wouldn't. You know why? Because it's about the Last Supper where Jesus mentioned his body was meant to be taken figuratively. Duh!

Rook Hawkins mentions that verse 23 is parallel to the revelation that Paul got earlier at Damascus. Well, you can't compare verse 23 to the revelation that Paul had because Paul didn't even mention the Supper as a revelation.

How did Paul receive it from the Lord if Jesus was dead? Because He didn't believe that Jesus was dead to begin with, genius.

Did this "Last Supper" description come from the Gospel of Thomas? No, it came from Matthew 26:17-27.

On Paul: part 4

Rook Hawkins says you shouldn't take anything he says blindly. Well said. I would go even further than that. Don't take any of Rook Hawkins' citations and recommendations blindly either.

Anyway, most of the links you see come from Tektonics.org in response to the books and authors Rook recommends. The owner (JP Holding) is someone that Rook Hawkins has made an effort not to debate. Apparently, Hawkins can't put his money where his mouth is when it comes to the Apostle Paul and the Christ-myth.

Robert M. Price - Jesus is Dead, The Empty Tomb, Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, The DaVinci Fraud, Deconstructing Jesus

Arthur Drews - Christ Myth, Legend of St. Peter, Witnesses and Historicity of Jesus [more]

Dennis R. MacDonald - Legend and the Apostle Paul, Homerics [more]

Alan Dundes - In Quest of the Hero [more]

Frank Zindler - The Jesus the Jews never Knew [more] [also here]

Earl Doherty - The Jesus Puzzle, Challenging the Verdict

R. Joseph Hoffman - Jesus in History and Myth

Charles H. Talbert - What is a Gospel?

Conclusion:

Well, Rook Hawkins has not proven in the least that Jesus was just spiritual (and not physical). All Hawkins did in interpreting Paul was already assume that he was a gnostic without proving that to be the case. The Bible verses he used only ended up vindicating the Christian position, that Christ indeed died and resurrected physically. Rook, dude, you gotta stop hurting yourself okay?

Related:

Paul a Gnostic?
Earl Doherty use of the phrase "According to the Flesh"
The Dynamic Duo of Douchebaggery

Brian Sapient on "Suffering and Evil"

2007-07-19T21:21:00.001-07:00

Link.

The Rational Response Squad try to weasel Christians onto their show

2007-07-18T21:12:00.000-07:00

I just read this link from the Rational Response Squad forum and it's a hoot. It's just so shameless how they cover their cowardice. But I see right through them. I'll give you my commentary and translations:

RRS says,

Would you like an opportunity to challenge the RRS on our radio show? If so, drop us a line in this thread and let us know who you are and why you would like to speak to us. Because of our show format, please let us know what issues you would like to address and we will get back to you with scheduling and any other relevent information. We would like civil conversation, but be prepared to get back whatever you put into the conversation.

Translation:

"Although we say if you would 'like an opportunity to challenge the RRS on our radio show,' the catch is when we later say 'be prepared to get back whatever you put into the conversation.' Meaning, you're really not going to put us on the defensive end. Only you, Mr. Theist, will be challenged and questioned, not us. We use "civil conversation" to mean 'we gang up on you... all at once sometimes.'"

RRS says,

We are open to almost any format other than 'formal debate.' If you want to ask us personal questions, or evolution questions, or you want us to have a back and forth exchange challenging each other, or some alternative proposition, just let us know. You must be prepared to accept a phone call from Brian, Rook, and Kelly within the next two weeks. Our schedules are very open from 1pm est-3am est. We will not give out your number or personal information and will prefer to refer to you as your name on our forum (if you agree). The proposed conversation would last 5-45 minutes depending on how well the conversation is going. We make no promises that we'll be able to air your phone call with us. We do however promise not to edit the show in such a way as to change the meaning or context of anything you say in our conversation.

Translation:

"The show will not be live, because we don't want to risk looking like fools in real time. If you make us look like fools or cream us in some arguments, we won't post the show in our website. That's right, we screen or pre-record all phone conversations. But give us your phone number and schedule so we will call you unexpectedly. Hopefully, you won't be prepared by then. And if we beat you, we will post the show. Our promise means everything to us. We promise to never post a show in our website that makes us look like fools."

RRS says,

So what do ya say? We've seen a few theists on here talking about how they wanted to talk with us directly, so speak up everyone... who's in?

Translation:

"We're trying to look brave enough to take on any theists who wants to debate us, even though the show will always be to our advantage."

RRS says,

Thanks,

Brian, Kelly, and Rook

Translation:

"Thanks,

The man-boy who let's his girlfriend pay his bills, the lady who's intellect is as fake as her boobs, and the plagiarist who's service in the gulf war is as phony as his credentials."

Seriously now, most theists know how full of it the RRS are, and won't go on their unfair show. It's a hoot how they openly admit that they screen their phone calls and will not have live debates... unless, of course, you suck as an apologist. Either way, I think the RRS are going down. Business must suck for them.

Related:

How to chicken out of a FAIR debate the "Rational Response Squad" way

Rook Hawkins is happy he has a card

2007-07-09T18:33:00.001-07:00

Rook, get a life. Do you know how incredibly easy it is to get a SBL card? Anyone can join the SBL. Anyone! Anyone that's willing to pay the required $65 can become a member. This isn't anything to boast about. It isn't a distinction or a status. This card is no better than a Blockbuster's membership card, dude. We know you're desperate to show people how, uh, "scholarly" you are, but we know you're a phony.

More here.

The Rational Response Squad: method over substance

2007-07-08T23:24:00.000-07:00

Matt Slick knows all too well how the RRS are.

Paul McFarland catches Rook Hawkins in a lie about Pontius Pilate!

2007-06-29T21:46:00.000-07:00

Paul McFarland (who speaks with a totally gnarly accent) takes on Rook Hawkins' assessment of Pontius Pilate and creams him:

This is yet again more smoking gun evidence that Rook Hawkins fails as a deep thinking scholarly historian.

Related:

James Emery White on the Blasphemy Challenge

2007-06-29T12:48:00.000-07:00

Dr. White said,

"I had so many different emotions as I watched the mostly-young men and women state their denial of God. A sick, sordid feeling, as if watching something deeply perverted."

You will always get something "deeply perverted" by the Rational Response Squad. Always.

Brian Sapient, again, defends the fact that his Christian mother (as well as all Christians) belongs in a mental hospital!

2007-06-24T13:12:00.000-07:00

Brian Sapient was quoted as saying,

"I lost my mother to Jesus, and vow to conquer those who have led her to harm,
yeah... no bullsh*t. Well, I should clarify, she is still alive but her brain
has been melted down to a non functioning level where synapses wont connect,
known as born again christianity... she has become Christarded. I hate theism, I
do not hate theists" (source)

And,

"If I could get a mental health clinic (I couldn't) to admit someone for fervent
belief with no evidence specifically Christianity, and I could get my mother to
go (I couldn't), I'd take her, pay for it, support her, be there for her,
whatever." (source)

Now, here's his comprehensive defense for putting his mother in a mental institute:

I remember I asked Brian Sapient since he thought Christians belong in a mental institute, then did he go to a mental institute? After all, he claimed he used to be a Christian. And now he's an atheist, right? So, uh, did he go to a mental ward? Sapient didn't bother answering my question. Figures.

Anyway, I challenge some of you guys to compliment Brian Sapient by telling him his mother is a retard. He'll most likely love you and thank you for the suggestion.

Aside note: Wannabe-sellout-who's-not-from-Compton Greydon Square addressed a song to me called "addressed," and I rip him and his song apart here. Greydon Square has yet to condemn Brian Sapient for saying Martin Luther King Jr belonged in a mental hospital.

My article on the Blasphemy Challenge

2007-06-08T19:57:00.001-07:00

I wrote an article for the "Christian Faith and Reason" online magazine. Check it out (yes, that's me):

www.christianfaithandreason.com/june_opinion_walton.html

The stupid mind of Rook Hawkins

2007-06-07T22:45:00.000-07:00

There's just no excuse for Rook Hawkins' stupidity. If you thought Brian Sapient was stupid after making this argument, that's nothing compared to what Rook did. Now, Rook without a doubt is a plagiarist. We proved it here. But there is a section off that article where he actually didn't plagiarize from anybody. So, the irrational and illogical mistake he made is his own and nobody else's. Let's explore the first part where we'll prove once and for all that Rook Hawkins loses all credibility as a logical thinker and historian. Here Rook writes:

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus

* Lucian, (175 CE), refers to "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." Regardless of the fact that this is NOT AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT BUT WRITTEN 120 YEARS AFTER THE SUPPOSED DEATH OF JESUS, nowhere in any of his writings does Lucian mention the man's name...

True.

... or the cult he brought into the world.

False! Lucian did indeed mention the cult. He used the word "Christian." In Perigrinus, 11ff, Lucian, says,

It was then that he (Perigrinus) learned the wondrous lore of the Christians by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine.

Where in the world is Rook getting his scholarship from? Every historian (that is, if he's a serious historian) knew that Lucian used the word "Christian" before.

This is a SPECIAL PLEADING argument by Christians, we are too ASSUME he is talking about Jesus.

Well, duh! Who else did the Christians worship? A Christian worships Jesus. That's pretty much a no-brainer, dude. So, it's not special pleading. Again, Rook falsely made the claim that Lucian did not mention the cult when he did! But as an aside, if this is a special pleading argument made by Christians for assuming the person is Jesus, then it would be just as much special pleading by Rook to think that it wasn't!

Except that THOUSANDS of people were crucified in Palestine, and many of these men were known to start new religions, especially around the time of Lucian. Palestine covers an area roughly hundreds of miles from north to south and east to west, it spreads from north of Damascus to the far south, past Masada and the Dead Sea. The ONLY thing this proves is that a man was killed because he started a cult.

*SHRUGS* Okay. But it would be special pleading to automatically assume that this man was not Jesus, which is exactly what you're doing.

Quote:
As translated by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

This is a pseudo-translation. The real (And FULL) translation is as follows:

o "These deluded creatures, you see, have persuaded themselves that they are immortal and will live forever, which explains the contempt of death and willing self-sacrifice so common among them. It was impressed on them too by their lawgiver that from the moment they are converted, deny the gods of Greece, worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers. They take his instructions completely on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods and hold them in common ownership. So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them."

... okay. Uhm, I guess there's another side of that coin. Rook Hawkins deluded himself into thinking that Lucian did not mention the cult.

More on this below. Lucian does not name specifically the crucified figure as Jesus Christ. This whole argument is now bunk because it depends on Special Pleading. The plea is that we accept that Lucian is talking about Jesus of Nazareth, but clearly it isn’t certain. He does speak a LOT about Christians, in fact he ridicules them!

Wait a minute! So, he did mention the cult! Rook just contradicted himself here. First he claims, "nowhere in any of his writings does Lucian mention...the cult he brought into the world." Then he says "He (Lucian) does speak a LOT about Christians..." Rook, dude, what were you smoking?

He believes rather thoroughly that Christianity is a scam. Lucian satirized the Christians in his Passing of Peregrines (From which your quote derives) a story of a philosopher sage who at one point becomes a leader of the Christians to take advantage of their gullibility. His last statement says it all, “So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them.” In fact, when he states, “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector….”

Incredible! Rook uses the same quote I used where Lucian mentions the cult of Christianity. Also, yes, it's true Lucian didn't care for Christianity. What's the big deal? Many historians use people who were critical of an event or person as historical proof.

He is speaking of his character he concocted, the sage philosopher, who the Christians worshiped and took on as their God, and who was better then all their (the Christians) scribes and priests. What is more amusing about your non-researched speculation is that you seem to think Lucian has some sort of knowledge concerning the existence of Jesus, where in fact it’s just not true. Even other Christian’s admit to such. As Jeffery Jay Lowder, author of Josh McDowell’s “Evidence” for Jesus: Is It Reliable?, writes concerning Lucian, “Nevertheless, given that Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the historicity of Jesus. Lucian may have relied upon Christian sources, common knowledge, or even an earlier pagan reference (e.g., Tacitus); since Lucian does not specify his sources, we will never know.

It's very, very, very unlikely that Lucian relied on Christian sources. You know why? Because as Rook Hawkins said Lucian had disdain for Christians! As was mentioned in tektonics.org,

Given Lucian's disdain for Christians, it is doubtful that he would have relied on them solely for information, assuming he actually consulted them at all. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 92] indicates common knowledge as the source. Allinson [Alli.Luc, 95] says that Lucian was "evidently acquainted, by hearsay at least, with some of the facts of the crucifixion of Christ." Evans [ChilEv.Stud, 461-2] does regard Lucian's use of an unusual word to describe crucifixion ("to impale") as evidence of derivation from a non-Christian source. The evidence thus points towards derivation of this knowledge from a non-Christian source.

Rook goes on:

Just as is the case with Tacitus, it is quite plausible that Lucian would have simply accepted the Christian claim that their founder had been crucified. (Take into account that Lowder is making the same plea. He also believes in the historicity of Christ) He states, in his conclusion as well, “Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Lucian are not independent witnesses to the historicity of Jesus.” Regardless of what references are made AFTER the fact, he’s not an eye-witness ergo he CANNOT be used to prove the existence of Jesus. He wasn’t even a CONTEMPORARY! So we have two main problems associated with Lucian:

o 1. Lucian was NOT a contemporary or eye-witness.

Lucian never said or claimed he was an eyewitness. Well, Jiminy Jillickers! It's SPECIAL PLEADING of Rook Hawkins to assume that if someone is not an eyewitness to something that something probably never happened or existed.

o 2. Lucian does NOT mention Jesus OR the cult this man who was crucified in Palestine started.

There goes the contradiction again! Absolutely incredible! LOL!

The whole argument for Lucian is bunk. And the fact that it’s only a slight mention, if but two sentences, really doesn’t help your case.

Some Christian once wrote:
...but Lucian clearly was talking of who the Christians worshipped.

So it proved the Christians worshipped somebody. Who’s arguing that point? This is irrelevant.

More special pleading! But, uh, yeah, Rook, it's uh very very logical to believe that Christians worshiped somebody other than Jesus.

Some Christian once wrote:
He was also describing the teachings of Christianity(brothers at the time of conversion) and the conversion involved the denial of Greek gods and living according to His teaching.

Well, I didn't make that claim so I'm not one of those "some Christian."

This is as I stated above Lucian’s reference to the Christians reaction to HIS CHARACTER, Peregrines!

Yes, genius, we know that.

This is a failure on your part, because you probably just went to some Christian site, copied the butchered text, and pasted it as if that was all Lucian wrote in his entire life.

Well, Rook, you're the one who actually like to copy and paste texts from some place else remember?

Where in fact these statements you claim are applied to Jesus are actually about a man named Peregrines who, “for a time in his early life went over to Christianity, practicing it to the point of imprisonment under a very tolerant administration, and after returning to Cynicism became in his old age so enamoured of Indic ideas and precedents that he cremated himself at Olympia, just after the games of A.D. 165, even as Calanus had done at Susa in the presence of Alexander the Great and as Zarmarus had done at Athens, after initiation into the mysteries, in the presence of Augustus.” - H.M. Harmon (Lucian of Samosata : The Passing of Peregrines)

*SHRUGS* Okay.

It should be noted too, that Josephus talks a lot about crucifixion in his works.

It should be noted too, that Josephus talks about Jesus in his works.

In the 120 years that passed between Jesus' supposed existence and Lucian, thousands upon thousands were crucified in Palestine. In fact, in just one year, multitudes numbering 500 in one day, sometimes more, were sent to be crucified during the seige in 70 CE. "...before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies." (War 5: Chapter 11)

It's awfully odd that Rook would use Josephus as a reference to crucifixions seeing how he thinks he's not a reliable source. But, oh, wait a minute! Rook does use him as a reliable source when it comes to crucifixions! You know what, Rook, Christians use Josephus as a reliable source when it comes to the existence of Jesus. Why don't you? Oh, it's the special pleading again!

To claim that the one man who was crucified is your savior is incredulous. So many myth's were flying around the time of Lucian it is impossible really to name them all. So many "saviors" crucified.

So many self-professed saviors? Nope. Not during Jesus' time in Palestine.

And since Christ more have followed. Whether they be of the Chrestians and Christians, or of false prophets that are known to us such as Alexander and his followers (Also written by Lucian). Incidentally...Alexander was claiming to be the son of Zeus (hm) and he was a sage, and an oracle. He preformed miracles that Lucian mocked. "As a matter of fact, this trick, to a man like you, and if it is not out of place to say so, like myself also, was obvious and easy to see through, but to those drivelling idiots it was miraculous and almost as good as incredible." "Well, as I say, Alexander made predictions and gave oracles, employing great shrewdness in it and combining guesswork with his trickery. He gave responses that were sometimes obscure and ambiguous, sometimes downright unintelligible, for this seemed to him in the oracular manner. Some people he dissuaded or encouraged as seemed best to him at a guess. To others he prescribed medical treatments and diets, knowing, as I said in the beginning, many useful remedies." "By now he was even sending men abroad to create rumours in the different nations in regard to the oracle and to say that he made predictions, discovered fugitive slaves, detected thieves and robbers, caused treasures to be dug up, healed the sick, and in some cases had actually raised the dead. " (sound familiar yet?)

Sure. But it would be begging the question to say that since both events are similar that automatically makes the other false and the other not (or both false).

In Conclusion:

1. Rook contradicted himself when he first claimed that "nowhere in any of his writings does Lucian mention the man's name, or the cult he brought into the world." Then he says "He (Lucian) does speak a LOT about Christians..." Uh, meaning that Lucian did in fact mention the cult from whence the man came from. Duh!

2. Rook says that Lucian was not an eyewitness to Jesus, but that was historically never in dispute anyway.

3. Rook uses Josephus as a reliable source when it comes to crucifixions but not when it comes to the existence of Jesus. Figures.

I think this "Lucian" argument by Rook Hawkins alone proves once and for all that he's a complete moron, utterly devoid of rationality and scholarship. But hey, he has an "academy" to teach at.

Joel McDurmon on the Christ Myth and then some

2007-06-01T23:26:00.000-07:00

Joel McDurmon has an interesting book, Manifested in the Flesh, which is in response to Brian Flemming concerning his Christ Myth position. He also has a book on atheism entitled Return of the Village Atheist, which is a response to Sam Harris. Checkout his radio interview.

My upcomming article on the Blasphemy Challenge

2007-06-01T23:16:00.000-07:00

Michael Patrick Leahy of Christian Faith and Reason Magazine invited me to write an article on the Blasphemy Challenge. I was more than happy to oblige. I thank him for this opportunity. So, my article will be up soon and I'll leave you guys a link. Hopefully, it would serve as a reference to anybody with concerns about this so-called challenge. Here's whiff of what I wrote in the conclusion:

Who are the Real Rational People?

All in all, the “blasphemy challenge” is a complete sham. It is based on faulty interpretation of the Bible, all done by half-wit, immature, perverts who plagiarize articles, hold to shabby scholarship, and demonize and lie about their opposition. I would hope any non-Christian who reads this article know of the true nature of someone who violently curses at an almighty God such as ours. Their sins will eventually find them out (Numbers 32:23). Christians have absolutely nothing to hide, and given RRS’ and Flemming’s constant cowardice and running away from opposition, it’s not hard to see who really has something to hide. RRS and Flemming will stop at nothing to hurt their enemies even if it comes down to lying, cheating, or stealing. As some of you know, Flemming illegally used footage from Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ in his The God Who Wasn’t There documentary (he even had captions in the movie where he proudly proclaimed he took the footage without permission). And at the same time, Flemming is selling his movie with the illegal footage! If Mel Gibson happens to sue Flemming for this, then that would give Flemming the opportunity to give himself more publicity and attention. And that’s exactly what Flemming wants. You see, Flemming is a parasite. And like all parasites, they need to latch onto somebody else for their own prestige. Just recently, RRS recommended a blood drive on prayer day. Strange how they have to wait until "prayer day" to give blood. Couldn't they do the blood drive as soon as possible? But no, they have to do it on prayer day. I mean, it just had to be on that day, right? Like I said, these atheists are parasites. They need Christianity to survive, yet paradoxically they hate it. They don’t want Christianity anymore, yet they use it to survive. As Dr. Cornelius Van Til once said, non-believers are like unruly, disrespectful children who sit on their father’s lap in order to reach up and slap him in the face. But for Christians we sit on our Heavenly Father’s lap because we enjoy His company. People like Flemming and RRS may spit in our faces and say all sorts of nasty things about us, but if “God is for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31)”

A lot of the stuff I wrote in my blog here is already in the article. However, I put some more fresh material in it. Let all concerned parents and churches know about it!

Brian Flemming is a wuss

2007-05-31T13:24:00.001-07:00

I challenged him, he gave me no response, so he's chickening out. There's just no excuse. Fascist fundy Flemming has recently posted in his blog but says nothing of my challenge to him. Nor did he bother returning my emails. I can only conclude that he does not want to debate. Mr. Flemming, dude, you're all talk but no bite. You can't put your money where your mouth is. Like the (ir)Rational Response Squad, you're a coward!

See, we told you so

2007-05-29T21:44:00.000-07:00

We criticized RRS for their overt sexual perversions in their chatrooms. Honestly, we're not making this up. Here's what RRS' own blog has to say about it:

LoL, I go into the webcam chat... and first thing I see?

BOOBS! Not that I'm complaining, boobs are glorious indeed. It just kind of caught me off guard, and all I could do was type "BOOBS!" like a kid. LoL... How sad of me.

My friend Simon was right, Kelly's boobs can win all debates. When he watched her debate with Cameron and that other nut, he said, "I have no idea what she just said, but I agree 100%." Hah, all after staring slack-jawed while she spoke. Kelly's boobs will overthrow the Earth.

www.rationalresponders.com/lol_i_go_into_the_webcam_chat_and_first_thing_i_see

Figures.

How Christians can make money off of atheist Brian Flemming legally!!!

2007-05-28T20:04:00.000-07:00

Some of you may not know this but Brian Flemming is an advocate of what's known as "copyleft" (not to be mistaken with "copyright") . Read this for more detail. But do you know what copyleft is? It's a law

"to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions."

But don't take our word for it, Brian Flemming's very own Free Cinema website makes his intentions clear:

A copyleft simply means that the filmmaker allows others to copy or make new works out of his or her film, as long as those other works are governed by the same license. You can make a new film out of my film, but you have to let others have the same freedom with the one you make.

Now, if you've seen Flemming's The God Who Wasn't There, you'll notice a part where he takes a good chunk of footage from Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ while proudly proclaiming he took it without permission. And of all things he is selling his DVD with this illegally used footage! It seems that Flemming loves to practice what he preaches.

And so, let me encourage all Christians to go ahead and take Flemming's DVD and use his film in any way you want! That's right, if your church wants to make a blow-by-blow refutation of this film go ahead and use his film footage. Best of all, you can sell your DVD and make money! Isn't that great?! You can make money off of Flemming just like how Flemming made money off of Mel Gibson!

What's Flemming going to do? Sue you? As an advocate of copyleft he won't sue you. I mean, he wants film footage to be free, correct? Never mind Flemming's hypocrisy about the fact that he's selling his movie for $24.98 (well, so much for Free Cinema), so go nutts!

Brian Flemming apologists don't want the debate

2007-05-27T16:55:00.000-07:00

Since my challenge to Brian Flemming, I've received countless comments and emails from angry atheists (noticed I didn't approve some of the hate-filled comments in my blog). They're angry that I have the audacity to challenge their king. Even my imposter admitted to sending Flemming a boat load of emails (while pretending to be me, of course). Little does he know he'll risk my chances of debating Flemming. You can thank my imposter for that. But what these Flemming-fascists are trying to do is hurt my chances of utterly annihilating Flemming in a debate. They're afraid that I can win and expose him and his arguments. If they are truly open minded then they should encourage a debate between Flemming and I. But no, they're trying to keep it from happening. My goodness, what cowards.

My challenge to Brian Flemming for a debate

2007-05-26T22:35:00.000-07:00

From: Frank Walton
To: Brian Flemming
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 22:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Let's debate

Dear Brian Flemming,

I want to debate you. I'm sure your minions (the Rational Response Squad) would advise you otherwise. They'll tell you I only avert to ad hominem attacks, that I lie, etc. Say what you will but I've been challenging the Rational Resonse Squad over and over again to a fair debate. But only to have Brian Sapient use every cowardly excuse in the book to run from me. Earlier this year a member of Sapient's club actually challenged me. And look what happened, my opponent fled the debate (and to think that he's getting a PhD, too!). You have deliberately targeted children and teens and young adults with your "Blasphemy Challenge" crusade, and it's about time you take one of them on: me. This is a Christian you can't brainwash, sir. I'm practically half your age and yet I read you like a comic book. I have little credentials so that ought to make it easier for you, huh? Heck, I don't even have my BA yet. And I don't even have a declared major. You, on the other hand, aren't too far from me. As far as I can tell you don't have any degree in philosophy, religion, science, etc. You're just a filmmaker with no theatrical releases, (except to illegally take film clips from Mel Gibson's Passion - wow, how moral is that!) and an off-Broadway play that was lambasted by critics.

Furthermore, you have chosen to attack specifically Christianity. So it would be a good idea that you start debating one: again, me. You've already chickened out of a debate with my friend JP Holding on the existence of Jesus. But let's debate atheism then. The debate will be entitled: "Which is more rational: Atheism or Christianity?" You've debated a number of people on the web so I don't see any excuse why you wouldn't want to debate me. I want to know what you're made of. Come on, take me up on my own challenge. I have happily and wholeheartedly failed your "blasphemy challenge." (See? you already have an advantage over me). Will you fail the "atheism is more rational" challenge? Or will you win it? Take me on and let's see what happens.

Our format can be this:

Opening Statements: no more than 1500 words.

First Rebuttals: no more than 1000 words.

Second Rebuttals: no more than 1000 words.

Third Rebuttals: no more than 800 words

Conclusions: no more than 600 words.

We can get an agreed on moderator to moderate the debate.

By not responding to my email or refusing to debate me I can only conclude that you're a complete chicken who refuses to put your money where your mouth is. Whatever excuse you have for not debating me will only reek of cowardice.

Yours,

Frank Walton

Proud editor of:
http://blasphemychallenge.blogspot.com
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com

Chandler says Christianity is a "mind disorder" and that Christians are "confused"

2007-05-25T11:09:00.000-07:00

Brian Sapient said Chandler's video here was his favorite participant in the Blasphemy Challenge. Sure enough, I wanted to take him on. This is what happened:

Hi Chandler,

I'm a Christian and I'm not trying to convert you or anything. Or even preach a message. Or even have you take back the Blasphemy Challenge. But do you realize who the Rational Response Squad are and how radical their views are? Here's what they believe about Christians:

http://blasphemychallenge.blogspot.com...

And what they would like to do to them:

http://blasphemychallenge.blogspot.com...

You don't believe any of that stuff, do you?

Always,

Frank Walton

Q: do i believe all christians should be admitted to mental institutes?

A: no

Q: does the RRS believe all christians should be admitted to mental hospitals?

A: unlikely, misquotes are a bitch

and finally...

Q: is theism a mind disorder?

A: by definition, yes imo if course
http://www.answers.com/disorder&r=67

Thanks

Chandler

Hi Chandler,

Thank you for replying.

You think that theism is a mental disorder yet at the same time you don't think theists should go to mental institutes? Why not? I don't know about you, but if someone had a mental disorder like schizophrenia, well, he should be in a mental institute. But what about you, as a former theist you had mental disorder, correct? How do you know you still don't have it? If you're saying it's because you're not confused anymore as an atheist, well, you're begging the question, because plenty of atheists have legitimate mental disorders, don't they (Nietzsche had a mental breakdown at the end of his life - because of the death of his wife - yet he was still an atheist)? Yet you're saying ALL theists have mental disorders. By the way, that dictionary definition you gave (www.answers.com/disorder&r=67) had no mention of theism anywhere, so it's NOT by definition that theism is a mental disorder. With all due respect, it seems you arbitrarily hinged that definition to theism, and assumed that all theists "lack order or regular arrangement," or are confused, etc.

Look, I'm a Christian, and I know plenty of atheists, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they have mental disorders just because they're atheists; or even if they have no good reason to be an atheist.

As for RRS wanting ALL Christians to go to mental hospital I would urge you to look at the link again. Even atheists noted it and condemned that type of thinking (read what hillbillyatheist said). To this day, I'm not surprised that some atheists are making every excuse for RRS's comment. RRS even said that Martin Luther King Jr. had a mental disorder! Have they no shame?!

Just my two cents,

Frank

Correct I would agree with the statement that theism is a mental disorder since disorder can be defined as confusion and I believe theists are confused.

It would not be my word of choice since the word "mental disorder" is usually associated with phsyical ailment, or disease. I hope you can understand that I do not see theism as a physical disease that would require medical treatment.

does that make sense?

Chandler

Hi Chandler,

I get what you're trying to say. But not in a million years would I associate words like "disorder" to theists like Aristotle or Plato or Sir Isaac Newton or Martin Luther King Jr. or Galileo or DaVinci or William Shakespeare, etc. I cannot believe that you would call these great men (who influenced the world for the better) confused. Are you trying to tell me that that is an intelligent thing to say about these people? For your information, there are plenty of bright thinking non-Christians that I know of, and I would never say that they are mental or confused or disordered just because they don't believe in God.

Frank

So what words would you use to describe atheists/non-christians?

please reply to [edited]

Youyube isnt my favorite place to hold long conversations.

thanks.

Hi Chandler,

You said, "So what words would you use to describe atheists/non-christians?"

I would say that they are sinners. That's all. But guess what, Christians are sinners, too! The only difference between a Christian and non-Christian is that we're saved by grace through Jesus. That's a far, far cry than saying someone has a "mental disorder" or that they're totally "confused."

Frank

=====================

Our discourse went further than that but basically this was the gist of our discussion. Still, it amazes me that some atheists can't bring it to themselves to condemn RRS for saying such irrational things.

Penn and Teller on the Bible

2007-05-23T11:14:00.000-07:00

I said it before and I'll say it again those who take the blasphemy challenge in some way or another end up stupid. It's almost like a curse! Take for instance, Penn of "Penn and Teller" fame:

Now, here's the "Penn and Teller 'Bullsh*t' show" on the Bible.

Some thoughts:

Looks like Penn and Teller had themselves a smear campaign against Christianity. And of course they had fun at the expense of Christians. Basically, this was how it was structured:

Dr. Paul L. Maier will make a point about the Bible.
Michael Shermer and Penn will refute and question that point.
And that's it. Maier (or any Christian for that matter) had no opportunity to respond. Granted, it's suppose to be a biased show, but, either way, Christians do have a response to these doubts, and they were not given that opportunity. Shermer and Penn had the last words.

That's not exactly fair now is it? Also, Dr. Maier had this to say about his appearance on the cable show. It ends up that he had no idea of the intent of the show:

PAUL L. MAIER, Ph.D., Litt.D.
Department of History

Western Michigan University

Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008

(269) 387-4816 Fax: (269) 387-4651 e-mail: maier@wmich.edu

A RESPONSE TO ALL WHO ARE CONCERNED

ABOUT MY APPEARANCE ON The Penn & Teller Show

Last week, an LCMS pastor in Florida posted an internet criticism of my statements on the Showtime Network’s Penn & Teller Show, adding that I am a liberal. I reject this term. If, as he claims, he has heard me speak and read my books and articles, where, pray tell, can he dare call me that when I engage in defending the faith continually in the broadcast and printed media?! – Now here is the background on that worthless production called The Penn & Teller Show...

Our home is not on cable. (I barely have time to watch regular broadcast television, so I had never heard of that show before.) When they asked me for an interview, I assumed it was a bona fide television program, on which I could provide sound bites for the faith similar to what I did on ABC’s Peter Jennings Reporting – Jesus and Paul. They flew in a camera crew and interviewed me in my university offices. The crew posed excellent questions and were so interested in my responses that the filming went on for over two hours. In no way did I get the impression that this would be anything other than a serious television program on which I could vigorously defend the faith. Such opportunities have occurred dozens of times over the past years, and I could only think this was more of the same.

I never saw the telecast, since, again, I’m not on cable. On June 10, however, the producers sent me a tape of the broadcast, which I then viewed. To say I was outraged is a terrible understatement!! Penn or Teller (whoever is the big one) is a consummate, blasphemous ass, whose horrible language, I’m sure, turned the stomachs of any viewers (probably even scoffers’!) And the editing!! I assumed it would be like the ABC special on April 5, in which we had all been interviewed separately yet honestly. But what did this Showtime program do? They let a skeptic named Michael Shirmer (however it’s spelled) respond to my statements, but not vice versa. Dirty pool! Penn & Teller could do the same – twisting my words, taking me out of context, and cutting 97% of my bristling defense in behalf of the Bible and Christianity.

Oh, and the outright falsehoods too: I never "called myself ‘Doctor’," as they claimed. Even where I did "get a few good licks in" they clouded my comments with silly black/white footage playing while I talked. The thing was an outrage from beginning to end: no wonder it’s on cable...networks would be sued for indecency. – Now to the specific charges raised by my critic...

In my office, the interviewer had seemed affable and serious (it was not Penn or Teller!), and when he asked about Christian views on Creation, I responded by saying that there were two basic interpretations: the conservative view that Genesis was literally true and that Moses authored the Pentateuch, and the more liberal viewpoint involving the documentary hypothesis. "What about the ‘two Creation stories’?" I was then asked. "Well, there was only one Creation," I responded, and then went on to harmonize the first two chapter of Genesis in detail. [Note: all that ended up on the cutting room floor!] "Well, don’t the two chapters contradict one another, as liberals claim? What’s their viewpoint?" he then continued. I answered, as quoted directly on the tape, "Well, I wouldn’t call them contradictions as much as commentaries the one on the other. We probably have two different authors here, whose work was blended together, then, with editorial revising." Then they cut the crucial next phrase: "But this is the liberal viewpoint, of course." (!!!!) So, bottom line: I was explaining the liberal viewpoint here -- not endorsing it. Evidently a skillful video editor can make you say whatever he wants you to say!!

I see that my critic, evidently, had no trouble with my later defense of Scripture against the common charge that Egyptian records do not refer to the Exodus; my statement that Scripture has "an authorship that was guided and inspired by God;" and my other strong defenses of the faith even on that wretched program. Imagine what would have happened had Penn & Teller had a genuine liberal on the program rather than me?!

I can, of course, understand my critic’s concerns, since he was unaware of the background and atrocious editing. But it would have been far more in keeping both with Matthew 18 and the 8^th commandment had he learned all the facts before rushing to the internet. I, of course, am sadly the wiser, and will never again let myself get trapped into appearing on a program of scum television.

Blessings to all who may be interested,

Paul L. Maier

Dr. Maier was ambushed by the atheist elite. I hope more Christians would take caution given this anti-Christian environment.

With that said, here's my review of Penn and Teller's episode:

Penn and Teller are trying to make it look like the "symbol" factor in the Bible is "two different versions of the same event." This may be true but I'm not altogether sure that's what Dr. Maier is trying to say, because he said the symbols in the Bible don't always connote non-reality.

Genesis 6 - How did all the animals get into the ark? The funny thing is Penn and Teller tried to paint Dr. Maier as a man who took the Noah's ark account literal. He never said he did. Anyway, not all animals were in the ark. Here's the thing: In Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in Genesis is behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which most likely refers to reptiles. So Noah did not need to take sea creatures. Furthermore, Noah was told to put "clean animals" in his ark which were very very very few animals, check out Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

Exodus 14:22-31 - Penn says there's no evidence of Pharaoh enslaving 6,000 Jews in Egypt. There's no evidence of Moses outside of the Bible. Penn is doubtful of the 10 plagues. Shermer says there's no archaeological evidence that the Jews were in the wilderness for 40 years. Dr. Maier makes the point that the Egyptians did not record any of their defeats. Also, he makes the point that the Hebrew Jews may have crossed the Reed Sea where the land actually dried up. Funny thing is these points were never really refuted! The only "refutation" Penn and Shermer give is an "oh, c'mon" reaction. Here's more.

"Any Gospel" segment - Did Jesus exist? Penn says that just because Josephus mentioned Jesus it doesn't mean that He actually existed. Besides, Josephus wrote about him decades after He lived. Shermer thinks that Apollonius of Tyana may have been the mistaken messiah. Funny thing is the stories of Apollonius wasn't written until 150 years after Jesus! Hmm, they complain that Josephus wrote about Jesus decades after He supposedly existed, yet they don't complain about the written account of Apolloinus' time? Figures. Here's more on Josephus. Anyway, Shermer makes the point that Jesus's miracles could have been just like a magic show.

The resurrection segment - What happened to Jesus after He died? Shermer and Penn make the point the body may not have been found but that doesn't mean Jesus actually resurrected. Well, Jiminy Jillickers! I could have meant that He indeed did resurrect too.

"Who wrote the Bible" segment - Dr. Maier says the Bible developed in its usage through the early church. Shermer says there are other books that were not in the canon because the committee said so. This is assuming of course that these "other books" may have been trustworthy.

The 10 commandments segment - Penn shows that most people can't even recite the 10 commandments in consecutive order. Hey, neither can atheists. Dr. Maier makes the point that at least one of the the 10 commandments are universal around the country. Oddly, Shermer uses a passage (ie man should not lie with a man, children should be stoned) that is NOT one of the 10 commandments to refute the 10 commandments.

Leviticus 20:13 - This law is no longer binding. Here's more.

Deuteronomy 21:21 - According to tektonics.org:

But, does the text say we should stone *children*? You assume it does. This is a natural assumption for you to make, since you live in a culture where sons and daughters are required to obey the parents *only when they are children.* When the children become adults, they can pack up, leave, and do "whatever they want" - even if it's against the will of the parents - with no repercussions from society.

But the culture in which Deuteronomy was written is different. Sons still had the command to "honor their mother and father," be respectful to them and listen to their words. So how old is the "son" in this passage?

The Hebrew term for "son" (ben) employed here is indefinite. It is sometimes used of children of both sexes, but most often of the male. The word "son" here does not give any indication of age. It can refer to a child or to an adult son. Age must be determined from the context. In this case, the son in view is not a child, for the sins brought forth in testimony are gluttony and drunkenness (v. 20).

Furthermore, the actions of this son are severe. This is not the case of a child who has failed to do his chores, spoke back to his parents, or even committed a serious act of disobedience, but of a son of dissolute character who is in full rebellion to authority. The text says that the son is "stubborn" and "rebellious." Both of these descriptive terms are active participles, thus indicating habitual action. The son does not display a stubborn streak now and then, or act rebelliously from time to time, but is continuously stubborn and rebellious. The word "stubborn" refers to one who is obstinate in his resistance to authority. This son is living a life without restraint, and is a serious danger to his family and to his community.

One must ignore much to believe this verse condones murdering little Johnny for not cleaning his room.

Exodus 21:7 - It's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. Slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude. Remember, it was not like black slavery during the Civil War. Some people sold off their daughters to pay off a debt or because they knew that as slaves they would be living a better life than had they stayed with their family. More here.

Exodus 35:2 - Anyone working on the sabbath should be put to death. This was done so that Israel were set apart from other nations as God's holy people. However, these ritual laws are no longer binding. Furthermore, even during Jesus' time some Pharisees tried to redefine this law, to put Jesus and His disciples to death. On many occasions Jesus had to set them straight.

1 Corinthians 11:14 - It's shameful for men to have long hair. The Greek word used here actually refers to tresses of hair. Furthermore, Paul was making the comparison of long hair to that of women. Also, what Penn and Teller fail to realize is that this was Corinth that Paul was writing to. In Corinth, there were many men who were heavily into the occult and grew their hair out as a sign of it.

Verses 19-24 - A man should not go near a woman when she's on her period. No kidding! [take note: these verses are not in First or Second Corinthians but in Leviticus 15! Penn and Teller don't tell you that.] But seriously, this is true because during this time ancient Israelites were not medically advanced. It was best to avoid blood. The Israelites were not even suppose to drink blood. Furthermore, it was known that during menstruation women cannot give birth. So the verse may be getting the Israelites to populate the Earth.

Anyway, contrary to what Penn said, all of these verses show that context indeed matters.

Kelly of the RRS won't put her money where her mouth is

2007-05-22T12:06:00.000-07:00

Kelly without question is the most smart in the Rational Response Squad. She even dominated her debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. So, I wanted to taker her on. I sent her the following email via myspace:

Date: May 10, 2007 11:23 AM
Subject: Let's debate

Kelly,

Look, you are clearly smarter than Sapient and Hawkins. Sometimes I wonder what someone as intelligent as you are, are doing with people like that. Sapient knows I'd smoke him if I debated him, and he's using every cowardly excuse in the book to run from me. However, from what I can gather you seem like a sharp person. Although I don't know if you are what we would call brave. But prove to me that you are. What do you say, let's debate. We can go to a forum and go at it one-on-one.

Hoping to hear from you,

Frank Walton

So far, I received no response from her. Typical.

"I deny Brian Sapient"?

2007-05-21T19:23:00.000-07:00

Seems like this "I deny Brian Sapient" thing is going around, and Sapient decided to make fun of it here:

Now, this satire done by Sapient and the plagiarist Rook Hawkins seems like a God awful attempt at humor. Dude, you guys aren't funny. Here's another one:

Anyway, Sapient seems to forget the fact that God is so obvious denying him would be ridiculous. Given that nature, denying Brian Sapient (despite all the evidence) would be foolish. And Sapient didn't seem to get this "I deny Brian Sapient" parody! You see, Sapient is still a total nincompoop. Now, personally, I don't deny the existence of Brian Sapient but I do deny the existence of his rational cognitive faculties. After making an argument as stupid as this one, you'd have to be an idiot. So, it's no wonder he didn't altogether get this parody. Sapient, the joke is on you. Here's more...

Todd Friel's interview with Brian Sapient

2007-05-14T19:10:00.000-07:00

Hmm, it looked like Brian Sapient was about ready to cry at the end of the interview. Either way, he got whipped. Thank you, Mr. Friel!

Zgates sees the blasphemy challenge for what it is

2007-05-12T19:37:00.000-07:00

Yet another atheist critical of the blasphemy challenge:

Todd Friel catches Brian Sapient lying!

2007-05-10T12:46:00.000-07:00

I thought this was interesting. This just goes to show how full of it Sapient is.

My assessment of the Cameron-Comfort vs Sapient-Kelly debate

2007-05-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

Part 1
Part 2

Melinda and the "Atheist Challenge"

2007-05-10T11:12:00.000-07:00

Link.

Kirk Cameron - the real deal

2007-05-09T23:13:00.001-07:00

I'm sure many people make fun of Kirk Cameron now that he's left the Hollywood life to be an active Christian. To me, though, he's a man of God. Even if he isn't everybody's idea apologist for Christianity, he has dignity and he proves it. As far as I can tell, he's authentic. And he puts his money where his mouth is (unlike some people we know). Check out this video:

Kirk, dude, you make me proud to be a Christian. What Kirk Cameron has that Brian Sapient doesn't is masculinity. After all, Sapient admitted that he has girlie nipples (don't believe me? Listen to his debate with Cameron. I guess we can call it, Sapient's "nipple" argument against God).

Todd Friel smokes Brian Sapient

2007-05-08T23:24:00.000-07:00

We all know that Sapient is too scared to take Friel on one-on-one so Friel decided to catch up with Sapient and did an interview with him here.

Michael Stradley on Rook Hawkins' "Christ Myth" commentary

2007-05-01T11:14:00.000-07:00

Michael Stradley raises a sledgehammer and utterly destroys the wannabe historian and plagiarist Rook Hawkins' argument that Christ did not exist:

======================================

Take a few moments if you will, and watch this video by the Rational Response Squad founders Brian Sapient and Rook Hawkins--or, as I prefer to call them, the Dynamic Duo of Douchebaggery:

As you watch, make special note of their specialized matching power ensembles; their glorious and impeccable hair made impervious to even the mightiest of supernatural forces with gallons of styling gel, and the way they gaze into each other's eyes with just the slightest hint of latent homosexual longing. Take a good long look at these two faces--for they will surely be the doom of religion as we know it.

Ok, not really. But please do watch the video. In it Sapient, and his trusty man-boy Rook Hawkins do their best to show why they're smarter than anyone who's ever lived by telling us why it simply isn't possible that Jesus of Nazareth ever really existed. They identify their position as that of a "Mythicist", which Rook, with his best Homo Superior game-face, explains is this:

"A Mythicist is someone who does not believe that Jesus was actually a historical person, rather they believe that the beginnings of Christianity started as a mystical cult, which was very common in the day, and probably revolved around a spiritual plane and not an historical plane."

Sapient then asks:

"And that was a little bit about how Paul felt, correct?"

Hawkins responds:

"Right, right. He had his experience through a vision. He never actually physically met Jesus or even physically talks about Jesus in a historical sense--it's always a spiritual sense."

Ok, let's stop right there. It's true that Paul experiences Jesus in a vision, and never knew Jesus as he lived on earth as the other Apostles did, but the claim that Paul never speaks of Jesus in a physical, historical sense is just nonsense--Rook is simply being dishonest here, as usual.

In the very first chapter of Paul's Letter to the Romans, Paul testifies to the nature of Jesus, both as a physical being and an historical figure:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ"

"Descended from David according to the flesh". This is about as clear a reference to Jesus being a real live flesh-and-blood human being as you can get. By referring to Jesus as "descended from David according to the flesh", Paul demonstrates his clear belief that Jesus was indeed a human being by calling on the Jewish prophecy that the Messiah would be a King born of the line of David.

Paul's Letters to the Galatians and to the Philippians also speak of the Human nature of Jesus:

"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Galatians 4:1-7

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." Philippians 2:1

Paul's Letter to the Colosians further demonstrates his belief in a Human Jesus:

"For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him" Colossians 1:12-29

If the Mythicist's position rests upon the argument that Paul only speaks of Jesus in a spiritual sense, thus proving Christianity began as a mystical cult, then the easily demonstrated fact that Paul speaks of Jesus in a physical, historical sense completely destroys the premise upon which the Mythicist's argument is based. End of story.

But what about other, extra-Biblical references to Jesus? Hawkins says:

"Well, Josephus is obviously a forgery; I mean, even the top Josephus scholar even admits that there's probably no mention of Christ before the time of Eusebius. Aside from that of course there's Setonius--you mentioned Setonius--Setonious talks about Christians following a guy named Chrestus, which is basically the name for a free person and also followers of Chrestians...Chrestus is not Christus."

Josephus and "obvious forgery"? Says who? And who exactly is the "top Josephus scholar" whom Rook claims admits there's "probably no mention of Christ before the time of Eusebius"? We aren't told. We are just supposed to accept Rook's obvious intellectual superiority, and stop asking questions. Well, the foremost Jospehus scholar is generally considered to be Louis H. Feldman, and he certainly didn't consider the Testimonium Flavium to be "obviously a forgery"; rather, he considered that the text was largely correct, but had been altered by Christians at some later date. Concerning the Testimonium Flavium Feldman concluded that:

"The most probable view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote, but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator."

It is generally regarded that the original TF text probably read some thing like this:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

This seems to be the majority view of most historians, and is backed up by the discovery of 9th-10th century Arabic manuscripts which contain the Testimonium Flavium, but without the suspected Christian interpolations. This suggests that the above TF may indeed be substantially what Josephus wrote, since the Arabic versions were likely penned outside the Christian's sphere of influence.

Hawkins also ignores other examples such as Tacitus, who in his Annals, describes Nero's persecution of Christians following the great fire of Rome in 64 A.D.:

"Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Rook continues:

"There's no mention of the Testimonium before the 4th century under Eusebius--Eusebius is the first person to mention it. Josephus wrote in 95 CE."

Not exactly true. Origen cites Josephus 20.9, which speaks of the death of James, "the brother of Jesus", so we know that people were at least aware of Josephus' works before the 4th century. Furthermore, no other passage in Josephus' Antiquities has been seriously questioned by scholars, and all extant manuscripts of Josephus contain the TF, including Arabic and Syriac versions that do not contain the contested Christian interpolations. It is therefore irrational to conclude that Josephus' history is by and large correct, except for the passages that just so happen to refer to Jesus.

Hawkins continues:

"No contemporary accounts [of Jesus exist]--not even enemy attestations, and you'd think there would be."

Again, Rook is being dishonest. Most legitimate scholars consider the Gospels and Pauline epistles de facto contemporary accounts of Jesus' existence--in fact, Rook Hawkins must at least consider the Pauline letters as contemporaneous, since he cites them (though erroneously) as evidence of Christianity's beginnings as a "Mystery Cult". Paul was certainly a historical figure, and though he experienced Jesus in a different way than the Apostles, Paul certainly knew the other Apostles who did know and live with Jesus in the flesh. As has already been demonstrated, Paul clearly speaks of Jesus as a real, historical person on several occasions in his epistles, and we have an unbroken history of Christian belief in Jesus as a real, historical person. The "Mythicist" position is simply untenable.

Besides, lack of extra-Christian testimony does not prove that Jesus did not exist--it merely proves that either no one wrote such testimonies, or that no such testimonies have survived the centuries, which would not be surpising. We have very few ancient manuscripts of any type, and most are centuries removed from their original texts. Furthermore, Jesus would have been of little interest to anyone but the local Jewish authorities, since Jesus' ministry encompassed only a small area of Palestine over a time period of about 1 to 3 years. It is also possible (and likely) that any accounts of Jesus by Jewish authorities would have been destroyed during the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. What we do have are the Gospel accounts and Pauline epistles that have been proven time and time again to be reliable witnesses to history, and we have thousands of copies or fragments of copies to support their reliability.

But man-boy Rook Hawkins claims that the Gospels don't count as contemporary testimonies of Jesus, and the reason he gives is absurd to say the least:

"The Gospels weren't really written until after the fall of Jerusalem around 70 CE, so there's a huge gap there [between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels]...even contemporary eyewitnesses to the early martyrs of the faith admit to the fact that these were not eyewitness accounts."

Even if we assume that Rook is correct, and that the earliest date for the Gospels is 70 CE, the answer is, "so what"? Does this late date make the Gospels unreliable history? Rook routinely relies upon ancient scholars like Pliny the Elder who wrote detailed histories of which they were not eyewitness to, so why the special pleading? Why are the Gospels discredited as a reliable witness to history? Because including the Gospels as reliable history would undermine their preconceived notions about Christianity; the RRS has labored to cultivate the "Jesus is a myth", and the Dynamic Duo of Douchebaggery don't want to be confused with the facts.

RRS having a baby?

2007-04-26T21:51:00.000-07:00

The RRS comes up with some drama (kind of reminds you of MTV's the "Real World"):

I almost puked watching this. Anyway, with their genes let's hope and pray for a miracle: that the baby won't grow up as a completely mentally deficient idiot.

THE MYTH THAT JESUS NEVER EXISTED

2007-04-25T13:40:00.000-07:00

by Anthony Robert Greco

In June 2005, Brian Flemming released a film titled “The God Who Wasn’t There.” The basis of this film is that Jesus, the man who is known as the founder of Christianity, never actually existed. This belief is based on alleged similarities between the story of Jesus and older Pagan myths, the claim that Saint Paul believed Jesus existed in a mythical realm because of the supposed lack of gospel elements in his letters, the allegation that at least one of the second-hand non-Christian references to Jesus is a forgery, and the lack of such first-hand references to him. We are going to examine each of these premises.

The premise that Jesus is based on older Pagan myths is based on overstatements and misrepresentations. The examples that will be used are Dionysus, Innana, Krishna, Mithra, and Osiris. The allegations that have been made are that these figures were either born of a virgin, crucified, rose from the dead, or any combination of the few.

In the later story of Dionysus that had religious connections, he is born as a result of an adulterous affair between Zeus and Persephone. Hera, Zeus’s jealous wife and sister, has Dionysus torn apart by titans as an infant. Zeus saves his son’s heart and uses it to have his birth redone through a mortal woman named Semele. In the earlier version, Dionysus is born as a result of an adulterous affair between Zeus and Semele. As ordered by Hera, Semele is killed by Zeus’s lightning bolts. Dionysus is rescued and formed in his thigh. As you can see, Dionysus did not die and rise, he just had the process of his birth done over.

Innana is a deity from Mesopotamian culture. She was the goddess of love, sex, and fertility. Her lover was Damuzi. According to tradition, she descended to the underworld with the intention of overthrowing her sister, who was its ruler. When she arrives, the sister kills her by giving her the look of death. After she had been missing for three days and nights, one of her servants sends demons to search for her. They find her and help revive her, but she can only leave the underworld if she can find someone to be her replacement. She goes to Damuzi and finds him celebrating her death. This enrages her and she has the demons kill him. He in turn becomes her replacement. (4, 5)

Krishna is a figure from Hinduism who was an incarnation of Vishnu, born of a woman named Devaki when she was in prison. Vasedeva, Devaki’s husband, was his father. Krishna was a mischievous child and a womanizer. He was also a warrior who murdered his evil half-uncle, king Kamsa. He was accidentally killed by a hunter while under a tree. Since Devaki was married, she could not have been a virgin. The part of the story where Krisha was traded for another couples’ daughter to protect him from Kamsa, who killed six of her sons out of fear that one would murder him, has been compared to the event of Mary and Joseph going to Egypt with Jesus to protect him from king Herod. According to the gospel of Matthew, Herod ordered the massacre of male children under three living in the village of Bethlehem because he was angry that he had been deceived about Jesus’ whereabouts. When Kamsa found out about the exchange with the couple that became Krishna’s foster parents, he ordered demons to kill all recently born infants because of his fear. In this part of the story, the concept of killing children is a common element, if not in a superficial way. (3, 7)

Mithra was the Iranian god of salvation, contracts, and friendship. He is from Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic faith that could be as old as Judaism. He was connected to the sun. The Romans connected him to the sun god, Sol. In the Parthian epoch, he was born from a rock or inside a cave. He slayed a divine bull who’s blood was used to create all plants and animals that benefit humans. He then ascended to heaven. Mithraism became popular among Roman soldiers around 80 CE. It was attacked by Christians in the fourth century because they saw the Mithric baptism and Eucharist as being diabolical parodies of those from Christianity. They also thought them to be inspired by Satan. After this happened, it is likely that institutional Christianity absorbed some Mithric elements. Mithraism could be where the idea of celebrating Jesus’ birthday on December 25th came from in the third century.

Osiris was the husband or lover of Isis. He was murdered and dismembered by his brother Seth. He would later be rejuvenated for a new existence in the realm of the dead. This is where some compare his story to Jesus’ when Osiris did not actually come back from the dead to be on earth, he was just given a new life for the underworld. He became king of that realm while him and Isis’s son, Horus, became king of the living and would later avenge his father’s death.

It is also worth mentioning that most of the figures that Jesus is compared to were known only as deities, not historical persons. The only possible exception in the above examples is Krishna. Most of them were not even considered messiahs. To be fair, one could compare the later myth where Zeus makes Dionysus rebirth happen through Semele to Mary having Jesus as a result of God’s intercession, but it does not say anything about her being a virgin like Mary is alleged to have been. Same thing goes for Vishnu interceding so Devaki would give birth to Krishna and Innana coming back to life. Plus, it seems likely that later on, Christianity got the word “hell” from Norse mythology, which used the word “hel” for its version of the underworld. In the earlier texts of the New Testament, the word “gehenna” was used. (4, 5,7)

The second premise that Saint Paul believed Jesus existed in a mythical realm because he knew nothing about him as he was made out to be in the gospels is based on misrepresentation and extreme speculation. One of the arguments for this premise is that Paul says that he received the information in a vision. If you are a non-believer, a simple alternate explanation is that he got it from witnesses and only said the former to have the divine element. There are plenty of elements from the gospels in his letters which show he did indeed believe that Jesus existed as a person. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, he mentions the betrayal and talks extensively about the Last Supper. In chapter 15:3-7, he references Jesus’s death, burial, and alleged resurrection. He also mentions the apostles, with Peter being the only one identified by name. In Galatians 4:4, he mentions that a woman gave birth to Jesus under the law. (7)

The third premise that at least one of the second-hand secular references to Jesus is a forgery is based on overstatements. The Jewish historian named Flavius Josephus mentions him in a passage titled the “Testonium Flavium” and makes a small reference in a later passage. These can be found in his work from the 90s CE, “Antiquities of the Jews.” There was a lot of skepticism about the passage, first referenced by the church father Eusebius in his writings, because it confirmed Jesus as the risen Messiah. As a traditional Jew, Josephus would not have said this. However, other versions were found that merely confirmed Jesus as being the founder of a new movement. Since the passage was not mentioned by any church father before Eusebius, some scholars believe that he was the one who tampered with it because without the words that are believed to have been added, it makes the passage sound too indifferent towards Jesus for any church father to want to reference it. There are also some scholars who think that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, therefore the passage is a total fake. This is unlikely since Origen, another church father, indicated in his writings that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah when he was talking about the smaller reference to him in ‘Antiquities.” If Josephus had not mentioned Jesus, Origen would not have known this because he lived longed after Josephus was alive. Of course, since Josephus was a Jew, Origen may have just assumed it. (6, 8)

Another reference is from the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, written around 115 CE in his work titled “Annals.” In his passage, he speaks of Christians being persecuted by Nero because of the fire that took place in Rome and that Jesus, referred to as ‘Christus,” was where the name of the movement originated. He even says how they spread a “pernicious superstition” after Jesus was killed. The church fathers left this one out because of how negative it is towards Christianity. Lastly, there is sort of an indirect reference from another Roman historian named Suetonius that was also written around 115 CE. He talks about Nero’s persecution of Christians, “a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” Since Nero started persecuting Christians in 64 CE, this one shows that Christianity already had the ball rolling by that time. There would have been at least a few witnesses to Jesus who were still alive. (2)

The fourth premise that there are no first-hand secular references to Jesus is an overstatement. During his ministry, Jesus was not a very important figure outside of his circle. He seems more important than he was in the gospels because they were written by his followers. Many point out there being no records of Jesus’s execution in Roman archives; but the Romans executed a lot of unknown men, such as the two that were executed along side Jesus, and they were not even the ones who wanted him dead, the Jews did. If the Christian movement was based on a conspiracy instead of an historical figure, Christians would have definitely tampered with the works of historians who were writing when Jesus was alive to make what they were preaching seem more credible. However, there are no such forged supplements to any of these historians’ writings. (1, 7)

While there might not be a way to “prove” that Jesus was an historical person in a way that some people want, all of this definitely points towards him at least having existed as a human being. As with a lot of ancient history, it is hard to come up with undeniable proof. Was Jesus divine? That depends on your faith.

For more information:

1“Crassus and the Defeat of Spartacus” (N.S. Gill on About.com)

2EarlyChristianWritings.com

3Encyclopedia for Epics of Ancient India (Mythfolklore.net)

4Encyclopedia Mythica” (Pantheon.org)

5Encyclopedia of World Religion (Mircea Eliade)

6Infidels.org

7Jewish Virtual Library (JewishVirtualLibrary.org)

8Wikipedia Encyclopedia (Wikipedia.org)

TXAtheist: not much of a thinker or debater

2007-04-24T14:36:00.000-07:00

TXAtheist here challenged me to a debate on the existence of God. I accepted. And quite frankly he isn't much of a challenge. Over all, I believe him to be an intellectual coward. Check out my, uh, so-called debate with him here and my response to his video on me here.

Aside note: I read both of those books in TXatheist's hands and didn't find them in the least thought provoking.

A Buddhist calls the blasphemy challenge "misguided"

2007-04-23T15:04:00.000-07:00

Seems that all walks of life are against the blasphemy challenge... even a Buddhist:

Let me start by saying that the concept of Atheism is very much within my understanding, and I support anyones freedom to believe as their heart ,or mind in this case, may lead them. That being said what I cannot understand is the need to try and intently infringe and oppose the spiritual beliefs or convictions of others. Why the the ardent need for such confrontation. I have had people of many faiths attempt to convert me to there religious beliefs of which i could not except, but that was the end of it, I do not see truth as they do and visa versa, never have I felt the need to prove there convictions as fraud or folly. If they sought understanding from me I would share what I could, otherwise there faith is their human right.

It also becomes apparent that more then often these sort of individuals are intentionally and aggressively non Christian exclusively. Why so often is the deity of Christ the target they seek. If they are truly seeking the enlightenment of mankind into a new logic and understanding of a scientific and rational reality , then why the attack of only one religion? My point here is why is only the faith in a Christian God questioned by this group ? Where is the appeal for the denial of Islamic faith, Jewish religion, or even Hinduism ? looking into it more rationally, one should ask themselves what does this debunking of Christ really accomplish, what real benefit does it achieve ?

Can someone tell me how those who believe and try to practice the message and teachings of Jesus are so wrong. Is his example to us all really so unpalatable and devious. Yes of course much evil has been done in the name of God, but throughout history those names have been many and varied, Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Odin, yes even Buddha. I would say if the goal of this "Blasphemy Challenge" is too truly encourage people to question there perceptions of truth and God , if it is to precipitate those of any faith to look deeper into the nature of reality and the universe, I for one would have to say they're approach is clearly misguided. Though I support there right to think as they will, I would encourage anyone to question the inner motives and underlying purposes of groups like these.

Running from the truth

2007-04-21T19:52:00.000-07:00

No-talent filmmaker, Brian Flemming, had this to say in his blog:

===========================================

Running from the obvious

Jesus says clearly three times in the Bible that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin.

Still, some Christians just don't want to accept this fact, and they find any way they can to get around it.

Even a Discordian at Boing Boing got into the act today:

A quick study of some related text (Matthew 12:22-31) will show that eternal damnation may only be assured by attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the work of the Devil.

But this evasion is also favored by many evangelical Christians:

Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, says the passage, read in context, refers to a very narrow and specific definition of blasphemy: maliciously attributing God's miracles to a demon. Merely "denying" the Holy Spirit, by this reading, doesn't qualify.

The logic here is this:

1) Some religious competitors accused Jesus of powering his miracles with Satan, not with the Holy Spirit.

2) In response, Jesus revealed that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an "eternal sin," and those who commit it "can never be forgiven."

3) Therefore, Jesus was defining "blasphemy" as exclusively the act of attributing the miracles of Jesus to Satan instead of the Holy Spirit.

This is obviously some pretty flawed logic. Just because one particular type of blasphemy prompted Jesus to reveal this new rule of salvation does not mean Jesus was re-defining blasphemy.

Here's how this logic would work in another context:

1) A woman who committed adultery was being stoned by a mob.

2) Jesus stopped them by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

3) Therefore, Jesus was defining "sin" exclusively as adultery.

The Jesus character in the gospels gives lots of lessons in response to specific events. Almost always, these lessons are interpreted in modern times to have an application well beyond the original circumstance. "Render unto Caesar," for example, is not usually seen as applying only to Tiberius Caesar.

But the "eternal sin" described by Jesus is so troubling to evangelicals -- as it contradicts their claim that anyone can have salvation, which is useful for proselytizing -- that they go to comical lengths to interpret this particular lesson in a "very narrow and specific" way, so that the sin essentially can't be committed at all.

I think this behavior is called "situational ethics," but I'm not sure.

===========================================

My response:

Mr. Flemming says,

This is obviously some pretty flawed logic. Just because one particular type of blasphemy prompted Jesus to reveal this new rule of salvation does not mean Jesus was re-defining blasphemy.

Did you catch Flemming's flaw? He admitted it was blasphemy to attribute the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan (he called it "one particular type of blasphemy"), yet at the same time he believes this "one particular type of blasphemy" was being redefined by Christians and not Jesus. What?! Well, you best tell Jesus that because Jesus actually did say the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was attributing His power to Satan. Jesus wasn't redefining blasphemy at all. Besides, if Mr. Flemming thinks there is "one particular type of blasphemy" why did he say someone was "re-defining blasphemy" then? Why can't Mr. Flemming entertain the thought that there are other types of blasphemies? He concedes there are other types of sins in his "adultery" example but he can't do the same for blasphemy? Heck, I'll admit there are different forms of blasphemy. But the specific blasphemy in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is all about attributing the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Nothing is being redefined.

Thus, Mr. Flemming is admitting this:

1. I believe there is one particular type of blasphemy: attributing the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan.

2. But I also believe there is only one type of blasphemy.

3. Therefore, fundamentalist quacks are re-defining blasphemy when they say it's attributing the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan.

LOL! Talk about flawed logic! Mr. Flemming is confusing himself. But you see the "eternal sin" described by Jesus is so troubling to atheists (like Mr. Flemming) that they go to comical lengths to interpret this particular lesson in a "very narrow and specific" way, so that the sin essentially can be committed easily without really thinking it through.

I think this behavior is called "narrow mindedness" and I'm pretty sure about that.

This is just an aside:

Mr. Flemming said,

1) A woman who committed adultery was being stoned by a mob.

2) Jesus stopped them by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Mr. Flemming is mentioning the event in John 8. He says a "woman who committed adultery was being stoned by a mob." Wrong! They didn't throw one stone at her. They brought her before Jesus to see what He'll do (verses 3-11):

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him.But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more."

You read anything about a woman "being stoned" at all? *SIGH* You can't trust a brainwashed atheist like Brian Flemming to tell the truth about the Bible. If Flemming admitted Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," well, why would Mr. Flemming think that this adulteress was "being stoned" if Jesus mentioned a "first stone"? Another flawed logic.

The new Rational Response Squad studio!

2007-04-19T12:31:00.000-07:00

Alright fellas,

This just in. Brian Sapient moved from his mother's basement to the house! Absolutely amazing[!]:

So, Brian Sapient had years of welfare with his girlfriend paying for all his bills to another 30 years of more welfare from his mommy who is now apparently paying everything for him, and no less provided her own house for him, uh, just like how she provided her basement for him too. You can just imagine it,

"Well son, you're a 30 year old without a job, it's time you move up! You can use all the rest of the 30 years of my life I have left and move up to the house. And when I croak, well, you'll have insurance money too. You'll inherit! And to think you never worked a day of your life. That's my boy! Bye, now. I'm off to the mental ward. Those doctors are so crazy! They say you're using me for my money! Ha!"

Well, isn't that just peachy? To the basement to the house, you're going places, Brian!

A hero out of VTech

2007-04-18T21:10:00.000-07:00

Liviu Librescu was killed as he blocked his classroom door to keep the gunman out as students escaped out the window. [cont'd]

According to atheism there is no "rhyme or reason" to call the VTech massacre "evil":

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: `For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." (Dawkins R., "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," Phoenix: London, 1996, p.155. Emphasis in original)

My debate with a RRS member!

2007-04-17T00:47:00.000-07:00

Here's the debate, give me some feedback here.

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs The Rational Response Squad? Please!

2007-04-11T10:36:00.000-07:00

Ray Comfort of the Way of the Master radio show sent out the following email:

URGENT - Need a New York Church
Many of you know that in January ABC aired a news story about two atheists who video-taped themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and encouraged others to do so. Hundreds copied them. I contacted the network and said that Kirk and I wanted to challenge the atheists to a debate. ABC loved the idea and so did the atheists. So the debate (Does God Exist?) will be in New York City, and will be streamed LIVE on ABC's website early in May (we will give more details in the April newsletter). It will be filmed for Nightline, moderated by Martin Bashir. Here's where you may be able to help us. We need a small church building in the New York City area -- seating for 100 to 150, stained glass windows -- lots of character. Can anyone help us? This is urgent. Please contact us at mark@livingwaters.com or call 1(800) 437-1893 and ask for EZ.

We greatly value your prayers,
Ray Comfort

Now as we all know Brian Sapient said he'd only debate The Way of the Master pupils if only Todd Friel was not present in the debate. Why? Because Friel is much more hard hitting than Cameron and Comfort (with all due respect to them). In fact, Sapient suggested Cameron and Comfort. You see, Sapient is still a softie. He only wants "safe" debates. Aside from all that, it would be interesting to see what happens.

Rook Hawkins: the man with, well, little talent

2007-04-10T01:01:00.001-07:00

[this video was actually made by an atheist!]

Another resurrection to celebrate about!

2007-04-08T12:40:00.000-07:00

My favorite atheists to eat for dinner is back on youtube! That's right, after their controversy (and hypocrisy), the (ir)Rational Response Squad account was reinstated. Let's hope they continue with their tactics - to unintentionally make atheists look like fools. I praise God that that they are back on youtube!

See the new RRS House Brian Sapient's mother donated to him

2007-04-03T22:10:00.000-07:00

Okay, maybe it's not his mother. Maybe it's his girlfriend. Either way, I'm willing to bet this anonymous person who is "donating" their house to RRS isn't anybody really special.

Christian Skepticism on the Blasphemy Challenge

2007-04-02T15:44:00.000-07:00

Tim makes some interesting points:

I'd like to address those issues.

First, it is possible that some in participating show a misinterpretation of the text itself. While some in posting a video may by doing so reveal their already settled position, many in posting may think that by participating in a one time temporal act they are flippantly or defiantly conforming to the qualifications required by the text and thereby rejecting the truth taught by the text. However, when one comes to understand the text refers to a settled or persistent condition of the soul in contrast to an isolated incident involving the soul, then the effect is nullified.

Second, for those who possess such a settled position of the soul, participation in such a video is meaningless in the sense that to do so as to suggest that one can do so and get away with it without consequence is to fail to understand biblical revelation and divine judgment. On the one hand, the Bible not only claims that God is patient and therefore had delayed final accounting and judgment to a later time, but also that God in judging man sometimes gives man over now to the darkness and depravity of his heart, so that even participation in such a video is not neutral, but reveals the judgment of God.

Third, those who deny or denounce the Holy Spirit, while they may do so in name, often do not do so consistently in life. On the one hand, they are like those who may speak of getting over on the IRS in private, but when confronted by the IRS would not be so bold. On another hand, while they may denounce the Holy Spirit on a video, they are not willing to go so far as to live a life fully consistent with their pronounced beliefs by intentionally violating all his revealed word and commandments at every opportunity. For example, why don't unbelievers who want to denounce the Holy Spirit always dishonor authority, commit adultery, kill, bear false witness, etc.? While some may be quick to say that human experience, human values, human government, etc., dictate otherwise, they fall short of proving that eternal laws govern the universe and that even their conscience bears witness to the fact the laws of the Spirit are right and authoritative.

Fourth, those who seek to deny the Holy Spirit in effect ARE denying the proof necessary for salvation. As one put it they are "cutting off their only and last hope". However, to presuppose or to videotape the nonexistence of God does not do away with the existence of God. Rather, it reveals the truth of God.

Finally, those who look to Mark 3:29 in attempting to deny the Holy Spirit reveal the irony of God. for we all know that a person can be truly, fully, and deeply known if and to the extent that they reveal themselves. This is true not only of man (who is personal) but OF GOD (who is also personal). This should not be strange to us. For who knows a person better than the person themselves? Do others not know us to the degree that we reveal ourselves? For others to know us, do we not first have to make the real "us" known? Do we not also choose to reveal ourselves to some and not to others, and even to those whom we reveal ourselves do we not do so to varying degrees according to our pleasure and purposes? If this is true of us, then should we then think it irrational for it to be the same with God (in whose image we have been made)?

No, the Bible tells us that is exactly the case. "Who knows the mind of man better than his spirit? Who then knows the mind of God better than His Spirit?" This is why not only the gift of God's Spirit but the gift of his revelation is not only critical, but the only means of knowing him, and knowing him not only as he really is but knowing him deeply! The irony is that those who seek to deny, denounce or blaspheme the Holy Spirit actually deny their only hope of knowing the very God whom they deny. It's true that "those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs." (Jonah 2:8)

Unbelievers have two choices. They can deny the Spirit and His revelation whereby they are left to ignorance and/or speculation (along with sin and condemnation), or they can look to and accept both the gift of God and His revelation whereby they may have life and life eternal.

Grace and Peace,

Tim

A blog dedicated to Brian Sapient

2007-03-28T23:45:00.001-07:00

Check it out!

Atheist Nathaniel finds a flaw in the blasphemy challenge

2007-03-28T20:27:00.000-07:00

Yet another atheist who believes the blasphemy challenge is bunk:

Who censors more people: Youtube or the Rational Response Squad?

2007-03-24T18:20:00.000-07:00

Without a doubt, RRS censors way more people. Youtube is incredibly tolerant allowing filth like this (< -- warning: watch at your own risk!) in their website. However, RRS is known for banning plenty of Christians from their forum, stickcams, and website. And they complain about censorship?! In fact, when I was creaming them on their own turf they had to lie to ban me lest I do more damage. Furthermore, I get a number of emails from Christians who have told me RRS have deleted forum posts that they made offering rebuttals against atheism, and that they have banned Christians for the most ridiculous reasons. You guys remember Jack? When Jack tried to protect his friend from being exploited by Brian Sapient he was banned! Jack tells the whole story here and here.

Also, you may recall the time when Paul Manata (whom Brian Sapient is too chicken to debate) posted in RRS' forum. He writes:

Recently, [Brian Sapient] deleted my account at his discussion forums. My crime: Posting a link to the blog entry I wrote. That was all I posted there. Apparently the RRS needs to censure all of those who stand in opposition to them.

No kidding. Funny thing is, Sapient allows atheists to put in their links. Why the double standard, Sapient?

Furthermore, Devin was involved in a stickcam chatroom with RRS where he brought up James White's name (White utterly refuted Rook Hawkins in a recent audio). Devin explained what happened next:

i just mentioned that james white mentioned rook on a recent show, and i was booted within 15 seconds of posting the message with the link

those guys cant stand up to the truth

If RRS say they banned people because they broke their in-house rules why can't the same situation apply to youtube then? Youtube has rules against posting certain videos. For instance, pornography is not allowed to be uploaded there. So did youtube really censor RRS? If so then you can't deny that RRS censors Christians from their websites as well. Either way you look at it, RRS complaining about censorship reeks of pure hypocrisy.

***UPDATE***

Why was the Rational Response Squad banned from youtube?

Copyright infringement. They used video footage of the psychic Uri Geller in it. No doubt Geller's attorney contacted youtube to have RRS banned. Hmm, I'm reminded when the RRS had Beloved Spear banned when he used their images in his video. Without a doubt they complained that that was copyright infringement! Still the hypocrisy reigns in the house of RRS.

The Rational Response Squad have been suspended from youtube!!!

2007-03-23T18:42:00.001-07:00

You play with matches you get burned. And well, RRS got banned from Youtube. Michael Stradley gave me the good news (thanks, bro!), and I couldn't believe it so I checked out their URL address:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RationalResponse

And it ain't working. Here's what they had to say [on their front page]:

Rational Squad deleted from YouTube

Submitted by OdwinOddball on Fri, 2007-03-23 14:17.

Was browsing thru the RRS videos on YouTube a bit ago, when I started getting "This account is suspended." messages when trying to views the video list. And it looks like all the Gisburne related clips have been removed...

Youtube on the assault again?

On what assault? Censorship and biasness against atheists? Not likely. After all, youtube censored Christians before. Either way, I'm laughing in the faces of RRS members.

Bill Gray says the RRS are putting a gun to children's head!

2007-03-22T23:40:00.000-07:00

Wow, this brother doesn't hold back! Read this cool article:

===========================================

Your Children Have a Gun at their Heads!

by Bill Gray

Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? Do you want your children, grandchildren, and all the beautiful young children in your community to believe in God? What would be your reaction if you were to see someone holding a gun to the head of one of these children?

By now you are most likely thinking that Bill Gray has lost it, gone off the deep end. Well, in a sense you are right; Bill Gray has lost it --- but, not as you might imagine. I have gotten so bothered, so upset, so angry about the new attack against Christianity that was sent to me today. Why am I so angry? Because the target of this attack is openly and blatantly --- our children. The attackers make no pretense about their intentions; they are going after our young people --- to save them from God and Christianity!

My Friend, Barbara Weymouth, sent me an e-mail today telling me about this new crusade --- called The Blasphemy Challenge.

The Blasphemy Challenge is a group of atheists who are militantly seeking to lure children and young people away from God and Christianity. They broadcast an internet radio program from a hidden site in Philadelphia. And, now they have come up with this scheme using the YouTube internet web site to reach millions of young people with their anti-God, anti-Jesus, anti-Holy Spirit message. This atheist group has definitely declared war on God. They are militant, and their targets are your children and grandchildren. Below is an excerpt from their web site: http://www.blasphemychallenge.com

This is a copy/paste excerpt directly from their web site: Bold,italic, and underline emphasis is mine.

The Rational Response Squad is giving away 1001 DVDs of The God Who Wasn't There, the hit documentary that the Los Angeles Times calls "provocative -- to put it mildly."
There's only one catch: We want your soul.
It's simple. You record a short message damning yourself to Hell, you upload it to YouTube, and then the Rational Response Squad will send you a free The God Who Wasn't There DVD. It's that easy.
INSTRUCTIONS: You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: "I deny the Holy Spirit."
Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you're taking here.

Have you noticed the irony of this statement from their web site? They deny that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit exist; so why do they quote from the Bible? They do not believe that Jesus exists --- yet, they tell you that Jesus will not forgive you. If He does not exist, how can He forgive you?

When you visit their web site, and I strongly urge that you to do ---- first click on the face of the young girl to see her video on YouTube. Her name is Jessica --- and she is someone's daughter; she is someone's granddaughter --- and, through the encouragement of this Satanic group, she happily, ignorantly, denies God.

Then, return to the Home Page, scroll down to the bottom and click on View television coverage here.

You will see videos of various news channel anchors who have interviewed these people and many of their young victims. Typical of most network news programs, many are viewing this as just an interesting news story. However, the Fox News reporter directly challenges the leader of this new group, Brian Flemming, in an interview --- and does not accept Flemming's atheistic rhetoric as entertaining, as do news anchors from other news channels.

If you click on their FAQ link, you can read their Press Release. Below are several excerpts from that press release:

Los Angeles -- December 14, 2006. As part of its ongoing War on Christmas, the Rational Response Squad has launched a $25,000 campaign to entice young people to publicly renounce any belief in the sky God of Christianity.
Called "The Blasphemy Challenge," this campaign encourages participants to commit what Christian doctrine calls the only unforgivable sin -- blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (The "Holy Spirit" is an invisible ghost who Christians believe dwells on Earth as God's representative.)
While anyone can participate in The Blasphemy Challenge, the Rational Response Squad is focused on reaching a young demographic. To publicize The Blasphemy Challenge to young people, today the Rational Response Squad begins an online advertising campaign focused on 25 sites popular with teens such as Xanga, Friendster, Boy Scout Trail, Tiger Beat, Teen Magazine, YM, CosmoGirl! and Seventeen.

Do you have a young person in your home with internet access to YouTube --- and the 25 popular sites chosen to target your children and grandchildren? If so, be warned that they are sitting there with the Rational Response Squad's gun at their heads! And accompanied by screeching, slobbering demonic spirits, this group of atheists are working hard to pull your child into hell with them.

Have you taken a moment recently to see what web sites your children and grandchildren are visiting? Don't you think you should?

I plead with you as never before --- share this message with ALL of your Friends, Relatives, Associates, and Neighbors --- all your FRANs. Help us warn the world of this new attack against ALL CHILDREN, including yours.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray

===========================================

North Richland Hills Baptist Church on the Blasphemy Challenge

2007-03-22T22:40:00.000-07:00

NRHBC takes on the blasphemy challenge here.

Kelly deals with some of the common juvenile tactics atheists use against Christians and defends herself

2007-03-21T12:17:00.000-07:00

Rook Hawkins boots Devin just for mentioning James White!

2007-03-21T10:57:00.000-07:00

I received this email in my myspace account about the plagiarist, Rook Hawkins,

3/17/2007

hey man, james white completely owned rook! you should definately make a blog about that, i brought it up friday during the rrs show in their little stickam room, and rook booted me instantly!

www.aomin.org

it is the 03/16/2007 blog, in the "yesterday on the dividing line" section, the show is free to download

you will laugh a lot

in Him,
devin

I wrote back:

Hi Devin,

Yeah, I already included it at my blasphemychallenge.blogspot.com website.

So let me get this straight, Rook Hawkins booted you only because you brought up James White? Is this guy stupid or what?

Frank

Devin's reply:

yeah, i pretty much sign into the group during their shows, and i point out everything wrong that they say until they kick me out

but this time, i just mentioned that james white mentioned rook on a recent show, and i was booted within 15 seconds of posting the message with the link

those guys cant stand up to the truth

Thank you, Devin. Keep the rhymes going, bro.

I actually knew about James White's assessment of crappy-Bible-scholar Rook Hawkins and made a post about it here. I recommend you guys listen to it, because White owns Hawkins. But Devin was booted by Rook Hawkins just because he mentioned James White! Obviously, Hawkins is running from James White. Let's see how Hawkins spins this story.

Jake tells atheists that Jesus loves them

2007-03-20T20:35:00.000-07:00

Blasphemy Challenge a symptom of the movement known as "New Atheism"

2007-03-20T15:32:00.000-07:00

Phil Nichols has an interesting article on the subject:

Daniel Dennett, a philosopher and author, believes that within the next 25 years religion “will command little of the awe that it seems to instill today.” He also claims that “the spread of information through the internet and mobile phones will gently, irresistibly, undermine the mindsets requisite for religious fanaticism and intolerance.”

But this is good news, right? We are critically thinking, holistic Christians. We are different from the fanatical and intolerant Christians. And isn’t religion bad anyway? That’s what the t-shirts say: Religion kills; Jesus saves. Right?

Sort of. Even though this may be true, the mindset of New Atheism is not one of reconciliation and dialogue, but rather one of unwavering proselytizing. In a sense, New Atheism is very similar to the dark side of Christian fundamentalism: both views are more concerned with conversion than understanding, both views are not interested in making friends with people who think differently, both views are stubborn and unyielding, and both views are not concerned with grace.

So how are critically thinking Christians supposed to react to New Atheism? This is the question that is plaguing many Christians at the moment – and will continue to plague more Christians as the movement continues to expand. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong said in a recent Newsweek article, “I am confident that a dialogue with those who call themselves ‘atheists’ would not only be good for the church, but would also allow deep and profound truth to emerge.” However, while this sounds good – and perhaps is a good start – it is too simplistic: everyone has experienced the exasperation that comes with trying to dialogue with someone who is not interested in discussion and learning, but solely in conversion and changing minds.

It seems, then, that our reaction must be twofold: first, to initiate graceful conversation and action that will slowly break down the stereotypes and straw men that lie at the heart of the New Atheist gospel; and second, to graciously admit where we, as Christians, have failed to live out our call to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.

There is a connecting factor between these two steps toward reconciliation and it is a factor that is perhaps as profane and sacrilegious as atheism itself: the economics of religion. The economics of religion have nothing to do with money or finances, but rather incentives. People respond to incentives (financial, moral, social, political, et cetera) and they choose among various options according to which of these incentives is most beneficial to them.

As such, an economical view of religion states that when people join religious groups, they are often acting on incentives, not beliefs. This is where New Atheism breaks down. People like Richard Dawkins see religion as inherently dangerous because people are committing their lives to irrational and unfalsifiable beliefs. But perhaps, he is giving religious people the benefit of the doubt. Certainly, Christians may claim that they act in certain ways because a religious text tells them to, or because they believe it is the will of God, but this is not always the entire story. For example, if religious people truly believed that an all-powerful God was individually and personally angry with them because of their sinful actions (as some religions posit), they would not be so easily tempted into sin.

When competing incentives come into play, they often easily overpower religious incentives. So perhaps, when the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred, it was not simply an act of Islamic religious fundamentalism or extremism, but rather an example of political and social incentives overtaking religious ones.

The solution then, is not to eradicate religion altogether, which is the ultimate end of New Atheism, because this ignores the philanthropy, charity, and altruism that occurs when people act upon religious incentives without interference from other motivations. Instead, the solution is understanding that ridding the world of religion will not solve all of our problems, because other incentives will still exist – incentives that can be equally (if not more) destructive. This is where New Atheism fails.

However, just as we do not want New Atheists to throw the baby out with the bathwater, Christians too must take an honest look at the criticism offered by the movement and embrace the parts that are true. In many cases, Christians have acted irrationally. Christians have been ignorant. Christians have been intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded, arrogant, and deceptive. And as much as we would like to push the blame on other sects of Christianity, we have a responsibility to ourselves, to each other, and to God to own up to the actions that the body of Christ on earth has committed – both the good and the bad.

Just as branches of Islam have allowed political incentives to overshadow religious ones, Christianity has allowed moral incentives (which is a polite way of saying revenge) and politics to overtake our religious incentives. Religion should be the most powerful incentive. If Christians were truly living the lives that they profess to be living, the religious incentives would never be trumped. However, it appears this is not the case. And it is not until we admit that we have turned our God into a socio-political tool for advancing our own personal agendas and into a shield for ignorance and anti-intellectualism that we can begin the process of reconciliation with our New Atheist neighbors.

God is not pleased when we enact war on foreign countries for obscure and constantly shifting reasons. God is not pleased when we refuse to admit that we have made a mistake. God is not pleased when we suppress women in the name of biblical patriarchy. God is not pleased when we are so deeply homophobic that oppressing homosexuals becomes the defining issue of church life. God is not pleased when we divide the scientific study of God’s creation against God himself, as if the two were in contradiction with one another. God is not pleased when we see our brothers and sisters struggling and we do not help them.

New Atheism has provided a service to us as Christians. It has unknowingly challenged us to stop living static lives and to begin living as we were intended to live. New Atheism has called for an end to religion as we know it, and maybe they are right to do so, because religion as we know it is not religion as it was intended. We are not called to live bound by incentives of politics, but by love, grace, and humility. This is true religion.

blood freestyle lyrics

2007-03-19T23:58:00.000-07:00

We mentioned thirsty before about his song against RRS. Here are the lyrics:

We will not be intimidated/
God already said that we'd be hated/
you fulfill prophecy when you debate it/
silly atheist/
you using science that's antiquated/
the science of today points to Christ you can't erase it/
face it/
your fate is sealed/
glad you embrace it/
there's just no evading the truth /
you trying to race it/
say it/
your afraid of the answer so you replace it/
and try to bound together in hopes you can negate it/
there's people living in huts/
less food than most of us/
but they still look to the sky and fill there life's touched/
but you so crushed/
your life is so tough/
while you sit in your mama's basement/
and spit us your victim statements/
dudes looking for sympathy/
put the violin down, play em' the whole symphony /
people do your history/
Africans believed in one God before slavery/
if you ain't afraid of what's real then show your bravery/
Please can I get some kind of rational response/
if God ain't the truth then why ya'll fight so hard/
got groups with little badges trying to prove him a fraud/
that ain't rational to me folks in fact its odd/
bunch of little dude that got ostracized in high school, still running around crying the blues/
grow up, can't you see that the worlds about to blow up/
then you'll have your big bang there bro, sure nuff/
and I ain't trying to answer for the moves of all Christians/
but if you gonna play the blame game, pieces is missing/
leaders with no God killed more women and children/
than small pox and aids and planes crashing in buildings/
moosali, Stalin, and lets not forget Hitler/
plus add Linen, you missing some facts mista/
yes sir, breath/
I know you feel the pressure/
what if you wrong/
I bet it comes to you in whispers/
Sorry, little guy, you so sad/
hand him ablify/
maybe you'd feel better if you rep something legitimized/
I got a idea step on over to tested side/
then you could stand up proud and you could testify/
you could tell the people that God heard you even when you cried/
How you say he left us alone when hes right here by my side/
its crazy, but lets tell the truth, your whole lifes a lie/
it's a good thing the truth don't you, go ahead and criticize/
your whole squad lives in some crazy delusion/
if you question everything, how 'd you come to a conclusion/
I guess you question everything except your learning institution/
Like I'm going have to question this guys whole persona/
aint no historically black collage in Arizona/
If Christ was built on the white man's force/
then so is your education/
and you aint even get a choice/
No, this aint no type of me versus you thing, nah, that's so below me I'm a son of The King/
man, this guys square he aint as cool as he thinks/
holding badges with no authority, he's kind of a geek/
but like a kid with a costume, it kind of is sweet/
but you got to grow up sometime and be responsible G/
and I don't even dare to speck on the authority of me/
or any dead God, cause my God breaths/
but, in conclusion/
you aint put a scar or caused brushing/
on any of my fam/
nope, we still movin

Armen calls the blasphemy challenge a "red herring"

2007-03-19T10:26:00.000-07:00

While looking through some blogs I found this:

***BEGIN QUOTE***

There are seven things to note (mainly) from this video:

1) When asked, “What’s wrong with God” Brian (the atheist) says,

“there’s nothing wrong with something that most likely doesn’t exist.”

Coming across so ’sure’ elsewhere, he’s now staking his eternity on a “most likely”.

2) Kelly says that “…it’s ok to hate atheists”

Where in the Bible does it say it’s ok to hate atheists? The Bible is clear that Christians are even to love their enemies! Therefore, she should be encouraging so-called Christians to live in more obedience to the word of God.

3) (Taken from the first video) The challenge rewards those who take it up by posting them a free DVD,

“Normally $24.95 - Your price: One Soul”

How can you gamble with your soul if your an atheist - can a soul evolve?

Souls only exist because they were created by God.

4) Brian testifies of when he was younger,

“…I talked to Jesus and God all the time. I have to admit they never talked back to me…”

Since when was talking the only form of communication?

5) When asked how long the challenge will go on, Brian replies,

“Until the end of Christianity“

So much for saying that they are against all religions.

6) When the reporter asks, “Do you have a date on that?” Kelly replies,

“We wish!”

Yeah…lets get rid of something that not merely gives a sinner hope, but also teaches people to look away from themselves and be sacrificial towards the needs of others - that’s really something society doesn’t need.

7) Brian then says,

“there is no reason to believe in hell”

Since when did man think that we always need a reason in order to accept a truth? Atheists don’t know the reason why life came to be, but that doesn’t stop the truth that there is life and their acceptance of it! There are hundreds of things that man doesn’t have an answer to, but we don’t deny the truth of their existence.

Conclusion

I just want to conclude by giving the reason why the ‘Blasphemy Challenge’ is a red herring.

Brian and co. use Mark 3:29 as the basis for the challenge,

“But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”

They use it to try and teach that if someone outwardly renounces their belief in the Holy Spirit, or even the Trinity as a whole, that they immediately place themselves out of the reach of the grace and mercy of God.

If that were the case, this sinner wouldn’t be typing this right now.

The fact of the matter is, the unpardonable sin is the deliberate denial and refusal of a sinner to come to Christ when the Spirit of God is working on them to a degree. The Bible teaches that a measure of light can be granted to a soul before the saving work of regeneration takes place (Heb 6:4-6).

If a sinner senses their deep need of Christ and feels what we term as ‘conviction of sin’ upon them, and then they tell God to go away and leave them, or for the Spirit to stop working, or any other deliberate rejection of the workings of God upon the soul, then that soul “is in danger of eternal damnation.”

The bad news is, some of those who have fallen into this red herring challenge, have possibly committed this sin.

The good news is, most have probably not, and it would be wonderful to see those who have posted up their videos, being converted by the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Going on the basis of my fifth point after the third video, I conclude that The Rational Response Squad are just like Richard Dawkins. The driving force behind their brash statements and passion to reach people isn’t motivated by a love for truth, but rather, a hatred for Christianity!

May God stir us as believers to live holy and preach Christ.

***END QUOTE***

See, we told you so

2007-03-18T23:48:00.000-07:00

Looks like Armani is into the "let's have our girls look like sluts" syndrome. I guess pedophiles have more reason to believe that children want their company if they look like a bunch of hoochies. Now, we warned people of this type of behavior and how it sets an example to our children. And look what happens: they look like these Armani kids. This is what really pisses me off about people with no sense of moral clarity. And the outrage is way beyond me. We live in a culture where the more promiscuous you are, the more your self-worth. Secular progressives complain that parents should look after their children more if they don't want them to be influenced by this highly sexualized society. But what do you do when this "highly sexualized society" target your sons and daughters?

You may remember how we castigated the Rational Response Squad for being openly and shamelessly promiscuous and yet at the same time targeting children with their overtly sexual filth in their websites and videos. If you breed that kind of environment you will have children looking like sluts. And you'll have our boys thinking that these girls are only worth a sexual fling. Our boys won't grow up into mature men but into perverted pathetic low-life pigs who treat women like objects.

The God Challenge

2007-03-18T17:31:00.000-07:00

So far, there have been responses!

James White responds to RRS...

2007-03-17T22:47:00.000-07:00

... and rips Rook "the plagiarist" Hawkins a new one. I doubt that Hawkins is open to being a guest on White's show. Prove me wrong, Rook.

Hanif: high on rhetoric low on logic

2007-03-16T20:37:00.000-07:00

I wanted to have a meaningful discussion with Hanif (aka Brian). I didn't really get one but it was fun:

2/11/2007

Hi Hanif,

You made an interesting and compelling video. But I have a few concerns...

If religion still remains no matter what we do, we're basically screwed, correct? Our race won't survive as you say. The only people who are keeping religion alive is, well, religious people. What should we do with them? Convince them that they're wrong? Well, what if they're too dogmatic to be convinced, what then? Should we do it the "Rational Response Squad" way and brainwash them in mental hospitals:

http://blasphemychallenge.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-would-rrs-like-to-do-christians.html

By the way, you say we have a guilt by association. But don't you as an atheist do, too. Doesn't secularism have a history of violence and intrusiveness? I can give you statistics of how many people died because of secular morality if you want.

Hoping to hear from you,

Frank

My exact words were
"...we must attempt to revert the believers to rationality and peace-tolerant ideologies, thus significantly improving the human race's odds for survival."
It is not Theism itself that I indict here, but rather irrationality and warlike ideologies. If Theism can separate itself wholly from these two things, it shall be entirely in the clear. Hell, if Theism would separate itself from only the latter I should give up my antitheistic crusade altogether. We are all, in our own varied ways, highly irrational beings, and few deserve to be singled out in this regard.

Regarding the treatment of Theists in a hypothetical secular society, I don't believe in carting them off en masse into reeducation camps. What I do believe, however, is that those who present a danger to themselves and others ought to be given identical treatment to someone else posing the same danger. If two people believe they need to commit acts of terrorism--one in the name of Allah and the other because he read a message in his Cheerios that morning--because of an insane belief they hold, they need to be prevented from doing this, to the extreme even of forceful isolation.

As for my Atheistic guilt, this is a common, but fallacious, argument. The simple fact is that sane Atheists do not murder in the name of Atheism. Josef Stalin, for instance, was simply an asshole, whose Atheism was secondary to his vileness.

And even if I were to take on the raiment of these deaths, their numbers would pale in comparison to those of all Theisms through all time. If every Atheistic murder is to be attributed to every Atheist, it is only fair to attribute every Theistic murder to every Theist. This is to say that it is not fair at all.

Additionally, it is altogether unlikely that Stalin (or indeed anyone you may mention) and I share compatible versions of Atheism.

Thank you for your comments, and I truly look forward to further correspondence.

Hi Hanif,

You said, "'...we must attempt to revert the believers to rationality and peace-tolerant ideologies, thus significantly improving the human race's odds for survival.'
It is not Theism itself that I indict here, but rather irrationality and warlike ideologies. If Theism can separate itself wholly from these two things, it shall be entirely in the clear. Hell, if Theism would separate itself from only the latter I should give up my antitheistic crusade altogether. We are all, in our own varied ways, highly irrational beings, and few deserve to be singled out in this regard."

Yeah, but you also said "Your non-violent, non-intrusive worship of potentially benevolent deities may not in itself be such a bad thing, but you are guilty by association.... By supporting the Old Testament and other hostile philosophies--whether or not you embrace them yourself--you are not only aiding and abetting hate, you have also committed intellectual treason."

So it is theism if not warlike ideologies you're pinning on us! And as I said before if you can't "revert" us to rationality and peace-tolerant ideology, what should you think should be done to us then?

You said, "Regarding the treatment of Theists in a hypothetical secular society, I don't believe in carting them off en masse into reeducation camps. What I do believe, however, is that those who present a danger to themselves and others ought to be given identical treatment to someone else posing the same danger. If two people believe they need to commit acts of terrorism--one in the name of Allah and the other because he read a message in his Cheerios that morning--because of an insane belief they hold, they need to be prevented from doing this, to the extreme even of forceful isolation."

Okay, so you do believe in "carting them off en masse into reeducation camps." Gotcha.

You said, "As for my Atheistic guilt, this is a common, but fallacious, argument. The simple fact is that sane Atheists do

not murder in the name of Atheism."

LOL! You just begged the question by using the word "sane." And it looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You said, "Josef Stalin, for instance, was simply an asshole, whose Atheism was secondary to his vileness."

Simply because he was an a**hole. Dude, it's a historical fact that he wanted a secular and atheistic society and he got it. And while he did that he killed plenty of Christians.

You said, "And even if I were to take on the raiment of these deaths, their numbers would pale in comparison to those of all Theisms through all time."

Atheists killed HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS compared to theists:

http://www.geocities.com/atheismsucks/madness.htm

You said, "If every Atheistic murder is to be attributed to every Atheist, it is only fair to attribute every Theistic murder to every Theist. This is to say that it is not fair at all."

I never assumed this premise.

You said, "Additionally, it is altogether unlikely that Stalin (or indeed anyone you may mention) and I share compatible versions of Atheism."

Yeah, but according to you, you still have a guilt by association. You hinge this on Christians but you won't hinge this on yourself. That's being arbitrary.

You said, "Thank you for your comments, and I truly look forward to further correspondence."

No problem, my friend. I rather enjoyed it.

Yours,

Frank

"So it is theism if not warlike ideologies you're pinning on us!"

Would you mind explaining this sentence to me? I don't pin theism on anyone, they do it themselves. If you're a Christian, you're a theist and I needn't tell you that. As for warlike ideologies, I said nothing of the sort. In fact, the opposite was implied. Held I the belief that all theists were warlike, I would've said something to that effect.

"And as I said before if you can't "revert" us to rationality and peace-tolerant ideology, what should you think should be done to us then?"
Must I really repeat myself? If someone's psychological disorder presents direct harm to myself or others, they will be institutionalized.

"Okay, so you do believe in 'carting them off en masse into reeducation camps.' Gotcha."

I didn't say that, as you are likely fully aware. If not, I don't envy you your skills of comprehension.

"LOL! You just begged the question by using the word 'sane.' And it looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too."

I readily accept the fact that Atheism does not denote sanity and that was my only reason for including the word 'sane'.

"Simply because he was an a**hole. Dude, it's a historical fact that he wanted a secular and atheistic society and he got it. And while he did that he killed plenty of Christians."

Perhaps these murders were done in the name of Atheism (they weren't, they were for Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism) but they were not done in the spirit of Atheism. The same cannot be said for the murders done for God. "True Christianity" and the like are mythological. A brief reading of the Old Testament yields many stories of cruelty from God. Seeing as God is a perfect being and we are meant to emulate him, it doesn't take long to believe that we should act similarly; this is the true spirit of Christianity.

You said, "And even if I were to take on the raiment of these deaths, their numbers would pale in comparison to those of all Theisms through all time."

"Atheists killed HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS compared to theists:
"http://www.geocities.com/atheismsucks/madness.htm"

The mind-boggling number of non-sequiturs makes this website near-impossible to read, let alone consider credible enough to refute. Sure, Mao killed 26 million people, but he did it not because he was an Atheist, but because he was a Maoist. Atheism has no provisions by which someone might find themselves justified in mass murder. Most religions however, are not so fortunate.

"You said, "If every Atheistic murder is to be attributed to every Atheist, it is only fair to attribute every Theistic murder to every Theist. This is to say that it is not fair at all."

I never assumed this premise."

Implicitly, you did, if for no other reason than to try to perform a rudimentary reducto ad absurdum. We don't blame Christianity for the murders of Islam or vice versa; every religion is responsible solely for its own crimes, just as every individual is culpable for their own misdeeds, and not their entire family.

"You said, 'Additionally, it is altogether unlikely that Stalin (or indeed anyone you may mention) and I share compatible versions of Atheism.'

Yeah, but according to you, you still have a guilt by association. You hinge this on Christians but you won't hinge this on yourself. That's being arbitrary."

Whereas Christians have something tying them immanently to one another (i.e. the Bible), any similarity I may have to any other Atheist is entirely circumstantial and would rely entirely on other factors. Grouping any Atheist with another is like grouping two people together because neither of them owns a Volkswagen.

Hi Hanif,

"So it is theism if not warlike ideologies you're pinning on us!"

"Would you mind explaining this sentence to me?"

Sure. You said, "Your non-violent, non-intrusive worship of potentially benevolent deities may not in itself be such a bad thing, but you are guilty by association.... By supporting the Old Testament and other hostile philosophies--whether or not you embrace them yourself--you are not only aiding and abetting hate, you have also committed intellectual treason."

See? Please, don't play innocent Hanif.

"I don't pin theism on anyone, they do it themselves."

I didn't said you pinned "theism" on anybody. You said we're guilty by association from the quote above.

"If you're a Christian, you're a theist and I needn't tell you that. As for warlike ideologies, I said nothing of the sort. In fact, the opposite was implied."

No, it wasn't. You said we hold hostile philosophies by supporting the Old Testament.

"Held I the belief that all theists were warlike, I would've said something to that effect."

Well, it sure seems like you did. Please, Hanif, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Your youtube speaks for itself pal.

"And as I said before if you can't "revert" us to rationality and peace-tolerant ideology, what should you think should be done to us then?"

"Must I really repeat myself? If someone's psychological disorder presents direct harm to myself or others, they will be institutionalized."

Yeah, I dealt with that below here...

""Okay, so you do believe in 'carting them off en masse into reeducation camps.' Gotcha."

"I didn't say that, as you are likely fully aware. If not, I don't envy you your skills of comprehension."

LOL! You just admitted that if s"omeone's psychological disorder presents direct harm to myself or others, they will be institutionalized." Talk about comprehension skills!

"LOL! You just begged the question by using the word 'sane.' And it looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too."

"I readily accept the fact that Atheism does not denote sanity and that was my only reason for including the word 'sane'."

*shrugs* ... okay.

"Perhaps these murders were done in the name of Atheism (they weren't, they were for Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism)..."

Uh, yeah, those assume a secular and non-Christian society.

"... but they were not done in the spirit of Atheism."

Sure, they were. Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism is atheistic in nature.

"The same cannot be said for the murders done for God."

Well, it can be for *a* god.

"'True Christianity' and the like are mythological. A brief reading of the Old Testament yields many stories of cruelty from God. Seeing as God is a perfect being and we are meant to emulate him, it doesn't take long to believe that we should act similarly; this is the true spirit of Christianity."

So the same *can* be said for the murders done for god then, correct?

"The mind-boggling number of non-sequiturs makes this website near-impossible to read, let alone consider credible enough to refute."

Your non-sequiur is a non-sequitur.

"Sure, Mao killed 26 million people, but he did it not because he was an Atheist, but because he was a Maoist. Atheism has no provisions by which someone might find themselves justified in mass murder. Most religions however, are not so fortunate."

Maoism is atheistic in nature. You don't think China is a secular society? Dude, where do you get your facts?

"Implicitly, you did..."

No, not implicitly either. Sorry.

"... if for no other reason than to try to perform a rudimentary reducto ad absurdum. We don't blame Christianity for the murders of Islam or vice versa; every religion is responsible solely for its own crimes, just as every individual is culpable for their own misdeeds, and not their entire family."

Yeah, but you always seem to overlook the atrocities committed by atheism.

"Whereas Christians have something tying them immanently to one another (i.e. the Bible), any similarity I may have to any other Atheist is entirely circumstantial and would rely entirely on other factors. Grouping any Atheist with another is like grouping two people together because neither of them owns a Volkswagen."

LOL! Whatever. Either way, Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, Marxism, etc. are all atheistic and secular in nature.

Thanks, Hanif. It was fun. I would hope you would be more fair in your assessment though.

Frank

Gene Cook interviews Paul Manata on Brian Sapient and the RRS

2007-03-16T18:43:00.000-07:00

Here's an mp3 of the interview. This may be my favorite audio clip exposing Brian Sapient and RRS.

Brian Sapient chumps out in yet another debate!

2007-03-16T13:25:00.000-07:00

Yup, yet again, Brian Sapient runs like a little chicken away from yet another debate. This time it was with Paul Manata. Here he writes:

***BEGIN QUOTE***

Well, in the RRS's interview on Nightline Brian Insapient issued a debate challenge to all theists. He said, "If they want to come to the table, we can present my evidence, and they can present theirs, and we'll see whose is based on faith and whose is based on fact." He said this about "the millions of people who have believed in God."

And so I emailed Insapient and challenged him to a public debate. A moderated one where his bully tactics and microphone would be taken away. His friends removed. His security blanket gone. Like all bullies, he declined. Apparently he will only debate theists on his show, under his rules. And so I rightly pointed out that what he meant on Nightline was not what he said above, but what he meant was: "If someone wants to come on the our show and have 4 or 5 individuals laugh at him, not let him speak, and not be allowed to thoroughly analyze a position, then we'll show him that our arguments are based on fact and his are based on faith."

I had also pointed out that one of his basic positions, i.e., that theism is irrational because there are no reasons for believing in God, suffered from some serious difficulties. I had asked him what he thought about this particular analysis of his position,

You had said on nightline that a person's belief in God was irrational because it wasn't based on evidence or reason. Is your position that a person's S's belief B is rational R iff S has propositional evidence E for B? Let's apply this to your belief. Call this belief (B is R for S iff S has E for B) B1. Now, does B1 have E for it? If so, then for your new belief (that B1 has E), call it B2, to be R you'd need E* for B2. Do you have that? If you believe that you do, then we have B3. For B3 to be R we'd need E**, do you have that, Brain "Sapient?" In case you haven't noticed, we can do this ad infinitum.

So, Brian, is your objection to rational belief in God itself irrational, according to your own standards? If so, Brian, is your atheology a mind virus? Do you teach irrational things to children, Brian? Should you be locked up, Brian? Do we need a Rational Response Squad for the Rational Response Squad? Call it, the Cerebral Answer-backer Battalion.

At this point he backed down from what he had said on the show and told me "You know they have an editing room, right?"

This seemed odd. Why would Insapient tell me that? Especially since he said here that, "Beliefs with insufficient evidence deserve to be treated as they are, no different than a man claiming that 2+2= twelveteen"

So why during our email exchange would he try to say that he didn't mean what he said, that they had edited it to make him look like he said something that he didn't say, but nevertheless we see him espousing the exact same evidentialism elsewhere?

Is it possibly because without his gang to back him up, without control of the microphone, and without an easy target, he's exposed like every other bully?

Brian Insapient likes to pretend that theists are irrational idiots, that "theism is a mind virus," and that he could mop the floor with any theist walking. He even said he would put his own Christian mother in a mental institution! If you had a scale of 1 - 10, 1 being the most benighted theistic apologist, and 10 being the cream of the crop, I'm at about a 3 or 4. Yet Insapient would be shown to be an amateur, back-woods hay seed atheologian against myself.

***END QUOTE***

Hmm, I challenged him on his irrational premise, Jim Lazarus challenged him too. Yet he cowers and cowers away. Figures.

Regis Nicoll vs Brian Sapient

2007-03-15T23:59:00.000-07:00

The Point has put up a post against the Blasphemy Challenge a few months ago.

Brian replied here:

Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about needing to believe in order to blaspheme the holy spirit. There are many ways to blaspheme, the example that was given happened to be those who believed, however they don't talk about those who don't believe. It's unimportant anyway, atheists are going to hell anyway. God created us knowing that we'd be good people, knowing that we wouldn't have the evidence to believe in him, knowing that he was merely allowing us to come into existence to receive our eternal torture because he loves us.
The importance is the intent behind the project. And that intent is to show you that it's very easy to do what we believe would send us to hell if there existed a hell. The point is that we want you to see how little credence we give to your dogma, and how normally rational and honest individuals are so sure that your hell doesn't exist that we'd commit ourselves to it, knowing it doesn't. You've had fear of hell instilled in you, and there is nothing to fear, it's ok, release the chains of mental slavery, and let's move forward, together.

Posted by: Brian Sapient | December 20, 2006 at 09:04 PM

I gave my own reply here; and even made a post on it. But I loved how Regis Nicoll replied:

Dear Brian,
Sadly your Christian experience happens all too often. When misinformed or ill-motivated leaders teach people with real hurts and real questions, it can be a toxic. And I’m truly sorry that that seems to have been the case with you.

At the same time, flawed teaching does not invalidate the subject of the teaching. Imagine a high school student trying to design a roof for his dog’s house. He applies the Pythagorean theorem he learned that morning from his geometry teacher to determine the roof’s pitch. But try as he may, the numbers just don’t match the physical measurements. So he grumbles that geometry is a scam and Pythagoras a fraud. Unbeknownst to him, his teacher erringly told him that the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle was equal to the sum of its legs—rather than to the square root of the sum of the square of the legs (big difference!).
Fortunately, neither the soundness of geometry nor the integrity of Pythagoras rest on the ability or culpability of those who represent and teach them. The same is true of any truth, including Christianity. The truth is true whether anyone knows it, believes it, or is able to communicate it. My hope is that you seek it and find it

Posted by: Regis Nicoll | February 02, 2007 at 12:19 PM

LOL! Ya gotta love Nicoll.

Father Fearless on the Blasphemy Challenge

2007-03-15T23:14:00.000-07:00

Guess what? People actually responded to Father Fearless' challenge!

[aside note: the staff in this blog are Protestant Christians. It seems that Father Fearless is actually a Roman Catholic but we can't say for sure. Either way, he seems like a great guy!]

An agnostic against the blasphemy challenge!

2007-03-15T22:24:00.000-07:00

[Warning: there is language]

See? Even an agnostic knows how irrational the blasphemy challenge is. Although we don't agree with everything Zach says here, his voice is still worth listening to.

Atheist says Jesus indeed existed and critcizes Earl Doherty

2007-03-14T20:51:00.000-07:00

I obviously disagree with this gentleman but Bernard Muller (an ex-Christian turned humanist) couldn't even bring it to himself to say that Jesus never existed. Of course, you all know that RRS believe no historical Jesus existed. Earl Doherty is one of the lead proponents of the Christ Myth fiasco, and Muller takes him on here.

Manwithoutgod or manwithoutbrain?

2007-03-14T20:06:00.000-07:00

Nathan here is known as "manwithoutgod101" in the youtube circles. Having seen some of his videos he comes off rather pompously. So, I wanted to humble him:

2/19/2007

Hi Nathan,

I'm not so sure if you ever got my message but here it is again:

You said you're an atheist because you can no longer ignore common sense and reason. Just curious, how do you as an atheist justify reason and logic anyway?

Frank

PS In your video, you denied Christ, not the Holy Spirit. Did you really commit the blasphemy described by the Rational Response Squad? :o)

Your question doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I did clear up the holy spirit thing in my comments. But I'll do it again just for you...

I, NATHAN DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Cheers

-Nathan

Hi Nathan,

My question doesn't make sense? Wow, I figured that you would be able to understand something as simple as how one goes about justifying reason and logic. That's a crucial philosophical question, you know. Many atheists understand the importance of it. I can name you some of them if you like. But if you have no justification for logic, suit yourself. But I don't see how you can call yourself "rational" if you can't account for it.

Oh, so NOW you deny the Holy Spirit. Yeah, I already got that. But most people who followed the directions for the blasphemy challenge knew they had to mention the Holy Spirit. I just wanted to give you a heads up.

Thanks anyway,

Frank

Reason and logic don't need to be justified. Thanks for writing me a lovely email. You are a true gentlemen.

Cheers

-Nathan

Hi Nathan,

I hope you didn't think I was being disingenuous or anything. It just strikes me as a surprise that someone would think that it doesn't make sense to justify logic. Anyway, you say that reason and logic need no justification. That's another surprise! Why don't they need justification? Do they just justify themselves?

Frank

I don't see how one can justify logic. Shed some light on the subject for me.

-Nathan

I know you said you don't see why logic needs any justification. But why not? You haven't answered the question yet. You need to have some kind of worldview to make sense of logic. All I want to know is how can you make sense of logic given your atheistic worldview.

I'll shed some light on the subject if you can.

Frank

This is fun!

Actually, it's tedious. Thanks though.

Yours,

Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, I wanted a thought-provoking discussion. Nathan couldn't give me one. The truth is he doesn't know how to justify logic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks like Nathan just sent me a message:

Thanks for including my email in you blog without asking me. That was very Christian of you. I just love theists like you that act like a 3 year old brat when one of us says that we don't believe in your invisible God. Thanks though, you give me reason to stay on youtube and spread awareness about what theism does to people. You're a perfect example of the intolerance it spreads. Does it bother you THAT much when someone doesn't agree with your beliefs? Do you think posting a blog and lying about the Rational Response Squad is Christ-Like? I guess sometimes it is necessary for Christians to lie, being that the bible is mostly lies. In your blog you say that "RRS just keep dodging and running from us". How have they ran from you? You also deleted other parts of the emails we sent each other. That doesn't seem very honest. Anyway, thanks for helping with the advertisement of my videos. I'm sure there are lots of Christians that read your blog. Those are the ones I always hope will watch my videos.

-Manwithoutabrain

My reply:

You're welcome, my friend. I hope more Christians watch your videos. I don't think you'll change minds, but hey, it's good fun. But it's okay to post other people's emails in my opinion. Richard Dawkins does it. RRS does it. How Christ-like of them, huh? And it's best if you don't lie like so often atheists do. For instance, you accuse me of not putting in parts of emails we sent each other. That's a lie. I put in everything that was sent.

Be well, my friend,

Frank Walton

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for RRS I would love to debate Brian Sapient. I want to go one-on-one with him in an independent forum with an independent moderator. How's this for a format-

Opening statements: no more than 1500 words.

First Rebuttals: no more than 1000 words.

Second Rebuttals: no more than 800 words.

Conclusions: no more than 600 words.

Also, no links allowed. And no excessively quoting a source. No plagiarism either. I'm willing to let an agreed-upon atheist (or Christian, agnostic, Buddhist, etc.) moderate the debate.

And I'm more than willing to compromise the number of words used.

I've told people to spread the news all over the web that I, Frank Walton, want to take on Sapient on fair grounds. So far, no response.

And to prove that Nathan was lying about me not including parts in our email exchange I'll be more than happy to forward anybody the email exchange. Speaking of childish, look how Nathan mocks Christians here:

Hmm, so atheism turned him into a weed-smoking immature nincompoop? Figures. Anyway, if you guys are interested go ahead and visit his youtube site. No really check it out:

http://youtube.com/profile?user=manwithoutgod101

The Erroneous Basis of 'The Blasphemy Challenge'

2007-03-13T19:51:00.000-07:00

by Edmund Standing

Atheist Patrick Craig gives a moderate reply to the blasphemy challenge

2007-03-12T12:23:00.000-07:00

Having conversed with Patrick I can say he's a decent guy who conducts himself respectfully. He can tell you about my paranoia of him when we first had our discourse. Anyway, he made a youtube video on the challenge here:

I have two responses:

As you know I'm a supporter of the "Challenge the Blasphemy" website where they give Christians 2 free books (Strobel's Case for Christ) if you do a video. However, I would suggest that if you do a video for them and are concerned that receiving a book would give the same impression that the blasphemy challenge would, I don't see how the "Challenge the Blasphemy" crew would feel any worse if you don't want the book in exchange for doing the video.

As for the "recycling the Bible" business, well, in all honesty, I wouldn't mind if RRS did it. It's bad enough the Blasphemy Challenge made them look bad, but now recycling the Bible will make them look worse! So, hey, do it!

Boundless on the Blasphemy Challenge

2007-03-11T23:59:00.000-07:00

[Matt Kaufman tells it like it is in his "Atheists with Attitude" article:]

...

Flemming, who's fond of such language as "the crock that is Christian doctrine" and "religious tyranny," wants it known that he's waging war against Christianity because it's "psychological torture." So for the videos soliciting, he and his fellow Brian are handing out some helpful tips. "Give [your video] your own personal touch," their site suggests. "Possibly add extra blasphemy," and try recording the video "in a church or outside of a church." And they're high on the prospects for their project: "More than 100 participants have already blasphemed the Holy Spirit and earned free DVDs during the pre-launch phase of the Blasphemy Challenge," they crow in a press release.

Now if I were an atheist, I'd have to wonder just what the Brians imagine they're accomplishing here. Though one of them (Sapient) spearheads something called the Rational Response Squad, their approach here — a mixture of in-your-face obnoxiousness and outright silliness — is anything but a rational approach for a couple of guys hoping to gain credibility.

All the Brians are really doing is preaching to the choir, so to speak. They're not trying to persuade anyone, but simply catering to hardened atheists or adolescents who are into reflexive rebellion. He's turning off everyone else, and giving the distinct impression that they (and the teens they're urging to follow their cause) are, in the words of one commentator, "attention-starved boneheads."

The question is: Are the Brians really too dense to figure that out? That hardly seems likely. What's more likely is that they don't care — that they're far more interested in venting their spleen, and trying to strike a pose of cleverness, than they are in convincing serious people of the case for their position.

And if so, they've got company.

As Sam Schulman notes in a Wall Street Journal article, there's a new wave of atheists making their voices heard these days, several of them writing books, like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation). But while they've gotten a fair amount of attention in certain media and academic circles, they haven't exactly made any new contributions to the debate. Writes Schulman:

What is new about the new atheists? It's not their arguments. Spend as much time as you like with a pile of the recent anti-religion books, but you won't encounter a single point you didn't hear in your freshman dormitory. It's their tone that is novel. Belief, in their eyes, is not just misguided but contemptible, the product of provincial minds, the mark of people who need to be told how to think and how to vote.

"For the new atheists, believing in God is a form of stupidity, which sets off their own intelligence," Schulman says. "They write as if great minds had never before wrestled with the big questions of creation, moral law and the contending versions of revealed truth. They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism. Most of all, they assume that no intelligent, reflective person could ever defend religion rather than dismiss it."

Schulman cites a few examples of their rhetoric (Dawkins, for example, calls religion "a form of child abuse"), and having read Dawkins' and Harris' books for review elsewhere, I'll second his observation. The distinguishing trait of these atheists isn't their intellect, but their attitude. They're not just irreligious, they're contemptuous toward religion.

You might not think this is all that remarkable: After all, Christians know that hostility toward God and prideful human arrogance is almost as old as mankind himself. But there's more than one kind of atheist. While there are angry or sneering kinds of atheists, there's also a sorrowful kind — the kind who doesn't revel in his unbelief but mourns in it. And as Schulman points out, if you go back a century or two and look at the first major wave of atheists in Western civilization, you find the latter kind were more typical.

To read the accounts of the first generation of atheists is profoundly moving. Matthew Arnold wrote of the "eternal note of sadness" sounded when the "Sea of Faith" receded from human life. In one testament after another — George Eliot, Carlyle, Hardy, Darwin himself — the Victorians described the sense of grief they felt when religion goes — and the keen, often pathetic attempts to replace it by love, by art, by good works, by risk-seeking and — fatally — by politics.

God did not exist, they concluded, but there was no denying that this supposed truth was accompanied by a painful sense of being cut off from human fellowship as well as divine love.

I find it easier to relate to the sorrowful atheist. He's made the tragic error of believing that something (call it Science or Reason or what have you) has made it impossible for him to believe in God. But while he doesn't recognize the error of his belief, he at least recognizes that it is tragic. He has some conscious sense of how empty life is if God isn't there. He hasn't yet reached the point of imagining that his unbelief is some sort of glorious liberation for himself, much less that the world would be better off if everyone else joined him.

The sorrowful atheist generally doesn't publish books or conduct Internet campaigns to advance his views. He may even view the likes of Blasphemy Challenge with a measure of disgust: It can strike him as not only bad strategy, but repulsively mean-spirited. For the sneering atheist, though, that's the whole idea. He may cloak his mean-spiritedness in the garb of a public service, as Flemming does in claiming to save young people from "psychological torture." But the claim rings hollow coming from guys like the Brians, who urge people to film blasphemous declarations on church grounds. These guys don't regret offending Christians; they take a perverse delight in it.

For Christians talking to atheists, it's important to discern which kind you're dealing with. There can be a world of difference between them, and we need to tailor our approach accordingly.

To be sure, there are some rules which apply across the board. For example, while we can and should speak bluntly at times, we should never let ourselves be drawn into a spitting match, no matter how much we're provoked. And we shouldn't discount the possibility that some of the most hostile people have been provoked themselves, perhaps by other Christians who haven't represented the faith very well — whether by bad doctrine, bad argument or bad attitudes of their own.

Still, we need to recognize that some people just have hardened hearts. We can't change that. We can try to sway them with our words and our deeds, but the reality is that we may get nowhere — not because our witness is flawed, but because they simply refuse to believe. You can't spend all your time trying to change them; your time and energy are limited, and you have other people to help, others to serve. You must spend your time and energies wisely.

Other people, however — even if they say they're atheists — really do want to believe in something better. They don't like the way things are for them now: On some level, they know there's something crucial missing, and they long to fill the void.

What do they need? That depends on the individual case, of course. Maybe they need to be exposed to intelligent arguments for the faith; maybe they need to be exposed to Christian love; maybe they need a better understanding of God's Law, or His Gospel, or both. Maybe they need more than one of these things.

You won't know what they need until you talk with them, and in some cases it may take a while to figure that out. But it's worth taking some time to try. The rewards of a single success story — on earth and in heaven — make it well worthwhile.

Jesus existed, stupid!

2007-03-10T13:37:00.000-08:00

The main dictum of RRS' and Brian Flemming's is that Jesus never existed. This view is so insignificant not too many historians hold to it... not even most atheists, either! We can go on and on on the "Christ myth" fiasco but I recommend you guys read JP Holding's exhaustive article on the topic. This is the same JP Holding that the plagiarist Rook Hawkins (the so-called "historian" of RRS) is too scared to debate. Brian Flemming won't debate him either. Looks like they can't put their money where their mouth is.

The Respect Challenge

2007-03-09T21:43:00.000-08:00

These guys know that the blasphemy challenge is disrespectful so they came up with a challenge of their own:

Someone prays for Brian Sapient

2007-03-08T01:52:00.000-08:00

LOL! Indeed, Sapient needs some serious prayer.

Stephen Jones on the Blasphemy Challenge

2007-03-08T01:35:00.000-08:00

Link.

Rational Response Squad? Nope, it's the Rowdy Raunchy Sex perverts

2007-03-07T17:26:00.000-08:00

[WARNING: This blogpost has graphic material]

There are two things that are unquestionable about the Rational Response Squad:

#1 - They target youngsters.
#2 - They are overtly sexual in their orientation.

What a combination, huh?

Let's deal with #1 - They target youngsters.

That's a no-brainer. When asked "Is it true that you are targeting young people with this campaign?" their answer is "Yes" (blasphemychallenge.com/faq.html).

Now #2 - They are overtly sexual in their orientation.

You need only see how Brian Sapient films Kelly here:

Let me ask all concerned atheist parents some questions: Would you want someone like Brain Sapient be the leader of a movement that your teenage daughter follows? Does it comfort you that he objectifies girls? How about this: Would you want someone like Brian Sapient be the boyfriend of your daughter after watching a video clip like that? It looks like Sapient had himself a "Girls Gone Wild" moment, huh? I don't know about you guys but if I caught Brian Sapient filming footage up my daughter's skirt, I'd take that camcorder of his and shove it up where the sun don't shine. And if I caught my daughter acting like a little slut like Kelly, I'd teach her a lesson she would soon not forget.

Furthermore, RRS' website is easily accessible to children, and their image gallery is not hard to find. Check it out at your own risk:

www.rationalresponders.com/image

Is Brian Sapient and Kelly the only perverts in the Rational Response Squad? Nope. It looks like Rook Hawkins has a flare for it too. Not only are RRS into pornographic material, but literature seems to come their way, too. The following comes from Rook Hawkins' blogsite:

The Pleasure Cruise

By Rook Hawkins

He ran his finger tips over the curvature of her shoulder, the feel of her silky skin sent electric jolts through his body and into his loins. Just the touch of her excited him, his imagination sent soaring in untold fantastical directions, the things he wanted to do to her. They were the gentle whispers in his ear that nobody else would ever learn of.

She faced him now; her soft, violet-eyed gaze made him dizzy, but he still found strength enough to focus on her. She didn't have to move at all, he appreciated every inch of her, both inside and out. Yet it was the fact that she did move that made his heart want to leap out from his chest, and had he not been so enthralled by her he might have found that his palms had become sweaty from the heat of their passions.

Slowly, she laid him back on the soft, new bed he'd recently bought for the two of them. She didn't have to fight with pesky buttons or zippers as their clothes had long since been stripped from both their bodies. Her enchanted silver hair tickled his chest as much as her lips enticed him as they planted sensual kisses down to his stomach.

Each time she pressed against his skin he couldn't help but breathe heavier, he could feel his lungs start to burn from trying to hold back moans of pleasure. She didn't make such a task easy on him, and he dreamt that such a time would never come when she did. He enjoyed the game as much as she enjoyed winning at it. And although at times he felt he would burst, he did his best to restrain himself.

But she played dirty, and he could never commit himself for long. The addition of her tongue forced his joy to crescendo. It was as if all his surroundings had vanished, leaving only the shell of their movements remaining. He could taste the saltiness of his sweat dripping down from his hair, the sensation of their skin brushing up against each other with intentions of becoming one.

He stretched and grasped at the bed sheets involuntarily, as if such gestures of futility would stop the growing eruption within him. It was only a matter of time before she'd release him and take him. She played until she knew he could take no more, until he was beckoning her with his ample moaning and warm breadth on her wet, auburn skin.

Aside from the literature that reeks of pure cheesiness (my God in high heaven! Rook's writing is just awful!), it doesn't take a lot to know that Rook Hawkins is a pure amateur. He makes soap operas look bad.

Seems like all this sexual perversion is catchy. You may remember, Mr. Gawn who spoke of burning and shooting Christians with his Smith and Wesson, well, if you take a peek at his website we have cartoon figures in rather compromising positions. I don't find it hard to believe that someone like Mr. Gawn needs fake women to satisfy his lust. After all, if you objectify women, you're practically treating them like objects. Misogyny is a player in the Rational Response Squad.

And of course, where would all this perversion be were it not applied. In a live public chatroom the following was said:

[note:
Brian Sapient overlooked this chat
this is bumbklaatt
bluemustangxxx is Rook Hawkin's girlfriend
this is fyre86
this is abrahobscura]

bumbklaatt: I'm still hammered
bluemustangxxx: lol
bluemustangxxx: im still naked
fyre86: 5 times a dayyy
fyre86: once we did it 12 times
bluemustangxxx: dude
bluemustangxxx: 3 times with you on top bri
bluemustangxxx: then 2 with her on top
abrahobscura: on the zoloft i m luck if i get 2
bumbklaatt: nikki = succubus...
bluemustangxxx: then you wouldnt even have to work the last 2
fyre86: i l ove lube!!!!!!!!
bumbklaatt: just sucking a mans life force
fyre86: lolol
bluemustangxxx: your only job would be to provide thecum

Gee, how lucrative.

We mentioned Christian youth pastor Jack before but he helps put things in perspective when it comes to the Rational Response Squad and their sexcapades:

Sex, Atheism, RRS, and Brian Sapient

This is what it all comes down to, ladies and gentlemen:

1. The Rational Response Squad are targeting youngsters.
2. Obviously youngsters will be drawn toward RRS if they chose to. (Heck, they have children participating!)
3. Those children will be exposed to overt sexual antics of this group.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem if they were exposing such adult material to, well, adults (although that has its own moral questions), but to children?! Dude, get real! If a little girl finds her self-worth in such graphic depictions, can you imagine how she'll grow up? You look how Sophia Mills defends her atheist father's immature and immoral act, and finds absolutely no problem with it, now, we're going to have children defending lustful promiscuity? And seeing how RRS is setting an example for kids, they're going to think this sort of lifestyle is okay. Imagine, your young daughter strutting around for perverts like Brian Sapient, Rook Hawkins, bumbklaatt, and Mr. Gawn. Or imagine her acting as loose as Kelly, fyre86, and bluemustang. And, what of your sons? Your sons' masculinity will be defined by how much they can objectify women. Is that what a man does? These male pigs wouldn't know how to treat a women right. You need only look at Brian Sapient's life:

He doesn't live with the mother of his child.
He lives in his mother's basement.
And his girlfriend pays the bills to his show!

Is that what a man does? Shouldn't he be providing for his girlfriend?

If RRS are truly "rational" shouldn't they provide teenagers with reason and logic? Not sex orgies and half-naked women. Grow up! Look at Emily who participated in the Blasphemy Challenge:

Do you want her to end up growing into this (Is that a butt-crack on her chest or a cleavage?):

Or this (thank God they blacked her out):

You get the picture. But can you imagine how this girl would grow up under the lustful watch of the Rational Response Squad? That answer scares me.

James White on the Blasphemy Challenge

2007-03-07T15:21:00.000-08:00

Link.

James White gives an interesting commentary. He explains how Brian Flemming would only debate on unfair grounds. Sounds familiar.

Todd Friel owns Brian Sapient

2007-03-07T14:26:00.000-08:00

Todd Friel (whom Sapient is too scared to debate) takes on Sapient and the Blasphemy Challenge again here.

American Atheist Idol Joshua Graham

2007-03-06T11:59:00.000-08:00

Dude, that sucked. Not only that, it was hardly creative. But at least he didn't wipe the Bible in feces, huh?

American Atheist Idol Dan

2007-03-06T10:08:00.000-08:00

Well, that was interesting. You should know I actually sent Dan an email:

2/12/07

Hello Dan,

In you song, you said we're here because of evolution and that you're a rational atheist. Just curious, do you think rationality evolved?

Frank

So far, zero response. Figures.

American Atheist Idol dazeloop

2007-03-05T22:15:00.000-08:00

To quote Simon Cowell, "That was absolutely dreadful!"

My all time favorite youtube video against the blasphemy challenge

2007-03-05T13:26:00.000-08:00

Incidentally, Doug Powell is the author of Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics, which is a great introduction to Christian apologetics.