in April I started getting these fascinating letters from a gentleman
by the name of
some reason the emails he would send to me were cut off at the end.
It was very upsetting to me and no matter how I begged he wouldn't resend
me the endings. I've decided to post these emails anyhow because I just
really find them interesting... even if they don't always finish.
Mr. Bob is only trying to be offensive and is a hypocrite. But
perhaps God has sent him to us Christians. Why do I say this?
Simple. This site very clearly points out the hypocrisies of modern
Christianity. Many come here and say don't judge, don't make fun
of us, don't be intolerent, but yet Christians do this all the
time. Satire often draws from that which it is criticizing. It's
interesting to me that no one offers any testimonials here on
the hate pages to Bob. This is one of the fundamentals of Christianity.
Witnessing. Testimonials. Let me offer an example to be followed:
"I was once
a drug addict. I had no purpose in live. No meaning or direction.
Then I heard about Jesus. It helped me. Now I am a better person."
The end. No tag at the end. No "You'd better do this or you're
in trouble. I'm right and you're wrong. Look out, Hell's gonna
be bad." Does that work? No one ever really believes they might
go to Hell. I don't think any person on Earth really believes
that anymore. Oh sure, people believed it back in the day when
they believed people with epilepsy were werewolves. But not today.
What's wrong with us Christians. And about the loophole. I never
really knew before why we do that. But now I've thought about
it, and I have a theory. It makes sense that we would say use
the example of the kid who procrastinates and does not pick up
his toys. That's good recruitment. In other words, don't wait
till it's to late. But then why offer a loophole at the end. And
it is there. If heard it in church. The minister tells some wonderful
story about a horrible sinne
For some reasons your emails are getting cut off. I swear I'm not editing
them. I really like what you've written and am frustrated that I'm not
getting the whole letter.
as I tirelessly tread through the responses from Christians to
this affront to human decency, I become more and more dismayed.
Not because of Mr. Bob's ridiculous antics, but because of the
kind of responses I read from other Christians. None disturbed
me more than "The Jessica Files" (hate
pages 36 and 37). It is disturbing because it demonstrates
the terrible practice of scapegoating that unfortunately has often
been used by our church. Jessica began her correspondence with
an angry series of slurs and attacks. This I have no problem with.
It's not a sin to be angry, especially at someone like "Normal"
But what followed
was deceptive and coniving, all be it not the least bit original
or clever. Ostensibly upon realizing that she was only encouraging
the existence of such a distasteful web site (which I like to
call "Mr. Smith Goes to Hell"), she decided to actually pretend
that she is only course, someone as incouragable as Stupid Bob
might be willing to do this.
be a big deal? With all the attacks gay people have to put up
with, I don't think putting a pair of Daisy Duke shorts on a cartoon
of Matthew Shepard would disrupt their lives that much.Many people,
both believers and non-believers, don't like gay people. And "devil-worshippers"
is just code for Wiccans, Buddhists, and beliefs based more on
meditation and nature, some of which actually influenced European
Protestantism.. Of course, within the "nature faiths", there is
still a belief in the supernatural attributes of our universe.
In other words, here is what Jessica was really saying. "Make
fun of those other, less popular believers in the supernatural.
Or attack the fags, that's always funny. We can agree to disagree
about what we believe, but at least we're not weird like them."
Then, after becoming angry again because the "Pervert" Bob wanted
to see her breasts, (why did this surprsise her? He's already
admitted he has no morals and doesn't care about anything Mr.
Bob. But reading through your voluminous "viewer mail", something
troubles me once again. There seem to be some fellow Christians
who enjoy playing the crucifixion card, as I like to call it.
I'm refering to other Christians who come on here and ask this
lost soul how he would like it if he were nailed to a cross. This
seems to be a silly argument for us Christians to make, considering
we were the ones, the Gentiles, the Romans (who converted the
Pagens that would become Protestants), the would be Christians,
who actually crucified Jesus. To me, this is like asking "How
would you like it if we nailed you to a cross the way we did Jesus?
Wouldn't like that very much would you?" This is a bit unfair,
and only serves to give this demented individual more excuses
OK, here's the deal. I really like your comments on the site, me and
everyone else. I really badly want to post them BUT there's something
wrong with your email, or something. I have 3 separate letters from
you all cut off halfway through. If I could get the full letters I will
display them on my site, unedited, in order and on whichever page you
feel is most appropriate (Fan Mail, Hate Mail, Special People, whatever).
And I will not post your email unless you request me to do so. It seems
as if you know my site well enough that you're able to tell I am not
pulling your leg or setting you up. I was very simply extremely entertained
by your emails and I think others will be as well. Bob Following are
your emails that you sent me as I received them.
Well gee Bob,
why don't we just start dating. You're like every man I've ever
met. Playing games with me while insisting that you are not playing
games with me. But perhaps I over reacted. I've now come to believe
that you thought I was trying to be clever, giving that this was
the title for your hate mail page following our initial exchanges.
Of course, by my own admission I was trying to be clever. I was
trying to come up with a way to comment on the Jessica Files on
the hate page while remaining within the parameters of that board.
I'm still not quite sure what you thought I was doing, however.
Maybe you believed I was somehow trying to subconcsiously convince
you to do exactly what I think Jessica was trying to do. She is
a person who believed she was actually clever enough to do that.
I would still like my response to those letters to be displayed
on the hate page, because to put them anywhere else wo
To a certain
degree I have come to hate Normal Bob in the last few weeks, because
he reminds me of some fellas I've known, except that they were
gay. I'm gay too, and it's a long, personal story which has nothing
to do with the topic of this board. However, there is something
I would like to comment on; "The Jessica Files" (hate pages 36
and 37). I think these strange letters are a perfect example of
the terrible practice of scapegoating that has unfortunately been
used by the Christian church for so many centuries. Jessica began
her correspondence with an angry series of slurs and attacks.
However, the following letters were very deceptive and coniving,
all be it not very clever. Ostensibly upon realizing that she
was only encouraging Bob with her initial attacks, she decided
to actually pretend that she was only a casual Christian. She
was only practicing "Jessicanity", as she put it. This being in
her mind closer to what he believes, I guess, and a way to trick
and befriend him. Then I suppose she believed Perhaps other faiths
could be poked fun at instead. Some less popular than Christianity.
Jessica seemed to miss the fact that Bob is commenting on Christianity
because this relates to his back ground. Then, after becoming
angry again because Bob wanted to see her breasts, she tried to
present herself as a person whom Bob had inadvertantly helped.
She revealed that she was no longer a half-assed Christian, but
was now going to start attending church regularly. Because of
Bob, Jessica was now a true believer. Finally, Jessica revealed
her trick by accidentally admitting that she was an avid church
goer and believer all along, while (amazingly) still trying to
convert Bob. I realize Bob is rude, sarcastic, and an all around
smart-ass. But I wonder how many Christians would take Jessica
to task for her trickery? Does the bible not say something about
bearing false witness?
you have it. This is the letter I would like to be posted on the
hate page. I realize it's rather long. Put it in two parts if
you have to. Or maybe put it on the side bar. But some where on
the hate page. That's the only place a Christian would read it.
That's who it's meant for. There is hate in it, I assure you.
For you, and Christians like Jessica. Although, I admitt I'm not
as angry with you as I was. You can possibly head it by attesting
to the fact that, for some reason, some gay guy ending up hating
you. However you like. I don't care what you do with the other
letters. You can detail the whole episode on the special people
page for all I care. I would also like a picture accompaniment
if at all possible.
for your time.
ALL THIS on the site Bob... I dare you.
of all, you DO "misquote" scripture, albeit through your obvious
lack of knowledge. Read on in entirety if you think you can handle
it. Your words in red, mine in purple.
bible and references in blue, bibliography
you said that "there is not one contradiction in the whole
Bible. Not one thing contradicts another."
1 Chr.2:17 "And the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite."
2 Sam.17:25 "Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ishra and
Now you can never say that there is not one contradiction
in the Bible ever again. OK?
(Quotes from page 72 of Hate Mail)
And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which
Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went
in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.
1. Son (seemingly illegitimate) of Jether or Ithra, an Ishmaelite,
by Abigail, David's sister (from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic
Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft)
to 2 Sam 17:25, Amasa is the son of Abigail, the sister of Zeruiah
and David, and Ithra, an Israelite; but another source, 1 Chron
2:17, calls his father Jether the Ishmaelite. (from International
Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996
son of Abigail, a sister of King David, by Jether, or Jithra, an
Ishmaelite (2 Sam 17:25; 1 Kings 2:5,32; 1 Chron 2:17). (From The
New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press
of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (c) 1988.)
(Note: Ithra or Ishra is a Hebrew variant of Jether -- [like Bob
had made Amasa captain over his army instead of Joab, who had remained
true to David, and had gone with his king to Mahanaim. Amasa was
the son of a man named Jithra, yisªrª'eeliy who had gone in to (i.e.,
had seduced) Abigail, the daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah,
Joab's mother. He was therefore an illegitimate cousin of Joab.
The description given of Jithra as yisªrª'eeliy is very striking,
since there was no reason whatever why it should be stated that
Amasa's father was an Israelite. The Seventy have therefore given
ho Iezraeeli'tees, i.e., sprung from Jezreel, where David's wife
Ahinoam came from (1 Sam 27:3); but they have done so apparently
from mere conjecture. The true reading is evidently hayishªmª`ee'liy,
an Ishmaelite, according to 1 Chron 2:17, where the name is written
Jether, a contracted form of Jithra. (from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary
on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database.
Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)
, whose father was by birth Jether, an Ishmaelite (1 Chron 2:17),
but by religion Ithra (as he is here called), an Israelite; probably
he was not only proselyted, but, having married a near relation
of David's, was, by some act of the state, naturalized, and is therefore
called an Israelite. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole
Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991
by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)
By the genealogy it appears that this captain stood in the same
relation to David as Joab, both being his nephews. He seems to have
been an illegitimate son, his father, Ithra, being an Israelite
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database.Copyright
(c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
understanding of Hebrew, and ancient cultures would have clearly
shown you that the verses you quoted (out of context, and incomplete)
are not in contradiction.
My god William, you've
gone to such great lengths to weed out the falsities I preach and
misleadings I've propagated.
You seem to have spent
the most time researching my Jether the Ishmaelite/Ishra the
Israelite "contradiction" that was for all intensive purposes
an amusing punch line to entertain the masses.
Your 500+ word explanation
was more than I could bear. By the time I got down to Biblesoft's
"illegitimate son" theory I realized that my flippant remark wasted
several hours of your your life. You clearly have strong feelings
about who Amasa's father was, so Bill, I'm about to make your day.
I'm going to give you this one! Amasa's father is whoever you want
it to be! Don't thank me, you've earned it (but let me remind you
that I didn't misquote scripture). Now let's move on because this
is where it got fun for me!
stated that historically (in the Bible) everything lines up.
Now, God made the Earth, and then four days later He made
man. You know, I read in the paper the other day that someone
several years ago found a bone buried somewhere that just
might prove that there was once a great many reptilian beasts
roaming this planet long before mankind ever did. Have you
heard of that? I clipped the article out if you'd like me
to send it to you. They're calling them "di·no·saurs".
(Quotes from page 72 of Hate Mail)
it so easy to believe that we evolved, from a mutation cause by
cosmic rays, and so hard to believe in The One True God? (God meaning
of course the supreme being, comment on that in a moment) Things
do not become MORE ordered over time on their own. Common sense.
Things wear out for example. Living things die. Over time, things
tend to become MORE disordered if left alone. Chaos does not spontaneously
Being. Not a "stupid" concept, after all, there's always one entity
that surpasses all others. The Bell-curve has ONE point higher than
all the rest. In ANY group, there is always ONE element that is
superior to the rest. (you might have to look VERY closely, but
one is ALWAYS better)
Goddamn! Your explanations
here are why I got into the blaspheme business in the first place.
Watching you try to explain how life doesn't evolve and how there's
always an entity that surpasses all others is fascinating! I think
I'm gonna worship the guy who surpasses God! You dazzle me Bill.
Bill, did you know that
there is absolute documented proof that man has evolved? In the
past several hundred years human beings have gotten better looking,
taller, stronger, smarter and our life expectancies lengthened.
Your proof that we don't evolve because we eventually wear out and
die shows me that you're catastrophically ignorant about this subject.
Wearing out and dying is the number one tool used by evolution.
The weak and stupid are less appealing mates while the strong and
smart are more appealing. These qualities are passed down during
reproduction and the Bill V's of the world reproduce less eliminating
those less desirable traits from the evolutionary chain.
days. How does one explain, in understandable terms, that which
is not understandable? ( how would you explain "up" to a being that
is two-dimensional? He'd have no way, no reference to use to understand
the concept of "up") Many times by allegory. Our "days" are OUR
OWN concept of days. Before man developed this concept, who's to
say that the "day" referred to in Genesis is not actually a much
longer period of time? The REASON for the use of "days" is to separate
the stages of Creation. Not necessarily to indicate an absolute
definition of "24 hour days." That's just the way MAN defines a
"day." Tell me, would it make any difference if you replaced the
word "day" with millisecond, or millenniums? The meaning of the
text is still the same. The reason for all the different "religions"
is due to those who get hung up on details that simply don't make
a difference in the meaning of the teaching. A lot of atrocities
and wars have been caused by those who choose to pick apart and
define minuscule, irrelevant details just like that.
of the things in the bible are cultural. For example: "40 days and
40 nights" is used. That's OUR translation of a Hebrew FIGURE OF
SPEECH (40 days and 40 nights means "a long time", just as the number
7 is used, time and again, as a figure of speech for "completeness"
[time and time again]) I.E., It took us forever to finish.
Of course it makes a
tremendous difference if you substitute the word "days" with the
word "milliseconds" or "millenniums". Are you trying to tell me
that it may have taken GOD millenniums to make our universe?
Light? Us? 40 days and 40 nights is pretty specific. Are you saying
the Earth could have been flooded for years?
If "figures of speech"
is the excuse you're using then maybe "God" is simply another way
of saying "nature" or "feelings" or "opium".
Bill, here you are at
the beginning stages of I-know-it-doesn't-make-sense-but-I-don't-care
train of thought. This is something that you should fear because
it will let you down and the fall is hard.
So what you are saying is that the works of man (I.E., Carbon dating,
anthropology, for example) are infallible? We know beyond a doubt
that our scientific assumptions are absolutely correct? (now THERE'S
a stretch of the imagination! Hey at different times it was "common
knowledge" that the earth was flat, or the center of the universe,
or how about bloodletting or trepanning skulls of living people
as "proscribed medical treatment"? Please. To think that we know
absolutely what we believe through scientific research is ridiculous.)
is we COULD be wrong about the dinosaurs, we could be wrong about
EVERYTHING. "New" discoveries and revelations in the scientific
world are a regular item, after all every postgraduate college student
has to "write a paper." Main point of this whole paragraph is, ultimately,
that you have to have "faith" in something. YOUR faith is in and
of this world. You COULD be wrong. A lot more learned and revered
men before you certainly have been.
The pill you're telling
me to swallow here is that we once thought the world was flat so
maybe we're wrong about dinosaurs too. Are you telling me that we
may be wrong about the world being round too? When you make statements
like "we could be wrong about EVERYTHING!" you show me that you
are way in over your head in I-know-it-doesn't-make-sense-but-I-don't-care.
I suppose that everyone
could be wrong about everything so we may as well believe in the
mad rantings of a psychopath?
I understand that you're
at a loss for answers but this argument is no argument at all. It's
admitting complete and utter failure as well as defeating your own
= the darkness bird). Delighting in dark holes and caverns. This
is the point of Isa 2:20, "a man shall cast his idols to the bats,"
while the idolaters themselves shall vainly hide in the rock from
the wrath of the Lamb (Rev 6:16). Unclean in the eye of the law
(Deut 14:18-19; Lev 11:19-20). Ranked among "all fowls that creep,
going upon all four;" it has claws on its pinions, by which it attaches
itself to a surface, and creeps along it. It is connected with quadrupeds:
the bones of the arm (answering to a bird's wing) and fingers being
elongated, and a membrane extended over them to the hind limbs.
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright
(c)1998 by Biblesoft)
haa`aTaleep (OT:5847) is the bat (Isa 2:20), which the Arabs also
classified among the birds. (from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on
the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright
(c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)
I had no doubt that there
were explanations for my wisecrackin' quotes from scripture. The
reason that they're funny is because they're NOT misquotes. It's
funny that God messed up the animal names that Adam and Eve went
through so much trouble to think up. It amuses me.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake
the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and
the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
shall overtake the reaper. A forecast of the Millennial fertility
of the land. 14. I will bring again the captivity of my people.
A promise that Israel would be restored to her land, which would
be rebuilt and made to prosper. 15. I will plant them upon their
land (cf. Jer 24:6; 32:41; 42:10).
return would be a direct act of God. They shall no more be pulled
up out of their land. An unconditional promise of permanent possession,
which has not yet been fulfilled (2 Sam 7:10; Isa 60:21; Joel 3:20).
thy God. The final words of the prophecy were the ground of the
assurance to Israel that these things would come to pass. (from
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c)
1962 by Moody Press)
OK, sure. Whatever. I
don't know what point you're trying to make here but that sure is
a hella-lotta quotes there. How very dull and impersonal of you.
the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
the LORD do all these things.
is the Creator and Sustainer of the physical universe, and of the
moral law as well. The evil he creates is the antithesis of peace.
But since the opposite of peace is not sin or moral evil, it is
obvious that physical evil, or the calamitous consequences of wrongdoing
are here intended. Nowhere does the Scripture ascribe to God the
creation or authorship of sin; this originates only from the free
moral agency of created beings. (from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary,
Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)
Did I misquote something?
Perhaps I pulled it out of context but that doesn't make it any
less funny. This is a good example of how you don't recognize humor
and that I'm simply putting forth a neat piece of scripture. No
misquotes. No lies. Just funniness. I don't think there's any God
in the first place Bill.
way on page 73 of hate mail, you make a comment about all the "hits"
you are getting. I assume you are referring to the webpage, and
those "hits," note THIS from your homepage:
in purchasing ADVERTISING space on NormalBobSmith.com or JesusDressUp.com?
Please contact me for prices and availability.
to me, the main issue here for you is money. You, like so many zealots,
have deliberately created a "stir." This entire page of yours is
nothing more than a marketing ploy on your part. How better to attract
attention than to cause outrage on the one hand and camaraderie
on the other? Seek a truly controversial subject! You've caused
extreme attention to your "religion" ( I think that word fits very
well here) for the sole purpose of monetary gain, and personal fame.
(and are trying to line the coffers with it...and don't give me
bull about costs for maintaining bandwidth, other religions state
their cause for "operating expenses" as well) What better controversial
subject than religion? Next, do politics, and then, sports, you'll
have all the angles covered. You are as much of a charlatan as those
you deride. You play emotions, and deliberately incite responses
with your caustic "wit," you are nothing more than a sideshow con-man.
Just like the ones you claim to be against. You are: "The Wizard
of Bob,"... the little man behind the curtain.
THIS on the site Bob. (how about putting the previous section on
your homepage even? hmmm?) I dare you. Nothing exposes a falsehood
better and faster than the real, honest, truth.
Finally you go for the
throat; my greedy lust for money. This explains why my site is choked
with ads, cheesy over-priced merchandise and constant ploys to sucker
my audience out of their hard earned cash. Sometimes I'm shocked
that I have any fans at all seeing as how I screw them over so blatantly
without regard for my own reputation or credibility. Wait a second,
are you sure you haven't mixed me up with SeanBaby?
The reason that there
aren't ads on my site, Normal Bob Smith merchandise, collaborations,
stock options or pyramid schemes is because all I want is to express
my thoughts... and no one else's. I give you no bull about bandwidth
because it is all donated to me as long as I keep that banner on
Jesus Dress Up. I don't want your money. I don't need your money.
All I want is the luxury of being the little man behind the curtain
saying what he thinks, and that's all.
I've taken your dare
and posted your letter Bill. What do I get? More quotes from the
The Wizard of Bob (I
Normal Bob Smith