I received a paper to review that I can only describe as very bad. Not only are there structural issues that anyone that has previously published a paper in a respectable journal should know to avoid (like providing sources for images that are clearly not the authors' own) and instances of (self) plagiarism. Most of the papers of the authors themselves that are cited in the paper stem from one very questionable journal.
Much worse, though, is the fact that the paper is (IMHO) religous agenda badly disguised as a scientific paper: the authors claim miracles to be the cause of effects they are describing, they selectively dismiss results that dispute their theories and claim in the last paragraph that they have thus proven that Jesus has risen from the grave.
I am honestly really shocked that this was not desk rejected but made it to peer review, but here we are. I now wonder if it is OK to write a review along the lines of "Your paper is bad and you should feel bad" because that really is my honest opinion? Or should I rather skip the review report altogether and just write to the editor that I think this should not be published?