Why I’m no longer a Christian

Chunky_Punky wrote:

<quoted text>You even close. The albatros was sin and hell, and we left that for you all. You're going to have a hell of a time, and time and time and then only time.

Your mythical hell is borrowed from the Greeks.

It is a mythology with no power over those who recognize what it is and from whence it came.

In antiquity, where virtually everyone believed in demons, magic, and all kinds of deities, it is little wonder the myth was effective.

But in modern times, there is no excuse for falling for the mythology. Only children and credulous adults will do so any more.

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Paul never met this Christ guy. Paul tells us so.

HUH?!?! you're epically failing to understand that since His Ressurection, Assention & fulfillment of Pentecost, Christ is now more effectively able to dwell intimatelly with all of is disciples through His Spirit!

that's why i can sound just like Jesus, paul and all the saints!:)

Mr Wiggley wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting, converting drunks in a bar. I wonder what they do when they sober up?

anyone, anytime & anywhere, baby; that's what it's all about!;)

the gospel first came to my family through an older drugy cousin of mine. he and another friend were at our state fair in the late 70's and heard billy graham preaching. my cuz was very high & drunk but was so gripped by the message that he prayed that if God would sober him up he would respond to the alter call and give his life to Christ. God did, he did and has been a missionary to mexico and an evangelist ever since!

G_O_D wrote:

<quoted text>
Theologians already acknowledge (for over 100 years) that John is a Greek fraud. Only Biblical literalists and apologists jump through hoops to cover his blatant lies.

ya really gotta love those wolf theologians in sheep's clothes.
it's really a pathetic ploy to the discerning soul who loves the truth, but it does serve the purpose of weeding out those who don't;)

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text>“Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?”
Maurice Freehill
Why are you afraid of the light?

the world's "light" = The Body of Christ's darkness - waaasssuuup 6/15/12;)

Happy upcoming "Father's Day" to all you Fathers! And to the "MOTHERS" that have had to raise your children with out Fathers..My hats off to you!

Happy Father's Day to the One and Only Heavenly Father!

Stephen..."A ..Child ..Of His!"

New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:

<quoted text>
you aren't sounding positive.

i sound positive to those who are positively truthful and negative to those who aren't. waaasssuuup;)

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text>It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
W. K. Clifford

exactly! so when the evidence is there and has been since the beginning of time, it will serve those right who refuse it!

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text>Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.
Aldous Huxley

exactly! so....would you like to reconsider your staunch position against us and the Gospel that we preach?;)

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:

<quoted text>
Stop playing victim, you dickless little swamp monkey. You are the one who projects hate. You *want* to claim that others hate you so you can feel indignant and self-righteous, and full of jeebus.
<quoted text>
You are no such thing. It is hypocritical little asswipes like you that are the problem. You forgive yourself for all of your "sins," and and then you continue to commit them--lying, stealing from your boss, etc, and you see nothing wrong with it.
People like *you* are the problem.

if vee are zee "problem", heir frauline, vot do you zuppoze iz zee final zolution?;)

Thank you for your insight on the "State of christianity" it has opened my eyes further into the "Way of G-D" and my upbringing in the "Temple" and of the "church"..notice small "c"...As I have mentioned on a few occasions..I now attend on Saturday Mornings a "Messianic Congregation" that is 85% Former Jewish, "Conservative, Reform" Jews....The Rabbi was "Converted" in the "Baptist" doctrine and left 6 years ago to "begin" the "GATHERING OF CHOSEN PEOPLE".

All "Traditional" observances of Jewish festivals are adhered to, with Y'Shua always mentioned. As I have stated, YHWH is One G-D and Y'Shua is the SPIRIT of Moschiach..Come to earth in the flesh..And, That I believe that YHWH, because of Y'Shua's Promise to His Disciples, that Rauch Ha'Kodesh came at "JUBILEE", Pentecost as Promised by Y'Shua. And, We are then "Guided" by G-D's Spirit in our daily walk.

Stephen...

waaasssuuup wrote:

<quoted text>
i sound positive to those who are positively truthful and negative to those who aren't. waaasssuuup;)

I'm not so sure about that.

Logistics Supervisor wrote:

<quoted text>“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”-John Adams

Fraud! These are illegitimate quotes, manufactured by David Barton of Wallbuliders fame. He has been caught and exposed in his lies. His response, "Well, that is what they would have said."

You follow a religion of lies and liars, in it for the money, who continue to lie to keep the cash flowing. You have been duped. Scammed. Hoodwinked. Ego stroked. Manipulated. Destroyed.

You sicken me.

Some of Barton's lies:

Barton: In 1844 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must include Christian worship.

Response: This is an oversimplified interpretation of a complex Supreme Court decision in a case known as Vidal v. Girard's Executors. The controversy centered around the request of Stephen Girard, a wealthy Pennsylvanian whose will instructed that his money be used to set up a school for orphans. Girard, a native of France who was wary of clericalism, stipulated in the will that no members of the clergy could hold office in the school or even visit the campus.

Girard's heirs challenged the bequest, but the Supreme Court, In a unanimous opinion, refused to nullify the stipulation. The will, the justices noted, had barred only clergy, not religious instruction entirely. The court also noted that the religious freedom provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution were broad enough to provide "complete protection of every variety of religious opinion...and must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they were Jews or infidels."

Barton: Fifty-two out of 55 of the founding fathers were "orthodox, evangelical Christians."

Response: This is a good example of the half truths common in Barton's materials. Most of the founders were members of the Church of England, which can hardly be described as an evangelical body. While it is true that many of the framers were devout Christians, that does not make them theological compatriots of today's Religious Right.(Barton must have again realized his mistake. In the updated version of the tape, he says 52 of the framers were simply "orthodox" Christians and adds, "Many of them were evangelicals.")

Richard V. Pierard, history professor at Indiana State University, calls Barton's claim "ridiculous." According to Pierard, the term "evangelical" did not come into wide use in America until the late 19th century and cannot properly be applied to any religious movement of the colonial period. "To try to take a later definition and impose it on these people is a historical anachronism," Pierard said.

Barton: Early versions of the First Amendment considered by the Congress prove that all the framers meant to do was prohibit the establishment of a national church.

Response: This charge is an ironic one, because early versions of the First Amendment prove exactly the opposite. Before the language of the First Amendment we know today was settled on, drafts were submitted to Congress explicitly forbidding only the establishment of a national church or one denomination in preference to any other. These were all rejected. If Barton were correct, and all the framers wanted to do was bar an official Church of the United Slates, one of these early versions would have sufficed.

More...

Mr Wiggley wrote:

<quoted text>
Pssssst....just so you know, in no way does swearing in on the bible validate it's contents. And causing a non-believer of the bible to swear in on it is no different than making you swear in on the quran if you were in afganistan or iraq or any other muslim country...and it would mean nothing to you just as your bible does to others.

i often go to court and testify on behalf of my clients. being an atheist, it is not a required that i place my hand on a buybull and swear. i am simply asked to raise my right hand and "swear to tell the truth to the best of my ability".

Barton: In the late 19th century "Christian principles in government" were challenged at the Supreme Court, but the justices upheld them and pointed out that Thomas Jefferson supported mixing Christianity and government.

Response: This is an extremely bad interpretation of 1878's Reynolds v. United Slates decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Mormons do not have a religious freedom right to practice plural marriage. Reynolds was a free exercise case; it had nothing to do with a Challenge to "Christian principles in government." Furthermore, while the justices do quote from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists that contains the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor, they say nothing about Jefferson favoring Christian principles in government..

Clearly the justices could make no such assertion about Jefferson, as he never said anything even remotely akin to what Barton alleges. In reality, Jefferson specifically denied that Christianity is the basis of the common law and regarded efforts to declare it so as anti-separationist propaganda. In an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Jefferson observed, "The proof...is incontrovertible, to wit, that the common law existed while the Angle- Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never heard the name Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character existed. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!"

Barton: The Supreme Court's decision in the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, which banned government-sponsored prayer in public schools, cited no historical or legal precedents and relies on a legal theory that the justices made up out of whole cloth.

Response: Even a brief perusal of the Engel opinion shows that Barton is again wrong. In fact, Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion in Engel cites the history of the First Amendment and the early colonial experience with state-established religion. The concurring opinion by Justice William Douglas cites several previous church-state cases.

Barton: Religious practices in public schools had never been challenged in the courts prior to 1962.

Response: 1962's Engel case was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court took up school prayer, but several state supreme courts had ruled on the issue prior to that. For example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down government-sponsored Prayer in schools in 1892; the Nebraska Supreme Court followed suit in 1902, and the Illinois Supreme Court removed mandatory worship from public schools in 1910.

These are just a few examples. A 1960 survey by Americans United found that only five states had laws on the books requiring daily Bible reading in public schools. Twenty-four slates allowed "optional" Bible reading. Eleven states had banned the practice as unconstitutional.(The remaining states had no laws on the subject.).

Aside from these specific distortions, Barton relies on a variety of semantic tricks to mislead the viewers of his video. For example, the Texas activist uses the terms "Supreme Court" and "court" interchangeably throughout, which could lead an uninformed listener to believe that several low-level court decisions at odds with separation of church and state are actually Supreme Court rulings.

http://candst.tripod.com/boston1.htm

There are so many more Barton lies, and here you are passing them on as fact. It is not surprising. You are a Christian and your entire worldview is a fabrication.

waaasssuuup wrote:

<quoted text>
using the Bible to swear in may not be the thing which validates it, but it sure is kinda fun making monkeys-uncles hafta do it;)

it is unconstitutional to force someone to put their hand on a religious object that they do not believe in, and swear upon it.

i go to court on a weekly basis and i am not forced to put my hand on a buybull and swear.

that you have a religigasm thinking about non religious people being forced to do so..........speaks volumes.

waaasssuuup wrote:

<quoted text>
exactly! so when the evidence is there and has been since the beginning of time, it will serve those right who refuse it!

PEBKAC. "Oh, but I never threaten anyone with damnation. Fuggin' idiot.

Rose wrote:

<quoted text>
So, God sacrificed with his son because he loves his sinful worshipers!! He loves them more than his innocent pure son!! it doesn't sound like an act of a fair God..Why would he love sinful worshipers? And why didn’t he just forgive them without the need for bloodshed? Is he not merciful?

considering he [supposedly] made the sinful worshipers! his design flaw and he has to send in an innocent scapegoat for his screwup!!!!!!!!!

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:

<quoted text>
PEBKAC?
I'm not familiar with this...it's an acronym for something, right?

"Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair"