'Man created God:' Bus-ad campaign

This time the ACLU is wrong. “The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” (Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97, 104 (1968).) This duty of neutrality means a government entity “may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite.” (Ibid.) These busses, I assume, are operated by the municipal governments under their respective transit authorities. If the municipal governments allowed the ads to be run on their busses, they would be (at least) complicit in expressing hostility toward (or something other than a neutral message about) religion.
.
Furthermore, the municipal governments wouldn’t abridge anyone’s free speech rights if they refused to allow these ads on busses. By deciding what speech will appear on busses, the government is regulating its own speech. “A government entity has the right ‘to speak for itself’ ..., ‘to say what it wishes’ …, ‘and to select the views that it wants to express.’” (See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. ___, ___ (2009), located at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-665.pdf .) As mentioned above, however, a government is prohibited by the Establishment Clause from deviating from neutrality in matters of religion. (Ibid.) Thus, a local municipality would not only have the right to refuse such ads, it would have a duty to reject them.
.
In short, the Bloomington PTC was right in rejecting the ads, and the Chicago CTA is woefully in the wrong for accepting them. And, yes, the ACLU has an agendum that is hostile to some civil rights.

I'd say Bloomington is in a heap of inky on this issue. Seams like with a tight budget these days, that there would be someone on the city council with some common sense. My guess is that the pugs will be voted out after this mess.

I wonder how that religious thing is working out for the listed states? I also LOVE that quote from Mr. Sietze about the true number of Gods. When will the sheeple wake up......

* * * * *
“I'd say Bloomington is in a heap of inky on this issue. Seams like with a tight budget these days, that there would be someone on the city council with some common sense. My guess is that the pugs will be voted out after this mess.”
* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | May 23, 2009 11:17 PM
.
You’re kidding, right? I’d say this was one case worth fighting, tight budget or no tight budget, because the ACLU and its clients do not have a good case. Those “artists” have no right to tell the city what it must display on public transit property. In the Pleasant Grove case that I cited in my previous post, the United States Supreme Court recently held that a municipal government may reject a monument for display in a public park if it contains ideas with which the government does not agree. The Court rejected the idea that such discrimination is either a violation of the Establishment Clause or an Abridgement of Free Speech prohibited by the First Amendment. That’s because a monument in a public park is effectively the government’s speech, and a government has the right to speak for itself, say what it wishes, and select the views it will endorse. There is no fundamental or conceptual difference between the Pleasant Grove case and the ACLU’s case against Bloomington. As in Pleasant Grove, the plaintiffs seek to dictate to the Bloomington local government the ideas the government must express on government owned and operated property. According to the Pleasant Grove case, for the reasons already given, the government doesn’t have to do that.
.
AND - BTW - I wouldn’t be so sure that Bloomington is run by “pugs.” It’s in a predominantly ‘rat district. It’s just possible that the ‘rats in Bloomington are a tad smarter than the ‘rats running Chicago or the rest of Illinois.

Oh, and ‘form, Sietze’s statement “about the true number of Gods” - that you think is so wonderful - is retarded. Think about it. It doesn’t speak well of you if you can’t figure out what’s obviously wrong with it.

John......you have a hard time separating facts from opinions in your response, and I can tell that you are trying to advance your sheeple opinions using cases that do not support the facts.

If you think that the slogan is hostile to religion, than it shows what a deluded mind you have sitting on your neck. What does an athiest believe in?.....that there are no gods. So, where do the dozens of gods come from that people still worship? They are made up by man, of course. This line of belief is the foundation of athieism and is not a hostility towards your religion. You want to tell me that your god made me and I want to tell you that you made your god. If you find that hostile, than you truly do have thin skin John, and I am sure the courts do not see it through your delusional eyes.

If you want to open up the "separation of church and state" crap, how about we rip through all of the bushco faith-based charities that now have government money tied in. Here, have a cookie in the shape of jesus. John, you probably were the sucker that bought that griddle with the greasy virgin mary stain on it.

One word--
Sicking

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | May 24, 2009 8:07 AM
.
1. Even assuming the ad proposed by the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign (“INABC”) is not “hostile” toward religion (which I do not concede for a second - see point 2, below), the Pleasant Grove case (e.g. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. ___, ___ (2009)) still established that a municipal government does not violate the First Amendment by refusing to sanction a particular form of expression on government property. So tell me: Aren’t the Bloomington City Transit busses municipal government property? If they are (and they certainly appear to be), I submit that the holding in the Pleasant Grove case presents an insurmountable barrier to the INABC’s First Amendment claim. That is true entirely apart from any consideration of an Establishment Clause defense the City of Bloomington might raise.
.
2. In the second place, government speech need not be “hostile” toward religion, in the normal, dictionary sense of being animated by unfriendly or antagonistic feelings, for it to violate the Establishment Clause. Government speech violates the Establishment Clause where there is a sufficient likelihood that it will be perceived by adherents of religion as disapproval, or by anti-religionists as approval, of their respective religious or non-religious choices. In other words, government speech need only articulate an objectively non-neutral position between religion and non-religion to violate the Establishment Clause.
.
According to the complaint filed by the ACLU on behalf of the INABC, the latter prepared an ad for display on Bloomington City Transit busses that reads: “YOU CAN BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD.” As a former theist, you know that theists adhere to the belief that morality or goodness can only come from following God’s will. Thus, the message strikes at the very core of every theistic religion. Any atheist observing it would undoubtedly view it as endorsement for his or her non-religious belief system. Every theist looking at the ad on the side of a government bus would view it as government endorsement for disapproval or denigration of his or her theistic views. The latter is especially true since the people of Bloomington undoubtedly know (by now) that the ad campaign was launched by atheists. Government speech doesn’t have to get any more non-neutral than that to violate the Establishment Clause. Consequently, it was well within the discretion of the city government to refuse the ad to keep from violating the Establishment Clause.
.
Third, I agree that the federal government should never have supported faith-based initiatives. It is not consistent with the First Amendment for a government to hand out money to an organization to further a particular religious belief or set of religious beliefs. However, contrary to numerous examples of Democrat rhetoric in recent history, including yours in the instant discussion, I also believe that two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact the federal government has wrongly funded “faith based” initiatives does not justify further governmental non-neutrality. In other words, your entire point with regard to faith-based initiatives is a red herring in the present discussion.

The foregoing disposes of your inane tirade. The balance of your post is an ad hominem attack against me. It does not rate being dignified by any further response.

Hi,

INSANE!

To be an "Atheist" would mean that you are ALL knowing... 100% sure there is no God.

Got a 'news flash...NO HUMAN is ALL knowing about anything...100%

Atheist are just Atheis....because they can't face the fact(s) everything in their lives(s)...might be 100% wrong.

Huge failure...to be "Intellectually Honest"...with themselves.

Trouble is ...they look at the "world" from their front porch....through a 'straw"...Instead of looking at the world...from...say the moon down...also fail to have ANY knowlege of human history...the real truth.

I feel sorry for them...

We should pray for them..that their heart and mind and eyes are opened...and soon.

Peace!
Dan
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com

BTW: John....the ACLU is almost 99.9% wrong...7/24/365

Try the: ACLJ.org

* * * * *
Posted by: Dan | May 24, 2009 7:05 PM
.
I wouldn’t say the ACLU is 99% wrong about everything. One has to identify specific errors to make some rational, statistical claim regarding their fallibility. They have been known to be correct with some regularity concerning a wide variety of legal issues. The one under discussion just doesn’t happen to be one of them.
.
If, on the other hand, one wants to discuss their Weltanschauung or their willingness to deconstruct society to refashion it into a more “rational society” (in their own image), then I would still be compelled to disagree with you. On that score, they are not wrong 99% of the time. They are wrong 100% of the time.

Usually when you think of busses you think of the bright yellow ones that you used to be forced to ride on the way to school but not anymore. Although busses are still primarily focused on bringing transportation to a large number of people at a time, they are now shifting their attention to building busses made for luxury and style. They are comfortable and fun to ride and drive.

John, I'm sorry that you do not agree with me that religious people are delusional. But, my points still remain valid.

You have a hard time separating the facts in this one John.....the government is not making a speach, or a stance on religion here. They are discriminating against a religious group that is paying for advertising on a bus, which the average intellect knows is a paid service and not the government's postion on anything. Using your sense, John, does the governent endorse viagra or any other paid ad on a bus? Get real.

If the buses said "jesus loves you", I am sure this would not make the news. It happens all the time, and sometimes, it is even a direct endorsement of christianity by government, without the use of a paid system.

I'm glad you modified your initial claim that this paid bus advertising is hostile. In fact, the other quote you sluethed up is even less hostile, despite your weak arguement. You really do get delusional on this topic. There is nothing hostile about saying you do not need god to do good things. Not only is it true, but it shows in this conversation John. You offend me, and many others when you conversly say that I can not do good John, but you do not understand what you say with your delusion. That is one of the problems with religion.

I'm glad we have an aggreance on bushco's faith based charity crap. It is not a red herring as you suggest, as that was satated to show you a situation where the government IS actually giving money that endorses a religious view. In this ACLU case John, the Athiests are paying the government for a service....whole different animal there John and you know it. This completely shreds your arguements and gives you an example of the government endorsing a religion, which it is not OBVIOUSLY doing in this Bloomington case.

Dan, go ahead and pray for me 3 times a day....I really do need it. Just don't forget to wash your hands before you fold them. FYI, Athiests don't claim to be all knowing....in fact the oppsosite is true. Atheists look at life as a science experiment and things need to be proven. Religions that can not be proven, are discarded as not being able to be proven. So Dan, when you get a little older and wiser, you will understand who pretends to be the "all knowing" one, and who can back up their beliefs with proof.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | May 25, 2009 10:57 AM
.
I am not delusional, and I am not having a hard time with the facts of this case. Apparently, I know them better than you do.
.
Contrary to what you have suggested, and what the ACLU seems to be driving at in this lawsuit, the limitations on the “public form” doctrine set forth in Pleasant Gove are not new. Long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that advertising space on the side of a bus is not invariably a public forum to which the government must permit indiscriminate access. (See Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 302-304, 305-308 (1974) [Holding that advertising space made available in public transportation, and “specifically used for the communication of information and ideas” does not, by virtue of these characteristics, transform them into a “public forum” for First Amendment purposes.].) Arguably, advertising space like this might be transformed into a public forum if a municipal government granted indiscriminate access to anyone wishing to place an ad and willing to pay the fee. But that is not true (and hasn’t been true) with regard to Bloomington’s policies. The City’s policies limit access to advertising to that involving “goods and services saleable in commerce, the display of works of art and the display of noncontroversial public service announcements, . . .” Its policies also specifically exclude any ads by candidates for political office, that include a depiction of such a candidate even if otherwise acceptable, and which include pictorial representations or statements “in support of or in opposition to controversial public issues . . .” These restrictions mean the ad spaces are not public fora to which the INABC has any right to access. As long as these restrictions are not “arbitrary, capricious, or invidious,” the government is perfectly within its rights to refuse such ads. (See Lehman, 418 U.S. at 303.) The ACLU hasn’t claimed that the City of Bloomington has been arbitrary capricious or invidious in either the enactment or enforcement of its bus advertisement policies. Nor have they suggested that the City of Bloomington has allowed controversial ads, or even anything like “Jesus Loves You” to appear on any of its ad spaces. According to a neutral application of its policies, the City of Bloomington wouldn’t accept such an ad. Instead of trying to prove such inconstancy, the ACLU has approached this case on the erroneously assumption that the advertising space on busses in Bloomington constitute public fora. By every right, they should lose.
.
This disposes of your claim that this is a case of atheists simply paying for a government service. As I explained above, the City has no First Amendment duty to take their money and run their ad. Thus, only in your wildest dreams does this distinction “shred” any of my arguments.
.
You are also incorrect in stating that I “modified … [my] initial claim that this paid bus advertising is hostile.” I did no such thing. I merely explained that the word “hostile” for purposes of constitutional analysis under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause doesn’t mean the same thing as “hostile” in a more general or generic sense. I said that government “hostility” for the latter purpose simply means the government has taken an objectively non-neutral stance that favors or disfavors one religion over another, or which favors or disfavors religion over non-religion (or vice versa); and doesn’t require proof that its actions are animated by ill feelings.
.
This is not, as you claim, a case of the government endorsing a religion. The government doesn’t have to endorse a religion to run afoul of the Establishment Clause. It also violates the First Amendment by being hostile toward religion - i.e. speaking out in an objectively non-neutral, negative way about it. And that is what it would have done had it permitted the INABC’s ad to be run. Even if one does not view it as government speech in any normal sense, the government is still complicit and responsible for its content by allowing it to appear on publicly owned and operated property.
.
And - BTW - I don’t give a flying fig if I offend you. You offend me. You immediately assume that I put my brains in my back pocket and sat on them because I am a theist. I am the one engaged in analysis here, whereas you are the one hemorrhaging your feelings. In most of your exchanges on this blog, you rarely do anything except spew the party line without ever subjecting it to meaningful scrutiny. So much for your assumptions. In the right time, I might go one step further and give you a piece of my mind regarding your haughty humanism and your election to go reprobate.
.
And, yes, your discussion of faith-based initiatives is a red herring. What the federal government does has no bearing on whether the City of Bloomington is acting properly. Contrary to Democrat mythology, they are two different governments, and the impropriety of the one doesn’t taint the other. And I’m the delusional and irrational one here?

Thankfully Darwin's discovery of evolution completely rules out the possibility that man came from some dirt that a god used to make an image of himself out of, and that woman came from a rib of this dirt-man.

Compare the amount of interlocking data from every applicable scientific field including geology, physics, and even molecular biology, all having observational experiments done, that test and prove the hypotheses of evolution occurring, with the DISCREDITED FAIRY TALE - a big invisible monster that nobody has ever seen or heard did it.

It is frightening that mass delusions of supernatural beings still exist today. It is the same thing as saying that my invisible fire breathing dragon is more powerful than your multi-headed fire spewing sea monster. So, come around to my way of thinking or I will commit atrocities for it.

Everything from the murderous blood stained Sky Daddy who drowned virtually all humanity and other life, sentenced everyone to leave Utopia after Eve (persuaded by a talking snake) ate a magical apple, had Jonah take a ride in the belly of a whale, ruined the life of Job, told Abraham to murder his own kid, killed all the first born of Egypt, had his chosen people commit genocide on the original inhabitants of Palestine, to letting his own son be nailed to some wood so mankind could party with a ghost - is a FAIRY TALE that humanity needs to reject if we are to see many more generations.

By the way if you are dumb enough to believe that this fable is real; in the Bible, the murder count is God/millions - Devil/zero. Whom would you rather spend time with, a vengeful monster or a “fallen” angel who thought he had a better way? I am NOT promoting the Devil, just illustrating the craziness in this stupidity.

Hopefully if you were previously deluded, after reading this you will see how foolish you have been. Society needs to accelerate its retreat from worshiping outlandishly absurd fictional psychopathic beings.

There is no middle ground.

Oh John, thanks for judging me with the reprobate comment. I love watching christians go against their own teachings about judging others. For those not knowing the deffinition of this little used word, here it is:

rep·ro·bate (rpr-bt)
n.
1. A morally unprincipled person.
2. One who is predestined to damnation.
adj.
1. Morally unprincipled; shameless.
2. Rejected by God and without hope of salvation.

John, FYI, I am sure that I volunteer more of my time per year for charity than you do. Sure of it. I also get a thank-you letter from a child I helped probably once a month, and those end up being some of the most charished things I read. I have numerous examples of the good I do in this world, and you know what, I do it for the good of others, and not for some quota crap to go to heaven, or any other lunny reason the churched do.

Thanks for crossing that line though....it speaks volumes of who you are and what you stand for. Worst I ever said about you above is that you are delusional, a sucker, a sheeple, and that you probably bought the greasy virgin mary stain. You have said that I am damned and going to hell, and that I am incapable of doing good.

Way to practice some of that christian love johnny. With guys like you and Ted Haggard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_evangelist_scandals), I can see why the christian movement and the pug party are doing so well these days.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | May 25, 2009 9:49 PM
.
Oh, no. Let’s make this clear. You, yourself, have written that you were once a bible believing Christian, and that you willfully gave up your faith. You reject not only the Christian faith, but any belief in God or his existence. In which case, I do not judge you. I don’t care to judge you, and I don’t have to. Your have already been judged by a higher judge than me. The Bible says that those who reject God and refuse to believe even in his existence are reprobate. It says that those who turn from God and make a shipwreck of their faith are reprobate. It says that even those who profess to know him but deny him in their acts are reprobate. Do you want me to recite all the verses back to you (and there’s a bunch of them), or do you still remember any of them?
.
The foregoing is all I meant by the “reprobate” comment. I meant it in no sense other than that found under noun 2. & adj. 2. As a former believer, you have to know you’re your willful rejection results in that characterization. In which case, I crossed no lines by merely reflecting back at you the consequences of your own choices. If you don’t like the consequences, then you shouldn’t have made yourself God’s enemy. So please, if you care to be angry, go be angry at yourself. You have good grounds for that.
.
PS - You do not know what I do; you have no basis for comparison; and I am not going to fix your ignorance.

During a time of worldwide recession atheists in the UK and USA are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds not in order to help anyone in need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they think themselves to be.
Need any more be said?

Whgren are the bus companies going to start rejecting ads for the various Evangelical Churches I see every day? When are they going to stop accepting those ads that are as hostile to atheism as these are to theism? They strike at the very core of Atheism by suggesting that there is a God.

Benjamin: Thanks for verifying my assumptions about church messages on busses. I just don't spend a lot of time in the cities.

John, I know in your delusion that you throw common sense out the door, and yes, sometimes you sit on it....but an inanimate book can not judge anything you thumper. PEOPLE judge and interperate, but a book is not capable of such humanly traits. You choose to believe, interperate, condem, and tell others that they are going to hell. Have you ever done a google search on how many inacuracies have been proven in the bible you believe in....and if you are a literalist john, you get extra points in the ignorance category. I really do hope you read my link in the last email. I found it amazing and scary all in the same reading.

The first question I usually ask christian nuts, when discussing theology with them, is "have you read the bible cover to cover?". That usually puts the nuts in their place when it has been exposed that they believe in something that they have not read. I have read it cover to cover, john, and the god in the old testimate is not the same as the new. Sure, they conjure of the tri-une crap to conceal this flaw, but the god of the old testimate is identical to all the other gods of all the old prehistoric societies....you know, the ones that throw fire down from the mountains and such.

Also, let me pick apart your line "you have already been judged...": Who or what judged me? The bible, or the god you believe in? Either way, it is a belief you have and thus, by proxy, YOU are judging. I am sure you don't have the red phone to heaven, so there is no proof, only your judgment and interpretations.

There are MANY scenarios that I like to toss at christians and listen (as I bite my cheek to stop the laughter) to their answers. Some of these are thoughts I had in Sunday school at a young age, when the propoganda was being pushed at me: Where are all the Native Americans, and indigionous people John? Hell or heaven? They were never exposed to your god john. They did not belive in x-y-z.

I had a good theological discussion with my nutty neighbor last year, and we talked about dinosaurs, john, dinosaurs....can you believe it!!! She was telling me that the latest christian theory (since there is SO much scientific proof that they existed and the nuts can no longer say that the dinosaurs did not roam the earth), that they roamed the earth before genesis. Then your god wiped the slate clean and started over again....which of course conflicts with the 7 day belief completely, but it is the latest spin the nuts are putting on dinosaurs. Of course, then there is the nut theory about the flood, and how that killed them, or the even nuttier theory that they were stowed away on a boat in the flood, or the problem of the inbreeding of "2 of every kind", or the THOUSANDS of problems that the bible presents. Why don't you just stick with psalms john.

Myself, I lean more towards the far Eastern religions (much older than christianity), and budhhism, but I have no certain convictions. I believe in Karma, and what goes around comes around. I have wrapped my brain around most of reincarnation (human to human) and find some good scientific evidence to support it. I also like the thought that it is harmonious with science, and actually the more science that is revealed, the more it coincided with Eastern religion. Do some homework you sheeple. Really. Science is not a dirty word.

* * * * *
“Also, let me pick apart your line "you have already been judged...": Who or what judged me? The bible, or the god you believe in? Either way, it is a belief you have and thus, by proxy, YOU are judging.”
* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | May 26, 2009 11:40 AM
.
Your unbelief lies at the base of your false dilemma. Who judged you? God did. How do I know this? Because the Bible has spelled out the judgment in no uncertain terms. It is the evidence of that judgment. Jesus, himself, is quoted twice in the Bible as saying that he who does not believe is damned. This is one topic where interpretation makes no difference, and, thus, no individual judgment is either necessary or possible.
.
If it were up to me, no one would be condemned. But, then again, I’m not God and have no conception of his wisdom. I am compelled to agree with the judgment spoken of because God gave it. It is his will. So, if there is no God, and the bible is a book of fairy tales as you claim, then no one judges you. There, now you can comfort yourself. Or can you?
.
You chide people because you believe Christianity is not rational, blah, blah, blah, etc. It is precisely that frame of mind that makes it impossible for you to understand it at all. The faith that brings one together with God is other-worldly. Not only does it require the suspension of reason when it comes to spiritual matters, it must be of a character that it can endure the paradoxical and seemingly impossible. This is why the Bible specifies that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. By this standard, you have judged yourself out of your own mouth.

OK, john, maybe this will make sense to you......your basis for your belief lies in a book of words. Your book of words has been PROVEN, over and over and over again to have errors in. This is where the average intellect starts to question EVERYTHING that is in the book. I am sure there are some truths in there, and there are MANY nuggets of wisdom to be had from the book....in fact most of the old testimate is an early doctors manual for hygene to keep diseases from spreading, but it is not a book that is divine.

I can not state this enought times to you either....it is YOUR belief in your god that judges me. If I ask an athiest if I am condemned, he will say no. You say yes, and he says no. Let's sit and listen for your god's opinion on the matter.......*crickets chirping*....well, that settles that john.....proof for you that your god does not condemn me.

Don't get me wrong though, christianity is good for those that need it to live a good life. I just get bent out of shape when the believers feel that they have to apostolatize everyone and save their souls. I really don't give a rip what you believe in john. Just don't judge people and try to convert people, nor think that you have special immunuty to sin. Karma will always catch up to you.....I've seen that work 100 times over already.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | May 26, 2009 2:34 PM
.
You started marching on the wrong foot. The basis of my belief is not a book.
.
Many of the first Christians were both illiterate and without a Bible (as literacy was limited to a privileged few and no Bible had been compiled or distributed). Despite the fact they had NO book, which you would think of as a grave deficiency in light of your contempt for a flawed book, Christianity still spread and people still gave their lives for their belief in Jesus whom God raised from the dead. In fact, history records that all but one of the original Apostles, and not a few of the earliest disciples, met violent deaths as a direct reward for their unshakable faith. People don’t lay down their lives for just anything, and certainly not for something they know to be false. Their testimony in blood to the fact of an empty tomb did more to spread Christianity than any book. That is why the word ‘martyr’ - Greek for ‘witness’ - came to be associated with giving one’s life for a cause. Even today, Christianity is spread more by word of mouth than by reading about it. So, no, the book isn’t the reason for belief or faith.
.
The basis for my belief and faith is my own spiritual epiphany. This is not something I got from digesting the contents of a book or giving mental assent to a series of doctrines or beliefs. In my case, my faith began at the same time I totally rejected the teachings of the church in which I was raised. If teaching and doctrine made one a Christian, I already had that. Yet, paradoxically, I rejected it to become a Christian based upon a spiritual awakening.
.
In fact, no one has ever converted to Christianity as the result of being convinced by a logical argument. Faith is a spiritual gift that often requires the suspension of reason and the acceptance of pure paradox. If human reason were the cause of Christian faith, as you seem to think, then human reason would also be its downfall; which is an idea you cling to as your own religion. In fact, you should be glad that it isn’t the case. If your ‘brush’ with Christianity resulted from social pressure or intellectual assent, then you can rejoice in the fact that you were never a Christian. Your insistence that Christianity comes out of a book is some proof that you had little more than a ‘brush’ with it, and that you remain ignorant with regard to its causes. (Maybe there’s hope for you yet.  )
.
So, what about the book? Is it flawed like you suggest? I am quite sure it has acquired a number of flaws over the years as the result of being left in the hands of fallible men to see to its propagation. There are thousands of variations in the Greek manuscripts generated over the past two millennia. Then again, the belief that the Bible is a God-inspired book only applies to the originals - not the copies. With regard to your claim of errors and inconsistencies, a number of earlier transcripts contain fewer. That tends to show that men have been taking license with it. Furthermore, many of the claimed errors and inconsistencies arise from the desire of some men to find inconsistency where there is none, and by those who don’t understand what is being conveyed in the first place. There are entire shelves in libraries devoted to the subject. I commend them to your perusal. However, I don’t wish to make this longer than need be, and so I am not going to pursue the matter in detail. Suffice it to say that the Bible serves as a spiritually inspired guide and evidence of God’s will, but not as the source of faith. The latter is a spiritual gift that comes only from God.
.
Your puerile demonstration with the ersatz crickets only confirms your own hard core perspectivism. Your belief that science has eclipsed faith is, itself, based on a logical error. It is one thing to say that the scientific method produces valuable knowledge. It is another thing - in fact, a categorical error - to claim that science is the only valid source of knowledge. Much of human experience defies testing and verification, in which case it fails as a source of knowledge according to the scientific method. Science may operate on the assumption that valuable knowledge is subject to testing, verification and/or replication, but it cannot prove that it has relegated to the trash heap all sources of knowledge that do not conform to such methods. In particular, it cannot prove - and hasn’t proven - that knowledge cannot come from revelation. The contrary claim that it has is merely a leap of faith by those who seek to make Man the measure of all things. In which case (and I know this is going to irritate you): Your atheism is actually an anthropocentric religion. It has become the lens through which you view the world and by which you order your affairs. In short, your demonstration proved nothing.
.
Finally, the word isn’t “apostolate.” The word you were grasping for was either “evangelize” or “proselytize.” In this regard, I wasn’t trying to convert you. In fact, I thought you were the last person I should attempt to evangelize because of your claim that you had fallen from the Christian faith. I don’t try to judge people, and I didn’t judge you - notwithstanding your epistemological misunderstandings. Furthermore, you will never get me to stop trying to bring others to Christ. Get over it. And, no, I don’t think I have any special immunity to sin; not until I die anyway.

All right John, if your still out there, here you go:

You are correct that the early christians (although not called that) relayed their information verbally. In the old testimate, their stories are very steep and tall, just like the stories about zeus and the sea monsters. No, not just like, EXACTLY like the other beliefs of the time.

Maybe that is the problem that christians have....they do not juxtapose the history of their beliefs against the history of other world beliefs.

You also glorified dying for your religion....spoken like a true muslim fanatic. I try to get this point through the christians' heads sometimes.....muslims believe in their god as much as you do in yours. They want to convert you just as much as you want to convert them. For the christian muslim bashers out there, I often have to be the one to remind them of the catholic bombings in Ireland. Fanatics are on both sides and it is all a dellusion. The really funny part about the christian/ muslim war currently being waged, is that of all the world religions, those two are the two most similar religions...sharing the same god, and most of the same documents.

I do not claim science is the only basis of knowledge. True, there are MANY things which science can not fully verify at this point. That said though, the book of stories has way too many stories that could not have happened, and once again....juztaposing these stories against the stories of other religions easily accounts for them as tall tales.

I also know most christians to have a mental flaw that predestines them to believe in things. My nutty neighbor also believed in alternative medicine...similar to the nut on TV that is refusing cancer treatment to her sick child. Chrisians also tend to be the ones that believe there are conspiracies all around them...just look at these boards for proof of that. Christians tend to believe they see miracles and dismiss the science that typically made it happen. They believe that their god controls everything, and that their god deserves the credit for everything....despite the fact that it is the human that is clearly making the decisions and making the acts.

The immunity from sin comment is worth expanding for you.....I have seen MANY christians perform some truly ugly things for 6 days of the week, and then on the 7th day they walk out the door of the church believing that their sins are forgiven and that their slate has been wiped clean. They feel their is some sort of immunity for their soul. And when they do sin, I often hear them say that the devil made me do it.....or the devil tempted me, yet we both know that they were human actions performed by human beings. It is almost scary how a christian can truly believe that their evil actions are forgiven by their god and that life is back to normal for them.

No, john, I was a christian to the core. I held up the abortion signs with bloody babies on them, I went every week, I prostolatized like the good boy should, I gave more than my tithe, and I did this for more than 24 years.

My epiphany started while watching the church kick my brother out when he and a young sunday school teacher were doing what 20 year olds do. Not only did they kick him out, they ridiculed him and her (eating their own). So, instead of practicing the christian love, they chose to judge and hate.

This episode started a series of depsressions in my brother, which culminated in his suicide. When this chapter of my christian epiphany was opened, I realized that many older christian sects still believe in the unforgivable sins, which of course are worse than the 10 comandment variety of sins. His funeral could not be held in the family church (different than the one he was kicked out of), and the pastor gave about the worst funeral sermon ever heard. My "christian" friends openly admitted that my brother was in hell, even though my brother was the type of personality that would never harm a hair on anyones head.

I guess the christians will welcome repented murderers, rapists, and pedifiles (when saying/ believing in XYZ at the end) into their heaven, but not a good person that chose to leave this world on their own terms. No, I don't want to open up the debate about unforgivable sins, as I see the catholic church and the WELS church that we belonged to are quickly changing their teachings on this emotionaly charged topic. Yet another topic the churches have changed their stance on.

I also love the fact at how the christian coalition likes to eat their own. They pretend to be one big happy loving family on the outside, but under the lid, they are attacking each other's sect and saying what is wrong with this sect, and how that sect is not the correct sect to practice, and how that sect is going to hell. My favorite example for those ignorant of this topic, is that most sects of christianiy believe the cahtolics are going to hell because they break the first commandment when they pray to mary or whatever saint they choose to.

So when you TRULY study the history of religion john, and understand that it has always changed, and will continue to change, you will understand that it is ALL done by man, not just the parts that you claim.

I've done my homework on the topic, I've seen MANY dark sides to the churches john, and I would urge you to do your homework with and open mind. When my nutty neighbor opened up this theology topic with me, she said "now xcellentform, you have to approach this with an open mind", and I said "nutty neighbor, YOU have to approach this topic with an open mind". I find the believers to have by far the most closed minds....and the best part is that they can not substantiate their beliefs other than to say that they believe....similar to what you have stated above john.

Good luck in your journey john. Just don't be so sure of yourself on this topic, as there are many others out there that have done more homework on it than you. Sitting in bible class does not count as homework, unless you think propoganda counts as education. I think Universalism/ Unitarianism is a different animal though, but I am sure this is not what you practice.

Fizzmick PaChee,
Darwinism says nothing of life's origins.
Abiogenesis experiments have failed for circa 150 years.
The constituents of the human body are those of the dirt.
The Bible provided this scientific prediction while atheists prefer to believe that life came from lightning striking a swamp.
Until such a time as atheists can provide evidence of absolute materialism producing the universe, life and everything supernaturalism is the default position and it is evidenced by science and philosophy.

This time the ACLU and the Indiana Athiest Bus campaign group need to disappear. The transit company has the right to post whatever they want and for the courts to tell them differently is basically taking away their rights to baby a whiner, who has no common sense. If the Bloomington transit wants positive signs on their buses that don't remove hope from those who view them, that is their choice. Isn't it amazing that the athiests complain that religion is being pushed on them, yet they don't see that what they are doing is the same thing, except in this case they are pushing an atomic elevator to hell on everyone else. Common sense is something none of them have, respect is something they lack, understanding for the other side is something they can't even comprehend. No one said they had to believe, or forced them to, but they do not have the right to keep others from believing, especially those children who will view this who are being raised in a faith-based home. Well, one way to look at it is the way Jesus did..."Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." Something they will face one day, when it is time to face the choices you made in the past.

Fizzmick PaChee,
Darwinism says nothing of life's origins.
Abiogenesis experiments have failed for circa 150 years.
The constituents of the human body are those of the dirt.
The Bible provided this scientific prediction while atheists prefer to believe that life came from lightning striking a swamp.
Until such a time as atheists can provide evidence of absolute materialism producing the universe, life and everything supernaturalism is the default position and it is evidenced by science and philosophy.

My husband and I just watched The Invention of Lying the other evening. Great movie! What if the "man in the sky" was actually thought up by the first person to ever tell a lie, as in the movie?

Always such controversy when it comes to "religious" views. Can't we all just get along? Really?