Religious Liberty or Secularism?

[Intense]

The OP'er is blathering on with the same nonsense about the US being a "Christian nation".

This thread is simply a reiteration of a similar nonsense thread making the same nonsense claims.

Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments

James Madison

[1785]

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

We are rooted in Christian Principles, which include separation of church and state.

 

[Hollie]

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws.


re·tain
transitive verb \ri-ˈtān\
Definition of RETAIN
1
a : to keep in possession or use

2
: to hold secure or intact

And…. So what? Whether Einstein did retain from his childhood any beliefs in the supernatural is irrelevant.

su•per•nat•u•ral

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

(form Dictionary.com)


Einstein’s belief in a gawd or gawds faded as he aged. His belief or disbelief in any gawds is irrelevant in the face of cold, hard facts / evidence and there simply are none in conection with your particular, partisan gawds.

Why don't religious tenets stand on their own without seeking to analogize from other human conventions or by appeals to authority? Well, it's obvious of course: all spiritual tenets suffer from exactly the same burden as do all other conventions of human origin: they are of human origin!

You fundies actually prove these false analogies over and over again by alluding to only completely mortal paradigms to explain something you all already admit is really beyond your capacity to understand, let alone explain. This also manifests itself in the myriad times theists must say things like, "you must put away logic; you must see things from a perspective other than reason." Just so: if I perceive something outside of logic, I am admitting it is illogical, and if I dismiss the rational, I am admitting it must be irrational. And given the construction of reality, the illogical and the irrational are not standards by which truth can ever be ascertained.

1.Remember when I stated that there is an unambiguous reference to Jesus in the Constitution….and while you couldn’t deny it….you did insert a disrespectful reference, here:

1. Actually, I remember when you were tasked with providing a single reference for your gawds in the wording of the constitution.

2. You failed.

3. Now, having had your false allegations (with reference to Einstein), refuted, you've taken to stuttering and mumbling in a desperate attempt to cover your falsehoods.

4. How sad for you.

5. So, yes, You looked so stooooopppid!


6. Additionally, you look dishonest and, well, "stooooopppid" with the falsified "quotes" you posted.

7. Have you forgotten that I already exposed your lies and falsehoods in a thread previous to this one where you posted edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes". We call that being dishonest. Didn't the prayer leader at your Madrassah teach you what lying is and why it's wrong?

8. Are all fundie christians as dishonest as you are?

1. Good little Collie....I'm so proud of you!

You saw post #117:

"Now I command you:

Be sure to use "... stutter and mumble..." in every post!!

OR ELSE!!"


After all, what kind of fanatic would you be if you couldn't take orders.
As your superior, I will be issuing other orders in the future.


2. Now...why were you afraid to provide the rest of my post?
Embarrassed?


3. Oh....I see: you're fibbing and it would have been exposed!
I never " manufactured "quotes" I used your own words....let me know if you need the link to where you actually said those things.


Heck....you're a 'double threat'! Dishonest and stoooopppidddd!

1. And here you are again, still dodging the requirement that you support your "quotes" as accurate.

2. And you cannot do so.

3. As usual, you're left to your usual tactic of snide remarks, juvenile attempts at insult and name-callling as your lies are exposed.

4. Shall we discuss your falsified "quote" from Isaacson's book? These are not just casual errors on your part but deliberate falsification.

5. I've read Isaacson's book, and I've come to expect that when you're "quoting" something, it's bound to be a lie.

 

[Intense]

Something seems wrong with your alleged quote....


...I picked up my copy of Walter Isaacson's "Einstein," and find this:
A complaint about a colleague, Ehrenfest, who would not admit to being a Jew...."I would like to see him as my successor here. But his fanatical atheism makes that impossible."
March 17, 1912.


'Despite his parent's secularism, or perhaps because of it, Einstein suddenly developed a passionate zeal for Judaism....He even composed hymns for the glorification of God."
p. 16


While this changed as he grew older, he is quoted as saying "The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness, that there is a fundamental cause of all existence."

He did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase, a profound reverence for the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Isaacson, Ibid, p. 20

Why is it so hard to understand that a man can have religious leanings as a young person and outgrow them as you grow older and wiser?

As for "fanatical atheism", that says nothing about Einstein. I know some fanatical atheist and they aren't much fun to be around. Much like fanatical christians. I would go so far as to say I wouldn't recommend fanatics of any persuasion.

Why is it so hard to understand that a man can have religious leanings as a young person and outgrow them as you grow older and wiser?

Sometimes people do grow older and wiser, sometimes people grow in corruption and as a result lose their moral compass. The blind cannot lead the blind.

 

[koshergrl]

If we based all our important decisions on our POV as adolescents and children, imagine where we'd be.....

Calling Rtard and TDM.

 

[AVG-JOE]

1. There is a platitude voiced by the Left that conservatives oppose change, or are even reactionary and would like to see the return of eras which were hostile toward various segments of our population.
This view is predominant among the most ignorant, the ‘low information voter.’

2. But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

a. People of faith are depicted as ignorant, intolerant, and behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

b. Somehow, the Left’s attempts to eradicate religious views from the public arena comes out of progressive media as the exact opposite....such as ‘your attempts to force your religion down our throats.’
Again…widely believed by ‘the low information voter.’






3. The conservative’s embrace of religious liberty is rooted in the values of the nation’s Founders, and a wish to preserve those principles. Our definition of religious liberty is to practice the religion of one’s choice, or none at all, in either a private or a public setting. Children’s voluntary recital of prayer in public school, or the President’s reference to God in a national address, or the use of federal funds of faith-based groups that aim to aid those less fortunate are all covered.

a. …in fact, all practices that do not violate, do not infringe on the unalienable rights or the liberties of another.

b. If one can simply turn off or ignore some advertisement that is annoying or offensive, the same options should apply here.

4. Our approach rests on a literal constitutional interpretation. For conservatives, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.

c. “The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.” David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge.”






5. And so, the argument comes down to the conservatives standing by what the Constitution actually says in the first amendment, and the spin of the secularist, attempting a colloquial argument based on wishes and interpretation.



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

Just one question... If my religion centers on running around naked with other consenting adults, smoking dope and discussing evolution, are you conservatives still going to embrace me and accept my belief system as just as valid as your own?


Secularism is the only way to guarantee religious freedom.

Anyone who thinks America is or should be a 'Christian Nation' simply doesn't get it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The OP'er is blathering on with the same nonsense about the US being a "Christian nation".

This thread is simply a reiteration of a similar nonsense thread making the same nonsense claims.

Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments

James Madison

[1785]

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

We are rooted in Christian Principles, which include separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state is wholly American.

Running away from state-run and state sanctioned Christianity was one of the reasons America came in to being.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And…. So what? Whether Einstein did retain from his childhood any beliefs in the supernatural is irrelevant.

su•per•nat•u•ral

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

(form Dictionary.com)


Einstein’s belief in a gawd or gawds faded as he aged. His belief or disbelief in any gawds is irrelevant in the face of cold, hard facts / evidence and there simply are none in conection with your particular, partisan gawds.

Why don't religious tenets stand on their own without seeking to analogize from other human conventions or by appeals to authority? Well, it's obvious of course: all spiritual tenets suffer from exactly the same burden as do all other conventions of human origin: they are of human origin!

You fundies actually prove these false analogies over and over again by alluding to only completely mortal paradigms to explain something you all already admit is really beyond your capacity to understand, let alone explain. This also manifests itself in the myriad times theists must say things like, "you must put away logic; you must see things from a perspective other than reason." Just so: if I perceive something outside of logic, I am admitting it is illogical, and if I dismiss the rational, I am admitting it must be irrational. And given the construction of reality, the illogical and the irrational are not standards by which truth can ever be ascertained.





1. Actually, I remember when you were tasked with providing a single reference for your gawds in the wording of the constitution.

2. You failed.

3. Now, having had your false allegations (with reference to Einstein), refuted, you've taken to stuttering and mumbling in a desperate attempt to cover your falsehoods.

4. How sad for you.

5. So, yes, You looked so stooooopppid!


6. Additionally, you look dishonest and, well, "stooooopppid" with the falsified "quotes" you posted.

7. Have you forgotten that I already exposed your lies and falsehoods in a thread previous to this one where you posted edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes". We call that being dishonest. Didn't the prayer leader at your Madrassah teach you what lying is and why it's wrong?

8. Are all fundie christians as dishonest as you are?

1. Good little Collie....I'm so proud of you!

You saw post #117:

"Now I command you:

Be sure to use "... stutter and mumble..." in every post!!

OR ELSE!!"


After all, what kind of fanatic would you be if you couldn't take orders.
As your superior, I will be issuing other orders in the future.


2. Now...why were you afraid to provide the rest of my post?
Embarrassed?


3. Oh....I see: you're fibbing and it would have been exposed!
I never " manufactured "quotes" I used your own words....let me know if you need the link to where you actually said those things.


Heck....you're a 'double threat'! Dishonest and stoooopppidddd!

1. And here you are again, still dodging the requirement that you support your "quotes" as accurate.

2. And you cannot do so.

3. As usual, you're left to your usual tactic of snide remarks, juvenile attempts at insult and name-callling as your lies are exposed.

4. Shall we discuss your falsified "quote" from Isaacson's book? These are not just casual errors on your part but deliberate falsification.

5. I've read Isaacson's book, and I've come to expect that when you're "quoting" something, it's bound to be a lie.

Hey, Collie.....you know that I never lie, or falsify anything.

Ever.


Here's the thread where your quotes come from: [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]

I was hoping you'd claim the quotes were made up.....there's the tread.

Gotcha again, huh?




Next: "I've read Isaacson's book, and I've come to expect that when you're "quoting" something, it's bound to be a lie."

I ever provided page numbers, dunce!!

That's why you quibbled "I've come to expect" ....you didn't check the quotes, did you?


If I looked up either dishonest or stupid in the dictionary....bet your pic would be there for both.




See, that's why you should try honesty.....you wouldn't get caught lying so often.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If we based all our important decisions on our POV as adolescents and children, imagine where we'd be.....

The secret to growing up is realizing that changing your mind is NOT a sign of weakness and then learning from your mistakes.

 

[Hollie]

1. Good little Collie....I'm so proud of you!

You saw post #117:

"Now I command you:

Be sure to use "... stutter and mumble..." in every post!!

OR ELSE!!"


After all, what kind of fanatic would you be if you couldn't take orders.
As your superior, I will be issuing other orders in the future.


2. Now...why were you afraid to provide the rest of my post?
Embarrassed?


3. Oh....I see: you're fibbing and it would have been exposed!
I never " manufactured "quotes" I used your own words....let me know if you need the link to where you actually said those things.


Heck....you're a 'double threat'! Dishonest and stoooopppidddd!

1. And here you are again, still dodging the requirement that you support your "quotes" as accurate.

2. And you cannot do so.

3. As usual, you're left to your usual tactic of snide remarks, juvenile attempts at insult and name-callling as your lies are exposed.

4. Shall we discuss your falsified "quote" from Isaacson's book? These are not just casual errors on your part but deliberate falsification.

5. I've read Isaacson's book, and I've come to expect that when you're "quoting" something, it's bound to be a lie.

Hey, Collie.....you know that I never lie, or falsify anything.

Ever.


Here's the thread where your quotes come from: [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]

I was hoping you'd claim the quotes were made up.....there's the tread.

Gotcha again, huh?




Next: "I've read Isaacson's book, and I've come to expect that when you're "quoting" something, it's bound to be a lie."

I ever provided page numbers, dunce!!

That's why you quibbled "I've come to expect" ....you didn't check the quotes, did you?


If I looked up either dishonest or stupid in the dictionary....bet your pic would be there for both.




See, that's why you should try honesty.....you wouldn't get caught lying so often.

1. As I expected, you're stuttering and mumbling in a desperate attempt to avoid accountability for your lies.

2. The book you falsely and fraudulently "quoted" from is online. You made the mistake of again, dishonestly posting fraudulent, parsed and edited "quotes" that you hoped would not go noticed. But they did.

3. How ironic that a wannabe, rabid fundie is as dishonest and fraudulent as a summer's day is long.

4. Why don't you review your "quotes", do an online search for the book you falsely and dishonestly "quoted" and get back to us with the link.

5. All the dishonesty and self-hate in the world in a single word ... fundies!

 

[Hollie]

1. Good little Collie....I'm so proud of you!

Hey, Collie.....you know that I never lie, or falsify anything.

Ever.

1. You could not be more predictable.

2. On the various occasions when your lies, falsehoods and fraudulent "quotes" have been exposed, you retreat into your usual tactic of name-calling as a defensive posture.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. And here you are again, still dodging the requirement that you support your "quotes" as accurate.

2. And you cannot do so.

3. As usual, you're left to your usual tactic of snide remarks, juvenile attempts at insult and name-callling as your lies are exposed.

4. Shall we discuss your falsified "quote" from Isaacson's book? These are not just casual errors on your part but deliberate falsification.

5. I've read Isaacson's book, and I've come to expect that when you're "quoting" something, it's bound to be a lie.

Hey, Collie.....you know that I never lie, or falsify anything.

Ever.


Here's the thread where your quotes come from: [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]

I was hoping you'd claim the quotes were made up.....there's the tread.

Gotcha again, huh?




Next: "I've read Isaacson's book, and I've come to expect that when you're "quoting" something, it's bound to be a lie."

I ever provided page numbers, dunce!!

That's why you quibbled "I've come to expect" ....you didn't check the quotes, did you?


If I looked up either dishonest or stupid in the dictionary....bet your pic would be there for both.




See, that's why you should try honesty.....you wouldn't get caught lying so often.

1. As I expected, you're stuttering and mumbling in a desperate attempt to avoid accountability for your lies.

2. The book you falsely and fraudulently "quoted" from is online. You made the mistake of again, dishonestly posting fraudulent, parsed and edited "quotes" that you hoped would not go noticed. But they did.

3. How ironic that a wannabe, rabid fundie is as dishonest and fraudulent as a summer's day is long.

4. Why don't you review your "quotes", do an online search for the book you falsely and dishonestly "quoted" and get back to us with the link.

5. All the dishonesty and self-hate in the world in a single word ... fundies!

I've come to realize that it's not your fault....you're irrational, and the mental condition is the reason you fantasize and tell falsehoods.


I can picture you answering the door when the phone rings.


Sad.


But...heck, I pity you, but that doesn't mean I won't slap you around again next time.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What the heck does any of that have to do with religious liberty or secularism?

 

[t_polkow]

Hey, Collie.....you know that I never lie, or falsify anything.

Ever.


Here's the thread where your quotes come from: [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]

I was hoping you'd claim the quotes were made up.....there's the tread.

Gotcha again, huh?




Next: "I've read Isaacson's book, and I've come to expect that when you're "quoting" something, it's bound to be a lie."

I ever provided page numbers, dunce!!

That's why you quibbled "I've come to expect" ....you didn't check the quotes, did you?


If I looked up either dishonest or stupid in the dictionary....bet your pic would be there for both.




See, that's why you should try honesty.....you wouldn't get caught lying so often.

1. As I expected, you're stuttering and mumbling in a desperate attempt to avoid accountability for your lies.

2. The book you falsely and fraudulently "quoted" from is online. You made the mistake of again, dishonestly posting fraudulent, parsed and edited "quotes" that you hoped would not go noticed. But they did.

3. How ironic that a wannabe, rabid fundie is as dishonest and fraudulent as a summer's day is long.

4. Why don't you review your "quotes", do an online search for the book you falsely and dishonestly "quoted" and get back to us with the link.

5. All the dishonesty and self-hate in the world in a single word ... fundies!

I've come to realize that it's not your fault....you're irrational, and the mental condition is the reason you fantasize and tell falsehoods.


I can picture you answering the door when the phone rings.


Sad.


But...heck, I pity you, but that doesn't mean I won't slap you around again next time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haBLjVqrrjM](1) Religion is a mental disorder - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

Hey, Collie.....you know that I never lie, or falsify anything.

Ever.


Here's the thread where your quotes come from: [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]

I was hoping you'd claim the quotes were made up.....there's the tread.

Gotcha again, huh?




Next: "I've read Isaacson's book, and I've come to expect that when you're "quoting" something, it's bound to be a lie."

I ever provided page numbers, dunce!!

That's why you quibbled "I've come to expect" ....you didn't check the quotes, did you?


If I looked up either dishonest or stupid in the dictionary....bet your pic would be there for both.




See, that's why you should try honesty.....you wouldn't get caught lying so often.

1. As I expected, you're stuttering and mumbling in a desperate attempt to avoid accountability for your lies.

2. The book you falsely and fraudulently "quoted" from is online. You made the mistake of again, dishonestly posting fraudulent, parsed and edited "quotes" that you hoped would not go noticed. But they did.

3. How ironic that a wannabe, rabid fundie is as dishonest and fraudulent as a summer's day is long.

4. Why don't you review your "quotes", do an online search for the book you falsely and dishonestly "quoted" and get back to us with the link.

5. All the dishonesty and self-hate in the world in a single word ... fundies!

I've come to realize that it's not your fault....you're irrational, and the mental condition is the reason you fantasize and tell falsehoods.


I can picture you answering the door when the phone rings.


Sad.


But...heck, I pity you, but that doesn't mean I won't slap you around again next time.

Not surprisingly, you won't admit to your lies and falsehoods. What a shame that the rabid fundie is perfectly fine with lies and false "quotes".



It's also not surprising that you're reduced to juvenile and snide remarks in desperate attempts to side-step accountability for falsely and dishonestly "quoting" material.



But in reality, your only goal is to attain and feverishly defend your delusional claim
to an entitlement to lies, fraud and dishonesty. We have all have seen your sad,
diseased meanderings in this thread and a similar thread where you posted fraudulent "quotes".

It is almost painful to witness. But also risible and comical.

 

[koshergrl]

The OP'er is blathering on with the same nonsense about the US being a "Christian nation".

This thread is simply a reiteration of a similar nonsense thread making the same nonsense claims.

Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments

James Madison

[1785]

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

We are rooted in Christian Principles, which include separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state is wholly American.

Running away from state-run and state sanctioned Christianity was one of the reasons America came in to being.

Bullshit. Freedom to practice Christianity without state interference was the reason America came into being....however the Danbury Baptists i their compelling argument AGAINST state religion, based upon scripture and Christian tenets, are the reason we have separation of church and state. The Puritans did not object to Christianity. They objected to being persecuted for practicing their own brand publicly.

 

[AVG-JOE]

We are rooted in Christian Principles, which include separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state is wholly American.

Running away from state-run and state sanctioned Christianity was one of the reasons America came in to being.

Bullshit. Freedom to practice Christianity without state interference was the reason America came into being....however the Danbury Baptists i their compelling argument AGAINST state religion, based upon scripture and Christian tenets, are the reason we have separation of church and state. The Puritans did not object to Christianity. They objected to being persecuted for practicing their own brand publicly.

Stories which support my claim that separation of church and state is wholly an American concept and is not "rooted in Christian principle".

 

[Newby]

Why did the pilgrims risk their lives to come here? Religious freedom. There was no "America" or "American Concept" at that time. It evolved from people realizing that it was a new land where many who were religiously persecuted came to escape it and devised a plan to ensure that religious persecution did not take hold here as well.

 

[Hollie]

Why did the pilgrims risk their lives to come here? Religious freedom. There was no "America" or "American Concept" at that time. It evolved from people realizing that it was a new land where many who were religiously persecuted came to escape it and devised a plan to ensure that religious persecution did not take hold here as well.

That was some plan they had. Too bad the religious (Christian) enclaves established by the pilgrims were just as intolerant as Christians are today. The pilgrims hanged Quakers, catholics were vilified by protestants, etc.

How strange that the Greeks never burned women at the stake for being witches.

 

[pinqy]

Why did the pilgrims risk their lives to come here? Religious freedom. There was no "America" or "American Concept" at that time. It evolved from people realizing that it was a new land where many who were religiously persecuted came to escape it and devised a plan to ensure that religious persecution did not take hold here as well.

1636: Banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for sedition and heresy (preaching separation of church and state and objecting to religious laws), Roger Williams, along with other dissidents banished from Massachussets for their religious beliefs, founded the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

The Massachussets Bay Colony and the Plymouth Colony in no way practiced or allowed religious freedom and most certainly persecuted those who disagreed.

Several of the Colonies/States had religious tests for office, both before and after the US Constitution was ratified (though they mostly were removed during the 19th century). Pennsylvania and later Virginia had religious freedom but most were pretty restrictive.

Also of interest is Maryland. Founded with religious tolerance, and with Catholics in many key positions, a Puritan revolution in 1650 outlawed both Catholicism and Anglicanism and all Catholic churches were burned. When the Puritans were defeated in 1658, toleration began again, but in 1686 Catholicism was again outlawed.

It's ridiculous to claim that America had freedom of religion before the Constitution....there was great concern about Article VI which forbids religious tests for office.

 

[t_polkow]

1. As I expected, you're stuttering and mumbling in a desperate attempt to avoid accountability for your lies.

2. The book you falsely and fraudulently "quoted" from is online. You made the mistake of again, dishonestly posting fraudulent, parsed and edited "quotes" that you hoped would not go noticed. But they did.

3. How ironic that a wannabe, rabid fundie is as dishonest and fraudulent as a summer's day is long.

4. Why don't you review your "quotes", do an online search for the book you falsely and dishonestly "quoted" and get back to us with the link.

5. All the dishonesty and self-hate in the world in a single word ... fundies!

I've come to realize that it's not your fault....you're irrational, and the mental condition is the reason you fantasize and tell falsehoods.


I can picture you answering the door when the phone rings.


Sad.


But...heck, I pity you, but that doesn't mean I won't slap you around again next time.

Not surprisingly, you won't admit to your lies and falsehoods. What a shame that the rabid fundie is perfectly fine with lies and false "quotes".



It's also not surprising that you're reduced to juvenile and snide remarks in desperate attempts to side-step accountability for falsely and dishonestly "quoting" material.



But in reality, your only goal is to attain and feverishly defend your delusional claim
to an entitlement to lies, fraud and dishonesty. We have all have seen your sad,
diseased meanderings in this thread and a similar thread where you posted fraudulent "quotes".

It is almost painful to witness. But also risible and comical.

Some Christians are very good at it:Lying for Jesus is a form of pious fraud which happens when some Christians believe that falsifying information is acceptable if that brings people to Jesus.
The practice has a long and venerable history in the Christian religions.