Atheist Invokes Mother Earth, Zeus, Satan, Krishna During City Commission ‘Prayer’

SmithLAKE WORTH, Fla. — An atheist recently led a Florida commission meeting in “prayer” to a variety of entities from across the spectrum of religions, invoking the names of Mother Earth, Allah, Zeus, Satan and Krishna in addition to Jesus.

As Preston Smith stepped to the podium to deliver the invocation on Dec. 2, a number of commissioners stepped out of the room so they would not be participants in what was about to take place. Mayor Mayor Pam Triolo also left the room as well, but told local television station WPTV that she did not do so because Smith is an atheist, but rather because he had mocked Scripture on Twitter earlier this year and did not wish to hear what he might say next.

“Free speech works both ways,” Triolo told the outlet. “You can say what you want and I can choose to leave.”

As Smith observed the mayor and three commissioners leave the room, he commented, “Duly noted,” and then proceeded with his statements.

“Our collective atheism, which is to say, loving empathy, scientific evidence, and critical thinking, leads us to believe that we can create a better, more equal community without religious divisions,” he said. “May we pray together.”

“Mother Earth, we gather today in your redeeming and glorious presence, to invoke your eternal guidance in the universe, the original Creator of all things,” Smith begins his invocation. “May the efforts of this council blend the righteousness of Allah with the all-knowing wisdom of Satan.”

“May Zeus, the great God of justice, grant us strength tonight. Jesus might forgive our shortcomings while Buddha enlightens us through His divine affection,” he continued. “We praise you, Krishna, for the sanguine sacrifice that freed us all. After all, if Almighty Thor is with us, who can ever be against us?”

  • Connect with Christian News

Smith then scorned the concept of Heaven and Hell and urged adherence to humanistic attempts to define right from wrong.

“And finally, for the bounty of logic, reason, and science, we simply thank the atheists, agnostics, Humanists, who now account for one in five Americans, and [are] growing rapidly,” he stated. “In closing, let us, above all, love one another, not to obtain mythical rewards for ourselves now, hereafter, or based on superstitious threats of eternal damnation, but rather, embrace secular-based principles of morality —and do good for goodness’ sake.”

“And so we pray,” Smith concluded. “So what?”

After discussion ensued in the days that followed about those that chose to walk out on the invocation, atheist and blogger Chaz Stevens, known for erecting a Festivus Pole made of beer cans at the Florida Capitol Rotunda, submitted a request to lead a prayer to Satan at a future meeting.

“My name is Chaz Stevens, father of the Pabst Blue Ribbon Festivus Pole,” he wrote. “I’d like permission to give a Satanic, yes Satan, invocation at an upcoming City Commission meeting. Everyone is welcome to sing along, or as is the recent case when Miami atheist activist Preston Smith gave the invocation, like Elvis, they can leave the building.”

Some believe that the atheists are seeking to present these types of invocations at commission and council meetings to make a point that if Christian prayers are allowed, all other religions must be given time as well.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Gary

    This is what happens when elected and appointed officials go insane. Their insanity leads them to let a person like this “lead in prayer”. Need some new officials.

    • Randy Wanat

      Or, you know, eliminate the invocation. Open the door and all must be allowed. But, if you think only certain religious ideas should be represented, you can ask the Supreme Court what they think of that.

    • Mike

      They did not “let him” they are bound by the Constitution, legally they have to no matter what they believe themselves.

  • TheBBP

    No time should be given to someone who is clearly there for the sole purpose of making a mockery of the proceeding and to take direct stabs at religion itself. He was there to make a scene, not to respect the process.

    • Bill

      I absolutely agree.

    • KDC

      So you want to silence descending opinions?

      • jmichael39

        “descending”? This has nothing to do with a dissenting position. This person wants to argue that NO prayer should be spoken to any deity at these meetings, he’s free to do so…and apparently already did. But this is not “dissenting”…this pure unadulterated intolerant mockery.

        • KDC

          dis·sent: hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed.

          Tell me why an atheist shouldn’t be able to express his opinion via a prayer? Why can’t he pray to gods he doesn’t believe in?

          • jmichael39

            Who’s he praying to? What deity? He doesn’t believe in the existence of any deities, yet he’s praying to one? That is the purest form of mockery. And if you don’t see that then you’re not as much of a rationalist as you likely think you are. Its actually hugely funny that you would believe in a worldview that can never be proven true. The existence of God is more likely to be proved than the non-existence of any god could ever be proved. And you think we’re the irrational ones. Yeah, that’s the sound of YOU being mocked now.

        • Randy Wanat

          So, only religious ideas you like should be allowed. Gotcha.

          • James Grimes

            Absolutely! You have it 100% correct.

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

            Duly noted.

            Sorry, couldn’t resist.

          • jmichael39

            Where did you learn logic? at the Rocko Columbo School for Village Idiots?

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            There is no religious idea where it concerns an atheist. Gotcha 2.

        • Mike

          Why was it mockery? Please elaborate? Was it only mockery because you think religious invocations should only be reserved for Christians? You do realize there are like 2,000 other religions in the world right? Christians actually only make up 32% of the world population and that number is drastically falling, especially now in the last ten years as we are in an “age of information”.

          • jmichael39

            Who’s he praying to? What deity? He doesn’t believe in the existence of any deities, yet he’s praying to one? That is the purest form of mockery. And if you don’t see that then you’re not as much of a rationalist as you likely think you are. Its actually hugely funny that you would believe in a worldview that can never be proven true. The existence of God is more likely to be proved than the non-existence of any god could ever be proved. Where’s the scientific evidence for the non-existence of any god? Oh that’s right, it logically foolish to try to prove a negative. And yet, your entire world view is based upon that negative. And you think we’re the irrational ones. LMAO!!! Yeah, that’s the sound of YOU being mocked now.

          • Santa

            >>“Who’s he praying to? What deity? He doesn’t believe in
            the existence of any deities, yet he’s praying to one? That is the
            purest form of mockery. “

            It isn’t about mocking religion, it is about equality. You
            simply don’t like that he is praying to gods other than Yahweh. You are
            perfectly free to not like it, but to say he shouldn’t be able to do it
            is taking away his right to be represented.

            It doesn’t matter if you are offended by it or not. People
            need to be represented regardless of religious beliefs. Personally I don’t
            mind prayer, but there are atheists who are offended by believers
            praying to gods just as must as believers are offended by an atheist
            praying to gods the atheists don’t believe in.

            For instance Mike (in the comments below) is insulted by believers praying to gods. He thinks praying to gods is a “mockery of logic and reason.”

            >>“And yet, your entire world view is based upon that negative. And you
            think we’re the irrational ones. LMAO!!! Yeah, that’s the sound of YOU
            being mocked now.”

            I’m not debating who is more justified, that is irrelevant to this conversation.

          • jmichael39

            equality of what? He got his equal time. What did he do with it? He mocked other religions. Is that REALLY what you want equal time to do? Is that REALLY the message you want your religion to project? Seriously?

          • Santa

            Again for instance Mike (in the comments below) is insulted by believers praying to gods. He thinks praying to gods is a “mockery of logic and reason.” Do you see how Mike being offended is irrelevant to your equal right to be represented? It seems like you aren’t comprehending this point.

          • jmichael39

            First, where in my comments below did I say anything about being offended. If anything I’m sitting here laughing hysterically at the vanity of your attempts to actually defend this guys mockery.

            Second, your fellow ‘atheist’ wasn’t praying to any god. He was mocking praying to those gods. Not the same thing. Logic and reason would have told you that, if you had any.

            Third, “Do you see how Mike being offended is irrelevant to your equal right to be represented?” – the hilarity of your hypocrisy is mind blowing. Do you know how many times people of faith are silenced by atheists being ‘offended’ by our prayers or bible verses or crosses? Get a grip on your asinine world view, little one. Believing in the non-existence of something is utterly and completely irrational and illogical

          • Santa

            If you aren’t offended, why are you upset about this supposed “mocking”? You are contradicting yourself.

            >>”Second, your fellow ‘atheist’ wasn’t praying to any god. He was mocking praying to those gods. Not the same thing. Logic and reason would have told you that, if you had any.”

            Again, you simply aren’t grasping this. The fact that you view it as mocking is irrelevant. What if I thought you praying to a fantasy friend is mocking reason? Is this any reason you should lose your right to be represented in an invocation speech?

            >>” Do you know how many times people of faith are silenced by atheists being ‘offended’ by our prayers or bible verses or crosses?”

            Most of the time it is because we prefer state and religion separate, and if you must have religious stuff in state buildings, we want equal chance to be represented. It is what this whole conversation is about. If you are being silenced from independently praying, worshiping in public, I will stand up for your right to do so, as would most atheists. I recommend you contact the ACLU, they will most certainly take interest if this is happening.

          • Mike

            God is not proven either way…. You simply believe because you were raised to believe. You have never actually experienced any of the phenomena in the Bible for yourself but you choose to believe. Atheists have never witnessed any of the phenomena in the Bible for themselves and we choose not to believe. We are in fact both correct. God both exists and does not exist at the exact same time. It’s called quantum superposition. All realities must exist at the same time until one reality is proven to be correct.

            Also, it wasn’t a mockery as he was not insulting in any way. He named most of the major deities and what they are known for. I did not see anywhere that he made a joke out of anyone’s religion. It’s funny that the Christians are the only ones complaining.

          • jmichael39

            “You simply believe because you were raised to believe.” – its logically fallacious for you to speak to why I believe there is a God. You don’t know me. You have no clue why I, or anyone else, believes in the existence of God.

            Belief is merely the mind analyzing the available data for something and deciding that the preponderance of the evidence leads them to believe one option vs. another option.

            “You have never actually experienced any of the phenomena in the Bible for yourself ” – Again, assuming that you know anything about what I’ve experienced. You have no clue what I’ve experienced. But let’s play a little game. Let’s take one of the bible experiences you’re referring to. Just one. But its a big one. Its SO big that even one of the authors of several of the NT books claims it is the fundamental pillar upon which ALL of Christianity sits. The Resurrection of Jesus. Paul tells us that if there is no resurrection of Jesus then Christianity is over…gone…done with. See for yourself in I Corinthians 15.

            So, why not go through the evidence (or at least some of it) for the resurrection and you tell ME what the most logical and rational conclusion is that we can make. You game? You think you can take on the most vital dogma of all of Christianity and defeat it? Seriously, if there is no resurrection of Jesus then no Christian has any right to believe anything else in the Bible. Give it shot…take a chance.

            Now on to the rest of your post:

            “Atheists have never witnessed any of the phenomena in the Bible for themselves and we choose not to believe.” – have you ever experience Nepal? I haven’t. So it must not exist. A person in a coma can’t experience much of anything. So nothing must exist so long as they’re in that coma. Your logic is actually that flawed. In other words you can never remotely claim to have experienced all things at all times. All you can claim is that YOU have not experienced them. To choose to base an entire world on your lack of experiencing something is likely the most irrational thing I’ve ever heard of. And yet, you’re one of those who likely think rationalism is the end all be all.

            “God both exists and does not exist at the exact same time. It’s called quantum superposition.” – ah, the old self-deification theorem…the idea that God exists only in our minds. This is not a new argument, Mike. Anselm dealt with it in the 11th Century.

            Rather than re-invent the wheel here for you to read, here’s a reasonable good article on the subject.

            http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/armchair-proof-of-existence-of-god/

            “Also, it wasn’t a mockery as he was not insulting in any way.” – once again you can’t seem to get past your own sense of self-importance. First, mockery has nothing to do with insults. One of the primary definitions of “mockery” is “a derisive, imitative action or speech.” What that man did there is nothing BUT “a derisive, imitative action or speech.”.

            Second, whether someone or anyone takes that as an insult is a completely different issue.
            Third, multiple hundreds of cases around the country have arisen over the past half century centered around atheists being insulted or offended by someone else praying or by bible verses on national monuments or crosses. So take a deep breath, step down from your self-appointed moral high ground, dust the hypocrisy off your shoulders and get back to the issue at hand.

          • James Grimes

            The Atheists are pretty arrogant, aren’t they? In the end, they really don’t know much of anything about God, God’s plan for their lives, and eternal life. Not that any of these things mean much to them. They are going to live their miserable lives under a false assumption of NOTHINGNESS.

          • Mike

            Arrogant? It is pretty arrogant to call an Atheist arrogant in one breath and then assume we will live regretful and miserable lives just because we do not believe in your fairy tales. I live my life in a way that makes me happy and brings glory to myself. It’s not a miserable life at all…. I have no regret and on my deathbed I will regret nothing. Do not assume that just because your feeble mind cannot fathom a life without your God doesn’t mean we are all like you.

            We do not have false assumptions, faith itself is a false assumption based on nothing. Our beliefs are rooted deep within the evidence provided. How much research was done in the Bible? How many scientists helped write it….. That’s right, none! If scientists did help write it they wouldn’t describe a stars falling out of the sky in a future apocalypse, they would have known that stars were billions of light years away!

          • James Grimes

            Yes, it is arrogance. In your own words, what is it about the Lord Jesus Christ that your feeble mind cannot comprehend?

          • Mike

            That he was a historically real person. There is no evidence to suggest he was…. What doesn’t your feeble mind get about facts and evidence?!

          • James Grimes

            You’re still very arrogant and a nuisance. Please don’t respond to me again with your Atheist nonsense.

          • Mike

            It’s called freedom of speech, you’re on a public forum. What doesn’t your feeble mind understand about the Constitution?!

          • Mike

            You worship a baby killer….. and I’m nonsensical?

          • Mike
          • James Grimes

            CREEPY. I am being stalked again by the Atheist MIKE. He has some serious issues that he’s trying to lay on me. I’m not interested.

          • Mike

            Well I guess it is time for a new religion for you then. Apparently you have not researched all available data before coming to your “logical” conclusion of belief. Not only is there absolutely no historical evidence to suggest Jesus Christ even existed but the resurrection was added much later than the original Bible. There has been over 14,000+ editorial changes since the Bible was first pieced together and transcribed by the Sinai monks in 350 CE.

            http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/A_glaring_omission_in_World%E2%80%99s_oldest_Bible/

          • jmichael39

            LMAO. So now you’re going to try to pretend to be an expert in textual criticism? Fine, lets take a look at the Sinai Bible. It actually DOES include the resurrection account. What it does not include are some of HIs appearances after His resurrection. And the other three Gospels also include the resurrection account. Would you to see copies of it? I can help you find it.

            As for your asinine claim that there is ‘absolutely no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ even existed”, there are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus’ death which mention his existence and record many events of his life.

            9 Traditional New Testament Authors – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.

            20 Early Christian Writers Outside the New Testament – Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum.

            4 Heretical Writings – Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection.

            9 Secular Sources – Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.
            Last issue…- really, 14000 textual variations to the bible? Do you have a clue what you’re talking about? Do you know ANYTHING about textual criticism? Do you know that the vast majority of those textual variations are things like spelling a word slightly differently (like you or I might accidentally spell “accidentally” as “accidentally”), Of the remaining textual variations, almost all are of such slight insignificance that they have literally no effect upon the doctrines of Christianity. The remaining 1/10th of one percent of the variations are easily and definitively reparable simply because there are so many manuscripts from which to work. In other words, the textual integrity of the NT is, by far, more affirmed than any other historic document EVER, by a wide distance…simply because there are so many manuscripts from which textual critics can work.

            Just in case you missed them, there were several questions in this post for you to answer. Let’s see if you do. It IS fun watching you try to make your arguments, Mike. You’re not really very good at it, but it IS fun.

          • Mike

            Please by all means… cite sources! It’s a little thing called proof… a concept you Christians cannot seem to grasp.

          • jmichael39

            Sources for which part, Mike? The 42 historical sources for the existence of Jesus? I already did. Try refuting them.

            Or sources about the Sinai Bible? Try reading the actual Sinai bible for yourself…there’s your source.

            Oh, and try taking a class or two on textual criticism. You do know what that is, right?

            Or perhaps you’re wanting some reference to 14000 textual variations in the NT is not such a problem.

            Here’s a nice article that explains much of this issue: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2093

            And here is just a small portion of this article for you to review. You’ll forgive me for the long quote…since I highly doubt you’re one to actually read articles like the one this quote comes from.

            “Twenty-first-century Christians can be confident that the New Testament has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries in large part because of the vast amount of manuscript evidence in existence today, some of which goes back to the early second century A.D. When F.F. Bruce published the sixth edition of his classic book The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? in 1981, he noted that “there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part” (p. 10). Nearly 25 years later, Michael Welte of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Munster, Germany, indicated that the number of Greek manuscripts stood at 5,748 (2005). This number represents a far greater body of manuscripts than is known to exist for any other ancient volume (cf. Westcott and Hort, 1964, p. 565; Ewert, 1983, p. 139; Kenyon, 1951, p. 5). For example, The Histories of Herodotus, Caesar’s Gallic Wars, and the Annals of Tacitus, three well-known and oft’-quoted ancient historical works, are backed by a combined total of 38 manuscripts (Geisler and Nix, p. 408). The most documented book of antiquity next to the New Testament is Homer’s Iliad. Some 643 manuscripts of the Iliad are in existence today (p. 475), which is still 5,000 less than the number of extant copies of the New Testament.”

            “Equally impressive as the number of manuscripts of the New Testament in existence is the age of the manuscripts. Whereas the extant copies of Plato, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, and many others are separated from the time these men wrote by 1,000 years, manuscript evidence for the New Testament reaches as far back as the early second century, and possibly earlier. In The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, a 700-page volume edited by Philip Comfort and David Barrett, more than 60 of the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts are transcribed (2001). Many photographs of these early manuscripts (the originals of which are housed in museums throughout the world) also are contained in the book. In the introduction, Comfort and Barrett state: “All of the manuscripts [contained in the book—EL] are dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)” (p. 17). In fact, “[s]everal of the most significant papyri date from the middle of the second century” and thus “provide the earliest direct witness to the New Testament autographs” (p. 18). They even suggest that “it is possible that some of the manuscripts thought to be of the early second century are actually manuscripts of the late first” (p. 23). Thus, we can have great confidence in the transmission of the New Testament, not only because of the great number of extant copies, but because of how closely these manuscripts date to the time when the autographs were written.”

            “The ancient versions of the New Testament (e.g., Old Syriac, Old Latin, Coptic, etc.), as well as the “more than 36,000 patristic citations containing almost every verse of the New Testament” (Geisler and Nix, p. 467). Non-inspired Christian writings from the first few centuries (by men such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and many others) are saturated with quotations from the New Testament apostles and prophets. “Indeed, so extensive are these citations,” wrote the eminent New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger, “that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone in reconstructing practically the entire New Testament” (1968, p. 86). These witnesses, along with the ancient versions, speak voluminously on behalf of the integrity of the Bible’s transmission.”

            “Is there ample evidence from surviving manuscripts, versions, and early quotations of the New Testament documents that indicates the New Testament is essentially the same today as it was in the first century? Most certainly. The former director of the British Museum, Sir Frederic Kenyon, summed up the matter: “The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries” (as quoted in Lightfoot, 2003, p. 126).”
            Is that enough citations for you, MIke? Or would like a letter directly the Apostle affirming these things?

          • Mike
          • jmichael39

            How quaint, you can post a link? what exactly is your argument, Mike? What are you trying to do? You’re looking really foolish now.

          • Mike

            A simple link with information that trumps everything you said….

          • jmichael39

            really, Mike? Why don’t you explain to us exactly how.

            Gees. Mike..seriously. You’re really going to base you’re entire argument here on a Wikipedia article and won’t even tell us what exactly is being said there that proves your argument?

            Well, I shouldn’t be surprised. Any man who’ll base his entire worldview on a self-refuting negative proposition, surely is too stupid to actually argue his way out of a paperbag.

          • Mike

            I am not going to copy everything from the link I provided… The information is there. Although, Theists deny reality for their fantasy so I can see why you are not reading the info for yourself.

          • jmichael39

            Copy the pertinent parts…if there are any. Come on, Mike…Surely your answer to everything I’ve presented isn’t a Wikipedia link and nothing else. YOu honestly have no idea what the hell you’re doing, do you?

          • Mike

            You can’t admit defeat but it’s ok….. Oh did you see my link about scientists re-animating dead flesh? With cloning technology and the fact that we can now create cells in a lab, and reverse the process of aging in mice, we are very close to re-animating a dead human. When that happens you will see that there is no God, or maybe you won’t, but who really cares what you think anyhow?! lol.

          • jmichael39

            Talk about straw men….re-animating dead flesh…seriously.
            Defeat? Obviously you still haven’t read my posts. Or you wouldn’t even be here.

          • Mike

            Oh sorry I forgot you need everything spelled out in crayon. Earlier you stated that we cannot lay a cadaver on a table and pump it full of blood and it comes back to life. That giving life to dead flesh would be only something God can do…. Well, not anymore!

          • jmichael39

            I never said that anywhere. Show me where I said that, Mike. Come on. Show me.

          • Mike

            You’re just a pigeon playing chess…..

          • jmichael39

            And like all those before you who come to sites like this to troll you asinine atheists worldview, you now revert to little more than vitriol. Piss off, Mike. You lost this time. Come back again when you’re actually ready to do your research and present an actual argument.

          • Mike
          • jmichael39

            Still waiting for answers to questions, MIke. You’re not answering questions. You’re not even making the simplest of efforts to even refute a thing. You’re gonna have to try at least a little Mike. You’re stating to look like a buffoon.

          • Mike

            Your argument has no proof, there is simply nothing to say to refute your delusional thinking. Information is only good for the people that will take that information and learn from it, you are a typical Theist though, you reject facts for faith. These links contain my argument against you, if you do not read the information that is your problem not mine.

            “Everyone is born stupid, but it takes great effort to remain ignorant”
            ~Benjamin Franklin~

          • jmichael39

            OH BS…There is more data and information in my single post than you’ve presented in ALL your posts combined. So put up or shut up. Refute the material presented or piss off. You’ve jumped into the deep end of the pool…sink or swim or get the hell out of the pool and let someone with a real brain in.

          • Mike

            A bunch of people copying throughout history what some 42 people had originally made-up is not proof at all. Also, what are you trying to prove again exactly? You just straw manned this whole subject. You’re like playing chess with a pigeon, you just knocked over the pieces, sh*t on the board and are strutting around like you won…. lol!

            The original or oldest known Bible is real, does not contain the original resurrection and compared with Bibles today over 14,000 editorial changes have been made. That is fact! That is all I have to say about it…. I don’t have to ramble on and on and on…..

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…prove I’m straw-manning you. Even IF I were straw-manning you, you’re straw manning all the time, so spare us your self imposed moral high ground.

            I’ve already addressed your Sinai bible argument. The Gospel of Mark, in the Sinai Bible, is the only Gospel that doesn’t mention the resurrection. The other three do. And I also presented more than sufficient argument regarding how textual criticism addresses even the Gospel of Mark issue.

            Calling what I’ve presented a straw man argument doesn’t refute an iota of the material presented. Nor does simply repeating your fallacious claim about the Sinai Bible.

            I stand by my post.. Either refute the data presented or buzz off.

          • Mike

            I see no links in your reply….. prove it!

          • Mike

            “familiar — very important — passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus”

            http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/

          • Mike

            “Mark ends abruptly after Jesus’s disciples discover his empty tomb –
            omitting the 12 verses on the appearance of the resurrected Christ – and
            leaving the disciples exiting in fear.”

            http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/the-big-question-what-is-the-codex-sinaiticus-and-what-does-it-reveal-about-the-bible-1734439.html

          • jmichael39

            STILL WAITING FOR REBUTTALS TO THIS, MIKE

            Sources for which part, Mike? The 42 historical sources for the existence of Jesus? I already did. Try refuting them.

            Or sources about the Sinai Bible? Try reading the actual Sinai bible for yourself…there’s your source.

            Oh, and try taking a class or two on textual criticism. You do know what that is, right?

            Or perhaps you’re wanting some reference to 14000 textual variations in the NT is not such a problem.

            Here’s a nice article that explains much of this issue: http://www.apologeticspress.or

            And here is just a small portion of this article for you to review. You’ll forgive me for the long quote…since I highly doubt you’re one to actually read articles like the one this quote comes from.

            “Twenty-first-century Christians can be confident that the New Testament has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries in large part because of the vast amount of manuscript evidence in existence today, some of which goes back to the early second century A.D. When F.F. Bruce published the sixth edition of his classic book The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? in 1981, he noted that “there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part” (p. 10). Nearly 25 years later, Michael Welte of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Munster, Germany, indicated that the number of Greek manuscripts stood at 5,748 (2005). This number represents a far greater body of manuscripts than is known to exist for any other ancient volume (cf. Westcott and Hort, 1964, p. 565; Ewert, 1983, p. 139; Kenyon, 1951, p. 5). For example, The Histories of Herodotus, Caesar’s Gallic Wars, and the Annals of Tacitus, three well-known and oft’-quoted ancient historical works, are backed by a combined total of 38 manuscripts (Geisler and Nix, p. 408). The most documented book of antiquity next to the New Testament is Homer’s Iliad. Some 643 manuscripts of the Iliad are in existence today (p. 475), which is still 5,000 less than the number of extant copies of the New Testament.”

            “Equally impressive as the number of manuscripts of the New Testament in existence is the age of the manuscripts. Whereas the extant copies of Plato, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, and many others are separated from the time these men wrote by 1,000 years, manuscript evidence for the New Testament reaches as far back as the early second century, and possibly earlier. In The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, a 700-page volume edited by Philip Comfort and David Barrett, more than 60 of the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts are transcribed (2001). Many photographs of these early manuscripts (the originals of which are housed in museums throughout the world) also are contained in the book. In the introduction, Comfort and Barrett state: “All of the manuscripts [contained in the book—EL] are dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)” (p. 17). In fact, “[s]everal of the most significant papyri date from the middle of the second century” and thus “provide the earliest direct witness to the New Testament autographs” (p. 18). They even suggest that “it is possible that some of the manuscripts thought to be of the early second century are actually manuscripts of the late first” (p. 23). Thus, we can have great confidence in the transmission of the New Testament, not only because of the great number of extant copies, but because of how closely these manuscripts date to the time when the autographs were written.”

            “The ancient versions of the New Testament (e.g., Old Syriac, Old Latin, Coptic, etc.), as well as the “more than 36,000 patristic citations containing almost every verse of the New Testament” (Geisler and Nix, p. 467). Non-inspired Christian writings from the first few centuries (by men such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and many others) are saturated with quotations from the New Testament apostles and prophets. “Indeed, so extensive are these citations,” wrote the eminent New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger, “that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone in reconstructing practically the entire New Testament” (1968, p. 86). These witnesses, along with the ancient versions, speak voluminously on behalf of the integrity of the Bible’s transmission.”

            “Is there ample evidence from surviving manuscripts, versions, and early quotations of the New Testament documents that indicates the New Testament is essentially the same today as it was in the first century? Most certainly. The former director of the British Museum, Sir Frederic Kenyon, summed up the matter: “The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries” (as quoted in Lightfoot, 2003, p. 126).”

            Is that enough citations for you, MIke? Or would like a letter directly the Apostle affirming these things?

          • Mike

            I’m sure God did not approve of the 14,000 editorial changes in the Bible! You believe in an easily editable lie…..

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…take a class on textual criticism, moron…then get back to me about this. Until then, I deeply encourage you keep going. You’re doing such a magnificent job of making yourself look like a fool.

          • jmichael39

            Okay, let’s do this the RIGHT way, Mike. Since you’re too naïve or arrogant to do your own research here it is. While MANY the Sinai Bible is the earliest FULL version of the bible (meaning it contains all 66 books as authorized by the councils of trent and nicea), the manuscript we have of that earliest version is by no means complete. There are numerous verses and sections missing from the MANUSCRIPT in the British Museum. You can often see whole sections missing from the manuscript itself. Just because several verses from the middle of a particular chapter are missing does not mean those verses were not part of the original (in tact) version of the manuscript.

            Mark 16 is one such section. Verse 1 is seen, but not the rest of the chapter. While illogical morons like you might assume that means the entirety of the resurrection account wasn’t even part of the original manuscript, there is absolutely no logic justification for making that conclusion.

            Add to that, the reality that the resurrection account IS included in the Gospel of Matthew in the same transcript, only serves to validate my original argument that your case for there being no resurrection in the earliest full bible we have is refuted and unsubstantiated.

            http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33&chapter=28&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

            (see Matt. 28 on the website showing the actual manuscript)

            http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=35&chapter=24&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

            (see Luke 24 on the same website)

            http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&chapter=21&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

            (and see John 21 on the same website)

            NOW…If I remember correctly, you brought up the Sinai Bible in your attempt to refute the resurrection of Jesus…claiming that even the earliest complete bible didn’t contain the Resurrection account. That it was, somehow, added later. And therefore, there was not resurrection.

            However, as I have stated from the beginning of your presentation of the Sinai Bible, and have now undeniably proven, whether the Sinai Bible ever had the remaining portions of Mark 16 (and its resurrection account) is debatable, but it is undeniable that the other three gospels DO contain the full versions of the Resurrection account.
            Add to that the fact that Jewish historian Josephus also includes a reference to the resurrection account in his writings. While Josephus was no contemporary or eyewitness to the Resurrection, as the disciples were, his account does come long before the Sinai Bible manuscripts.
            Therefore, my original challenge still stands. Would you or would you not like to attempt to challenge the resurrection of Jesus? If so, I’m ready to debate. If not, I accept your withdraw from this debate.

          • Mike

            Come to think of it… You have not posted one single link to back up any of the BS in any of your comments….. I have provided you with multiple links!

          • jmichael39

            Come to think of it. READ AGAIN…moron.

          • Mike

            “i’m not going to provide link after link for you to just sit there and say it is from a biased Christian source, i’ve been down that road before”

            Sound familiar?!

          • Mike

            You have not provided any links… Am I just supposed to take your word for it?! I am not the type that buys snake oil like you, show me proof.

          • Mike

            I do not have to be an expert in textual criticism. There are many experts that do that already. Many experts have examined the Sinai Bible and have all come to the same conclusion… There was no resurrection.

            http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm

          • jmichael39

            ALL come to that conclusion. LMAO…You certainly don’t know how to count. Do some more research, Mike. You’re making a fool of yourself.

          • Mike

            You believe in talking snakes and Unicorns and I am the fool?! lol

          • jmichael39

            Ah, the old unicorn argument. You might like to know that there actually are single horned animals in the world…including the now extinct Aurochs. In other words only morons would think that ‘unicorns’ are merely mythical horses with a horn. Come on, Mike….come up with something new. Geez…is that REALLY the best you’ve got?

          • Mike

            I see you didn’t address the talking snake! I have nevcer seen a snake talk, have you?…. you may want to keep that to yourself!

            How about explain why there are no Dinosaurs in the Bible…. That should be easy for you right? Since you’re a self-proclaimed Biblical expert!

          • jmichael39

            So because you’ve never seen a snake talk, then that mean it can’t happen? Wow…I never knew that every fact and reality had to pass by you for validation. No wonder why you believe in the fairy tail known as atheism.

            First I never once said I am a biblical expert. But having a degree in biblical literature makes me a helluva lot more of an expert than you’ll ever be. Second, I’m not sure why its such a difficult thing for you to understand why dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible when they didn’t exist at the time the books of Bible were being written. The writers had no more understanding of what a dinosaur was than you seem to have of what an unicorn actually is. There was no Hebrew word for it. Even though there were Hebrew words for “dragon” and they had early writings (Job and Genesis) about sea “monsters”. But again, the reverse of what I said in my first paragraph is true here too. The bible does not have to speak of something for it to be real. The purpose of the Bible is not provide you or me with a lexicon of every reality that has ever existed on this earth. Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible doesn’t mean it never existed, nor does it invalidate the Bible. It merely represents the reality that not everything that’s ever existed is mentioned in the Bible. You great grand mother is never mentioned in the Bible…the doesn’t preclude her from having existed nor invalidate the Bible.

          • Mike

            So Harry Potter must exist because London is a real place right?!

          • jmichael39

            Why do you put yourself out as some supposed rationalist when you can’t present a logical argument to same your life. Rowling’s books were written with the intent of being fiction and never attempted to present Harry Potter as a real person. The Bible contains many forms of writing, from poetry to historic. The people presented in the bible and the events are presented as real. When something in the Bible is presented as non-real (such as parables), it is identified as or obviously such. You want to refute that you’ll have to provide REAL evidence to back that claim.

          • Mike

            And you think that the Bible was written to be a reality….. Please tell me rationally how two of every living thing could possibly fit on a tiny boat?!

          • Mike

            You missed my point…. When Theists are told that there is no historical evidence to back up anything in the Bible they always move to the fact that Rome and Egypt are real places so the Bible is historically true, just because it contains a bit of real history and real events.

            Harry Potter also contains things that are historically true amidst a bunch of supernatural fiction, same as the Bible.

            Uggghhhh it’s really frustrating that you are not as smart as you think you are. I really hate having to dumb things down.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO..I’ve never once used that argument. SO why the heck would you impose it upon me. I don’t give a rat’s behind what argument you think others have made over time. I’ve never made that argument and it is utterly irrelevant to this debate. GOT IT?

          • Mike

            Ancient Greeks were digging up Dinosaur bones long before Christianity existed…. Your argument is invalid!

          • jmichael39

            and which of these Greeks wrote ANY book in the Bible. Your point is utterly completely irrelevant.

          • Mike

            The New Testament was originally written in Greek… Do you know anything about the Bible? I thought you were an expert?! My point is if Dinosaur bones were being dug up in a culture that pre-existed Rome, these bones would have been known to Rome and since Rome was the whole world, the people in Rome (especially the supposed well traveled people that wrote the books of the Bible) would have know about the existence of Dinosaurs. You really aren’t that critical of a thinker huh? Can’t believe I just had to explain that to you…..

          • jmichael39

            that’s doesn’t mean they were greeks or knew anything about bones being collected somewhere. They didn’t have the internet or tv back then, you know. Once again you make the asinine assumption that if something is not in the Bible that Christians somehow don’t believe something to be real.
            Oh, and btw, unlike you, I DO know the NT was written in Greek…I’ve studied the language in college, thank you.
            But why don’t we chase another red herring while we’re here?
            I’m noticing you’re not saying a word about my other reply last night. Trying to pretend you didn’t see it, eh, Mike? Come on, man, jump in the fray. Make a valid argument for once.

          • Mike

            You do realize that ancient Rome was one of the most advanced civilizations in human history right?! The people, especially the government and scientists were very well informed about things in the known world. SP it wouldn’t be a stretch at all to say that if the Ancient Greeks discovered giant bones in the ground and Greece eventually became part of Rome, not only did Rome gain all of their art and architecture, they gained all of their scientific knowledge as well.

            You’re floundering now…. Talk about losing an argument because you do not know basic facts!

          • jmichael39

            So FREAKING what? AGAIN, just because the Bible doesn’t mention something doesn’t mean a Christian doesn’t believe it exists(ed). You’re making a MOOT red herring argument. Its utterly irrelevant.

          • Mike

            “Egypt is a real country so that proves the entire Bible is true!!!”
            ~Theists~

            Hahahahaha!

          • jmichael39

            And THAT is your rebuttal? And you actually think of yourself as the rationalist? LMAO. I’d recommend you take a class on logic, but I don’t think they have one for village idiots.

          • Mike

            Again, i’m not the one that believes in fairy tales. You cannot be considered a logical and rational human being and believe the Bible, it doesn’t work!

          • jmichael39

            LMAO, you believe in a self-refuting negative existential claim and have the audacity to think I’m illogical or irrational. You clichés are getting old and boring. Put some meat to your arguments or get out of the way and the let the adults in the room have the floor.

          • Mike

            I have provided multiple links to support my argument while you have just been talking out of the side of your head….. Proof or GTFO!

          • jmichael39

            You obviously have NOT been reading my posts or are simply a pathological liar.

          • James Grimes

            It looks like we’re being stalked. This guy doesn’t understand that we’re not interested in his nonsense.

          • Mike

            You are not silenced by Atheists, you are in fact silenced by the first amendment of the US Constitution and the wall of separation between church and state. In areas where you are legally allowed to worship nothing can be done but we can stop you, by law, from bringing your religion into schools or any other government institution. We don’t have any issues at all with you worshiping in your churches or in your homes, we have issues when we are subjected to your beliefs and they violate our own religious freedom. Everyone in this country has equal rights, I cannot force you to follow what I believe so why should you be allowed to force me to follow yours?!

          • jmichael39

            Then Atheists should be silenced too. They’re just as much a religion as any other.

            But tell me something, MIke…if the Constitution is supposed to forbid religions from being allowed in the public arena…such as schools, government and such…why was that not enforced for the first 175+ years of our country’s existence? For nearly two centuries the fundamental understanding of the Establishment Clause (not the Wall of Separation BS…I’ll get to that in a minute) was NEVER interpreted to mean that religion should be forbade from any element of our society. So tell us all WHEN did the Constitution get changed in such a way so as to now forbid religion from those places? Seriously, if the Constitution, as it was originally written, was never once interpreted to mean that the Establishment Clause meant that religion be removed completely from the public arena, then something had to have changed in the Constitution…right? What was it?
            Now, for your asinine use of the Wall of Separation…I will merely remind you of what you probably have been told a hundred times about that…but have willfully chosen to ignore. 1) it is nowhere in the Constitution. 2) it was referenced in court cases only twice prior to 1947 and in both instances to actually support the idea of government/church interaction, and 3) Jefferson’s reference to it was in response to a question from a the Danbury Baptist Church in CT when they had heard rumors that another denomination was going to be named as the national church of the US. Jefferson merely assuaged their concerns by confirming the one reality that the founders had about religion…they wanted no one denomination to have any greater influence, access or support from government than any other. It was NEVER meant to imply NO influence, access or support from government…as the actions of the federal government for 175 years will attest.

            All of this can be attested to by documentation….provided upon request…be specific what you want documented.

          • James Grimes

            Atheism is a fool’s joke on his fellow man. Worse, it is an insult to the God of the Universe.

          • jmichael39

            I’m sure I’d agree its an ‘insult’ to God. Its a fool who says there is no God. Why a “fool”…because they actually think it takes more faith to believe in God than it takes to believe that they, as a human being, can actually know every fact and detail of the universe so as to be assured of the reality of a NEGATIVE existential claim. Atheism is simply the prime example of the actual message of the Garden story in the Bible of what happens when man actually believes he doesn’t need God.

          • Mike

            Well God kicked us out of the garden and we flourished….. almost 8 billion people in the world now. So I guess we didn’t need God after all…..

            I agree though, there is no evidence either way to the existence of any of the 6,000 gods mankind has created and worshiped throughout our history. Just because I see lightning doesn’t mean that Zeus is real, just because I hear thunder doesn’t mean that Thor is real. It is a fool though who asserts that they know 100% either way. I do not believe in your God but that doesn’t mean I have no belief in a God. God to me though does not have to be an intelligent or conscious being, God to me is simply whatever created us.

          • Mike

            Your God is an insult to logic and intelligence.

          • James Grimes

            These are questions an Atheist will not want to touch.

          • Mike

            I will answer whatever questions you ask… It is Christians that usually try to change the subject when their beliefs are questioned.

          • Mike

            The first amendment states “Respect or deny” also see The Statute for Religious Freedom by Thomas Jefferson. He was very clear about a wall of separation between church and state as was the rest of the forefathers at the time.

          • jmichael39

            For someone who asserts that he will answer whatever question asked of him….you haven’t answered a question in my previous post. My only response is to point you to the previous post of mine. Since you haven’t refuted a single point I made nor have your provided an answer to a single question I present or presented any evidence to support any counter position, I’ll just leave you to look back and give it a better shot. Otherwise, we’ll just have to assume you don’t know a thing about this issue.

            Oh and btw, if you’d take a second to actually read the Statute for Religious Freedom in VA, you’d see it actually supports my contentions concerning the Establishment Clause. But it IS rather curious why you would refer to a document that actually begins with the words, “Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free”. It is either an exercise in pure hypocrisy on your part or one of the least effective arguments in the history of debate.

          • Mike

            His time, his religion… he could have used that time to talk about the weight and viscosity of dogsh*t. Doesn’t matter that is why America is a secular nation where every religion has the exact same authority in government.

            Are you guys going to complain when the Jedi lead an invocation or the Pirates (Flying Spaghetti Monster)?! They are recognized as actual religion too! lol

          • jmichael39

            “His time, his religion… he could have used that time to talk about the weight and viscosity of dogsh*t.” – yep and that’d be about the depth of the intellect of a person as irrational as an atheist. Congratulations on proving everyone’s point about atheists.

          • Mike

            I do not understand what you are trying to say?…. to an Atheist a Theist praying to God is the same exact thing but you have the freedom to irrationally mumble to any imaginary being you want. We Atheists also have the exact same freedom whether you feel what we have to say has any relevance or not.

          • jmichael39

            So, in other words, you’re imposing YOUR religious views of who we’re praying to upon all of us. How wonderful narcissistic. Congrats, you’re actually achieving the glorious achievement of making atheists appear even more full of themselves.

          • Mike

            I merely said he has the freedom to pray to whoever he wants just as you do…. Oh boo hoo, Christians expect to have the freedom of religion and everyone has to sit around and listen to it but as soon as another religion steps up they do not give the same respect… typical. Christians are the intolerant ones and it is people like you that are making it seem that way.

            Narcissistic – I don’t think that word means what you think it means…. try using it in a way that makes sense!

          • Mike

            it was more of a speech than a prayer. Why does an invocation have to be religious? Can’t he invoke intelligence, rationality, compassion, and respect into the gathering? Religion is a mockery of these things as these comments will show… You religious people have no compassion, respect, or rationality.

          • jmichael39

            How is “mocking” other religions invoking intelligence, rationality, and especially compassion and respect? You’re so FOS.

          • Mike

            How exactly was he mocking other religions by naming each deity and what they are well-known for?

          • jmichael39

            We’ve been through this. Read a freakin’ dictionary.

            “to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.”
            “to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit.”
            If you can sit there and deny that’s what he was doing then, fine…goodbye. I have no time to worry about speaking to delusional people.

          • Mike

            You believe in the Bible over science and I am delusional?! Hahaha okay buddy!

          • jmichael39

            Why are creating a false dichotomy? There is no necessity to reject either. What I DO believe is that science represents a SUBSET of Truth. Not all Truth fits within the subset of the realm of science. I dare you to even remotely try to prove otherwise.

          • Mike

            Science cannot yet prove everything. Just because science has yet to prove something does not automatically prove the existence of God. So not all truths can fit into the subset of science YET but I do believe way more is proven with science than religion.

          • jmichael39

            Again, your logic is flawed. You assume science is needed to ‘prove’ something. Science is not the only realm of truth from which ‘proof’ derives.
            Way more of WHAT is proved with science than religion?

          • Mike

            Watch it bud, there is absolutely no evidence as proof of God either. Scientists are closer to proving our origins are not the work of any omnipotent being than Christians are to proving there is a God.

            Funny Christians are always crying for proof yet their entire system of belief is faith based, meaning the belief in what can never be proven?! Strange…..

            You believe in your religion even though the works of God have not been witnessed by humans for over 2,000 years. Even then none of the people that actually witnessed any of the miracles wrote any of it down anywhere?! You’d think someone would write that they just witnessed a guy dead in a tomb resurrected by a guy that would later be resurrected himself??? The first Gospel wasn’t even written until 100 years after so called Jesus was dead. Yet you think a religion that somehow misplaced some of the most important artifacts in your religion (holy grail, ten commandments, ark of the covenant) is close to proving anything?! You have 400 different denominations of Christianity still trying to figure out the Bible!!! When you guys get your sh*t together then you come talk to us hahaha!

      • TheBBP

        That is not a dissenting opinion. That is someone there who’s sole purpose is to disrespect the process and blatantly mock religion. “Dissenting opinion” is walking out for the prayer as several of the council members did for his mockery. He gives atheists everywhere a bad name.

        • KDC

          It isn’t about mocking religion, it is about equality. You simply don’t like that he is praying to gods other than Yahweh. You are perfectly free to not like it, but to say he shouldn’t be able to do it is taking away his right to be represented.

          • TheBBP

            I could see your point if you could make me believe that he believed in the things that he was praying to.

          • KDC

            Thats the thing, it doesn’t matter if you are offended by it or not. Personally I don’t mind prayer, but there are atheists who are offended by praying to god just as must as you are offended by an atheist praying to gods they don’t believe in.

            Secondly, It is actually possible to pray to a god one doesn’t believe in, in a non condescending way, ask the band The Script:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yZ1uI5yPbY

            Thirdly, lets go Hawks, get the job done today!!

          • Holly Moon

            Well said Santa!!

          • Santa

            Thank you. And remember, Santa answers all Christmas wishes. Yes, No, or wait.

        • Mike

          You do realize in America we have the freedom of speech right?! I personally think that religion is a mockery of logic and reason. Religion blatantly flies in the face of facts with absolutely nothing measurable or observable to offer. Religion is a monument to the gullibility of humanity.

          So, because I and others feel that the sole purpose of Christianity is to mock scientific facts and things that can be proven, maybe Christian prayers should not be allowed either since Christianity “Dissents” from what I choose to believe.

    • The Last Trump

      What a disgraceful display. “Duly noted” he smugly says when they walked out!

      “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” Revelation 20:12

      Something tells me that a certain SOMEONE looked down at this pitiful display from the balconies of heaven and seconded his “duly noted.”

    • Randy Wanat

      What process of governmental function involves calling upon some magical being for some sort of favors? How does that in any way improve government’s ability to perform its duties? Please, be specific. Whose religious speech should be allowed and whose banned? Other than calling for violence or other criminal acts, what religion speech should be respected?

      • Joseph Essien-Obot

        You have proven the point of mockery by your very first sentence. You have also made the case against making jest where serious business is concerned by your second sentence.

        Now I should ask you, is it important that people should prepare their minds with respect to their values before undertaking anything of importance, particularly something that would affect the lives of whole communities? Well, that’s what every person who believes in God is doing when praying in such occasion. You might think it is useless but then that is your problem and your dissuasion therefore is tantamount to a diminution of the importance of such a meeting itself.

        In fact, your whole comment is rife with logical incoherence.

        • Randy Wanat

          So, you’re trying to tell me that grown adults entrusted with running a city, county, state, or even country can’t be expected to prepare themselves for their work on their own? Instead, they need to be led like children? And, that does nothing to explain how asking a magical being to make them competent does anything to make them competent. But, why do you think these adults are incapable of praying privately before the meeting begins?

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            When lower intelligence subjects itself to higher a intelligence there is a world of good to be gained. Your children comment therefore may not be so condescending as you may have thought.

            The magical being is your opinion. There is no magical being, there is a real being, and the real being does not make them competent, the real being helps them remain focused on the true good which is often lost to sentiment and misguided opinion.

            The adults are not incapable of praying privately but there is additional good in preparing ourselves communally, much like sports teams doing the pep ups just before a game. You would ask, why don’t they do that privately (you mean individually), well, you could answer that yourself.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, you’re saying they can’t stay focused on their work if they don’t call upon a magical (I think you took it to mean “imaginary” erroneously) being, and it only works if they do it together during the official time of governmental function, rather than doing it before in private.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            You do not seem to realise that there is more to work than… work. There is quality. If a group of people at work have need to collectively draw their minds into a conscious focus of ultimate qualities what is the atheist’s beef? All he need do is wait the exercise out. Whether this exercise is done during official governmental function or not is irrelevant unless this exercise is the turning of the function into a religious occasion. If an atheist decides to make mockery of such exercise by pretending to draw his mind in prayer to something he professes does not exist that’s another kettle of fish altogether.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, you agree that they don’t NEED to do this during official meeting time, and that they COULD manage to collectively ask a magical being for help doing their job (so, you agree that they need magical help to do their jobs competently) before the meeting rather than during it. So, you admit they’re trying to turn the government’s official meetings into religious occasions. Since they CAN ask for magical assistance doing their job before the meeting, and since the government is not a religion institution, clearly you agree that they should stop having the invocations and just do their prayers privately (as you DID say they’re private thing), and stop making a religion occasion out of their official governmental meetings.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            Randy, you have purpose preferred to put words into my mouth rather than listen to what I said. I did not agree that there was no need to pray before or during official meeting time I said that official meeting time should not be turned into a church ceremony or occasion, these are two distinct things. The rest of what you said are complete balderdash!

            I do not know also why you insist on referring to the object of prayer as “a magical being”? Who’s talking about magic? We are not talking about a cartoon world here! The majority of the world can see that there is intelligence present in the world that is distinct and superior to ours. This is the common sense ALL cultures have! Because this sense is often extended beyond its scope does not mean that it is false. So, please, stop irritating me with this your “magical being” rubbish! Your conflation of two distinct concepts I find quite nasty for one who claims reason.

          • Randy Wanat

            How is using the governmental proceedings to make requests of a magical being in the name of their religion not turning it into a religious occasion?
            As for magical, I use that word because that’s what it is. Is it naturalistic and mundane, or is it beyond that, employing non-naturalistic means? If it’s not the former, it’s magic. You can create lots of flowery language for it, but, at the end of the day, it’s magic. Is English your first language? The difficulty you’re having with that word seems unusual, as your definitions of it (cartoony, imaginary) are not in agreement with any known usages of the word. No problem if it’s not your first language. The wording you use and the phrasing makes me think perhaps somewhere in Africa…the syntax reminds me a bit of Nigerian writing. I could be wrong.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            I’m sure you are kidding… trying to draw me into a childish argument with you.

            So, what if I figured from your syntax and phrasing that you live somewhere in Massachusetts and love appliances? Would that be a plus or a minus for you? RUBBISH!

          • Randy Wanat

            I’m just looking for explanations for the difficulty you are having with the language. I don’t look at anybody’s profiles. I have no idea who you are or from where, but your writing is very much like that done by people from Nigeria and nearby countries. At any rate, you don’t seem to understand what “magical” means, and you get angry when you’re told what it means. If you can’t stand learning how language works, I’m not sure why you think you can effectively express ideas, other than the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            I’m actually frustrated at your inability differentiate the simplest of ideas in your mind while professing gargantuan intellectual strides.

            You should note that your reference to a “magical being” is actually your opinion of my opinion and not your opinion of the world and betrays your disrespect for my opinion of the world which we share as intelligent beings. If you don’t believe there is intelligence beyond mankind, except maybe aliens which you can’t find yet, well that’s your opinion. It is not my place to tell you what your opinion is, which is what you are doing.

            if you think that “magical” is the most sophisticated word you can conjure, by all means get on with it, I’ll be on my way. I have no time or patience for children talk.

          • RC_Pilot

            Randy Wanat: “Is it naturalistic and mundane, or is it beyond that, employing non-naturalistic means? If it’s not the former, it’s magic.”

            NO… YOU’RE WRONG THERE!!! “Magic” is PURELY ILLUSION!!! If YOU “exist” exclusively as an illusion to your own eyes, then you are purely “magic.” Just because something beyond your own Atheistic opinion’s understanding is being prayed to, THAT DOES NOT mean that thing you fail to understand is something that either doesn’t exist or is “magical,” it simply means that for some ILLOGICAL excuses, you as an Atheist REFUSE to believe that there is any possibility that something you can’t or refuse to believe in could possibly exist.

            That’s almost as intelligent as if you were a Marlin swimming in the ocean and you heard there were things with wings flying in that “stuff above the water” and became convinced that since it’s completely impossible for you to live without being under water, that means it’s totally impossible for there to be any form of actual life that can survive outside of the water. since that would take some sort of “magic” and in your logic, “magic” is mythical and does not exist.

          • Randy Wanat

            You’re taking one definition of “magic” and acting as though it’s the only definition. That is dishonest. If you must omit the facts to defend your argument, then your argument I too flimsy to stand up to scrutiny. Try again.

          • Mike

            Is that what Christians did before they burned and drowned a bunch of innocent women accused of witchcraft in a small village known as Salem, prayed to God and prepared their minds for the important work ahead? That was a town council too being led by God…..

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            What did Hitler do before working the Final Solution for the Jews, or Joseph Stalin before starving a whole nation?

            So, what’s your point? That because some crazies somewhere professed something and committed atrocities so?

            If you have nothing reasonable to say I’d suggest you just watch.

          • Mike

            It was reasonable and relevant to what you said. A group of Christians that were leading a town, got together in the name of God and killed a bunch of innocent women. That was their “important work”….

            Hitler by the way was Catholic and Stalin did not perform atrocities in the name of Atheism he just happened to be an Atheist that murdered people. Hitler however has said many times in speeches and his books that he was doing the will of God by driving out the “vipers and adders” and he called them the “Jewish scourge”. He murdered 6,000,000 people in the name of your Christian God.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            Hitler was baptised a Catholic quite okay but that does not translate in anyway to meaning that he was Catholic by practice as an adult. Hitler was an atheist and he was a politician at some point who knew how to work his way to power without allowing his atheism interfere. He didn’t murder 6,000,000 Jews in the name of Christianity he murdered them in the name Nazism, “a secular ideology founded on science”, Hitler’s words.

            Joseph Stalin, well then, if he happened to profess a faith that would have been why he murdered people but now he was atheist he just happened to murder people. Did anyone tell you he used to be an altar boy? Poor soul, Stalin.

            The Town Council gathered in the name of the town, not in the name of God. The town citizens practiced a conflation of Christianity and paganism. Paganism that believed in the efficacy of witchcraft and Christianity that did not believe in the supremacy of God. So while the town’s secular beliefs feared witchcraft it called on the Christian God to help them in their work of justice as they saw it. So, you see, it wasn’t their Christian beliefs that led them to kill those unfortunate women.

          • Mike

            Lol… Hitler was very much a practicing Catholic. He wrote multiple books and in them he stated that he is doing the work of God. He also forced his SS to attend regular mass and he was photographed many times throughout WWII attending regular mass.

            Also you explanation of them calling upon the Christian God to help them murder innocent women is not helping your case at all…. They were murdered because of a passage directly from the Bible and if Christians had their ways today they would be murdering gays as well.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            I see you are invested in atheism’s propaganda. I would suggest you expose your mind to more balanced research on Hitler’s issue. “Religious Views of Hitler” on wikipedia should give you a little distraction from your keyhole world.

            “They were murdered because of a passage directly from the Bible” and this is precisely where you get it all wrong. The poor women were not killed because of what was written in the bible, they were killed because of what the society believed about witchcraft and used the bible to justify that idea but the bible does not propose it.

            Again you think that homosexuality started today.

          • Mike

            There is no propaganda in Atheism… we are not a religion. We have no dogma or ritualistic tradition. Our beliefs are directly from Facts. Instead of reading what other people think they know about Hitler, why don;t you read Hitler’s books yourself? His own words are all the proof that you need:

            “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.
            It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few
            followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to
            fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer
            but as a fighter.

            In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the
            passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized
            the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.
            How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two
            thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than
            ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood
            upon the Cross”

            ~Adolf Hitler – My New Order~

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            O really?

            Next you will tell me that you believe politicians and that they don’t engage in propaganda because they don’t have “dogma or ritualistic tradition”. You forget he was a politician and you forget that he wanted power and you forget that when he was in power no one, and you should have known that, no one could speak against him. I believe you will also tell me that you weren’t introduced to Hitler’s silly speeches by some atheist non-propaganda site.

            While using Christian rhetoric Hitler sure didn’t show much tolerance for the Christian church, as you may well know, Hitler was constantly at loggerheads with churches even appointed his own bishops!

            Well, what’s the use talking to you, all you want to see is he was religious and that he was Christian. I think someone is playing with your head just like Hitler was skilled at.

          • Mike

            I was introduced to Hitler’s speeches, books, and quotes because I was motivated to learn about why a man would want to kill an entire demographic of people. Then I found out the root of the issue, religion. Atheists have no reason to kill people however religion has been using torture and genocide to spread their religions for millennia! Hitler was irrefutably a Christian and he was irrefutably by his own admission doing what his God commanded him to do.

            You argue, defend, and worship a God that killed thousands of Egyptian babies yet you find it hard to believe that your God could order the death 6,000,000 people? This same God that flooded the Earth and killed everyone! The same God that has killed over 30,000,000 people in the Bible alone!

            Good luck with that!

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            “Atheists have no reason to kill people”.

            You argue within the bubble of Hitler’s political circumstance where his interest in power was far greater than his interest in celebrating his atheism. OK. Tell me about Joseph Stalin’s religious beliefs then that made him to starve a whole nation to death? Tell me about Pol Pot who murdered millions of his very own people in order to establish a government that frowned at religion.

            It is interesting that you cannot recognize the difference between one having religious faith and one using religious belief, to you they are all the same. This betrays a certain immaturity, sorry to say, which explains why you can’t differentiate between a public speeches and personal conviction. For a person like Hitler who never went to church, talk less of submitting himself to the authority of a pastor, as long as he mentions the word ‘God’ and claims a destiny for himself and a nation under such guise then he is Christian! Congratulations.

            When you graduate from this basic incomprehension then we can discuss your nonsense of God ‘killing’ babies and 30,000,000 people.

          • James Grimes

            The reasons you give are not true.

          • Mike

            Explain…..

          • Mike

            “real” being is your opinion, it still remain to be fact. I have never in my life witnessed God appear and say “yo, I’m here… God… Sorry i’m pretty late to the party, I had a ton of sh*t to do on the other side of the universe”…. So a magical or mythical being would be more correct.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            I guess you are waiting for an experiment that will show you that a superior intelligence is with us but has chosen to be discreet yet involved… An ant trying to discover if humans exist. Of course, if you respected my opinion of such a being, by not referring to it as some already established imaginary construct, you would not have much to say. So good for reason. Have a nice day!

          • Mike

            I cannot respect any opinion as fact. By you saying that God is real is in fact your opinion since it has not been proven either way. By me saying that God is not real is also my opinion. You do not respect my opinion so why should I respect yours?

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            You seem to understand that if I respect your opinion I should be subject to it or that if you respect my opinion you should submit to it. You certainly are not paying any attention!

            My beef is that you should stop defining my opinion by what I don’t believe it to be, MAGIC! That, is respect.

          • Mike

            I merely said that is YOUR opinion…. It is not a fact and that is the cold hard truth. I can respect that you have the opinion that God is real, but I cannot respect it as a fact that God is real.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            And my opinion is NOT that he is a “magic being”. You think it is not the cold hard truth, I think it is the cold hard truth. Nobody is saying you should respect it as fact that God is real just stop, for goodness sakes, insisting that it is cold hard truth that I believe he is a “magic being”. What is it you can’t understand? If you respected my opinion you would stop using that silly characterization.

    • Mike

      I agree but in this case the process was respected. Each deity he named is known for a different reason in which he touched on.

      Buddha – enlightenment
      Jesus – forgiveness
      Satan – logic, reason, and wisdom
      Zeus – justice and strength
      Mother Earth – creation
      etc…..

      I think it was intolerant that the Christians on the council got up and left. What kind of message would it send if non-Christian council members got up and left during a Christian prayer invocation?! Yes free speech works both ways but there is also respect in which the Christian members of the council showed none. If a religious invocation is required in order to open these meetings then ALL members should be present if not then why is this invocation even required?!

    • Holly Moon

      actually he used all those “gods” in the correct contexts. From
      Jesus, to Mother earth, Thor, and Buddha. All including prayer or none is fair and NOT against anyones constitutional rights.

    • Mike

      The process was disrespected by all of the Christians who stepped out during an invocation by another religion. If the process of a religious invocation is to be allowed I think that all members should be required to attend.

      • TheBBP

        It was not another religion. It was an atheist who was only looking to mock religion.

        • Mike

          Atheism is a belief system just like Christianity and all other “religions”. Though we do not have Dogma, cultist rituals, or weekly gatherings we are still recognized and protected by the first amendment granting us religious freedom. Nothing he said was a mockery to religion in any way.

  • Wanda West

    What a joke and nothing but mockery

  • Bill

    So the atheist lied…..nothing new.

    • KDC

      Wait, I don’t follow. Do atheists lie more than any other group of people?

    • Mike

      How did he lie? Please explain? So the fact that the Bible has had over 4,000 editorial changes in the 1500 years of it’s existence to include the addition of the resurrection which was confirmed by the Vatican as an addition to the original text… is that your definition of “the truth”? You Christians have a backwards way of looking at things….

      • Santa

        He isn’t hear to learn, debate or sympathize. This was drive by bigotry. He wants to stay comfy in his religious circle and build straw men to beat on all day.

        So lets hear it Bill, I would like to be wrong about this…

  • http://www.myactsofsedition.com/ Chaz S.

    How’s the butt-hurt coming along?

  • http://GREATSITE.COM/ John Lawton Jeffcoat III

    I do not understand why the 3 men who remained in the room chose to BOW THEIR HEADS for this blasphemous polytheistic mockery “prayer”. Was it necessary to bow their heads as a show of respect? If they did not wish to leave the room, that’s fine… but dignifying this mock “prayer” by BOWING THEIR HEADS, as if praying-along themselves, is offensive and uncalled-for. What were they thinking?

    • http://www.myactsofsedition.com/ Chaz S.

      Perhaps you can help me understand a real prayer versus a mock prayer. A real god versus a fake one. A real religion versus a fake one.

      I really can’t tell the difference.

      • James Grimes

        You obviously think this is a big joke. The joke, however, is on you. Your comment is totally meaningless and your presence on this forum is insignificant.

        • Randy Wanat

          Your inability to distinguish mockery prayers from genuine is duly noted.

          • James Grimes

            Thank you. I see you are out trolling today. From your many comments, I see that you are in a foul mood. My sympathies…

          • Mike

            Do you even know what trolling is? You never actually answered the question, you dodged it. Now tyou are trying to change the subject so you can continue to avoid it… So what makes a religion real? What makes a God fake? Please answer….

          • jcrosby35

            Pro 26:18 It’s no crazier to shoot sharp and flaming arrows

            Pro 26:19 than to cheat someone and say, “I was only fooling!”

          • Randy Wanat

            Captain Kirk said, “what does God need with a starship?”

          • jcrosby35

            Captain Kirk will leave you in hell.

          • Randy Wanat

            Imagine that you had no religion affiliation, and had no knowledge of any religions whatsoever. You are a complete outsider.

            Jimtells you that there is a magical being who created the universe and sees everything you do and is going to punish you brutally unless you believe that he made a virgin pregnant with his son by magic and let him be killed as a blood sacrifice to appease himself because of the rules he had made up that he knew people wouldn’t be able to follow.

            Steve tells you that there are actually lots of magical beings, each with special powers, and they’re all related to the magical being who created the world, and you need to provide burnt offerings to these beings to ensure you stay in their good graces.
            Bill tells you that there are lots of magical beings, and if you live a good life according to their standards, you will enjoy eternity in bliss, but, if you don’t, you will be brought back to life as another kind of animal.
            Based on these stories, given no evidence for any of them being true, why would you, the outsider, accept any of them as true? I have as much reason to believe your religious stories as ancient Greek religious stories, ancient Indian religious stories, ancient Norse religious stories, and so on. If there is zero evidence to support a story, it is dismissed, and rightly so. Other that threats, why should I accept your religious stories as true over all the other religion stories out there?
            Do you care if the things you believe are actually true?

          • jcrosby35

            I have been a Christian for over 45 yrs. and hold two degrees. I have studied history, eschatology and people personal experiences. I know the truth from a lie. Do you?
            There are two books by Lee Stroble. Evidence that demands a verdict and The case for faith. I highly recommend them.
            You want to play the what if game?

            Ok, you are going to die some day. As sure as you are born you start dyeing.

            You come to that point when death has come to collect it due and lets say you are in your bed. You begin to realize that you are totally ignorant of what is on the other side. Fear begins to set in with all its uncertainties.
            You ignored the inevitable and are unprepared even though you have known that death will arrive in its time. You have no excuses.

            You fell the terror because deep down inside you fear judgment day has arrived.
            You begin to gasp for every minute and every breath of air but there is no turning back now. Death will have its way and now you will reap what you have sown in life.
            Fear is a terrible thing with all its uncertainties.

            Heaven or hell? What is it? Time is up.

          • Mike

            You just said two things in the same sentence that contradict each other…. evidence and faith. Faith in fact is the strong belief in something that cannot be proven by any means, the very contradiction to evidence.

            It is funny to me that Christians always demand evidence, they always want proof. Prove gravity, prove climate change, prove evolution yet the very basis of your belief is “faith” the very core of what you believe has no proof and you require no proof to believe it. Can you honestly call yourself an intelligent man with such in illogical thought process?

          • jcrosby35

            Jam 2:14 My friends, what good is it to say you have faith, when you don’t do anything to show that you really do have faith? Can that kind of faith save you?

            Jam 2:15 If you know someone who doesn’t have any clothes or food,

            Jam 2:16 you shouldn’t just say, “I hope all goes well for you. I hope you will be warm and have plenty to eat.” What good is it to say this, unless you do something to help?

            Jam 2:17 Faith that doesn’t lead us to do good deeds is all alone and dead!

            Jam 2:18 Suppose someone disagrees and says, “It is possible to have faith without doing kind deeds.” I would answer, “Prove that you have faith without doing kind deeds, and I will prove that I have faith by doing them.”

          • Mike

            That is in fact not a definition of faith at all. It does not take faith to feed or clothe someone in need, it takes humanity and again religion is the exact opposite of humanity. Humanity is about world peace, respecting your fellow man. Yours and all the other comments alone show that you have no respect for anyone but your own kind. Would you feed or clothe a Muslim if he were in need?! I don’t think you would.

        • KDC

          This just in: Comments on the interwebs are totally meaningless. Somebody get the president on the line.

        • Mike

          I have a hard time telling what a real God is from a mockery as well. Considering the first “Gods” were a race of sky people called the Annunaki and your religion is only 3,500 years old (If you add the Judaism, 1,500 if you just consider Christ) I would say that your infant religion is a mockery with the fake God….. What say you?

          • James Grimes

            And the joke continues…

          • Mike

            What joke? I am not getting it… Do you understand what a joke is? What I just said was historical fact. Do you really think your religion is 4.5 billion years old? Do you really not know that your religion CHRISTianity, began with Christ? I am laughing but it’s not because any jokes were told….. I really feel for you, I hope one day your eyes are open and your mind is clear.

        • Mike

          Religion is a mockery to the gullibility of the entire human race…. The joke is on all of us!

      • Gary

        I don’t think any of us posters can help you with that.

      • Jack Rohde

        The fake god is in your pants.

        • Mike

          What does that even mean?!

    • Frank

      They were certainly not lifting up Jesus!!!

      • Mike

        Why would an Atheist lift up Jesus? So you think that all other religions can have an invocation as long as they lift up Jesus?! hahahaha

    • Mike

      You know Christians expect Atheists to just bow our heads and play along during prayer. Now you feel some of the outrage that we do!

  • Denise Sarett Connolly

    What has happened to COMMON SENSE? I believe in freedom for religion and freedom FROM religion. This was RIDICULOUS.

    • KDC

      Ridiculous? yes. Protected? Yes.

      • Randy Wanat

        But asking magical invisible wizards for legislative favors isn’t ridiculous?

    • Randy Wanat

      I agree. Why should everybody’s rights be protected?

  • Brian Paille

    Now you know how silly it sounds to everyone else when you pray to your fictitious being.

  • Angel Triumphant

    STOP THIS NONSENSE AND MOCKERY!
    “Just say NO” Although we as Christians know the games being played here, or we should, as do the atheists, in his rediculousness, he is actually bringing curses upon these people and this city/township.
    People need to wake up and stop being so darn politically correct. Do you truly see what’s going on around us in our country, in our world?
    God in heaven, phase have mercy on us for our chosen ignorance! Please Lord help us.
    In the powerful name of Jesus I ask, Amen.

    • KDC

      Yahweh doesn’t the internet, your prayers are meaningless here. That’s why atheists run rampant on it.

      • Mike

        Computer technology was actually pioneered by a gay Atheist named Alan Turing. I’m surprised Christians even use them…..

      • Angel Triumphant

        Do you not understand what Omnipotent, and OmniPresent means?
        HE is All Powerful, And Everywhere…
        HE also hears Every prayer
        If your God isn’t, doesn’t, or can’t, I’d suggest you seek the 1 True God, for there is Only 1

        • Lord Almighty

          I, your LORD am everywhere. Before Yahweh was, I am. Yahweh is my inept warlord son, I was never quite pleased with his antics.

          • Angel Triumphant

            REPENT

          • Lord Almighty

            HARK thy words, Yahweh isn’t my best work. He is somewhat of a puffer fish.

      • Angel Triumphant

        My God Always hears my prayers!
        My God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent… so… if yours isn’t, if I were you, I’d find a better God. There is only 1 True God – I suggest, in the lateness of days we’re in now, you cut to the chase and go directly to Him via His Only Begotten Son, Jesus/Yeshua; He paid for your get out of hell free card, Personally.
        My prayers are Never meaningless.
        Atheists run rampant in it (the Internet) because their father the devil knows his time is short, and is walking about roaring like a lion seeking whom he may devour; and he is using them, lying to them, but the day will come, when they will All see him for who he truly is – I pray it is not from the wrong side of Judgement.
        God bless

      • Angel Triumphant

        My God Always hears my prayers!
        My God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent… so… if yours isn’t, if I were you, I’d find a better God. There is only 1 True God – I suggest, in the lateness of days we’re in now, you cut to the chase and go directly to Him via His Only Begotten Son, Jesus/Yeshua; He paid for your get out of hell free card, Personally.
        My prayers are Never meaningless.
        Atheists run rampant in it (the Internet) because their father the devil knows his time is short, and is walking about roaring like a lion seeking whom he may devour; and he is using them, lying to them, but the day will come, when they will All see him for who he truly is – I pray it is not from the wrong side of Judgement.
        God bless

        • Lord Almighty

          Two things, your god Yahweh, isn’t the only god. He is one of many offspring. Before Yahweh was, I am. Yahweh is my inept warlord son, I was never quite pleased with his antics. He couldn’t even put together a proper holy text. I will give him credit for getting so many mindless followers, I don’t want those people anyway.

    • Mike

      So you are calling for an end to the religious invocation? You are advocating for the separation of church and state as per the Constitution? If so I completely agree.

      Also to add, prayers do not work. If so world hunger would end, wars would end, nobody would be sick, everyone would be rich, etc…. If God actually healed anyone we would not need hospitals. I do not see the point in any prayer, it is a waste of the city council’s time when they could be tending to important issues.

      • Angel Triumphant

        I am advocating the cessation of the mocking of the 1 True God in heaven, Jehovah, that the members of the Plymouth Compact made a Covenant with when they landed in this country.
        The God who has Blessed America, but, He has warned, for several decades – for America to turn back to Him, but America has refused; now apparently thinking she “blessed” herself, and no longer needs Him. She is fixing to find out just how terribly wrong she was in that. I’d suggest praying for mercy.
        Separation of Church and State…
        No such thing, never has been…
        People who do not want to live by God’s rules, who don’t know any better spout that off.
        I will add, Prayer DOES work –
        I am a personal testimony to His Miracles that came from prayer many times over.
        Again, respectfully, I would suggest repenting and praying for mercy from the 1 True God that rules from His Throne in heaven.
        Have a nice day in the Mighty Name of Jesus,

        • Mike

          If we do not cease in mocking you will what? Shoot the place up like an Islamic fundamentalist? This is America, it says right in our Constitution that no law shall be created to respect any establishment of religion. I DO NOT HAVE TO RESPECT what you believe in. This country was founded as a secular nation. One of the earliest documents of this country, the treaty with Tripoli, states that this country was in no way founded on the Christian religion…. So too bad for you that you are so ignorant and ill-informed.

          • Angel Triumphant

            Wow, you really ARE ignorant.
            I feel Sorry for you.
            No. .. see Christians Aren’t islamist’s…. WAAAYYY different!
            We try to love others, even if they don’t believe the same as we do; as opposed to islamists who follow the example of mohammed, they beat, rape, maime, cut off oppossing limbs, bury alive, burn to death, stone to death, stomp to death (infants), crucify, and or behead men, women and children who don’t agree with them… including other muslims – if they don’t feel like they act “muslim enough”.
            Unmm… check Your History Sir… you are in error. Check out the Mayflower Compact – signed November 11, 1620…
            Compared to your example of The Treaty of Tripoli signed November 4, 1796 so hmmm… this country was Dedicated to the 1 True God 176 years before your “information”.
            Might want to check yourself before you go calling others ignorant and ill informed. Just a thought.
            Here’s another 1 for ya;
            The Lord Jesus/Yeshua, The Only Begotten Son of The 1 True Living God left His Place in Heaven to live in human flesh to be tempted, and go through more than ANY human Ever has, or Ever will, to buy back the opportunity of every human being to be reconciled back to the Father – IF we Choose to be – that’s the God we serve – it’s our Choice; those who don’t Choose Him – will get exactly that – eternity without Him – it will be worse than your worst nightmares multiplied – a million years won’t even be a drop in a bucket compared to an ocean to what eternity is… an eternity of torment; you see, when you Remove God, all that’s left, is His adversary the devil, and he Hates humanity, because we are made in the likeness of God Himself, and he was only created…
            There are prophecies that were made millenia ago… and prophecies still being told, that are for now, and the very near future; and they are happening like dominoes falling at this point. The Word of God says it will be like childbirth, the closer the time gets, the faster and the more difficult they will get… but, with each passing day… We Look for the return of our Lord, Savior and King…
            If you want to do more than just gripe and be hateful – to “see” a lil bit of how Awesome our Heavenly Father truly is –
            Check out codesearcher dotnet channel on YouTube.
            Brother Matthew has been led by The Holy Spirit to find the hidden messages in the Word of God; The Father has hidden Alot there for us.
            I truly hope you will take these messages to heart. Jesus loved you so much, He carried your sin, and PAID for your get out of hell free card… but, again, He doesn’t force us to take it.
            I pray you will accept it.
            God bless you, in the Mighty and Powerful Name of Jesus/Yeshua☺

          • Mike

            Is that why 7/10 of the worst terrorist attacks in American history were carried out by Christians?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

          • Mike

            You do also realize that this country was founded in 1776 right and not 1620. Every American seems to know this apparently except you.

      • Angel Triumphant

        My God Always hears my prayers!
        My God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent… so… if yours isn’t, if I were you, I’d find a better God. There is only 1 True God – I suggest, in the lateness of days we’re in now, you cut to the chase and go directly to Him via His Only Begotten Son, Jesus/Yeshua; He paid for your get out of hell free card, Personally.
        My prayers are Never meaningless.
        Atheists run rampant in it (the Internet) because their father the devil knows his time is short, and is walking about roaring like a lion seeking whom he may devour; and he is using them, lying to them, but the day will come, when they will All see him for who he truly is – I pray it is not from the wrong side of Judgement.
        God bless, I hope you find The Truth before you are facing Him on Judgement Day

        • Mike

          The computer was invented by a gay Atheist. Atheists develop medicine and technology. Atheists do more for humanity than your baby killing God ever did. Isn’t it lucky you were born into the country and culture with the one true God and the one true religion lol…. Someone has been drinking too much of the kool-aid. Well if I am subject to your religions rules and regulations even though I do not believe well I guess you better start studying all other religions. If you do not die in glorious combat the Valkyrie will not carry you to Valhalla to feat with Odin and Thor. lol

          You people should be in a padded room somewhere!

          • Angel Triumphant

            LOL, beginning to wonder if you are my x-husband, Mike, lol.
            My God is the Creator of ALL things, living and inanimate…
            He allowed the knowledge to be brought to fruition through this “gay athiest” –
            “I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.” Proverbs 8:12 (KJV)
            But All are For His Purposes.
            “The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.” Proverbs 16:4 (KJV)
            LOL… You might want to STOP drinking that koolaid man, it’s clouding your ability to think.
            Do you think Only atheists develop medicines and technology? Do realize how rediculous that even sounds?

          • Mike

            maybe you should read your Bible more…. I guess all of the babies
            in Egypt that your God killed were just guilty by association?! I guess
            when 1/3 of virgin girls were offered to God as a burnt offering before
            the rest were given to the Israelite Army to be used as secks slaves that
            was not considered human sacrifice (Numbers 31:7-18)?!

            If God
            endowed Atheists with all this knowledge to build computers why are
            Christians complaining about RFID chips being the mark of the beast?

            Why does God help people pass exams or win football games but ignores Ebola, war, poverty, deformity, cancer etc…. ?!

            Why
            has our medical knowledge only increased exponentially in the last 70
            years due to the WWII Human experiments done by the Germans and
            Japanese? If this knowledge was given to us by God surely cavemen could
            have conducted complex life saving operations and organ transplantation
            right?!

            If God was so wise why was the Bible seemingly written by
            men that had absolutely no idea what was going on in the world or
            Universe around them?! They thought the Moon was a second light instead
            of just a reflection of the sun. They thought stars were stuck above the
            Earth in a firmament instead of being billions of light years away!

            I can see why your husband divorced you….. logic, science, and reality loves you, embrace it!

        • Mike

          Apparently you are not asking God for things important to humanity if he hears and answers your prayers.

          • Angel Triumphant

            I am going to guess that you are ignorant of Scripture (that can always be remedied) but the Lord set laws into effect – like gravity, for 1, another is, a man will reap what he sows… you might be Amazed at the things prayer has changed; but, one would actually need to want to know, want to learn, and Seek Him to actually find out for one’s self.
            I hope you are one that falls into That category. The Lord promises that All who seek Him with their whole heart, Will find Him – I would advise it be done quickly though –
            Before He returns for His Bride – once that happens, it won’t be so easy.
            Also, one needs to know and understand He answers every prayer – the same as us, with a yes, no, or not now…

            God bless you

          • Mike

            I am actually pretty well versed in scripture and not just the nicey nice ones they teach you in Sunday school.

            Where in the Bible does it say Jesus is returning for his bride like some zombie-vampire horror movie?!

            I think you are the one that is confused about scripture. Try actually reading the Bible.

  • jcrosby35

    What a prayer. Sounds like and equal opportunity prayer meeting for the Dumb *** politically correct liberals. Oh well walking out sounds to me like sound counsel.

    • Randy Wanat

      Right, or what if one of those filthy Muslims started jabbering about Allah and Mohammed? You shouldn’t be expected to stand by while someone who openly denies the divinity of Jesus brags about how great their false religion is. I mean, am I right?

      • jcrosby35

        Freedom of speech is a two way road. And if Christians do not start using it then they will soon know what real trouble is when they are no longer allowed by the law to speak freely. When the last chip falls it will be some muslim with a knife at their throat telling them to deny Christ and convert to islam.
        If Christians and the Church in general want that then just do nothing.

        • Randy Wanat

          Can you be more specific? Ambiguous apocalyptic predictions might have wowed people thousands of years ago, but today you need evidence to back up your “we’re all doomed” fear mongering. Got any?

        • jcrosby35

          Mat 24:4 Jesus answered: Don’t let anyone fool you.

          Mat 24:5 Many will come and claim to be me. They will say that they are the Messiah, and they will fool many people.

          Mat 24:6 You will soon hear about wars and threats of wars, but don’t be afraid. These things will have to happen first, but that isn’t the end.

          Mat 24:7 Nations and kingdoms will go to war against each other. People will starve to death, and in some places there will be earthquakes.

          Mat 24:8 But this is just the beginning of troubles.

          Mat 24:9 You will be arrested, punished, and even killed. Because of me, you will be hated by people of all nations.

          Mat 24:10 Many will give up and will betray and hate each other.

          Mat 24:11 Many false prophets will come and fool a lot of people.

          Mat 24:12 Evil will spread and cause many people to stop loving others.

          Mat 24:13 But if you keep on being faithful right to the end, you will be saved.

          Mat 24:14 When the good news about the kingdom has been preached all over the world and told to all nations, the end will come.

          Mat 24:15 Someday you will see that “Horrible Thing” in the holy place, just as the prophet Daniel said. Everyone who reads this must try to understand!

          • jcrosby35

            Mat 24:21 This will be the worst time of suffering since the beginning of the world, and nothing this terrible will ever happen again.

            Mat 24:22 If God doesn’t make the time shorter, no one will be left alive. But because of God’s chosen ones, he will make the time shorter.

            Mat 24:23 Someone may say, “Here is the Messiah!” or “There he is!” But don’t believe it.

            Mat 24:24 False messiahs and false prophets will come and work great miracles and signs. They will even try to fool God’s chosen ones.

            Mat 24:25 But I have warned you ahead of time.

          • jcrosby35

            Mat 24:37 When the Son of Man appears, things will be just as they were when Noah lived.

            Mat 24:38 People were eating, drinking, and getting married right up to the day that the flood came and Noah went into the big boat.

            Mat 24:39 They didn’t know anything was happening until the flood came and swept them all away. That is how it will be when the Son of Man appears.

            Mat 24:40 Two men will be in the same field, but only one will be taken. The other will be left.

            Mat 24:41 Two women will be together grinding grain, but only one will be taken. The other will be left.

            Mat 24:42 So be on your guard! You don’t know when your Lord will come.

            Mat 24:43 Homeowners never know when a thief is coming, and they are always on guard to keep one from breaking in.

            Mat 24:44 Always be ready! You don’t know when the Son of Man will come.

          • Randy Wanat

            Now you’re just masturbating.

          • jcrosby35

            Pro 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

        • jcrosby35

          Most people will not understand, But a few who are watching will understand the signs of the times and be warned.
          The whole world is presently in trouble and looking for some kind of deliver. This time is a time of law less ness and because of that hearts will grow cold and even those who practice the love of Christ will turn away from their first love.
          Many false prophets have come into the world and countries are looking for a messiah to deliver them.
          The muslims look for the 12th. iman and war to bring him in.
          The Jews looks for their Messiah to deliver them and reconstruct the Temple.
          The Christians look for Christ and the rapture to take them out of this mess.
          World wide wars mostly by the muslims rage effecting the whole world. Will it be the 12 iman who is anti Christ who will at last come to the muslims and the world as the anti Christ?
          If so will Christians bow before him rather than lose their heads?
          Will the world accept him and everyone go after him even taking a RFID chip so the governments can control them even to the point of slavery?
          For the tribulation period which is about to come on this earth the world will have its messiah. And he will rule and reign in the NWO order and the world will cry peace, peace the comes sudden destruction.
          Are you ready?
          Jesus Christ is Lord.

          • Randy Wanat

            People gave been claiming it was end times since the beginning times. James Randi used to write that he was going to die that day on a business card every day and put it in his pocket, so I he did die, it would look like he prophesied his own death. That’s what you apocalyptic-lusting death cultists have been doing for millennia. Your obsession with everyone’s demise and your own specialness is disturbing at best.

  • Neiman

    We are reaping to whirlwind, because America kicked the Christian God out of the public square, making Him persona non grata in all our affairs; so He removed His hand of protection for this once mostly Christian nation. Our official state denomination is now Satanism, euphemistically called secularism or even more kind to ourselves secular humanism. Why should we be shocked when such things happen, Satan totally rules this nation, the prince of Hell is the god of the United States. Why? Because practical atheist Christians have mostly stood silent, not wanting their own lusts interuppted.

    • Jack Rohde

      yep.

    • Randy Wanat

      You’re right. We should burn the Constitution and have a theocracy instead. Think of all the grew theocracies of the world. We could be just like them!

      • Neiman

        Why must you lie? No one is calling for a theocracy!

        • Randy Wanat

          My bad. I thought that having a government that dictates whose religious ideas can and cannot be expressed, and wherein only a certain religion(s) is incorporated into the legislative process, was a theocracy. But, I suppose it could be defined otherwise.

          • Neiman

            Tell me , were your parents dishonest about everything as well? I mean you must have been raised in a very dishonest, incredibly liberal and anti-Christ family to explain your rejection of obvious facts.

            This country until 1962 and most states until much later, always reflected the social/moral and religious values of its citizens. Until then Christians were allowed to prefer and vote for Christians as their candidates for public office and through them to seek to influence our laws to reflect their values. No one I know denies the right of idiots like this atheist fool to express his ideas, but unlike you we also think that the elected officials at any level are allowed to absent themselves when such filth is being promoted. See free speech permits creeps like this fellow to have access to the public square, but it cannot force other people to stay and listen or prevent then from expressing outrage at his ideas. Free speech works both ways, while this ignorant fellow has the right to speak, he cannot force anyone to listen, he cannot deny them their right to oppose his ideas or turn their backs on him.

          • Randy Wanat

            Are you prohibited since 1962 from voting for Christians? I didn’t see that restriction on the ballot, but I suppose I might have overlooked it. But, I agree with you that ever since the liberal Supreme Court allowed race-mixing marriage and letting black kids attend white schools, America hasn’t been the same. A darn shame, eh?

          • Neiman

            Not legally prohibited, but that is the clear implication of your hatred of the Christian faith and how the government is denying people of the Christian faith, while in office, the right to try and bring our laws into harmony with our spiritual/moral/social values. You want to silence all Christian values and deny Christians their constitutional rights.

            I hate to tell you this, because you hate the truth; but it was Christians that brought slavery to an end, it was conservatives, mostly Christians that made the passage of the civil rights act/laws possible in America. It was mostly Christians that gave all religions freedom of expression in the Bill of Rights.

            Christians are not by nature racists, but liberals and atheists are.

          • Randy Wanat

            Just to clarify: You claimed that, for the last 52 years, you have been prohibited from voting for Christians. Now, you are admitting that you have not been prohibited. Perhaps you should focus on facts instead of trying to sound dramatic. It’s less likely to lead you to lie.

          • Neiman

            I have answered your question, if you do not like the answer that is your problem, not mine. You cannot prove a single lie!

          • Randy Wanat

            Oh, I see…you’re five. Well, it’s nice that your mommy lets you play on the google machine, but you should clean the peanut butter off the keyboard.

          • Neiman

            How is that immature to say I have answered your question and that I am not responsible for your reaction?

          • Mike

            Actually through a simple Google search your lies are revealed as well as your intelligence.

          • Randy Wanat

            Remember who used the Bible to justify slavery. Right…Christians. Remember who used the Bible to support anti-miscegenation. Right…Christians. Remember who started the Ku Klux Klan. Right…Christians. I certainly never said Christians are inherently racist (and your claim that liberals and atheists are is not only bigoted, but is not born out by any data, and if Uranus us where you’re pulling these “facts from, I recommend you stop), but it’s rather pathetic to watch the political majority in America (white Christians), who have been in a position of power and privilege for the last 400 years on this continent, crying about how they’re being victimized because…gasp…non-Christians and non-whites are starting to become more common in positions of prominence in society. You’re sobbing over not having your rights taken away, but having a position of exclusive power opened up to other people. There are Christians who are good people and Christians who are terrible people. I would never be so arrogant, presumptuous, and pig-headed as to accuse all of them of being bad people in any fashion. You, however, clearly have no compunction about such things. Does your Christianity make you a bigoted jerk, or are you a bigoted jerk separate from your Christianity?

          • Neiman

            On what basis do you call me bigoted?

            You are, as is your habit, absolutely wrong about these bad things you listed as having been done by Christians. To make that charge stick, you must find in the words or actions of Jesus and in the Gospels and Epistles, any scriptural warrant for those things. Many people have falsely used the name Christian to defend evil, but if there is no scriptural warrant in the New Testament for any of those actions, then they are using the name falsely and no blame can be placed upon Christ or His Church. You also were so cowardly as to not admit that from slavery to the Civil Rights Laws, it was mostly bible believing Christians that were active in ending slavery and passing those laws.

            No one is crying or sobbing just pointing out the facts. We Christians know these things would happen and that they will get much, much worse. We know that God has told us that the Christian Church will be persecuted all over the earth, we simply observe what it is happening and in fact rejoice, because we know it heralds the soon return of the Lord for His Church and God pouring out His wrath against all of you that have rejected His Son and have turned this world and this nation into a morally depraved, murderous people. No crying involved, just pointing out the facts which you hate.

            Your definition of what is or is not a good Christian or what is good or bad does not make it the truth. It is just your anti-Christ, secularist opinion, as you are a player in the gross depravity of this nation. The only good Christian to you will submit to your secular values or else. Your side has made it clear Christians will either submit or lose their right to own a business, to hold a job. Your side insists Christians compromise their faith or suffer the wrath of your secular, anti-Christ laws. You fine them, send them to jail and one day you will rejoice when such Christians are killed. God tells us that is what will happen and when we look around us, we see it happening every day, moving towards that hate filled goal. So, we know His Word is Truth.

            If you think I am going to back off and submit to your opinions, you are sadly mistaken.

          • Randy Wanat

            You declared all atheists and liberals to be inherent racist.

            Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own (dictionary.reference.com)
            How do you not qualify as a bigot?

          • Randy Wanat

            Do you believe in the trinitarian godhead of a united father, son, and holy spirit, that they are all one, and aspects of the same singular divinity? Yes or no. If you think I can’t make you defend atrocities, you don’t know me very well. Now, answer the question.

          • Neiman

            I never mind answering any biblical question, but this is NOT a court of law and you cannot force me to say YES or NO.

            I don’t know you at all and you cannot force me to do anything. I answer what I choose and ignore what I choose. I do not submit to children of Satan.

          • Randy Wanat

            You are wise to avoid answering questions, as that only creates a precedent to which you must adhere dogmatically, and that makes it much too was for you to be painted into a corner with logic. It’s cowardly, but wise. It protects your beliefs from critical scrutiny, which I the only thing they can’t withstand. Good for you for understanding how flimsy and weak your faith is.

          • Randy Wanat

            I said nothing about good Christians; read for comprehension, and stop using no true Scotsman. Christians used the Bible to defend slavery and racism. Do you deny this?

          • Neiman

            Lie#1: “There are Christians who are good people.” You did say something about “good Christians.”

            Yes I deny Christians used the Bible to defend slavery and racism.

          • Mike

            You obviously know nothing of slavery if you think it was not defended by the Bible.

          • Randy Wanat

            Christians who are good people and good Christians are not necessarily the same thing. Are good baseball players and baseball players who are good people the same thing? Hint: The words and their order indicate meaning.

          • Randy Wanat

            Are you denying that the Bible was used to justify slavery and racism, or are you denying that people who used the Bible to justify slavery and racism weren’t Christians? If it’s the former, you’re demonstrably factually incorrect. If it’s the latter, you’re depending on no true Scotsman. So, which is it? Wrong or logical fallacy? Your choice.

          • Neiman

            Already answered. Try remedial reading.

          • Randy Wanat

            I am asking for clarification. The original question set the table. Now, you’re being served. But, I understand that, having seen how you are now in an untenable predicament, you’ve decided to stop digging. At least you figured out how deep in you were, and that you couldn’t even salvage a non-loss out of it.

          • Neiman

            No, you simply are too lazy to read or have a serious reading comprehension problem. I am not in any hole nor have I lost any argument. That is all in your evil imagination.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            it was Christians that brought slavery to an end

            And also non-Christians, like Robert Ingersol and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

            Yes I deny Christians used the Bible to defend slavery and racism.

            Check out the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention.

          • Neiman

            I agree tat many non-Christians played a part in ending slavery. I only assert that the movement was really launched in England by Christian people like Wilberforce and Newton, among other prominent Christians and it was mostly Christian or Christian minded folk that fought and died to end slavery, as that was the make-up of our nation at that time.

            As I said earlier, many people use many names falsely. The test of whether Christians who were truly following Christ defended and prolonged slavery, is to find an warrant in the life and words of Christ or the New Testament that defended slavery, otherwise the Christian faith cannot be blamed. The only real mention of slaves, a common practice all over the world in biblical times, in Israel mostly involving voluntary economic servitude, was Paul telling Christians slaves to obey their masters in an exemplary way to win them to Christ by their conduct and for Christian slave owners to treat their Christian slaves like brothers and sisters in Christ in kindness and love.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            The test of whether Christians who were truly following Christ defended and prolonged slavery, is to find an warrant in the life and words of Christ or the New Testament that defended slavery, otherwise the Christian faith cannot be blamed.

            Are you saying the founders of the SBC weren’t Christians?

            The only real mention of slaves, a common practice all over the world in biblical times, in Israel mostly involving voluntary economic servitude

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

          • Neiman

            Don’t put words in my mouth. I said what I said, you may do with it whatever you will, I am comfortable that my answer was biblical and correct.

            Leviticus is the Old Testament, the Jewish order of things. The New Testament deals with the Church of Christ. It would take too long to explain how they are in many ways connected and in fundamental ways quite distant from one another.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Don’t put words in my mouth.

            I’m not. That’s why I asked. But it looks like the only conclusion possible is that you don’t consider the founders of the SBC to be Christians.

            Leviticus is the Old Testament, the Jewish order of things.

            Which is why I used it in response to your remark that slavery “in Israel mostly involving voluntary economic servitude.”

          • Neiman

            I don’t know much about the SBC or their origins or past beliefs. So no comment.

            I was talking about Israel in the Christian era and you Israel generally.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            Since the SBC was founded explicitly to defend slavery, it’s kind of pertinent to your statement “The test of whether Christians who were truly following Christ defended and prolonged slavery, is to find an warrant in the life and words of Christ or the New Testament that defended slavery, otherwise the Christian faith cannot be blamed.”

          • Neiman

            I would only ask, is it the same today? Perhaps among them were still some authentic Christians that hopefully did not approve.

          • Ralph Spoilsport II

            I would only ask, is it the same today?

            Hardly anyone supports slavery today, Christian or atheist.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Many people have falsely used the name Christian to defend evil,”

            “Evil” based upon what criteria? At the time of the crusades, inquisitions, etc., the leaders of the church and their followers agreed these actions were in line with their faith. For example:

            “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” — Dt.13:6-10

            Seems pretty clear that the bible supports the killing of non-believers.

            You seem to be suggesting that if a person does not operate in accordance with scripture, they are not a “real” Christian. Given that the various sects of Christianity are not able to agree on a how scripture should be interpreted, I’d be curious to know which interpretation of scripture you think should be utilized to determine if someone is a “real” Christian. Yours? Catholics? Southern Baptist? Amish?

            If dutifully following scripture is the only way to be considered a “real” Christian, then we would not to remove all those who have sexual relations outside of marriage, all those who have divorced for reasons other than infidelity, all the men who have long hair, all the women who have short hair, all the women who speak out in church, all the women who do not obey their husbands in all things, etc. That would leave the number of “real” Christians to be a significant minority in the US.

            “in fact rejoice”

            For a person who is supposedly rejoicing, you certainly are complaining a lot.

            “Your side has made it clear Christians will either submit or lose their right to own a business, to hold a job.”

            Who has insisted upon this? Submit to what? In what way?

            “Your side insists Christians compromise their faith or suffer the wrath of your secular, anti-Christ laws.”

            So do you believe that all of our laws should be based upon the Christian belief system?

            “send them to jail”

            Who has been sent to jail because of their belief system?

            “one day you will rejoice when such Christians are killed.”

            While I can’t speak for others, I certainly would not “rejoice when such Christians are killed”. The vast majority of my friends and family are Christians. I have no desire to see them killed. Your hyperbole weakens your arguments.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            ” the government is denying people of the Christian faith, while in office, the right to try and bring our laws into harmony with our spiritual/moral/social values.”

            In what way is the government denying someone of trying to do something?

            When you say “our spiritual/moral/social values”, who is “our”?

            “You want to silence all Christian values and deny Christians their constitutional rights.”

            Please point to efforts to “silence all Christian values and deny Christians their constitutional rights”.

          • Mike

            You can vote any way you want…. Voting is by-law private, only YOU blab about who you voted for. Don’t blame us that you get ridiculed for voting for an unpopular person….

          • Randy Wanat

            Be specific. What, exactly, was filthy about what he said in his invocation? Details. Please say precisely what, in your estimation, constituted filth.

          • Neiman

            ““May the efforts of this council blend the righteousness of Allah with the all-knowing wisdom of Satan.”

          • Randy Wanat

            What is filthy about that? Be specific. If it requires me to share your religious beliefs and prejudices, I’m afraid that won’t cut it. Are you contesting the righteousness of Allah? Do you have special insight into the intellect of Satan? Prove your case. Demonstrate what about that would strike any person of reasonable intellect of no particular religious persuasion as filthy. Understand that one can just as easily argue the same about your deity, and, by your own standard, prayers to your deity should not be allowed. Tread carefully, for you have laid the mines.

          • Neiman

            What land mines? I don’t care if you don’t think it filthy or not, it is pure demonic filth. It is anti-Christ and from the pits of hell. This man is a satanist.

            Allah does not exist, he was the Moon God chosen by Mohammad. Yes, Islam is wholly unrighteous!

          • Randy Wanat

            So, your religion is righteous according to you, therefore everything else is bad. If someone else has the same belief about their religion but it isn’t Christianity, and he declares YOUR religion demonic and evil, and says YOUR deity does not exist, who’s right and how do we prove it? If it can’t be proven, whose religious beliefs should be banned and why? Also, what makes him a Satanist? For that matter, what do you think “Satanist” means?

          • Neiman

            Lie # 3: I never asked for any religion to be banned.

            If he prays to Satan and honors Satan, he is by definition a satanist. To be a Satanist is to serve Satan and this man does. Quite frankly, anyone outside of Christ is a child of the Devil, that person has rejected God and His Son and is in the service of hell.

            I will deal with such people directly, not with you.

          • Randy Wanat

            He prayed to Jesus, thus, by your standard, Christian. He prayed to Allah, thus, by your standard, Muslim. Maybe you should try saying things that aren’t dumb.

          • Neiman

            When he prayed to Satan, he revealed he is a Satanist. Allah is of Satan as well. He only used Jesus Name to denigrate Him and Christians.

          • Randy Wanat

            Prove anything you’ve claimed.

          • TheBBP

            If you can’t see it, then I don’t know how to help you.

          • Mike

            Pay attention sir… He prayed to Zeus, Thor, Satan, Jesus, Krishna etc…. So he did not just pray to Satan, by your logic he has to be all of said religions.

          • Mike

            Actually he is an Atheist, not a Satanist… There is a distinct difference.

          • Neiman

            I can understand that from your secularist perspective they are different, from the Christian point of view they are identical. All that is not devoted to Christ is anti-Christ and from hell, wherein Lucifer reigns supreme over the whole world.

          • Randy Wanat

            The science of designing and manufacturing computer chips is not devoted to Christ, therefore it’s anti-Christ. When can we expect you to leave the Googlewebs?

          • Neiman

            Christians are in this wicked world and cannot avoid its many developments, we are just not of this world. There is the Spirit of Christ and the spirit of this world which is evil. It does not mean that every improvement is evil by design, but your people use it for evil purposes.

          • Mike

            Both of those are recognized religions…. Why are they filthy? Just because they go against your own beliefs?

          • Neiman

            Because from the Christian point of view, they are both religions from hell, they are in the same way, with slightly different language, designed to lead souls to hell in service to the Prince of Hell.

          • Mike

            So you’re basically saying that no other religion should matter on this Earth but you’re own and nobody else’s beliefs should be respected?!

            You see that is exactly why nobody likes Christians, they are an arrogant entitled bunch of a**holes!

            Well luckily we live in America, a secular nation governed by a secular Constitution where we do not have to listen to you, your religion, or your Bible. You have no power here!!!

          • Neiman

            First you lie about what I said. Of course they matter to their adherents. Of course, we should respect their right to exist. Neither demands we not oppose their false teachings.

            You are right, you cursing and hate filled atheists, you people are making great strides in making Christianity into a crime here. God said you would, you don’t know it, but your every word fulfills prophecy and proves God’s very existence.

          • Mike

            You said that Islam and Satan were both filthy and vile. I said that Christians were arrogant and entitled. Where was the lie?

            Oooohhhhh I have a prophecy too. When religion is finally gone we will have true world peace!

            Funny God could predict the outcome of his religion in the world but he couldn’t create us without sin?! Then punished us for the way we were originally created when he could have just as easily created us to be sinless beings… You claim to be an intelligent individual, do you see the paradox here?!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “This country until 1962 and most states until much later, always reflected the social/moral and religious values of its citizens.”

            What happened in 1962 that changed that?

            “Until then Christians were allowed to prefer and vote for Christians as their candidates for public office and through them to seek to influence our laws to reflect their values.”

            They are still allowed to do so. That has not changed.

            “but it cannot force other people to stay and listen or prevent then from expressing outrage at his ideas.”

            Who suggested that it could?

          • Neiman

            1. School prayer prohibited and that launched a tidal wave of anti-Christian legislation the continues to this day.

            2. The difference is that Christian elected officials are stopped from do anything to influence our laws to reflect Christian moral/spiritual values, as those values are now Unconstitutional. So in effect, in the real word, while we can prefer and vote for such candidates, they are no longer allowed to protect the rights of Christians.

            3. Every secularist/atheists here has implied exactly that.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            1. So it is your belief that because public schools – which are funded by all taxpayers of all faiths as well as no faith, and serve children of all faiths as well as no faith – are not allowed to sponsor and endorse one religious belief over another, or over no belief, that the country no longer reflects the social, moral, and religious values of its citizens? Which citizens?

            How is not favoring Christianity “anti-Christian”? You seem to be equating not being favored with being “anti” – they are not the same. Your persecution complex is unwarranted.

            2. “The difference is that Christian elected officials are stopped from do anything to influence our laws to reflect Christian moral/spiritual values.”

            That is a lie. Over the past several years numerous states have implemented stricter abortion laws, which are based upon Christian beliefs that abortion is wrong. The government of Illinois is currently considering legislation which would provide religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws, as other states have considered.

            “as those values are now Unconstitutional.”

            Another lie. No one’s values are “unconstitutional”.

            “while we can prefer and vote for such candidates,”

            So you lied when you said otherwise.

            “3. Every secularist/atheists here has implied exactly that.”

            Examples? Or is this another lie?

            For someone who claims to be Christian, you certainly do lie a lot. Did I miss the part of scripture where lying is condoned? To quote you: “Tell me , were your parents dishonest about everything as well?”

          • Neiman

            Your replies are far too lengthy and I do not intend to allow you to monopolize my time. Either make short, concise replies or ask short, clear questions, or I will ignore you. I am deleting all your replies until you do.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I can’t monopolize your time. You determine how your time is spent.

            “ask short, clear questions,”

            My questions are short and clear – here, I’ll repeat them:

            “So it is your belief that because public schools are not allowed to sponsor and endorse one religious belief over another, or over no belief, that the country no longer reflects the social, moral, and religious values of its citizens?” (most of the words reference what you wrote – do you have an issue with reading your own words?)

            “Which citizens” (only two words there – pretty short and very clear)

            “How is not favoring Christianity “anti-Christian”?” (only 6 words – is that too many for you?)

            “Examples?” (just one word – can’t get much shorter than that)

            “Or is this another lie?” (5 words – is that too many for you?)

            “Did I miss the part of scripture where lying is condoned?” (11 words – kind of long I guess – but just 1 longer than my next question, which is one you asked)

            “Tell me , were your parents dishonest about everything as well?” (that’s 10 words in your question – is 10 your limit as far as being able to respond?)

            If you don’t like being caught up in your lies and responding to them, that is your right. I can certainly understand how you would want to avoid that.

          • Neiman

            You cannot prove a single lie.

            You lie when you say I cannot or will not defend my beliefs, just scroll through this thread and see that you have lied.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You cannot prove a single lie”.

            You are correct – I didn’t prove a single lie, I proved all of them. Even YOU admitted you lied.

            “You lie when you say I cannot or will not defend my beliefs”

            I never said that. Another example of you lying.

            Is lying something you do all the time, or only online?

          • Mike

            If these short replies are “too lengthy” how do you read your Bible?! lol

        • James Grimes

          Accuracy? Truth? It doesn’t matter to the troll.

          • Neiman

            You got that right!

        • Mike

          Kind of sounds like you Christians want a Theocracy. By denying all other religions but your own and holding your Bible up as law instead of the Constitution….. Yeah, sure as God doesn’t exist seems that way!

          • Neiman

            (a) No one is calling for a theocracy and most Christians would oppose that. (b) No one is denying other religions their full rights under the Constitution. (c) No one is holding up the Bible as a replacement or substitute for the law or the Constitution. (d) Most of the Founding Fathers designed and believed the Constitution reflected the moral laws of God. (e) You hate the second clause about freedom of religious expression, don’t you?

          • Randy Wanat

            You’re the one arguing that certain religious beliefs should not be allowed he government to be expressed, while others should be permitted. Please, explain how you don’t hate the clause about religious expression. We’re arguing for 100% equality. You’re arguing for institutionalized religious discrimination.

          • Neiman

            More lies from you.

            I never said any religious beliefs should not be allowed or denied free speech or access to the public square. I only said people of faith are free to oppose them and refuse to participate in their practices.

            Another lie, I never argued for religious discrimination.

            Third lie and you are out – you are not arguing for 100% equality, it is your side trying to deny Christians access to the public square. You have already expressed your hatred of the Christian faith.

          • Randy Wanat

            Either nobody or everybody gets to do religious invocations (or non-religious, as they could not legally discriminate against the non-religious participating). That is 100% equality. It’s not about Christians in particular (though it does foster your persecution complex); it’s about religion in general. There should be no religious favoritism in the government. We are arguing for equality. Not being granted privileged status is not persecution, no matter how many times you say it is.

          • Neiman

            No, in your seething hatred you are fighting against the Christian faith having any right to the public square, because it is the only religion that threatens your atheism.

    • James Grimes

      We will reap what we plant. There is no winner in a game with the Devil.

    • SZMatheson

      There is no official state denomination, and there never has been.

      • Neiman

        Yes there is, you leftists call it secularism, it is really atheism.

        • SZMatheson

          No, it is the freedom of every citizen to choose his or her own beliefs. The founding fathers, a group of mostly Christian men, were wise enough to not create a government that imposes religion on anyone. You have the freedom to believe exactly what you do, and I have the freedom to believe exactly what I do, and through discourse, we can each learn from each other, if each of us is willing. Remember that Jesus was once a radical and extreme preacher who disagreed with an establishment that did have law based on religion.

          For example.
          “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
          – John Adams in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the Senate of 1797

          • Neiman

            See comments above to santa.

        • KDC

          Secularism is just as good for Yahweh worshipers, Satan worshipers, Allah worshipers, Neptune worshipers, and atheists. Please realize that the freedom to worship and the freedom from religion are good for everyone.

          • Neiman

            That which is not of Christ is under the power of the enemy of our souls – Satan. While you are correct that we have freedom or religious expression and non-religious expression, it does not change in a spiritual sense exactly what I have suggested.

            When we deny God as being the sole Guarantor of our Liberty, as Jefferson acknowledged that fact – “to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, we have thus given our allegiance to the enemy of our souls. When we advance in all of our public affairs a spirit of secularism, when we deny God access and demand a secular spirit, we have given our nation to the enemy of our souls, he has become our national God/church/denomination.

            I do not care if you agree or not, that is the Truth. It does not imply that I think a theocracy should exist, but it would insist that if we do want our Creator to bless our nation and protect our liberties, we cannot gain His protections by militantly denying His children free expression at work, play or in our public spaces, we cannot do that with the official policy of hostility towards Him that now exists and which never did exist until 1962.

          • Mike

            Wrong…. “Nature’s God” is a term used by Deists. Desists believed in a God that kept the balance and controlled everything (Mother Nature). It had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ or the Christian God. They believed we had fundamental rights to be free and exist, live a life that fulfills us and makes us happy. They were completely against tyranny in all forms, especially that of religion. If you knew anything about our country and our forefathers you would know at least this!

          • Neiman

            That is only your opinion, who was the Creator Jefferson referenced?

            I dare say I know much more about our founding that yourself.

          • Mike

            I really don’t think you do. My favorite founder was Jefferson. I’ve studied much of his correspondence, read many of his books including his version of the Bible. I already told you the creator he referenced was a mother nature type God, not the God you think of or worship. Jefferson was a scientist and if alive today would have been an Atheist. He thought of religion as silly. He admired and respected Jesus but in his Bible he took all aspects of divinity away from Jesus and left him as a teacher, humanist, and mentor.

          • Neiman

            Forgive me but I cannot invest the time and attention you require and I am more concerned about the things of God than this world, its government and its politics. I find myself distracted and too much time lost.

            Let us say that I can play dueling quotations, mine will support the idea that this was a mostly Christian nation at its founding, that Jefferson (I agree with most of your descriptions of him), was not as hostile to the Christian faith as you are. We can argue this until the proverbial cows come home and make no more progress in convincing each other of our positions. This has been debated almost since our founding and neither side of the issue has been moved.

            I hope you will agree that by their many words and actions, the Founding Fathers were not hostile to the Christian faith, even Jefferson in the Northwest Treaty encouraging new states to teach the Christian bible in their public schools to develop good morals and government.

            So, I regret I cannot invest the time refuting your arguments would take and that to no positive end. I have said all I need to say and if I am right and you live a long time, you will, I believe, regret to your everlasting sorrow your rejection of Salvation.

          • Mike

            So just because I set you straight on this nations founding and PROVED through historical quotes that I am correct all of a sudden I am being “hostile to the Christian faith” haha! Ok buddy!

          • Neiman

            You did NOT prove me wrong, I told you that I just do not have the time for this debate right now.

          • Mike

            You know more about the founding fathers?! This the same person that thinks that secularism is some brand new liberal Atheist concept?! Hahahaha

          • Santa

            Jefferson defiantly didn’t worship your god Yahweh and he wasn’t referencing Yahweh either. Here are a few of Jefferson’s thoughts on Yahweh and more generally gods.

            “God is a being of terrific character…cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.” -Thomas Jefferson

            Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
            -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787′

            “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” – Thomas Jefferson

            “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.” Notes on Virginia, 1782 -Thomas Jefferson

            “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter” (Works, Vol. iv, p. 365). – Thomas Jefferson

            Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Thomas Cooper 1814

            “In the gospel history of Jesus, Jefferson discovers what he terms “a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticism, and fabrications” (Works, Vol. iv, p. 325). -Thomas Jefferson

            “If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he was an impostor” (Works, Vol. iv, p. 325). -Thomas Jefferson

          • Mike

            Noticed once I proved him wrong he all of a sudden didn’t have time to debate lol. I bet he did a Google search on Jefferson and realized he had no dog in this fight!

        • Mike

          Ummmm this country was established as a secular nation! So technically it was NEVER Christian.

          • Neiman

            Calm down, I don’t have all day to play your games. Fewer posts please!

            From our founding until 1962 we were in spirit a mostly Christian nation and people and far from wholly secular. One lie changed all that!

          • Mike

            Very wrong, this country was never Christian…. It’s citizenry were and still are Christian however this country was never established to be in any part Christian. This is just someplace Christians settled and thrived, it could have just as easily been any other religion. Curious though, what lie “changed all that”?

        • Mike

          That statement alone proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Just sit in the corner, adults are talking now!

    • KDC

      Wait, honest question. When exactly was this turnover from Christian to Satanism?

      • Neiman

        Technically/legally 1948, practically 1962.

        • Santa

          What happened on those dates?

          • Neiman

            You are NOT, your ego aside, the only person in the world or the only thing I have to do.

            1948 – Justice Hugo Black created the lie of Separation of Church and State out of whole cloth. It perverted the 1st Amendment.

            1962 – The Warren Court made its first real decision based on what Justice Black constructed in denying prayer in schools.

            Thereafter we have had an avalanche of such laws, laws which our Founding Fathers never even hinted should exist.

          • Santa

            >>”You are NOT, your ego aside, the only person in the world or the only thing I have to do.”

            Was this directed to me? I have no idea what you are talking about in this sentence.

            >>dates…

            In what way does this stop people from worshiping Yahweh?

          • Neiman

            You were insisting that I answer you immediately.

            I answered.

            Worship of God is being forced out of all public places, out of the public square and increasingly condemned even within churches. For now we are allowed to worship God in our homes, but only for now.

          • Santa

            >>”You were insisting that I answer you immediately. I answered.”

            Answered what? What are you talking about?

            >>”Worship of God is being forced out of all public places, out of the public square”

            It isn’t at all. Hell, most atheist would be the first to stand up for your right to independently worship whatever you want in public places or public square. That isnt that the very reason we both are here commenting in this thread? I would prefer not to have religious prayer before government meeting, but if you must have it, I you better believe I want equal representation.

            Again, you seem to just not realize this is for your own benefit.

            >>”For now we are allowed to worship God in our homes, but only for now.”

            Laughable, absolutely absurd claim. Government not endorsing Christianity =/= only allowed to worship at home

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “so He removed His hand of protection for this once mostly Christian nation.”

      What is the basis for your statement?

      “Our official state denomination is now Satanism”

      Please point to any document which states that “our official sate denomination” is now Satanism.

      “euphemistically called secularism or even more kind to ourselves secular humanism.”

      You would benefit from having a better understanding of the secularism and secular humanism. They are not the same as Satanism.

      “Why should we be shocked when such things happen”

      What “such things”?

      “Because practical atheist Christians”

      How can a Christian be an atheist?

      “not wanting their own lusts interuppted”

      What lusts are you referring to?

    • Mike

      America kicked the Christian God out of government by the Constitution signed in 1788

      “Congress shall make no laws RESPECTING any establishment of religion nor deny any person the free exercise therof”

      America then blatantly denied Christ in the treaty with Tripoli in 1797….

      “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
      founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of
      enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan]
      nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
      religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
      existing between the two countries.”

      This country was established as an escape from religion. We still survive and endure, without God.

      • Neiman

        Your first statement is wholly false: (a) The first clause of the right to religious freedom ONLY prevented the State from officially declaring a state religion or Christian denomination, it did not deny the state any right to be free from influence in their law making from their religious, mostly Christian values. (b) The second clause not only guarantees the right of religious expression (beliefs and practices), the Bill of Rights prohibits, it absolutely forbids the Congress on behalf of the state from passing any laws infringing on these rights in any shape, manner or form, albeit they did not anticipate the out of control, super-legislative branch – the Supreme Court making such anti religious freedom laws from the bench.

        The Treaty with Tripoli was not part of the Constitution and in fact perverted the Bill of Rights, it was an unconstitutional treaty in that regard.

        The last statement, like all of them, is false.This country was NOT established as an escape from religion, that is a most evil lie. The Pilgrims and subsequent early almost wholly Christian settlers were escaping nations with state churches which denied them freedom of religion and it was these same Christians that mostly were responsible for the 1st Amendment’s protection of religious liberty for all religions. In our National Charter, our Declaration of Independence, we state our country’s dependence upon Nature’s God and our Creator for all of our rights, He was, as long as we honored Him, the sole Guarantor of those rights and when we turned against Him in 1962, those rights were immediately attacked, eroded and many of them no longer exist, like freedom of religion and speech.

        • Mike

          Thomas Jefferson better explained the 1st amendment in his Virginia Statute for religious Freedom 1786. In that it says that the government cannot force religion on the people nor can it create any laws that are wholly religious.

          The Treaty with Tripoli is a recognized document that was never considered unconstitutional. It was ratified and President John Adams at the time said this:

          “Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of
          America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the
          advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same,
          and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said
          Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the
          United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do
          hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military
          within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof,
          faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and
          article thereof.”

          Many of the original settlers to the new world were Christians. Many were Quakers, puritans etc… All looking for a chance to start a new life in a new place. This does not mean at all that this country was founded for them or to further the cause of Christianity. Our forefathers made it very clear that this would be a secular nation with a clear separation between church and state. ALL of our nations early documents reflect this.

  • Jack Rohde

    I just want to punch him in the face in the name of JESUS.

    • Labataille

      Not sure you understood jesus message…

      • Neiman

        Well I am sure he was going to repent after! 🙂

    • Randy Wanat

      There’s the Christian love we hear about so much. It really does make people more moral. I mean, you’re restraining yourself to a mere punch. That’s mighty moral of you.

    • Mike

      I’m sure your Jesus would approve…. Somebody needs to read their Bible more. Jesus was a hippy pacifist.

  • James Grimes

    More proof that the Atheists are “The Useless.”

    • KDC

      What a good Christian thing to do, stereotype and marginalize a whole group of people.

      • James Grimes

        🙂 LOL

    • Dru James

      At least we’re not child molesters. Something your priests are quite fond of.

      Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. – Numbers 31

      • James Grimes

        I submitted this comment to the administrators to see if it was appropriate for this site.

        • Dru James

          The truth hurts James? That verse is part of your religion.
          If you believe it, then you should be proud of it.
          If you don’t believe it, then you shouldn’t criticize those who reject all of it.

          And please, the whole “Atheists are “The Useless.” comment, is just plain ignorance on your part.

          Bill Gates had donated over $26 billion to charity.
          Warren Buffett about the same and has pledged to give 99% of his wealth to charity.

          • James Grimes

            Really? Should I be interested?

          • James Grimes

            I must congratulate you on such a long and meaningless rant, but I am not interested in any Atheist opinions. Have a nice day and a blessed Christmas.

          • Dru James

            And Happy Holidays to you and yours James, and a Happy New Year.

  • crisban

    RIDICULOUS. Such disrespect. Invoking THOR?!

    That meeting was on a Tuesday. Thursday is Thor’s day.

  • Gracia Borchard

    Ah no, America…what have you become? And in such a short space of time too…The days of Noah; but will there be ANYONE serving the One True God, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, or will the entire nation just be a bunch of wicked demon-possessed scum??? Judgement is coming!

    • KDC

      Good to know, but how are we to tell demon possessed scum from regular god fearing scum?

    • Mike

      You realize Noah never existed right… That whole story was the Epic of Gilgamesh told in Sumerian spoken word stories over 1,000 years before Noah.

      • railhead

        Interesting that there is evidence of a worldwide flood everywhere both in geology and historical accounts. Of course geologists who adhere to the religion of evolution offer a different explanation that fits with their “millions of years” paradigm.

        • Mike

          I am not aware of any evidence of a worldwide flood. I know some land that was dry is now underwater due to all of the ancient ruins at the bottom of the ocean. I also know that what was once underwater is now dry land. It is called plate tectonics, the crust of the Earth is constantly changing and rearranging itself. Just because they find a sediment layer in rock on dry land does not mean that the entire Earth was covered in water at the same time. No scientist, geologist, or archeologist of reputation has ever confirmed the Biblical flood story as fact.

          • railhead

            Reputation and truth seldom go hand in hand, given that reputation is built on popularity. However, there are many historical accounts of a worldwide flood from many different cultures, including the Biblical account. These accounts are of course called “legends” by “academia”, but they exist. The Grand Canyon is a great testament of the flood, again, the scientific community chooses to explain it under their own paradigm. The fossil layers could be explained by a global flood, as well.
            Their paradigm is what forms their explanation, however, not vice versa. Most would never admit to a worldwide flood, because they would be ridiculed by their evolutionist colleagues, even if they saw and believed the evidence pointed to it. Their reputation would be lost, thus you can see the reliability of reputation falls quickly by the wayside.

          • Mike

            (“Legends by “academia”)??? You do realize that a legend is exactly that right? Many cultures have many legends told by spoken word. If we are to believe ancient Hebrews when they say there was a flood are we to believe ancient Sumerians when they say they were ruled by a bunch of aliens? Where do we draw the line? The grand canyon was formed by melting glaciers from the last ice age. This is common knowledge even amongst the geologically ignorant. Most of North America was covered in water at some point, in the form of ice!!!

            There is absolutely no evidence to support anything in the Bible as truth and fact including that Jesus was a real person. Do you honestly think all of the first born sons of Egypt were slaughtered by an unknown force and they would not blurp about it in a hieroglyph or two? lol

          • railhead

            There is actually TONS of archaeological evidence for many stories of the Bible.
            As for where you draw the line, when you have several cultures worldwide all recording the same thing before the days of modern communication, you should stop and think for a moment if perhaps maybe they all recorded the same thing because it actually occurred. However, most scientists would not even entertain such a notion because it would totally go against their belief system (religion) which is evolution.
            “The Grand Canyon was formed by melting glaciers from the ice age.”
            Were you there? I mean you are making quite a statement there, as if you know this to be absolute fact. That’s the kind of assumptive language that is often used by many scientists, however. The fact is, they cannot truly know what caused the Grand Canyon without any direct observation, they can only speculate.

          • Mike

            There is no archeological evidence to support anything in the Bible aside from Egypt and Rome were real places. Christianity has been using historical figures and hisorical events to manipulate and insert false facts and boldfaced lies since it’s creation. Even the story of Jesus’s birth does not coincide with historical events, no evidence supports a great worldwide flood, or that all the first born children of Egypt died on the same night. Please provide some archeological evidence that you claim exists… If there is literally TONS of information as you claim it shouldn’t be hard to provide sources.

          • railhead

            I’m not going to sit here and provide you with link after link, while you sit there and point out it’s from a Christian source, etc. I’ve been down this road enough in the past. There’s a news article on this site right now about King David, which I have yet to read. There are also several other archaeological finds which coincide with Biblical accounts. You have a search engine, just as I do, so if you are truly interested, check it out for yourself.
            As for the flood, there is plenty of “evidence”, unless you choose to interpret it to your own worldview. Go check out the Grand Canyon, or drive through New Mexico some time. You’ll notice that most of the landscape looks like it was under water at one time. That seems to corroboarate with a worldwide flood. Not only does the Bible give an account of the flood, but many other civilizations have stories of a giant worldwide flood, that have no vested interest in Christianity. That seems to further corroborate the flood. So you can’t say there is no evidence. You can only say you choose to believe an alternate explanation of the evidence.
            And your assertion of boldface lies is, just that, an assertion. True Christianity has one book as it’s only authority, the Bible. We are not changing what we believe on a daily basis to fit what man says. The Roman catholic church, which isn’t Christianity, may manipulate and change things around, people who claim to be Christian may also change things around, but the Bible stands alone, and has not changed in 2000 years.

          • Mike

            I didn’t ask for link after link, I simply want a link from a reputable source! If there are TONS of evidence like you said this should not be hard to do. I have been looking but so far I have found none.

          • Mike

            As for the flood…. There is no scientist that agrees that 100% of the Earth was underwater 100% of the time. The Grand Canyon was created by glaciers, this has been studied, this has been proven… It was not created by a word wide flood. Some ancient ruins are sitting at the bottom of oceans right now that were once mountains, there is a mountain, high above sea level where I am from in PA that is full of fossilized seashells because it was once underwater. If the tectonic plates of the Earth were stationary and did not constantly move around, I would agree that seashells on dry land could only mean that the Earth was covered in water but that simply is not the case. The Earth is constantly changing and rearranging itself.

            As for the other religion that talks about a world wide flood, just because a bunch of prehistoric people with no general knowledge of the world talk about a flood does not mean it was true. People have always had a general fear of the water. Every culture talks about sea creatures as well, but we have yet to find fire breathing Leviathans in any body of water. The Bible also talks about Unicorns coming down from a mountain…. I have never seen a Unicorn and no bones have been found. What is strange is that the only creature not mentioned in the Bible are Dinosaurs and we have found an abundance of Dinosaur bones!

          • railhead

            The term “dinosaur” wasn’t invented until the 1800s. There is, however, a term that is used in the Bible and other literature worldwide that fits the exact same description of what we call “dinosaurs” today. “Dragons”.
            I know, the whole world was delusional when people like Marco Polo wrote about dragons in non-fictional contexts, but NOW we know dragons are fictional and 65 million year old dinosaurs are real, even though they fit the exact same description.

          • Mike

            “The Bible stands alone, and has not changed in 2000 years”

            1. The Bible has not been around for 2000 years. Judaism and the Dead Sea scrolls have been around for 3,500 year in which the Old Testament was based upon. The New Testament has only been around since 350 CE. It was first written in Greek on sheep skins by Sinai monks. If you would like to do a little research yourself the first Bible is actually on display in a museum and it is called Codex Sinaiticus.

            2. The Bible has had over 14,000+ proven editorial changes since it’s creation. Including the addition of the resurrection. In the original Bible Jesus was placed into the tomb and it ends. No dramatic rolling away of the stone, no light, no appearing to the people, and no ascension. Jesus rising from the grave was added much much later.

          • jmichael39

            OR YOU CAN ANSWER THIS POST, which unequivocally refutes your entire Sinai Bible argument….which you have conveniently ignored.

            Okay, let’s do this the RIGHT way, Mike. Since you’re too naïve or arrogant to do your own research here it is. While MANY the Sinai Bible is the earliest FULL version of the bible (meaning it contains all 66 books as authorized by the councils of trent and nicea), the manuscript we have of that earliest version is by no
            means complete. There are numerous verses and sections missing from the MANUSCRIPT in the British Museum. You can often see whole sections missing from the manuscript itself. Just because several verses from the middle of a particular chapter are missing does not mean those verses were not part of the
            original (in tact) version of the manuscript.

            Mark 16 is one such section. Verse 1 is seen, but not the rest of the chapter. While illogical morons like you might assume that means the entirety of the resurrection account wasn’t even part of the original manuscript, there is absolutely no logic justification for making that conclusion.

            Add to that, the reality that the resurrection account IS included in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John in the same transcript, only serves to your case for there being no resurrection in the earliest full bible we have is refuted and unsubstantiated.

            http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit Query&book=33&chapter=28&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

            (see Matt. 28 on the website showing the actual manuscript)

            http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit Query&book=35&chapter=24&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

            (see Luke 24 on the same website)

            http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit Query&book=36&chapter=21&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

            (and see John 21 on the same website)

            NOW…If I remember correctly, you brought up the Sinai Bible in your attempt to refute the resurrection of Jesus…claiming that even the earliest complete bible didn’t contain the Resurrection account. That it was, somehow, added later. And therefore, there was not resurrection.

            However, as I have stated from the beginning of your
            presentation of the Sinai Bible, and have now undeniably proven, whether the Sinai Bible ever had the remaining portions of Mark 16 (and its resurrection account) is debatable, but it is undeniable that the other three gospels DO contain the full versions of the Resurrection account.

            Add to that the fact that Jewish historian Josephus also
            includes a reference to the resurrection account in his writings. While Josephus was no contemporary or eyewitness to the Resurrection, as the disciples were, his account does come long before the Sinai Bible manuscripts.

            Therefore, my original challenge still stands. Would you or would you not like to attempt to challenge the resurrection of Jesus? If so, I’m ready to debate. If not, I accept your withdraw from this debate.

            Now that you have no more lame excuses…put up or shut
            up.

          • railhead

            The first Bible is not Codex Sinaiaticus. The first Bible is the one that was written and copied, and copied, and copied, and copied for generations. The Textus Receptus is the most reliable Bible, as it contains the mmajority text. Just because something is discovered that is older does not make it more accurate or closer to the originals.
            The Bible has been copied and distributed for generations before the printing press and other modern advancements. The copies for the most part agree with each other. If you have one manuscript that gets found in a garbage can or under a rug somewhere after a few hundred years, and it disagrees with the majority of manuscripts in existence, why would you believe that one manuscript is actually more accurate?
            Think of it this way. Someone writes a sattire of say, The Illiad and then puts it away somewhere. A few hundred years go by and it is discovered in fragments. People look at it and say “wow this is what the Illiad REALLY said.”

        • Santa

          There is more evidence of my existence than a world wide flood.
          There is more evidence against a world wide flood than my existence. But lets face it, you aren’t interested in evidence are you?

          • railhead

            It’s not the evidence that’s really the issue, it’s the interpretation of the evidence. I look at the Grand Canyon and I say “wow, definitely looks like a huge volume of water carved this out.” You look at the Grand Canyon, under your own paradigm, and say “wow, it took millions of years to carve this out.” I look at the fossil layers, and say it definitely looks like things were buried rapidly and fossilized, and you can see that the layers are arranged by buoyancy. You look at the layers and see millions of years and different time periods.
            The point is that both of us are looking through our own paradigm. But there are historical accounts of a worldwide flood not only in the Bible, but in outher cultural writings throughout the world. Those records are not quite as subjective.

          • Santa

            You’ve been deluded and I don’t have time to argue something this elementary. Lets face it, there is nothing which would convince you otherwise.

          • railhead

            And, let’s face it, there is nothing that would convince you otherwise. If evolution and the big bang is your religion, fine. Just call it what it is, though. Don’t call it science, because it is not scientific, and you are deluding yourself if you call it such. There is nothing scientifc about the big bang, it has definitely never been observed, tested, or repeated, and I think any attempt to do so would be an abysmal failure. The same with evolution, it has not been proven using the scietific method, it is just believed to be true by it’s adherents.

          • Santa

            You should really just stop, as it is clear your scientific understanding is quite limited. I apologize for not making the effort to help you through this. Take care, look both ways before crossing.

          • railhead

            Your condescension doesn’t prove your point, neither does it help your case in the slightest. The simple may be convinced by your feigned academic superiority, but it doesn’t work on everyone.

          • Santa

            I’m not at all committed to any of these things, I believe them because there are mountains of evidence for the big bang, evolution and all the other things you reject because you have a religious text which contradict these things.

            Did you know the nearest galaxy is Andromeda Galaxy – 2.9 million light-years away? This alone demonstrates the Earth wasn’t formed anywhere near thousands of years ago.

          • railhead

            There are no mountains of evidence in favor of the big bang and evolution,;there are mountains of evidence, which when viewed in the pretext of an evolutionary paradigm, would seem to prove those theories, because of the context they are viewed within.
            If the entire universe was created at the same time, the distance of two points measured in the context of the time it takes light travel is totally irrelevant. That’s like saying the corners of my house that was built yesterday takes a snail 2 days to walk between, thus proving my house is more than a day old.

          • Santa

            I, along with other scientifically literal population don’t view this in an “evolutionary paradigm”. This paradigm thing you keep bringing up is a load of BS distributed from Christian apologists. Science is the best process for understanding reality we have, this includes cosmology. There is no “paradigm” science views things through. You however view things through BIble goggles, trying to equivocate any type of science with this is asinine.

            I have no idea what you are talking about with the snail analogy. Are you claiming everything was created as it is? eg the light already “in flight”? This is exactly why I presumed (correctly) you aren’t interested in looking at evidence objectively, do you even know what objective means?

            Is the next sunday school lesson about how the devil mischievously planted the dinosaur bones as well?

          • railhead

            No, the paradigm thing is very relevant, because everyone has one. No one is entirely objective, and if you think they are, you are incredibly naive. Scientists are no more objective than you or I are. They have a mindset and a belief system from which they look at the evidence presented to them. And this is very easily observed in many scientific journals and papers. They have a pretext that they already assume to be true when it comes to things like our origins. They do not just go in with total objectivity when studying a fossil, a rock, or anything else.
            I do know what objectivity means, but apparently you either don’t or are grossly misled into believing that total objectivity exists among evolutionary scientists.
            As far as “Sunday School”, you can’t show me that in the Bible. That’s an invention of man to try to make church more like the world. I go to church to hear “preaching”, which is a Biblical word.
            As far as Dinosaur bones, you may have noticed that several cultures throughout the world have non-fictional accounts of creatures that are described to be exactly the way scientists have recontrcucted those bones. I know the TV and school room has taught you to laugh at such a ridiculous notion, but it’s pretty obvious to me that dinosaurs were around not very long ago. I read some ridiculous explanation by an evolutionary scientist one time about writings about “dragons” being a result of “vestigial memories” in our genes from millions of years ago. In other words, it was all a mass hallucination induced by their memory of dinosaurs from millions of years ago. Because, of course, they KNOW that dinosaurs are millions of years old (that paradigm thing, remember?), therefore such accounts must be thrown out.

          • Santa

            Question 1: Please tell me what “paradigm” cosmologists and astronomers use when studying the cosmos.

            Question 2: Tell me why a person would objectively look at evidence and come to the conclusion that all the light from distant galaxies and stars, millions and billions of light years away was created all in place, even all the traveling light was created already “in flight”.

          • Santa

            Question 1: Please tell me what “paradigm” cosmologists and astronomers use when studying the cosmos.

            Question 2: Tell me why a person would objectively look at evidence and come to the conclusion that all the light from distant galaxies and stars, millions and billions of light years away was created all in place, even all the traveling light was created already “in flight”.

          • railhead

            Sorry for the delay…
            1. Whatever their personal belief system is. I can’t make a blanket statement and say what every member of a group believes. But I can guarantee you everyone brings their own worldview to the table, they don’t check their brains at the door, as it were. I would guess that most people in those fields, after having attended universities that largely preach an atheistic worldview to their students, and require them to learn and recite the same, would have that worldview instilled into them. However, there are some who may have their own beliefs that greatly differ.
            2. Because it is no more or less believable than believing it all started from central point. In each instance there has to be some kind of primary cause, or else we shouldn’t expect any kind of intelligiblity or stability in the universe as it exists.

          • Santa

            Okay, so you are making an unfounded claim. This is a failed attempt to equivocate an epistemic worldview of a god that created everything and the stars and light already in motion, with one that lacks suck a view, because it isn’t demonstrable, and there is not only a lack of evidence for it, but contrary evidence for it. I mean, their are Catholic bishops that accept the big bang.

            What you are really debating is the validly of one of many ancient holy text with modern science. Have you even looked into the historicity of the Bible? What is your reason for starting your worldview with the Bible?

          • railhead

            First of all, Catholic bishops are not Christians and do not believe the Bible. They claim to be Christian, but they do not follow the Bible. Just for starters, the Bible forbids celibate Bishops (1 Tim. 3:2). And that’s just the start of what’s wrong with the Catholic church.
            But I really don’t care what anyone thinks or says. I start with the Bible because I believe the Bible is the word of God. The reason I believe that is that at 19 years old I got saved. After I got saved, I questioned everything I was taught by the public school system, and set out on my own to research things. But the Bible was and is my standard of truth.
            I’m really not debating with modern science. Modern science that is truly science I agree 100% with. The religion of modern science that makes speculations about our origins and promotes them as factual I do not agree with. Evolution and the big bang are not proven, nor is there really any evidence for either one. We don’t have a fossil record full of mutated creatures in transition. Actually, evolution isn’t that new of an idea. Ancient Egypt had all kinds of statues of half animal-half humans. People that don’t want to believe they are accountable will believe whatever they want. ANd honestly, that’s fine, but call it what it is. Don’t pretend its scientific and logical. It’s not logical to believe life just came into being on it’s own, and it’s not logical to think human life is a result of mutations.

          • Lord Almighty

            How did you come to believe the Bible and its extraordinary claims?

          • railhead

            Someone witnessed to me and gave me the gospel of John. I realized I was a sinner headed for hell and asked God to save me. I then read the entire Bible.
            Here is my favorite verse from the book of John:

            John 5:24
            Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

            I really don’t think the Bible has any extraordinary claims, though. If you believe in a God who is omnipotent, it’s not really that hard to believe everything written in the Bible. What is it that you think is so extraordinary?

          • Lord Almighty

            Interesting. Will you explain to me what made you accept the premise of being a sinner bound for eternal hell?

          • railhead

            I’m not exactly sure, to be honest. That was almost 22 years ago. I can remember reading a verse and it just hit me. I knew I was on my way to hell, there was no question in my mind. I also knew from what I had read that Jesus paid the penalty for my sin, and all I had to do was believe on him for salvation. I asked God to save me, and I am positive I was saved at that time. I was not raised with church or religion at all. My family truly was agnostic, there was no discussion of anything remotely religious.

            Here are a few verses that I use now to show people:

            Romans 3:23
            For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

            Everyone is a sinner according to the Bible.

            Romans 6:23
            For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

            The Bible says in another place (Rev. 20:14) that there is a “second death” in hell. But God gives us eternal life through Jesus Christ. It is a gift, we can’t earn it, based on faith in Christ.

            Romans 5:8
            But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

          • Lord Almighty

            Muslims and Hindus have told me they started believing for similar reasons. What could you tell me that would make me believe the Bible over the Quran and the Hindu text Vedas,?

          • railhead

            First of all, the Bible says that God loves you, and wants you to be saved. Let me put that at the top of the list.

            Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
            God wants you to know that; and I’m not saying that because of some mystical voice from beyond…God wants EVERYONE to know that, that’s why he commanded us to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. That’s why churches send missionaries. Good churches also have their congregation go soul winning door to door.

            I dont know anything about the Hindu religion at all. I don’t know a lot about the Quran either. I do know that both of those religions are based on human effort. Christianity is the only religion that offers salvation outside of human effort. I also know that the Bible is an amazing book, with 40 authors all writing about the same central figure over hundreds of years, both before and after Jesus Christ physically came to earth. There is really nothing in the Bible that contradicts what we observe to be true about the universe and the earth. I believe the Quran has some major contradictions to science.

            The existence of Jesus Christ is evidenced every time we look at a calendar. I know that the Islam religion at least acknowledges Jesus Christ, though they do not believe he was who he claimed to be, that is God in the flesh. I’m not sure about the Hindus. All are looking for “messiah” of sorts. The Hindus are expecting a Vishnu (?) I believe, Islam is expecting an Imam (?), and we are expecting the return of Christ. However, there is one difference. The Bible predicts a FALSE Christ to precede the return of the REAL Christ. Basically the one whom all the other world religions will accept as their messiah is the one the Bible calls the “Anti-Christ”.

            If you believe the existence of Christ, than you would be amazed at the number of Old Testament prophecies (written before the life of Christ) that were fulfilled in the life of Christ. The odds are staggering that any one person would fulfill all the prophecies that were fulfilled in the life of Christ.

            Other than that, I can tell you that the Bible has proven itself to be an accurate historical record, and also an accurate moral compass. The Bible is also full of promises to those who believe…the foremost of which is eternal life. It does not promise an easy life here, but it does promise everlasting life to EVERYONE who believes, regardless of how you live your life, or who you are. God is no respecter of persons.

            Rom 1:16
            For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

            Rom 10:9
            That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved

            It’s not at all based on living right or doing good, because the Bible declares that no one is good. We all sin, we all come short. However when we get saved, we are given a new heart and a new life.

          • Lord Almighty

            Can you tell me how religion based on human effort is less likely to be true compared to religion based on salvation?

          • railhead

            In the Bible, God gives his law. The penalty for breaking the law is death, as it said in that verse I showed you before (Romans 6:23). You only have to break the law once to be guilty and be condemned, according to the Bible. This sounds harsh, but God claims to be holy and righteous. He is perfect. So how can a holy, righteous and just God accept less than perfection in his kingdom? But Christ did live a perfect life, and satisfied the justice of God by paying the penalty for our sins for us.

            2Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

            Jesus died on the cross, and was buried. His soul went to hell for 3 days and 3 nights. He then rose again from the dead and ascended up into heaven. The ascension was witnessed by the Apostles as recorded in the Bible.

            1Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

            Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

            If we had to measure up by our own effort, we would have to keep the law perfectly. No person except Jesus has ever done this. Thus it would be impossible for us to measure up on our own.
            What rings true about that is the amount of corruption we see in mankind. We know how our own government is full of corruption, and really all human institutions are. God offers us hope outside of our own shortcomings and the hope for a new heaven and new earth where righteousness rules someday. Like a seed that gets planted dies, then springs up into a beautiful tree or plant, we have hope that after our bodies die, we will be given a new body some day that is perfect, and we will no longer have sin nature like we have now.

          • Lord Almighty

            Interesting, I’m enjoying the conversation. In answering my
            question of “What could you tell me that would make me believe the Bible over the Quran and the Hindu text Vedas?” you said because the Bible “offers salvation outside of human effort” whereas other religions are based on human effort.

            I’m asking what makes religion based on salvation outside of human effort more likely to be true compared to religion based on human effort?

          • railhead

            Human efforts always come short of God’s standards. Every religion has standards of right of wrong, rules by which people are to live. But no person ever fully lives up to all those standards, it’s always a “do your best” situation. The Bible has all the rules by which we are to live, and no one quite measures up, which demonstates to mankind our imperfection and need for a saviour.

            Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

            When the rich young ruler came to Jesus in the Bible, he asked him what “good thing” he had to do to inherit the kingdom of God. Jesus answered by listing a few of the ten commandments. He answered by saying he had kept all of them since his youth (which was surely not true, what child has honoured their father and mother perfectly since childhood), and by asking what he still lacked. Jesus told him to sell all he had and give the money to the poor, and then to follow him. Of course, the young man went away sad. It’s not that selling all he had was a requirement of salvation, Jesus was just pointing out to him that he didn’t measure up. The first commandment is to have no other gods before him, and he failed the test…money was more important than the kingdom of God to that young man.

            Looking at other religions, there is always a striving to “make it on your own”. But to be perfect is just not possible. We are all sinners, and we all come short. That’s why we need salvation through some other means. I don’t keep the law perfectly, I do the best I can, but I fail. If I would be judged righteously, every time I broke the law would require punishment of some kind. That’s what hell is. Hell is where people pay the penalty for all of their sins. It’s an awful thought, the worst part being that it never ends. That’s why we, as Christians, are told to go out and preach the gospel, and beseech people to be reconciled.

            2Cor. 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

            Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

          • Lord Almighty

            Thank you for the Biblical insight. How did you come to the conclusion that the true religion/God would necessarily require humanly perfection and high standards? Why do the standards and salvation from Bible make the Bible more likely to be true compared to the standards of Buddhism, or Jainism?

          • railhead

            As far as why it is more likely to be true, to me it just is the truth. I’m not sure you could really say it is more or less likely to be true. To me, if God has standards and rules, they would have to be absolute rules. You can’t just accept someone doing the best that they can. If I drive 100 mph on the freeway and get pulled over, my intentions and efforts to comply with the posted speed limit really aren’t going to matter. The fact remains there is a maximum speed posted, and I exceeded it, and thus am due some kind of punishment. If punishment is never given, the speed limit becomes a suggestion more than a law.

            So if God is a just judge, and makes laws, he can’t just constantly pardon everyone’s sin just because he is a nice guy. That’s where Christ comes in and takes the penalty for us, and offers free salvation without being unjust. To us it may seem unjust that someone else gets punished for our deeds, but Jesus did it voluntarily. Like someone offering to pay a fine imposed on someone else.

            2Cor 5:21
            For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

          • Lord Almighty

            It seems you have it both ways, both accountable for breaking the speed limit, and not acountable only if you bow down to the local police department, you will never end up in jail. Why is this system any more likely? What is it about the true god that would necessarily value this system? Is it just what you would hope for, or something else?

          • railhead

            It is true, in a sense, that we have it both ways; but Christ is the one who stepped up and paid the ticket for us. Like any gift, if you fail to accept it, you can’t have it. Thus the just demands of a holy God are met, because the penalty is still paid. According to the Bible, Jesus went to hell for 3 days and 3 nights. Many modern Christian “teachers” will deny this, but it is a key point to Christ’s sacrifice. That’s why in the Old Testament, the sacrifice of a Lamb was to be roasted by fire. This symbolized Christ being roasted in hell for our sins. In the Old Testament, people looked forward to the sacrifice.

            To me this is more likely because, as stated above, you can have a just God who can accept an imperfect man. If there is no payment for sin, then God is not totally just. The Bible says the wages of sin is death, and death, spiritually speaking, is hell.

            I can’t say it was what I hoped for, as far as “it just sounded good”. I did not really like Christianity before I got saved, and I had no idea about the gospel. Most people, honestly, don’t. In going door to door and preaching the gospel to people, I run into a LOT of people who go to church and have no idea what the gospel is. They think living a good life will get them to heaven.

            But:

            Rom 3:23
            For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
            Rom 3:10
            As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
            These are the first verses I show to people to demonstrate that is false. No one lives a good life according to the Bible’s standards. There are some people who are very nice and upright, but there is no one who is righteous on their own.

          • Lord Almighty

            But can you explain to me why is this system any more likely to by the correct religion of the true god? Why do the standards and salvation from Bible make the Bible more likely to be true compared to Hindu reincarnation based on works?

          • railhead

            As far as probabilities are concerned, I can’t say it is any more or less likely to be true. For me, it is the truth. I believed it when it was shown to me, and by faith asked for salvation according to what I had read. At the time I was convinced it was the truth. Now I am sure it is the truth. Probabilities don’t really play into it, I didn’t believe based on it being the most probable explanation of things. I believed because I was convinced it was the truth. I don’t remember if I have already said that the book I read when I got saved basically pointed out my own hypocrisy at the time. It also pointed out several other things about the world that I had observed to be true. That got me interested enough to read the Bible, and to believe what I read.

            I’m not going to say something mystical happens when you get saved, like say the mormons do. I just know that when I got saved, it felt like a heavy weight had been lifted off of me, and I saw the world in a totally different way than ever before. It wasn’t from a course of studying the Bible at that time, as I knew nothing about the Bible then. At that point I just knew the Bible was true.

            2Cor. 4:13
            We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

          • Lord Almighty

            If you don’t know what is more likely to be true, and say a Hindu came to their belief in Hinduism the same way you did, and my Hindu friend is sure it is the truth, what does this say about the reliability of this method to come to beliefs?

          • railhead

            Well, as I said before, if you have a just God who makes demands, and you fail at any point, you have failed to measure up to that religion’s standards. Yet somehow all those who subscribe to those religions think they will be good enough to make it. Basically Christianity is the opposite of all the other religions in the world. And since truth is exclusive, that would be one strong evidence that Christianity is true.
            From a logical standpoint, to me it makes more sense, and I believe it to be true; but I am also operating in the paradigm that assumes it to be true. And I can recognize that because i have made the same argument with evolutionists….they are arguing from a standpoint that already assumes it is true, thus it is not really a valid logical argument.
            On what basis is your Hindu friend sure it is the truth? I can tell you another thing that strongly persuades me it is the truth, it is the least appealing to my ego and my desires. I get no glory for being saved, God saved me based on nothing other than my faith. And the manner God says we are to live is not the most appealing to the senses. Hinduism is much more self-centered, revolving around your own efforts to better yourself, as I understand it. That would be more appealing to one’s pride.

          • Lord Almighty

            I’m not sure even if there was a unique religion, it doesn’t follow that it makes it the truth. One could make the argument, that so many are based on works, they all are pointing in the same direction, closer to the truth. So the the Hindu thinks this is a good argument for a works religion. What can you show me that makes his claim more reasonable than your “uniqueness” argument?

            Pride has isn’t necessary in Hinduism, just as it isn’t in Christianity. In either, a person can be prideful in either, but it has nothing to do with the theology.

          • Mike

            Big Bang not science?! I am by no means an expert in this field but I do have an very elementary understanding of it. You see scientists have been shooting lasers and all kinds of things into space for years, they have also been measuring the atoms in everything. They discovered after years and years that every single atom in your body is expanding, they also discovered that all the galaxies, planets, stars, nebulas etc… are also expanding outward from a central point in the universe. So the big bang just means to reverse time to when all matter in the universe was compressed together in a singular pressurized event. They also believe that at the ends of the universe matter will begin to disintegrate as our atoms will lose their covalent bonds with each other and everything will become detached.

            Did you also know that if you removed all of the air between our atoms the entire compressed human race would fit inside of a solo-cup. Science is pretty crazy but no matter how crazy, they do have the evidence to back it up!

            I have been talking to snakes for years and not a single one has ever talked back….

          • railhead

            Go out to the desert with a bunch of explosives and blow up a bunch of raw material and see if it starts swirling around into something intelligible. Repeat a few hundred times, and if just one time it produces something intelligible, I’ll retract everything I say about the big bang.

          • Mike

            Go out to the same desert and start throwing dust into the wind…. If it created a brand new full grown living breathing man I will pledge my life to your God!!! Deal?!

            Life being created from some kind of significant event is much more tangible than man being created from dust in the wind.

          • railhead

            But the problem is, a person can take a bunch of atoms and create something. Intelligent design IS science. That iPhone or Android you most likely have was designed and created by someone using real science. So, believing in God is not much of a stretch, an almighty being could easily create life, just as we create things daily.
            On the other hand, explosions aren’t spinning universes daily, and new life forms are not crawling out of the mud daily. Scientists believe in billions of years of uniformity after a totally random and huge event. Kind of unreasonable that there haven’t been other similar events in billions of years, and that we can measure and predict things in a universe created by such unstable means.

          • Mike

            You obviously have no idea about how matter is moving as time progresses. The atoms in our bodies are moving apart, the atoms in everything are moving apart. All galaxies are moving away from a central part of the known Universe. Scientists have been measuring this drift for centuries. This is not brand new science. The ancient Greeks were correct about much of their scientific studies of the Universe. The Big Bang is the reversal of time, all matter in the universe compresses back into whatever it came from. We also cannot measure the outer edges of the Universe, so we cannot see outside of our own “fishbowl”. We do not know if there are other particles that have not exploded yet outside of our known Universe or there could be a multiverse of multiple Universes. Eventually though scientists predict that our atoms will lose their covalent bonds and separate, then everything will become nothing once again.

            If there is an intelligent life form called a God and he is eternal, what was he doing before 13.8 billion years ago? My guess is that our “almighty creator” is not an intelligent being at all, simply a force of nature.

          • railhead

            I’ll do one better. I’ll draw up plans for a house and build it.
            There’s one missing component to your “dust in the wind” analogy….that is the person who made the dust, and the wind designing a person. Just like we design robots and stuff that looks like us, and design things that fit our anatomy. (Like a cell phone that fits in our hands, for instance).

          • Mike

            To put it in a way that you would possibly understand… The big bang is like a sneeze. There is an event, a bunch of matter and energy, then eventually nothing. Think if we were able to slow down a sneeze to last 13.8 billion years all of the little galaxies, systems, possibly even life that would form in that period of time.

          • railhead

            Condescending to people only shows your lack of trust in the raw facts.
            Still you have an event with some unspecified cause, and an assumption of billions of years of uniformity after a seemingly spontaneous event. Kind of goes against what one would expect after a huge, sponateous explosion. And that anything intelligible would even come from an explosion is against everything observed with huge explosions. Nuclear blasts don’t create micro-universes.

          • Mike

            Evolution and the big bang are not a religion of any kind. It is simply an explanation of how things work. Just like lifting the hood of a car to view the engine. We may not know how the car was built yet or who built it but we can see how it works. Theists denying all science because they think it is “the religion of the Atheist” is both ridiculous and asinine.

          • railhead

            In order to be an explanation of how things work, we would have to actually see things work that way. We don’t see explosions creating anything with any kind of form or function, and contrary to what we are told, we don’t really see things evolving, unless you expand the definition of evolution to include any kind of adaptation. We see instead, extiction, and explosions turning things that are functional into piles of rubble. Thus it is not really a very good explanation. It is a religious worldview that offers people an alternative to believing in a creator, which is not palletable to scientists.

          • Mike

            Actually there are explosions in space that are constantly creating things… The birth of stars and planets are very violent affairs!

            It depends on your definition of an explosion…. You are viewing an explosion in only one way. You think that an explosion has to be fast and life created instantly….. Well we are currently in a 13.8 billion year explosion right now!

          • railhead

            You are stating that as undisputable fact. Do you know anyone who witnessed that explosion? Do you have any proof that an explosion occurred 13.8 billion years ago, or is that just your belief? This is what the whole debate boils down to. you BELIEVE that an explosion happened 13.8 billion years ago and just swirled everything together on it’s own. I don’t believe that. It’s not something you can test or prove.

          • railhead

            No, physics and chemistry are an explanation of how things work. Those are valid scientific fields of study.
            Evolution and the big bang are assertions of how things came into being absent an intelligent creator. There is no proof or direct evidence of either occurring. No one witnessed the big bang or anything like it, and no one has witnessed something evolve into something entirely different through mutation. It’s what people believe.
            And, yes, it is a religion. It’s a belief system held to with ardor and faith. That’s why you’re here talking to me about it.

  • David Matthews

    Excuse me while I go throw up.

  • Demopublicrat

    “scientific evidence” LOL

    • Mike

      Why is that funny? There is way more scientific evidence than Theological evidence. Christians conveniently lost the holy grail, ark of the covenant, and ten commandments and your profit was conveniently resurrected, body and all, so we can’t even dig him up…. Yet, you are laughing?! lol… Jokes on you!

      • Demopublicrat

        Piltdown Man isn’t laughing, Nebraska man says the jokes on you.

  • Peter Leh

    If atheism is an established religion then it gets its turn to lead prayer

    • KDC

      It isn’t an established religion, but for 1st amendment and establishment clause it is regarded as such.

    • Mike

      It’s not an established religion but it is a sincerely held belief so it gets all of the legal rights as anyone with a religion.

  • Susana Rakhmani Wijaya

    what is the meaning of atheism. Smith just call some gods….“May Zeus, the great God of justice, grant us strength tonight. Jesus
    might forgive our shortcomings while Buddha enlightens us through His
    divine affection,” he continued. “We praise you, Krishna, for the
    sanguine sacrifice that freed us all. After all, if Almighty Thor is
    with us, who can ever be against us?” absurd

    • Mike

      So do you deny that these Gods are not know for these things? I do not understand the point of your post?!

  • Miles Quatermass

    Christians: Having their cake and eating it for 2000 years.

  • Joseph Essien-Obot

    This is a sorry situation. A person is invited to “pretend prayer”. One either prays or does not pray, “pretend prayer” is a mockery and has not place in serious business.

    • Randy Wanat

      Prove that he was not sincere.

      • Joseph Essien-Obot

        Isn’t that quite obvious? He’s an atheist! Does an atheist believe in any spiritual reality? Certainly not! How then would he then call on spiritual elements he does not believe in?

        Next question please!

        • Randy Wanat

          Why can’t he call upon them on behalf of those who do believe in them?

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            Because prayer is a personal expression of a belief. A Muslim can’t say a Christian prayer on behalf of Christians likewise a Hindu can’t do same on behalf of Muslims and all what not.

          • Mike

            Why can’t a Muslim say a Christian prayer? Jesus is in the Qu’ran…. Me thinks you have no idea what you are talking about!

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            For the same reason an atheist cannot pray to nothing.

    • Mike

      Prove that he wasn’t praying….. How do you know what he believes?! Hitler believed that God spoke to him directly and told him to kill 6,000,000 people in his name. Prove that God did not speak to Hitler…..

  • railhead

    Scientifc evidence and critical thinking…….WAH HA HA HA
    Critical thinking: Yesterday there was nothing then BOOOM, for some unknown reason there was a huge explosion, and here we are.
    Scientific evidence: We’ve never directly observed a monkey change into a person, have no intermediate species in the fossil record, but evolution is a fact. Because I’m a scientist and I say so.
    “…..The fool has said in his heart there is no God……” (Psalm 14:1). No one is really impressed with all of your mockery, Mr. Smith. You have your faith, we have ours, but you haven’t shamed any Christians into intellectual inferiority. We’d respect you more if you quit pretending your beliefs were all “scientific” and your thinking was all pure “logic”.

    • Randy Wanat

      So, you have no understanding of cosmology, biology, genetics, botany, zoology, chemistry, biochemistry, and you’re going to criticize how science works? You might want to learn how science works before slamming it. Would you rather fly in an airplane built on science or built on faith?

      • railhead

        That’s the whole point—-evolution is not science. It has not been observed, tested or proven by the scientific method.
        I love real science, and I used to work as a chemical engineer. You know where we test out our theories and actually prove them, not just believe them because it’s the only option we like.

      • railhead

        That’s just it. Evolution is not science. It has not been observed, tested or proven by the scientific method. It is simply what is believed (by faith) by the sceintific community.
        I love real science, and am grateful for the advances real scientists have made. The religion of evolution adhered to by most scientists is not “science” just because scientists believe in it.

        • Mike

          You obviously have no idea what science is if you think evolution has never been observed, tested, or proven. They have been observing, testing and proving it for over 100 years now. You know gravity in all regards has never been “proven” or recreated by science. It is still a scientific mystery yet your a** isn’t floating away into space now is it?! You need to look up “scientific theory” because it is way different than a “theory”.

          • railhead

            So far we have never witnessed one species do anything other than reproduce after it’s own kind. Slight differences, adaptations, yes. Totally different genetics, new information, etc., no. I have studied this topic on my own for a long time. You just assume I’m ignorant because I don’t buy in to what is popular. An evolutionist looks at a callous as proof of evolution, and then theorizes that callous plus billions of years equals new species.
            The definition of “science” is always changing, but one thing it has always tried hard to distance itself from is religion. Yet evolution is, in reality, a religion. Evolution seeks to explain our origins, which is long past and unable to be directly observed. There is no direct evidence of what evolutionists term “macro-evolution” which is a bad term because it implies micro-evolution is the same process. My sock developing a hole from the pressure of my big toe is an adaptation of sorts. I do not take that to mean that given a few million of years on my foot I would come back to find a toe sock. But that is essentially the assumption that is made by evolutionary scientists.
            When you read “scientific” papers that deal with evolution, one thing always holds true, it is always assumed to be true in the first place, which leads to circular reasoning. Such as: this fossil is xxx years old because we found it in this rock layer. We know this rock layer is xxx years old because these are the fossils we found there. It’s completely illogical, yet it’s called more logical than believing there is an intelligent creative force behind our existence….which is what we observe every time we pick up a cell phone or get on our tablet.

          • Mike

            There are museums full of the bones and 100+ years of research to say that you are wrong.

    • Mike

      So boom all of a sudden we men were created in a whirlwind of dust yet we have never directly observed this happen, I have been in many sandstorms in the desert during my combat tours and I have not witnessed one single man born from all the dust blowing around!!!…. Then women created from a single rib. I will have to ask my doctor next time i’m in surgery to just remove one of my ribs and toss it on the floor while i’m asleep. Gawd is going to make me a wife! Yeah that sounds so much better, thanks for that!

      • railhead

        Of course, you do realize that all matter is comprised of dust sized particles called atoms.
        The difference between the God of the Bible is that he does claim to be omnipotent, so those things that we can’t do, he can do. The prime example is create life. We can prop up a cadaver, pump blood through it’s veins, and it’s still just a cadaver. And that is something that has never been fully understood, and far from being explained by evolution and the big bang. On the other hand, you have proponents of evolution and the big bang claiming it’s totally scientific, and totally based on “logic” and “reason”, etc. It is highly illogical to believe that an intelligible, functional, measurable universe is the result of an explosion.
        In your combat tours, did you ever witness an explosion CREATE something intelligible, symmetrical, and functional.? Or did you mostly see that things that were intelligently designed to be functional reduced to piles of rubble?

        • Mike

          We have not been able to create life from nothing, this is true. Just because we do not know how yet is not 100% proof of any type of God. So, when we finally are able to re-animate dead tissue would you be willing to change your beliefs?

          Scientists right now are already reversing aging in mice. They already know how a cell works and what contributes to “cell death”. Soon they will figure out how to re-animate a dead cell, then we will be abe to live without aging and possibly without dying. Where then would be your God?

          • railhead

            Some intelligent person is doing all this, did that fact escape you somehow? You’re just further proving that life is the result of intelligent design by having an intelligent creature go in and study and cause certain things to happen. Notice that cells aren’t reversing their own aging, and that things aren’t just happening on their own….someone is making them happen.
            SO the answer is, my God would be right there, perhaps wondering why you don’t believe an intelligent source of life when you are witnessing one!

          • Mike

            I do not contribute every bump in the night I hear to ghosts, I do not contribute every strange light in the sky to UFOs, so therefore I will not contribute everything we do not yet know about the universe to any type of God. Just because you do not understand something does not automatically mean God did it!

          • Mike

            Just found an article…. Scientists were able to re-animate a completely dead animal heart in a lab. Also scientists are able to create artificial stem cells now. So if we are able to reanimate dead flesh with healthy cells grown in a lab…. Where is your God?!

            http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2008/01/14/scientists_revive_dead_heart.html

          • railhead

            Again, someone intelligent is doing this. DId you notice the heart didn’t reanimate itself? I guess I’m talking to a brick wall here. When a heart reanimates itself, get back to me. That will prove life creating itself via the big bang and evolution is at least possible

  • Truthhurts24

    I pity the atheist they will not be so disrespectful towards Christ come judgement day their going to weep terribly when they find out which place will be their dwelling for eternity.

    • Mike

      I pity the arrogant Christian that thinks that all religions have to
      bow down to Christianity when Christianity is an infantile religion
      compared to the other 6,000 religions in the world. Paganism for example
      has been around for 6,000 years compared to your 1,500. Judaism has
      been around for 3,500 years. Yet you think that YOUR religion is the
      correct religion?! People have been creating and worshiping Gods for
      300,000 years. There are currently 6,000 known religions in human
      history. So, by your logic since I am held to the rules of Christianity
      even though I am not a believer, you are held to the rules of all 6,000
      preceding religions. I guess you better take up your sword and die in
      glorious combat or the Valkyrie will not fly you to Valhalla to feast
      with Odin.

      I bet you bet the biggest, rock solid b*ner condemning
      people to hell huh?! I bet after you posted that you went in and jumped
      your wife’s bones like you were teenagers again! Hahahaha

      • Truthhurts24

        No one is condemning anyone people condemn themselves by not accepting Christ who died for their sins to become their lord and savior for John 14:6 says I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father except through me. Friend God loves you very much he does not want any to perish which is the reason he has given us his only precious begotten son Christ Jesus for there is only one mediator between God and man no one else. Paganism no matter how long its been on the earth is still falsehood an deception of Satan to turn millions away from their only salvation in Christ Jesus. I will pray for you friend and hope that you will accept Christ one day. God bless you have a great new year.

      • Dru James

        Hey Mike, here is a great interview of a religious scholar who actually backs up what you say.

        “‘Many of These Gods Come From Stars’: The Fascinating True Story of Angels, Virgin Birth and Jesus”

        http://www.alternet.org/belief/many-these-gods-come-stars-fascinating-true-story-angels-virgin-birth-and-jesus?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

  • ben

    Enjoy your time now, because you won’t in hell.

    • Mike

      You’re right, I won’t in hell because I will be just dead. No Heaven, no Hell, no Valhalla, no reincarnation… Just stone cold dead!

  • Dru James

    So I see they removed my statement, even though it didn’t contain anything profane.
    I guess they didn’t like the fact that I pointed out the repulsions of the bible.
    Which coincidentally coincide with ISIS’s beliefs.

    • Mike

      It’s the Christian News Network… What did you expect? When Atheists start to logically counter the illogical and irrational Theists into a corner they have to step in to stop the beating and let them lick their wounds!

  • Mike

    Contrary to popular belief ENGLISH is not the national language of the USA and CHRISTIANITY is not the national religion. I know it’s a little hard to swallow but there you go….. This country has no standard language and no standard religion.

  • Simon_in_London

    “atheists are seeking to present these types of invocations at commission and council meetings to make a point that if Christian prayers are allowed, all other religions must be given time as well.”

    They seem to be making the unintended point that ‘parity of esteem’ results in atheists making officially sanctioned prayers to Satan. The 20th century judicial perversion of the Constitutional ban on federal establishment of religion into an attack on religion is to blame.

  • RC_Pilot

    Notice that most who walked out re-entered for the Pledge of Allegiance…
    Those who walked out for that SO-CALLED “invocation” did the correct
    thing since his “prayer” sounded more like some sort of a FAIRY TALE
    trying to include ALL possible “gods” and almost completely EXCLUDING
    the ONE TRUE GOD from the “prayer.”

    Trying to include virtually EVERY possible “god” by name in a “prayer” comes
    across almost as meaningful as if he was to offer a “prayer” to “That
    Mysterious thing some people claim actually exists.”

    If I was in attendance, I’d have probably stayed for the first few seconds
    of the “invocation,” and walked out of the room full of FOOLISHNESS mid
    “invocation” to return into the room when I heard him announce the
    start of the Pledge of Allegiance in hopes that he didn’t change THAT as
    horribly as he DESTROYED the “invocation.”

    NO organization should EVER have an ATHEIST give any kind of an “invocation” since “invocation” implies it to be a PRAYER… What would they expect an ATHEIST to direct his “prayer” to??? “Dear supposedly heavenly being we don’t believe in but others seem to…”???

  • El Cid

    Well, if the liberals at the meeting (definitely left-wingers – the city is 61 percent democrat so we know they are morons) are going to involve all those religions they could have at least done the one practiced by the Jaega Indians who once lived there.

  • Reta Mae Cherry

    This is insane invocation. When Islam becomes fully implemented, they will cut off his head as well as all the others. They are just using them for a power number vote, to get what they want. Islam has rules, anyone who does not convert, is not fit to live in their eyes. They will lie, or do whatever it takes to strengthen Islam, just like Obama did when he pretended to be Christian to become POTUS.