>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Disgusting Christianity (it's getting good!) >Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:26:35 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8003 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > >IT'S GETTING GOOD. THE GUY IS OFF HIS CHRISTIAN ROCKER. THIS IS THE >PSYCHOSIS AT THE CORE OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN MIND. AND HE HAS THE >NERVE TO CALL THIS "APOLOGY TO PETER MCWILLIAMS." > >READ 'EM AND WEEP. OR GIGGLE. OR BEMOAN THE HOURS YOU SPENT BELIEVING AN >EXTERNAL GOD WAS GONNA GET YA IF YOU DON'T WATCH OUT. > >ENJOY, > >PETER > > > Peter McWilliams wrote: > "My argument was that what Jesus actually taught in the Gospels is, in >most cases, diametrically opposed to the teachings of fundamentalist >Christianity. I use Jesus to refute fundamentalist Christianity -- a >reasonable approach, I think." > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--------------------------------------- > > Wow. He uses Christ to refute Christianity. It was Christ Jesus who said >that a house divided against itself cannot stand, yet here is little Peter >McWilliams saying Christ's house is divided against itself. You are a truly >amazing and accomplished liar, Mr. McWilliams. > > YOU'RE NOT PART OF "CHRIST'S HOUSE," SO THERE IS NO DIVIDING TO BE DONE. >THE DIVIDING WAS DONE BY YOU AND YOUR KIND LONG AGO. I SIMPLY POINT OUT THE >DIVISION AND AM CALLED A LIAR. WELL, WHAT ELSE COULD YOU DO WITH MY IRONCLAD >WRIT FOR APOLOGY? ADMIT A PAYGAN KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE TEACHING OF JESUS THAN >YOU DO? IT'S TRUE, AS YOU ABLY PROVE IN THIS LETTER. AT ANY RATE, I LAY OUT >MY PROPOSAL THAT JESUS AND THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE SAME >SYMPHONY AT: > > http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/403a.htm > > I really do owe you an apology. I had no idea you had created a bible of >your own, > > NO? AND I THOUGH YOU AND GOD WERE DRINKING BUDDIES. HOW COULD HE NOT HAVE >TOLD YOU ABOUT MY BIBLE. I AM THE ADVOCATE, OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW? > > and I sincerely thought we were on the same page, let alone the same book. > > I HAVE NO IDEA HOW YOU COULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT. WE ARE NOT EVEN OF THE >SAME WORLD. > > I also underestimated your commitment to the vilification of Christianity. > > NO, NOT CHRISTIANITY, JUST HYPOCRISY. BUT YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT WHAT YOU >CALL CHRISTIANITY AND WHAT I CALL HYPOCRISY ARE ONE IN THE SAME. > > You truly have gone to great lengths to fashion the kind of lies that >could easily mislead the unread. > > I HAVE GATHERED FACTS, NOT FASHIONED LIES. I HAVE NO REASON OR DESIRE TO >MISLEAD ANYONE. > > Unfortunately for you, you've met your match. > > TOO BAD I DON'T SMOKE ANY MORE. I HAVE NOT MET MY MATCH IN YOU OR ANY >OTHER CHRISTIAN HYPOCRITE BECAUSE I AM ACCURATE AND YOU ARE ALL INACCURATE. >THE PROOF IS IN THE GOSPELS. I JUST READ 'EM AND REPORT WHAT I SEE. BUT >WAIT. THE ONE WHO KNOWS GOD IS ABOUT TO MAKE A CLAIM HE WILL NOT FULFILL, >EVEN A LITTLE, TEENIE BIT: > > Unlike the poor hapless souls who rely upon your kind to learn the >"truth", I am already quite well acquainted with the scripture you butchered >and I am now going to expose in detail how you deliberately omitted vital >parts in order to mislead the person too lazy to look up what you've cited. > > EXPOSE AWAY! > > I do commend you for admitting you reject specific parts of the Bible. > > I NEVER SAID I REJECTED SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE BIBLE. I SAID FUNDAMENTALIST >CHRISTIANS PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH LAWS TO FOLLOW AND WHICH TO IGNORE. I THEN >GAVE SEVERAL SPECIFIC EXAMPLES THAT YOU HAVE NOT, NOR CANNOT, REFUTE. > > Whenever someone chooses the "cafeteria plan" of the Bible, they >inadvertently admit they have taken it apart and discarded that which is not >convenient. > > YES, I SAY THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. > > For example, you cite the somewhat well-known story of how Jesus saved a >woman about to be stoned for the crime of adultery. The only problem is >that you didn't tell the whole story! let us examine the King James Bible >for "The rest of the story": > > In First John, Chapter 8, Verses 3 to 11, > > ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT "FIRST JOHN" BUT JUST "JOHN." (THERE IS JOHN, ONE OF >THE FOUR GOSPELS, THEN THERE IS 1 JOHN, 2 JOHN, AND 3 JOHN, NOT PART OF THE >GOSPELS.) I JUST WANT THE MAN WHO IS "already quite well acquainted with the >scripture you butchered" TO KNOW I'M PAYING ATTENTION. > > we read the true account as follows: > > 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in >adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, > 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the >very act. > 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what >sayest thou? > 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But >Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he >heard them not. > 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto >them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. > 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. > 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went >out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was >left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. > 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said >unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? > 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn >thee: go, and sin no more. > 12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: >he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of >life. > > That is the complete version of what Peter McWilliams referred to. Notice >the last two sentences where Jesus himself spoke these words as a condition >of the woman's forgiveness: "...go, and sin no more". > > YES, ADULTERY IS BREAKING A COMMITMENT AND THAT IS A "SIN." ("SIN" IS >SIMPLY A ROMAN TERM FOR MISSING THE MARK. AN ARROW SHOT WAS EITHER A HIT OR >A SIN. IT JUST MEANS A MISTAKE, NOT A TRANSGRESSION AGAINST GOD.) JESUS >COULD ALSO HAVE MEANT, "DON'T COMMIT THE SIN OF GETTING CAUGHT BY THESE >HYPOCRITES AGAIN." > > And: "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in >darkness, but shall have the light of life." > > Did Jesus simply stop the crowd from stoning this woman to death to go >back into a life of adultery? Of course not! > > HE SAVED HER BECAUSE IT WAS IN HIS BESTS INTEREST TO SAVE HER. HE WAS PUT >ON THE SPOT BY THE PHARISEES. IF HE DEFENDED HER, HE WAS AS GUILTY OF HER >CRIME AS SHE WAS, AND COULD HAVE BEEN STONED HIMSELF. IF HE APPROVED OF THE >STONING, HE WOULD HAVE AFFIRMED THE HARSHNESS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IT WAS >HIS MISSION TO DISSOLVE. THE PHARISEES HAD A GOOD TRAP. JESUS GOT OUT OF IT >BRILLIANTLY. HE SAVED HER BECAUSE IT MADE HIM LOOK GOOD, AND IT DID. BRAVO, >JESUS! SHE OWED HIM NOTHING. > > He admonished her to "go, and sin no more" in return for his forgiveness >of her. > > JESUS DIDN'T FORGIVE HER BECAUSE HE NEVER JUDGED HER IN THE FIRST PLACE. >"NEITHER DO I CONDEMN THEE." BUT SO WHAT? HOW DOES THIS FULFILL THE WRITER'S >PROMISE "I am now going to expose in detail how you deliberately omitted >vital parts in order to mislead the person too lazy to look up what you've >cited."? MAYBE I'LL BE EXPOSED SOON. I'M ALL AFLUTTER. > > Those who accept Jesus Christ into their lives do so with the intent to >sin no more. When they do slip up and are forced to confront their >failures, they ask Jesus' forgiveness in prayer. True Christians know that >they will not be forgiven if they pray for forgiveness with the intent to go >right out and commit the same wrongs again. > > BUT JESUS SAID HE NEVER JUDGED HER IN THE FIRST PLACE. IS JESUS NOT BEING >TRUTHFUL? I DON'T THINK SO. ALL THIS SUPPLICATING TO JESUS FOR FORGIVENESS >WHEN THE GUY NEVER JUDGED IN THE FIRST PLACE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF >"CHRISTIANS" GIVING JESUS A BAD NAME. HE NEVER SAID "CRAWL ON YOUR BELLIES >TO ME, YOU UNWORTHY SINNERS!", A BUNCH OF UNWORTHY SINNERS WERE CRAWLING ON >THEIR BELLIES AND DECIDED TO JUSTIFY THEIR MISERY BY CALLING IT A TREK TO >CALVARY. THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT JESUS >TAUGHT. > > So much for McWilliams' claim of Christian hypocrisy. > > WHERE? WHAT? WHERE'S THE EXPOSE WE WERE ALL PROMISED? WHAT AM I MISSING? I >STOPPED QUOTING THE BIBLE WHEN I DID BECAUSE I COULD GO THROUGH THE WHOLE OF >THE GOSPELS AND, PRACTICALLY LINE BY LINE, ILLUSTRATE THAT WHAT JESUS TAUGHT >IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS BELIEVE. AS YOU CAN SEE, I >DID IT WITH THE EXTRA LINES HE QUOTED AS WELL. I HAVE NOT "deliberately >omitted vital parts in order to mislead the person too lazy to look up what >you've cited." THE MORE THAN GETS INCLUDED, THE MORE I PROVE MY POINT. YOU >JUST HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE. > > Here we have a man who openly rejects certain parts of God's law, while >"accepting" those parts he can live with. > > NO, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO. YOU CLAIM IT'S ALL GOD'S LAW WHEN, IN FACT, YOU DO >NOT FOLLOW EVEN A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF IT. > > But he never says he's committed to any of it, therefore in his mind it is >not possible to call him a hypocrite. > > YES, THAT'S QUITE ACCURATE -- AND PRECISELY WHAT JESUS SUGGESTED ABOUT SEX >AND MARRIAGE -- I JUST APPLIED IT TO THE WHOLE BIBLE. IF I DON'T MAKE A >COMMITMENT, I HAVEN'T BROKEN ONE, ERGO, NO HYPOCRISY. > > Now if anyone aspires to commit their lives to Jesus and falls short from >time to time, they become targets for the likes of McWilliams as hypocrites. > > NO. I SIMPLY SAY THAT WHEN YOU ARE FALLING SHORT, JESUS SPECIFICALLY SAID >TO WORK ON YOURSELF AND SHUT UP ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE'S SHORT FALLS. YOU ARE >OBVIOUSLY NOT DOING THAT, AND PROVE YOUR DISOBEDIENCE TO JESUS BY EVERY >JUDGMENTAL WORD THAT YOU FLING IN MY DIRECTION. > > Isn't that amazing? > > YES, IT IS. > > A man who publicly shuns the rules of God in his life can sit and take >pot-shots at those who try to follow those laws -- if they screw up later. > > IN OTHER WORDS, "THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE ARE UNWORTHY OF BEING LISTENED >TO." APPARENTLY TO "PUBLICLY SHUN THE RULES OF GOD" MAKES ONE'S OPINION >WORTHLESS. > > You know what? > > WHAT? > > I trust the man or woman who simply tries to live their lives according to >Jesus' teachings a whole lot more than some self-centered little man who >rejects all of it in favor of only what he thinks is right. > > IF THAT'S HOW YOU DETERMINE WHERE YOU PUT YOUR TRUST, NO WONDER YOU'RE >BEING DISAPPOINTED ALL THE TIME. > > Call me crazy. > > I'M AFRAID YOU'RE CALLING IT ON YOURSELF ALL TOO WELL AND NEED NO HELP >FROM ME. > > Just don't call me a liar, because you can't. > > OH YES I CAN! (THIS IS ABOUT TO GET REALLY GOOD.) > > The following are the words Jesus spoke to His followers in First >Corinthians, Chapter 6, verses 9 to 11: > > 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? >Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor >effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, > 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor >extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. > 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, >but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our >God. > > HERE'S WHY IT'S SO GOOD: THAT WASN'T "THE WORDS OF JESUS SPOKE TO HIS >FOLLOWERS." JESUS WAS IN HEAVEN DECADES BEFORE PAUL WROTE THIS LETTER TO THE >FAITHFUL OF CORINTH. NOTE THAT THE PROOF JESUS DIDN'T SAY IT IS QUOTED BY >THE GOOD CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN HIMSELF: "YE ARE JUSTIFIED IN THE NAME OF THE >LORD JESUS." JESUS NEVER TALKED ABOUT HIMSELF IN THE THIRD PERSON OR CALLED >HIMSELF "LORD." HE CALLED HIMSELF "THE SON OF MAN" AND REFERRED TO HIMSELF >AS "I." ALL THIS EVANGELICAL "NAME OF THE LORD JESUS" STUFF WAS ADDED BY, >YES, PAUL. DID I NOT SAY THE MAN WAS A PAULITE? DID I NOT SAY HE FOLLOWED >PAUL AND NOT JESUS? HERE'S THE PROOF. YES, YOU ARE A LIAR BECAUSE YOU SAID >THIS WAS JESUS TALKING AND IT WAS NOT. THAT WAS A LIE. PERIOD. YOU SAID I >COULDN'T PROVE YOU WERE A LIAR, AND I JUST PROVED IT. NOW WILL YOU >APOLOGIZE? HOW WRONG DO YOU NEED TO BE BEFORE YOU ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG? HOW >MANY TIMES MUST THIS PAYGAN PROVE TO YOU, WITH YOUR OWN BIBLE VERSE, THAT >YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? > > Please notice Jesus includes unrepentant fornicators as included with the >condemned of this list. > > THIS WAS NOT JESUS. > > I remind you that Peter McWilliams wrote this lie to you as follows: > > YES, DO REMIND THEM I TOLD THEM THE TRUTH. > > "The Ten Commandments forbids adultery, not fornication. Jesus, in his >only mention of sex, recommended not marrying, that way when you had sex it >would be just fornication and not adultery and therefore you would not be >breaking a commandment." > > EVERY WORD OF THAT SENTENCE IS ACCURATE. > > Please be assured that fornication is considered a very serious offense by >God. > > I AM ASSURED. I AM SO HAPPY TO HAVE GOD'S THINKING ON THIS MATTER. I WILL >REMEMBER IT THE NEXT TIME I AM FORNICATING. I WILL USE IT TO HEIGHTEN MY >PLEASURE. THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT TASTES THE SWEETEST. > > However, the reason it was not included in the Ten Commandments is that >there are conditions that can be met to "legitimize", or forgive >fornication. > > NOW HE HAS PRIVY AS TO WHY GOD INCLUDED SOME COMMANDMENTS AND DID NOT >INCLUDE OTHERS? WOW. I'M IMPRESSED. WHAT BIBLE ARE YOU READING? MAYBE YOU >HAVE SOME OF THE EARLY DRAFTS OF THE TEN COMMANDMENT, BACK WHEN THERE WERE >TWENTY OR THIRTY. BUT TO FOLLOW YOUR -- I MEAN GOD'S -- LOGIC HERE: ARE YOU >SAYING FORNICATION CAN BE FORGIVEN BUT VIOLATIONS OF THE OTHER COMMANDMENTS >CANNOT BE FORGIVEN? THIS IS A NEW CHRISTIAN TEACHING -- THE UNFORGIVABLE >SIN. DO CONTINUE. > > In short, fornication is the sexual liaison between unmarried persons for >the exclusive purpose of sexual pleasure. > > THAT'S IT IN SHORT; THAT'S IT IN LONG. SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. HUBBA HUBBA. > > They engage in this sexual activity with complete disregard for the life >and future of any unwanted child conceived in the process. > > UNLESS THEY'RE BOTH OF THE SAME SEX OR ARE USING BIRTH CONTROL OR ARE TOO >OLD TO CONCEIVE OR... > > They don't care. > > THEY OBVIOUSLY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT, THANK GOD. > > They have no intention of marrying the person they are having sex with >now, or even if a child is produced from the union in the future. > > THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S THE RULES OF THE FORNICATION GAME. > > They are completely self-absorbed with achieving their next fleeting >orgasm at the expense of a totally innocent party whose entire life hangs in >the balance, and Peter McWilliams thinks fornication is not a sin? > > WHAT I SAID WAS THAT FORNICATION WAS NOT ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. WHAT >IS OR IS NOT A SIN IS UP TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE A SIN IS SEEN AS "A VERY >SERIOUS OFFENSE BY GOD," I DO NOT. SO I NEVER SPECULATE ON AN ACT'S >SINFULNESS OR LACK OF SINFULNESS. AS TO IT BEING MORAL, AS LONG AS IT WAS >CONSENSUAL AND BETWEEN ADULTS, IT IS PERFECTLY MORAL. > > Is there possibly a more selfish act one can commit? > > UH, YEAH. MURDER. I THINK THAT WOULD QUALIFY. I'LL SEE IF I CAN COME UP >WITH ANY OTHERS, BUT IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT. FORNICATION IS RIGHT UP THERE. > > If Peter McWilliams thinks fornication is just fine, then what else will >he rationalize as acceptable behavior? > > ANY BEHAVIOR BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS THAT DOES NOT PHYSICALLY HARM THE >PERSON OR PROPERTY OF A NONCONSENTING OTHER. WELL, YOU ASKED. > > That's the reason I am telling you that people like McWilliams cannot be >trusted. > > ARE YOU ALL LISTENING OUT THERE? THIS MAN IS TELLING YOU THE TRUTH! > > These are people without a moral compass. > > LOST! LOST! > > They decide what path to take depending on the circumstances as they see >them. > > OH NO! NOT THAT! LOGIC AND REASON APPLIED TO DECISION MAKING? WHAT NEXT? >ARE WE ALL DOOMED? > > They are not bound by external laws they are committed to, but rather by >their own judgment of what is right or wrong depending on the >circumstances -- and how badly they want what they want. > > I FRANKLY COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER MYSELF AND I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO >ERROR IN THIS THINKING. > > No, I'm sorry to have to say this, > > YOU ARE THRILLED TO "HAVE TO SAY THIS." YOU GET OFF ON SAYING THIS. ALL >THAT REPRESSED SEXUAL ENERGY RISES INTO YOUR TREMBLING HANDS AND YOU CONDEMN >THE NONBELIEVERS TO EVERLASTING PERDITION. THE KEY PHRASE IS THAT YOU "HAVE >TO" SAY IT. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. YOU ARE ON AUTOMATIC PILOT. THAT'S WHAT >ADDICTION DOES. SAD THAT THIS RELIGIOUS ADDICTION IS SO SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. >PEOPLE SUCH AS THIS MAN DON'T GET THE HELP THEY SO OBVIOUSLY NEED, AND THEY >SAY CHRISTIANITY DOESN'T HARM ANYONE. LOOK AT THIS MAN IN TORMENT, HELD >THERE BY CHRISTIAN BELIEF. OH, YES, I FORGOT. I WAS ABOUT TO BE CONDEMNED. I >GUESS I SHOULD SHUT UP AS THE INQUISITION RECONVENES. > > but these are people that cannot be trusted. If you do, they will >disappoint and hurt you every time. Oh, and for Heaven's sake, don't ever >marry one: You don't know what pain is. > > IS THIS TURNING INTO A COUNTRY SONG, OR A GLIMPSE INTO THE DARK CORRIDORS >OF HIS MARITAL PAST? MAYBE BOTH. LET'S STRIKE UP THAT NASHVILLE CHRISTIAN >COUNTRY BAND: > > YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT PAIN IS > > TILL YOU'VE MARRIED A HUMANIST. > > YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HURT IS > > TILL THEY GET YOU REALLY PISSED. > > THEY'LL DENY THAT GOD IS MAKIN' THE RULES > > THEN THEY'LL ACT SO AWFULLY GODDAM COOL. > > (I HATE 'EM!) > > OH, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT PAIN IS > > TILL YOU'VE MARRIED A HUMANIST. > > Now when two people are totally in love and their passions get away from >them, God sees their sexual activity in a completely different -- and >acceptable -- light when they marry. > > BUT NOT UNTIL THEY MARRY? IF THEY LOVE EACH OTHER AND THEIR PASSIONS GET >AWAY FROM THEM, OH, THREE OR FOUR HUNDRED TIMES, AND THEN THEY DON'T >MARRIED, THEN GOD WILL BE PISSED? JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RULES, HERE. > > God is not a jerk nor a trickster, > > WELL THANK GOD GOD IS NOT RICHARD NIXON! > > and it was He who implanted our sexual desires when He created us. > > HOPE IT WASN'T A SILICONE IMPLANT. > > God understands the difference between two people committed in a love >relationship, compared to ships passing in the night with only sexual >pleasure in mind. > > I WOULD HOPE SO. AFTER ALL, HE'S GOD. BUT IF GOD GAVE US BODIES CAPABLE OF >AT LEAST ONE GREAT ORGASM A DAY (FOR MEN, FAR MORE FOR WOMEN, FAR MORE THAN >MOST MEN WANT TO KNOW, FOR WOMEN ARE MAGNIFICENTLY SEXUALLY SUPERIOR TO >MEN), WHO ARE WE TO SAY, "I TURN DOWN THIS GIFT OF GOD"? IN MY CHURCH, THE >CHURCH OF THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, WE BELIEVE THAT IF GOD GAVE US BODIES >LITTERED WITH EROGENOUS ZONES, HE MEANT FOR US TO ENJOY THEM. YOU CAN >BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE, BUT THAT'S THAT WE BELIEVE. > > God can read every thought you have, therefore it is impossible to hide >your true intent from him. Don't even try. > > HE SEES YOU WHEN YOU'RE SLEEPING > > HE KNOWS WHEN YOU'RE AWAKE. > > HE KNOWS IF YOU'VE BEEN BAD OR GOOD > > SO BE GOOD FOR GOODNESS SAKE! > > But do try to remember that neither God nor His son Jesus are fools to be >toyed with. > > I WILL TRY. I'M MAKING A NOTE AND PLACING IT ON MY COMPUTER MONITOR. "GOD, >SON JESUS, NO FOOLS, DON'T TOY." GOT IT. > > People who use the cafeteria plan of Bible study are only fooling >themselves. > > YES, YOU ARE. > > There is this illusion so many people have that they can create a god who >will serve them, rather than discovering the true God they should be >serving. Which one are you? > > UH, NEITHER. WHY DOES EVERYTHING TO THIS MAN BOIL DOWN TO TWO CHOICES THAT >FAIL TO ENCOMPASS EVEN MOST OF THE POSSIBILITIES? > > There is another pathetic crop of people who subconsciously hold that if >they don't believe in God, He will cease to exist. It's like this gang: It >doesn't matter if you believe in God; all that matters is that He believes >in you. > > WHY DOES HE HAVE TO BELIEVE IN ME? IF GOD STOPS BELIEVING IN ME, DO I >CEASE TO EXIST? THESE CHRISTIAN HOMILIES OFTEN DON'T MAKE SENSE -- BUT DO >THEY LOOK GOOD ON LITTLE PLASTIC PLAQUES. > > I suppose the most telling of McWilliams is the following, incredibly >bizarre statement: > > "I don't mind if people choose to follow a religion that preaches hate, >prejudice, harsh punishment, and denial of physical pleasure, but why do >they say they do it in the name of Jesus, who taught love, acceptance, >forgiveness, and enjoying each moment to the fullest? Again, it's >hypocritical. These people should call themselves what they are, Paulites, >for they follow the teachings of Paul, not Jesus." > > SEE? I CALLED HIM A PAULITE. > > Again, wow! I'd like to see anywhere the Bible and Christianity preaches >"hate, prejudice and denial of physical pleasure". > > OH, COME NOW! ONE NEED ONLY READ THIS E-MAIL TO FIND AMPLE EVIDENCE OF ALL >THREE, ESPECIALLY THE LATTER. IS THIS GUY REALLY SO COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF >WHAT HE IS DOING AND SAYING? > > I'm not going to deny the Bible condones harsh punishment for specific >behavior, but here again, McWilliams is only 25% correct. > > NOT 26%? DARN! I THOUGHT I WAS AT LEAST 26% CORRECT. > > All three of his other allegations are bald-faced lies. > > WHAT "ALL THREE"? BESIDES, I DON'T TELL BALD-FACED LIES -- I ENROLL ALL MY >DISHONESTY IN THE HAIR CLUB FOR LIES BEFORE SENDING THEM OUT IN THE WORLD. I >WANT THEM TO HAVE EVERY ADVANTAGE. > > Next, McWilliams draws a line between the teachings of Paul and the >teachings of Jesus in his cafeteria plan approach. However, Paul was a >disciple of Jesus, and nowhere is there a contradiction between the >teachings of Paul and that of Jesus. > > OH, MY. HOW UNEDUCATED IS THIS MAN? PAUL WAS SAUL, A ROMAN JEW WHO WAS THE >"DRUG CZAR" OF CHRISTIAN DESTRUCTION. HE WAS ONE OF THE MOST VICIOUS >PERSECUTORS AND EXECUTORS OF EARLY CHRISTIANS. HE NEVER KNEW JESUS IN LIFE >AND WAS NOT A DISCIPLE (AS IN ONE CHOSEN BY JESUS). THERE IS CONTRADICTION >AFTER CONTRADICTION BETWEEN PAUL AND JESUS -- JUST AS THERE IS CONTRADICTION >AFTER CONTRADICTION BETWEEN FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS AND JESUS. >FUNDAMENTALISTS GET THEIR FODDER FROM PAUL, A DEEPLY UNHAPPY MAN WHO HAD A >MOST UNUSUAL AND CONFLICTED RELATIONSHIP WITH A BEAUTIFUL YOUNG MAN NAMED >TIMOTHY. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY. PAUL WROTE ROUGHLY HALF OF THE NEW >TESTAMENT AND IS, IN THE WORDS OF ONE BIBLICAL SCHOLAR, "AN OLD BIDDY." > > This is another bizarre statement that can only be characterized as a lie. >Why? What's the point of lying when such lies are so easily refuted? I >don't get it. > > I DON'T EITHER. > > In closing, I recognize that Peter McWilliams has undergone a very >difficult emotional upheaval in his life. > > IT'S A LITTLE LATE IN THE GAME FOR PHONY "CHRISTIAN CHARITY," THANK YOU >VERY MUCH. YOU FLOG ME UNTIL YOUR ARM IS TIRED AND THEN WORRY ABOUT MY "very difficult emotional upheaval." I'D WORRY MORE ABOUT THE EMOTIONAL UPHEAVAL >YOU ARE HAVING. I CALLED YOU ON YOUR UN-CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR, QUOTED JESUS >SCRIPTURE AND VERSE AS BACKUP, ASKED YOU FOR AN APOLOGY, AND YOU COME BACK >WITH THIS PATHETIC MUSH. NOT ONCE DID YOU ADDRESS THE BASIC ACCUSATION, THAT >JESUS SAID YOU ARE TO TAKE THE PLANK OUT OF YOUR OWN EYE BEFORE ATTEMPTING >TO REMOVE THE SPECK OF SAWDUST FROM MINE. YOU FAILED TO TAKE THIS ADMONITION >OF JESUS. MISERABLY, UTTERLY, FAILED. "YOU HYPOCRITE!" AND THAT'S NOT ME >TALKING, THAT'S JESUS. SHOW ANY JESUS-LOVER YOU RESPECT THESE E-MAILS AND >ASK HIS OR HER OPINION. YOU ARE OUT ON A LIMB, YOU HAVE SAWED OFF YOUR OWN >BRANCH, BUT YOU HAVE NO WHERE TO FALL. YOU ARE "SAFE" IN YOUR FANTASY WORLD >OF DENIAL AND ACCUSATION, EXCEPT THERE IS NO DANGER IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE >DANGER AND YOUR SALVATION ARE ALL IN YOUR IMAGINATION. AND YOU SEEM TO HAVE >SUCH A GOOD MIND. IT'S SAD, REALLY. > > He blames "fundamentalist" Christianity for some, if not all of it, > > SOME, NOT ALL. > > and he takes anti-depressant drugs in an effort to treat his condition. > > WHAT "CONDITION"? IF YOU MEAN DEPRESSION, YES. > > That is very sad indeed, and I'm very sorry, Peter, for perhaps >contributing to your continued unhappiness. > > GIVE ME A BREAK. DOES YOUR DISHONESTY KNOW NO DEPTHS? HAVE YOU NO SHAME? >YOU WOULD PISS ON MY GRAVE -- ALL IN THE NAME OF JESUS, OF COURSE. YOU SAID >A FERVENT PRAYER THAT EVERY ONE OF YOUR BARBS WOULD STRIKE HOME; THAT I >WOULD FALL WOUNDED TO THE FLOOR AND ASK JESUS TO COME INTO MY UNDESERVING >BUT REPENTANT HEART. IF PEOPLE AREN'T DEPRESSED, YOU DO YOUR BEST TO MAKE >THEM THAT WAY SO YOU CAN GO IN FOR THE KILL. YOUR (FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN) >RECRUITMENT TECHNIQUES ARE BENEATH CONTEMPT. SORRY TO DISAPPOINT YOU, BUT >YOU HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED TO MY "CONTINUED UNHAPPINESS." YOU HAVE GIVEN ME AN >ENJOYABLE SATURDAY OF PROVING HOW ACCURATE ARE MY THEORIES OF FUNDAMENTALIST >CHRISTIANS. YOU COULD NOT HAVE PROVED MY POINTS BETTER, AND I THANK YOU. > > But you must remember that love can also be in the form of telling someone >the truth when they desperately do not want to hear it. > > YES, AND THAT'S JUST WHAT I SAID TO YOU WHEN I SAID YOU NEEDED >ANTIDEPRESSANT MEDICATION. NOW IT'S CLEAR YOU NEED PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT AND >PROBABLY ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATION AS WELL. TOO BAD "GOD" IS BETWEEN YOU AND >GETTING THE HELP YOU SO DESPERATELY NEED. AND JESUS WAS SUCH A FAN OF >HEALING, TOO. I WONDER WHAT HE'D SAY IF HE KNEW YOU WERE USING HIS NAME TO >STAY SICK. ASK HIM NEXT TIME YOU CHAT WITH HIM, HUH? > > I would be doing you a great disservice by telling you what you want to >hear, and telling someone the truth does not constitute judgment of them. > > LOV-ER-LY CHRISTIAN COP-OUT, DON'T YOU THINK? AS LONG AS IT'S THE "TRUTH" >IT'S NOT A "JUDGMENT." I SOMETIMES WISH THERE WAS A GOD JUST TO WATCH PEOPLE >SUCH AS THIS TAP DANCING ON JUDGMENT DAY. SORRY, BUT IF IT WALKS LIKE A >JUDGMENT AND IT SQUAWKS LIKE A JUDGMENT AND JUDGES LIKE A JUDGMENT, TRUTHFUL >OR NOT, IT'S A JUDGMENT. JESUS DID NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TRUTHFUL >JUDGMENTS AND UNTRUTHFUL JUDGMENT WHEN HE SAID, "JUDGE NOT." > > Frankly, Peter, > > FINALLY, HE'S GOING TO GET FRANK. OH, JOY. THE GLOVES ARE COMING OFF. > > I don't know what you do or how you conduct yourself, so it is quite >impossible for me to judge you. > > YOU'VE BEEN DOING A DANDY JOB OF IT THUS FAR. YOUR IGNORANCE OF MY >"CONDUCT" HAS NOT BEEN AN IMPEDIMENT AT ALL. > > I can conclude that you are a man without a true moral compass, however, >because you have admitted that. > > I HAVE NOT. MY MORALITY IS THIS: NOT PHYSICALLY HARMING THE PERSON OR >PROPERTY OF A NON-CONSENTING OTHER. THAT'S TRUE NORTH, MORALLY SPEAKING. > > But the fact is that I sincerely hope you accept Jesus into your life >before it's too late. > > WHAT? IS HE GOING ON VACATION? ARE ALL THE CHURCHES CLOSING? WHEN IS "TOO >LATE"? > > Just remember Jesus' words after he saved that adulterous woman from the >mob: > > THE MOB FROM WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE STEPPED FORWARD AND THROWN THE FIRST >STONE, EXPLAINING TO JESUS, "THIS IS A TRUTHFUL STONE, NOT A JUDGMENT. YOU >MUST REMEMBER THAT LOVE CAN ALSO BE IN THE FORM OF TELLING SOMEONE THE TRUTH >IN THE FORM OF A STONE WHEN THEY DESPERATELY DO NOT WANT TO HEAR IT." > > "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in >darkness, but shall have the light of life." > > ALLOW ME TO REMIND YOU THAT WE ARE AT THE END OF HIS EPISTLE AND THE >CHRISTIAN HAS NOT YET FULFILLED ONE WORD OF HIS PROPHECY: "Unlike the poor >hapless souls who rely upon your kind to learn the 'truth', I am already >quite well acquainted with the scripture you butchered and I am now going to >expose in detail how you deliberately omitted vital parts in order to >mislead the person too lazy to look up what you've cited." HE FAILED IN THIS >PLEDGE COMPLETELY. > > You still have time to follow Jesus into the light, Peter. > > AND I SINCERELY HOPE YOU GET THE PSYCHIATRIACTIC HELP YOU NEED, IN THE >NAME OF CHRIST JESUS, AMEN. > > ENJOY, > > > > PETER > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: