Fairytale?

[USincognito]

She first filed a lawsuit in 1960 and Schemp's was in 1963. So I guess she was first after all.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=374&page=203#t1

[ Footnote 1 ] The action was brought in 1958, prior to the 1959 amendment of 15-1516 authorizing a child's nonattendance at the exercises upon parental request. The three-judge court held the statute and the practices complained of unconstitutional under both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. 177 F. Supp. 398. Pending appeal to this Court by the school district, the statute was so amended, and we vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. 364 U.S. 298 . The same three-judge court granted appellees' motion to amend the pleadings, 195 F. Supp. 518, held a hearing on the amended pleadings and rendered the judgment, 201 F. Supp. 815, from which appeal is now taken.

Bold mine.

 

[TheOutsider]

Her attack was against God but in a way it was a good thing, because it woke up the church to get involved with the issues of society that could bring to an end our freedoms and rights.

I didn't realize that we had a right to push our religion with the use of tax dollars. What form do I need to fill out to teach the local middle school about Discordianism?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I didn't realize that we had a right to push our religion with the use of tax dollars. What form do I need to fill out to teach the local middle school about Discordianism?

Sorry Outsider, but America is a Christian nation, dontcha know.

And as an aside to the discussion, in case we get off-track and have to hear how hard Christians have it in the U.S. we have 9 State Constitutions that Openly and Explicitly Discriminate against Atheists.

 

[Inan3]

Well, actually you have painted yourself into a corner.

On the contrary, thaumaturgy, YOU painted yourself into your own corner with the most ridiculous interpretation of what foehammer was saying.

You claim Adam and Eve were created in God's image and that makes them distinct from other primates.

But in reality what that really means is that PRIMATES ARE GOD'S IMAGE.

Only in your confused mind.

[/Think about it. If we look, act, and for all intents and puposes appear to be nothing more than other primates and you say we were created in God's image, then YOU must believe God's image is that of a primate or ape.

TWISTED!!!! Once again an evolutionist has to twist what a creationist says, trying to make the creationist look foolish but only making themselves look foolish!

[/Do you see the logical conundrum you have decreed for yourself?

Of course he doesn't because this is your illogical baby, certainly not his!

[/You claim something about God predicated on HUMANITY and it effectively guts your own argument.

BACKWARDS!!!! He was claiming something about humanity predicated on GOD!

[/Well, yeah, it kinda does. Science only works when you don't multiply entities and you construct models that have no extraneous unprovable factors in them.

You have to explain the variability in the data using the minimum number of factors and all those factors must be provable and testable and observable to all objective observers.

So, yeah, it does suffer.

(Also science uses logic quite a bit, something that the aforementioned discussion of "God's Image" stumbles over quite severely).

Only your interpretation of it! This must be what it means to have a "degraded mind." I can see now why they try to build a transitional fossil out of a couple of toe bones and then evolutionists all around say WOW! and EUREKA!

Rom 1:28 Furthermore, because they did not think it worthwhile to retain the full knowledge of God, God gave them over to degraded minds to perform acts that should not be done.

 

[Inan3]

I didn't realize that we had a right to push our religion with the use of tax dollars. What form do I need to fill out to teach the local middle school about Discordianism?

Confused, TO? Cause I never said that. You really need to watch who you hang with it could be dangerous to your thinking.

 

[Inan3]

Sorry Outsider, but America is a Christian nation, dontcha know.

And as an aside to the discussion, in case we get off-track and have to hear how hard Christians have it in the U.S. we have 9 State Constitutions that Openly and Explicitly Discriminate against Atheists.

Well, IF that be more than your normal twisted understanding, than I think that should change. Now don't get me wrong I don't think America should change for the "few" but I do think Atheists should have equal rights and should not be discriminated anymore than any other American citizen. But I guess that would be up for interpretation.

 

[TheOutsider]

Confused, TO? Cause I never said that. You really need to watch who you hang with it could be dangerous to your thinking.

Please tell me what rights and freedoms you were talking about then.

 

[Inan3]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=374&page=203#t1


Bold mine.

Oh just remove the "duh" sign because no one but someone familiar with court cases would have known to check out that #1 footnote.

Okay I concede the Schemp's filed first but it wasn't against other Christians it was against the Public School

 

[Inan3]

And usually the Church takes care of those internecine issues so well.

As the papal legate during the Albigensian Crucade supposedly said:

"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" — "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his"

(check it out here)

They probably would have labeled me as an heretic and killed me. As I said some who call themselves Christians are not!

Would you be OK if your kids were asked to stand silently while muslim prayers were recited in your SCHOOL?

Note, your kids wouldn't have to recite the muslim prayers.

But indeed time would come out each day for the appropriate worship of Al'lah.

That would be OK with you? This is your tax money too. And who knows, maybe one of your kids would decide to say the magical words that would make them PERMANENTLY a muslim! That would be great too. It's all just personal belief and I know all Christians are purely ecumenical as to the equality of all belief.

No, but I don't think there should be prayer of any kind in public schools.

So you call O'Hair a wacko. And annoyingly nasty she may have been. But why would we need to have prayer in school?

Why would I as a tax payer have any of my kids' time taken up with what I consider both a waste of time and a religious indoctrination?

You shouldn't. But I shouldn't have to pay for homosexuality blatantly taught and endorsed in the schools, or abortion, or sex education. These things don't belong in the schools either.

 

[Inan3]

Please tell me what rights and freedoms you were talking about then.

Oh how about putting a nativity scene in a public place. Not paid by taxes that is. How about not having to pay for abortions? How about not having to pay for homosexuality endorsements? How about being able to wear a Christian tee shirt to school? Or a Christian club on campus? How about just being a Christian with out being accused of all kinds of things? Freedoms and rights that are mine under the Constitution.

 

[Lilandra]

Oh how about putting a nativity scene in a public place. Not paid by taxes that is. How about not having to pay for abortions? How about not having to pay for homosexuality endorsements? How about being able to wear a Christian tee shirt to school? Or a Christian club on campus? How about just being a Christian with out being accused of all kinds of things? Freedoms and rights that are mine under the Constitution.

Ohh Boo Hoo! Try living in America as a nonchristian for once. You can't be a victim and a perperator at the same time.

I've read enough of your posts to see that your opinion is bigotted against anything you don't perceive as Christian. You even posted in another thread that whoever heard of a major Hindu text. You obviously don't get out much outside of your community of likeminded individuals otherwise you would know there are millions of Hindus and gosh can you believe it they have their own sacred text. So I doubt that you are that persecuted.

You mentioned sex ed. Texas is an abstinence-only sex education based state, but has the highest teen birth rate. I know of children who are having children. You think that what they need is preaching?

Jesus helped people in need rather than just preaching to them and judging them.

The last thing people in a crisis need are empty words and hot air.

 

[USincognito]

Oh how about putting a nativity scene in a public place. Not paid by taxes that is.

Why does it need to go in a public place? There are churches on every corner in many cities and people can place them in their yards and business owners can place them in their locations. Why do creches need to be in front of city hall?

How about not having to pay for abortions?

Very little tax money goes to provide abortions these days. But why do pacifists have to pay for military hardware? Do you think you're the only person who can dictate what the government should spend money on?

How about not having to pay for homosexuality endorsements?

Endorsements? Hyperbole doesn't help your case any. You're not paying for any endorsement of homosexualty, I can guarentee you of that.

How about being able to wear a Christian tee shirt to school?

No child has ever been unable to wear a Christian t-shirt to school unless the shirt was disruptive. "Bong hits for Jesus" will get you in deep doo though. And if I wore my "Getting tough on crime c. 33 A.D." t-shirt I'd probably be assaulted if I wore it to school.

Or a Christian club on campus?

Mergens.

How about just being a Christian with out being accused of all kinds of things?

Like what and by whom?

Freedoms and rights that are mine under the Constitution.

Or which you share in terms of the tax issues you raise, and are being protected in the others. So what's the problem?

 

[TheOutsider]

How about being able to wear a Christian tee shirt to school?

If you are talking about this story, the girl was suspended for wearing her Christian t-shirt when the dress code clearly said that she had to wear a polo shirt with no logo on it. There was no religious persecution going on.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The original question was: if atheistic evolution is a reality why is this even an issue? We’re born, we procreate, and we die, job done. How does science benefit us from an atheistic evolutionary point of view?
Your answer was:

If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and they would only be in those categories "in the mind of man", as seems to be your stance. Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves.

I fail to see how this even begins to address the question let alone asnswer it. You're going to have to spell it out.

I wonder why you think its OK to outright ignore every question directed to you, while you berate me by repeating your one question which I've already answered every way I know how. Perhaps if I knew what that question means to you? Because you may not be phrasing it very well.

If life is the result of a chance chemical combination and reaction, and the diversity of life that is observed today is the product of a blind and random process, and thoughts are merely random chemical reactions, how and why does any of this matter.
Evolution as a process doesn't require us to explore or understand our origins nor does it require that we interfere in that process. Our continued existence or our immediate extinction is of no importance and little, if any, consequence to the process.
is it merely a coincidence, a matter of luck(?), that random chemical reactions give rise to logic and consistency of thought sufficient to produce the things that we do, most, if not all, of which have absolutely no bearing or influence on the process of evolution itself?

It think Probably. Buddha taught that whether God [Brahma] existed or not was irrelevant, because however one chooses to answer that question, it would not change how he still must sustain himself or die. All the laws of the universe remain in effect either way, so what difference does it really make while we live?

But you're still fixating on the false dichotomy that we must either completely reject all religious beliefs, or we must subscribe only to your particularly narrow view of theism, being entirely dependant on the worship of doctrine.

I do not count the compromised opinions of theistic evolutionists. I have yet to see them produce any scripture to support their position.

See? I told you, you worship scripture, just as I said. And you're so dogmatic that you are unable to even consider any of the topics discussed in this forum. Why then do you bother even coming here? Because I'm comparing philosophies beyond your comprehension to subjects I've studied in-depth but which you refuse to know anything at all about. You can get as angry as you like and shout that "Aesop said the tortoise won and I accept that", but that's not going to compell anyone else to believe as you do, and it certainly isn't going to sway anyone who really knows anything about either science or theology. So I would think you'd be happier if you run along to one of the other boards of this forum where you might find people of your own level to talk to.

Your problem is that you want to say that God couldn't do things they way he always does if you're talking about the ancient past.

This makes no sense and you are doing what I advised you not to do.

That's right, you did advise me not to try to reason with you, and I just explained why it would be a waste of my time to try.

Then, you insist that he had to do things magically, with incantations, ritual spells, enchanted artifacts, pyrotechnic potions.

I insist nothing of the kind I accept what is recorded in Genesis andyour use of these words are merely an attempt to ridicule The Bible. By ''magic'', ''incantations'', ''ritual spells'', ''enchanted artifacts'' and ''pyrotechnic potions'' what I think you really mean is via a process that is beyond your understanding and willingness to believe, which would make it an argument from personal incredulity. A logical fallacy.

No, what I mean is that the Bible talks about primitive magic just like every other culture did at that time. According to Merriam Webster, "magic" is defined as 1 a: "the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations. 2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell. According to Dictionary.com, "Magic" is "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature." That's a prayer, isn't it? And a "miracle" has pretty much the same definition, except that the word 'miracle' applies only to the magic that gods do directly. All sources agree that "magic" is a matter of evoking or manipulating supernatural influence over the natural world. So referring to things going on in the Bible as "magic" isn't ridicule; its literally correct. In Genesis 1, God performed a series of incantations when he "spoke" the universe into existence. In Genesis 2, he performed a golum spell, an ancient spell in the Hebrew tradition which is detailed in the Kaballah. Enchanted artifacts in the Bible include the staff of Moses, the ark of the covenant, and the explanation in Leviticus 14 of how to use a wand in an elemental spell. And Numbers 5:26 does include pyrotechnics as part of an abortion spell. So its not beyond my understanding of the Bible; its beyond yours.

Why should God totally change his pattern of behavior for you?

You’re not making any sense. What pattern of behaviour?

Manipulating seemingly natural sequences of events toward a desired result, (which modern theists believe) as opposed to using acts of dramatic magic as creationists believe he used to do, but doesn't do anymore.

Because you worship a book. You are an idolater because you have taken man-made and committee-compiled compendium of myths and you've erected that as your god.

This is a strawman, another logical fallacy. I believe The Bible to be the revealed word of The God I worship. I add nothing to it and take nothing away.

Because you worship the Bible, just as I said.

To prove that, you actually believe that if the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong.

I do not believe that God can be wrong and as the revealed word of God I do not believe that The Bible is wrong.You have failed to prove anything though you have demonstrated your arrogance in presuming my position and proceeding to argue against it.

I don't know why you keep arguing against me since you prove my point each time you try.

In your perspective, if the Bible isn't itself infallable, (which it can't be) then God can't exist, not your version of it, nor anyone else's either.

You’re continuing in your argument from personal incredulity, strawman building and arrogance in your presumption of my perspective.

Its not personal incredulity. Its not "personal" at all. The Bible cannot be absolutely literal without disproving itself, and leading theologians admit this.

God exists regardless of what you or I may or may not think.

That's an empty assertion. But if it were so, then you wouldn't need faith to believe in him, would you?

Yet again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the Christian teaching and faith in general and my perspective and faith in Christ in particular.

But you keep admitting everything I accuse of you. By your own admission, I've got you pegged.

So what you have is a false dichotomy wherein you think we must either worship the Bible or be atheist. You do not consider that other religions may be right, or that God could still be real, but that all religions including yours could be wrong about him. But whether God exists or not, the Bible is still wrong either way.

Again a strawman. I have no false dichotomy though there is a dichotomy and that is atheism or theism.

See? Again you react exactly as I predicted, admitting that you do have exactly the dichotomy I said you had, and which we have already easily shown to be false. Again, most "evolutionists" are Christian and most Christians are evolutionists, and all of the pioneers of evolutionary science were initially Christians, and many of the leading proponants of modern evolutionary science are still Christians today. So your dichotomy of worshipping the Bible as a literally historically accurate absolute authority vs the rejection of all religious beliefs with the acceptance of evolution is indeed false.

Do not imagine for one moment that any dealings you may have had with ‘’christians’’ up to now has prepared you for an argument with this Christian and left you with any hope of prevailing.

You are sadly typical of your ilk, and completely predictable.

My faith has been, and continues to be, tried, tested and strengthened by The Almighty Himself. You won't even come close to testing it.

Well, it isn't "the almighty" doing that. But of course you'll never believe me. Because faith is a matter of assuming your own conclusions without adequate consideration, making yourself believe them without question, and refusing in advance to ever allow any amoung of logic or evidence to cause you to reconsider your position honestly. All it means is that you're determined to be unreasonable. I already knew that. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm using you as an example to others, the innocently-deceived sheep who may not realize how disingenuous faith is -until they see how your tactics trying to debate with me. But I must add that, as strong as you think your faith is, even you know that its not. Because if your strength could bare even the slightest test, then you wouldn't have ignored any of my questions the way you do. You wouldn't need to do that unless yours was a frail and fragile faith. Were you to let go of your dependance on logical fallacies and actually honestly engage me systematically, by answering and properly addressing every point or query -ignoring none- then your "faith" would billow away like so much dust.

 

[thaumaturgy]

On the contrary, thaumaturgy, YOU painted yourself into your own corner with the most ridiculous interpretation of what foehammer was saying.

Were you actually reading what Foe was writing? Or did I miss a post.

BACKWARDS!!!! He was claiming something about humanity predicated on GOD!

I will remind you that you cannot see God, but you can see humans.

The only information Foe has is about humans.

How would you describe the God of the ontological argument? That being than which none greater can be conceived. Note the use of the word "conceived" there. That is why the Ontological Argument uses it. It is not "perceived".

And surely you must realize that the Bible was written by humans.

So, again, the only real information Foe has is about HUMANS. He extrapolates to God.

It is indeed backwards.

Only your interpretation of it! This must be what it means to have a "degraded mind."

Inan....I am a professional scientist. I have a BS, MS, PhD and two postdoctoral appointments in the physical sciences before becoming an industrial R&D chemist. I've been working in and around the sciences since 1982. Please tell me about my interpretation of science vs yours.

POST YOUR BONA FIDES OR STAND CORRECTED.

I can see now why they try to build a transitional fossil out of a couple of toe bones and then evolutionists all around say WOW! and EUREKA!

You understand virtually nothing about this topic. Please become informed. The very second you bring some science to the table maybe someone will listen.

You could also do with a bit of logic training as well. I recommend a philosophy class or two as well.

Then maybe you can also stop calling people swine lacking integrity.

It's obvious that none of you have any integrity. You lie, you twist the truth, you manipulate, you insult, you cry like babies, you are just plain mean individuals.

because I could not believe that intelligent people would believe evolution

too many porkers on here (source)

Don't confuse useful science with you guys. You give yourselves too much credit.

If you are talking to me, I'll assume as I like for if they are are deceptive as all of you I'm sure they are doing that.

I was right I regret answering your questions. You are no different from the rest.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Oh just remove the "duh" sign because no one but someone familiar with court cases would have known to check out that #1 footnote.

GOSH! Who would have thought you have to maybe understand legal matters before pontificating on them???

It's like evolution! You have to have a nodding acquaintance with the science before you can decree it "wanting"!

It's so hard to debate people when you don't have the facts.

But I do like the response. It fits in well with my new bumpersticker idea:

Christians: Not Perfect, but Never Wrong.

[BIBLE]Proverbs 16:18[/BIBLE]

 

[Aron-Ra]

(Also science uses logic quite a bit, something that the aforementioned discussion of "God's Image" stumbles over quite severely).

Inan....I am a professional scientist. I have a BS, MS, PhD and two postdoctoral appointments in the physical sciences before becoming an industrial R&D chemist. I've been working in and around the sciences since 1982. Please tell me about my interpretation of science vs yours.

So an advanced education = a "degraded mind", does it?
I guess ignorance = intelligence too.

Thaumaturgy, I think you may be speaking into a vaccuum.

 

[thaumaturgy]

They probably would have labeled me as an heretic and killed me. As I said some who call themselves Christians are not!

You just better hope everyone realized you are the arbiter of what real christianity is.

I'll assume you haven't read much about the history of Christianity.

No, but I don't think there should be prayer of any kind in public schools.

I have to admit, this surprises me. So you agree with Madelyn Murray O'Hair?

Wow. I am amazed.

You shouldn't. But I shouldn't have to pay for homosexuality blatantly taught and endorsed in the schools, or abortion, or sex education.

No sex ed? Good. YOU pay for the increase in teen age pregnancies and the skyrocketing rates of STD's.

A few points:

1. By 2002, one-third of teens had not received any formal instruction about contraception (Lindberg LD, Changes in formal sex education: 1995–2002, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(4):182–189.)

2. Despite [a] decline, the United States continues to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world—almost twice as high as those of England, Wales and Canada, and eight times as high as those of the Netherlands and Japan. (Singh S and Darroch JE, Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: levels and trends in developed countries, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 32(1):14–23)

3. Every year, roughly nine million new sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur among teens and young adults in the United States. Compared with rates among teens in Canada and Western Europe, rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia among U.S. teens are extremely high. (Weinstock H et al., Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2004, 36(1):6–10.; Darroch JE, Frost JJ and Singh S, Teenage Sexual and Reproductive Behavior in Developed Countries: Can More Progress Be Made?, Occasional Report, >New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2001, No. 3.)

These things don't belong in the schools either.

I'm glad I don't have any kids. Because I would most assuredly not want them around uninformed hormone-weilding urchins such as yours.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, I think you may be speaking into a vaccuum.

I would agree but I have a degraded mind so it is quite difficulty to tell if what I'm saying is reasonable.

 

[FoeHammer]

Company showed up before I was ready to press "submit". Get over yourself.

I’ll believe ya (thousands wouldn’t).

If only that were true.

It is true.

Because if it were, then you'd be a scientific rationalist like me.

You’re joking right? You are no rationalist, scientific or otherwise. One only has to look at your average post that contains anything in reference to God, The Bible, Christianity and Christians. And you have yet to rationalize your faith in the irrational concept that is the ToE.

But instead, you accept as absolute truth the ravings of superstitious primitives who obviously had no idea what they were talking about.

Example. This is an irrational, subjective, emotional outburst.

Without any evidence at all whatsoever, you've not only decided that supernatural things 'might' be true, you've convinced yourself beyond reason that they are true, and more true than anything anyone ever wrote even could be -despite the fact that everything your book talks about has been shown to be wrong, sometimes on many levels. You've allowed the men pushing religion to deceive you into believing the book men wrote was really written by a god.

It doesn’t get any better does it? Especially the ‘’everything your book talks about has been shown to be wrong, sometimes on many levels’’ bit.
It is all argument from personal incredulity because it all hinges on your unwillingness to believe that God exists. Were you willing to believe then everything the Bible says becomes a possibility and a reality.

This could not have happened had you adhered to the maxim you claim.

But it did, and I did.

Oh, so you're alone in your beliefs, are you?

That isn’t what I said is it? I do not at present attend a church which means that I can’t be swallowing ‘’all the unsubsubstantiated and indefensible nonsense spewing from the pulpit of’’ any ‘’congregation’’ can I?

That's right. You deny what is demonstrably factual and believe in magic instead.

No I do not, and the word magic is inappropriate where God is concerned.

Yes I can, and did, and have before too.

Only in your imagination.

But if you were right, why would anything matter at all?

Absolutes: God exists, the universe is His creation and as part of His creation my life has a meaning and a purpose beyond simply being born, procreating, and dying.
Absolute moral authority and justice: There are reasons and explanations for all the things that men do in life, good or bad, and judgment and consequences according to the will of God rather than the whims of man. The pain and suffering that we inflict/endure are the actions/consequences of a selfish attitude and a willful ignorance of, and disobedience toward, The Almighty God. We are each responsible and accountable for our actions. It is not ultimately down to random chemical reactions in a chance existence.
Your way has nothing to offer, you are a meaningless consequence of a meaningless process in a meaningless universe. Your search for meaning is itself a meaningless exercise… where’s the logic in that? Where is the rationale?

You've yet to set me, (or anyone else here) straight on anything. But I've corrected you with every post.

You’re deluding yourself.

I never believed the Bible was literal history, that's true. Because its pretty obvious Genesis intended "the fruit of the tree of ___" to be allegory. As one Pentacostal preacher I know said,

And now we have argument from authority… another logical fallacy. I am only concerned with what the revealed word of God says not what some preacher you know says.

Snipped.

I prefer to think for myself… you should try it.

Like most people who don't take the Bible literally, I still believed the Bible was divinely inspired, and that it was written this way in order for the message to remain eternal, to be sure it continued to be passed down despite the opions of the cultures who got ahold of it. I continued to believe in the divine construct of the Bible right up until I read it.

I haven’t always taken The Bible literally, in fact it wasn’t until I did that it began to make sense.

Then it wasn't possible to believe that anymore. Once I got passed Genesis, and into the meat of the rest of the Book, I realized these could not be the words of God.

Why? Because they didn’t fit with your preconceived ideas?

I remained a Christian for many years, and was even "reborn" at nineteen. But then I learned the meaning of faith, and realized that it is opposed to the maxim you pretend to hold

I do not pretend to hold it and my faith is not opposed to it.

and which I really do hold.

With everything you write I find it more and more difficult to believe that you ever did hold or do hold any such maxim.

its not just men trying to deceive you. Faith enables you to deceive yourself! So I abandoned it.

Mine doesn’t. The problem appears to be that you have issues with regards to your own experience and perception of Christianity and, for some reason you are trying to project them onto me.

I continued to believe in a god or god-like thing for many years, and I thought I would more likely find the true message of God by studying all the religions instead of just one. But that had the reverse effect. I now know more about religion than anyone you'll ever likely meet on the street. But the more I learned, the less I could believe in anything anymore.

You obviously have a need for God but if you are going to insist on holding on to preconceived ideas about Him that need may never be satisfied.

FoeHammer.