As repulsive as child pornography is, I find myself being concerned about the government's ability to imprison us for our fantasies.

Sooner or later, technology will bring the ability to read our minds. What a different world that will be.

Anony-bot,

Child porn usually means pictures of naked little kids, or worse, pictures of some adult having sex with little kids. It's not just some fantasy going on in the picture, it's a real picture. The kids are really being abused. The guy looking at the shit might be fantasizing, but somewhere there are some screwed up kids who played the role of fantasy model.

So, possessing that nastiness is just as bad as producing and selling it. No customers, no market.

Get it?

Yeah, I get it.

Anony-bot

I hate our legal system. Why is such an important case being decided by a jury. The jury system has proven that it cannot be impartial, but instead juries often decide others' fates based on emotion.

Child pornography is a heinous crime, and deserves harsh punishment. For that reason, if it cannot be proven that a person had committed it, and that no other person with access to his computer could have set him up, then "innocent until proven guilty" should apply.

On the other hand, if there is enough proof that this guy is guilty, then he is obviously a child predator who has worked his way into a position that trusts him with children, and deserves at minimum whatever punishment is handed to him. I also think that on top of punishment he should receive psychiatric help, but this should not reduce his punishment.

I happen to know a person who was convicted of buying, distributing, and selling child pornography in the days before the Internet.

He was married with children, but he just had a thing for this type of porn. He was arrested, went to jail, and supposedly reformed.

Today he is leading youth in a church. The church knows about his past, but accept that he has been changed by god.

ComputerGuyCJ, hey thanks. I completely agree with everything you said. I wanted to comment those exact thoughts but for some reason I couldn't write a post that was that clear and concise.

Going by that article it looked as if there was some doubt on the case and that the judgment was based more on emotion than on facts. People do/say/believe some of the stupidest things when they are emotionally charged on something.

If the guy is guilty I have absolutely no compassion for him (there you see my emotions on this effecting my views), however if he is innocent then for him to be branded for something so heinous when he is not guilty is almost as worse as the crime.

ComputerGuyCJ. In regards to your comment...

" I hate our legal system. Why is such an important case being decided by a jury. The jury system has proven that it cannot be impartial, but instead juries often decide others' fates based on emotion."

I believe the defendant has the right to waive a jury trial and have the case decided by a judge. A jury trial was not forced on the guy - he and his legal team decided that was what they wanted.

Dave,

"I believe the defendant has the right to waive a jury trial and have the case decided by a judge."

Thank you, I had forgotten that. If I were him, I think I would've gone for the no-jury approach, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that would've been a good choice or not.

Incidentally, what do you think about the idea of "professional" jurors like some other countries have?

ComputerGuyCJ

Re: professional juries.

I've been on 2 juries, one criminal and one civil. I've also been subjected to voir dire about 6 times.

During voir dire, you always get people who are trying to get out of being on a jury. I was once scolded by a judge simply for being the 5th person in a row who said he couldn't be impartial - didn't matter that I was being truthful.

My last experience was being on the civil trial. The judge was the head judge in the county (which has almost 30 judges). During voir dire, this judge excused anybody for virtually any reason. After the trial was over, he commented to us, that he believes that justice is best served by juries who are willing to serve. He believes that forcing people to participate causes poor results. I very much concur with his beliefs. Perhaps, having professional juries who are willing, interested parties is a good idea.

Organized religion, especially Christianity, is in quite a conundrum. The church, in its purest form, invites the dregs of society into its fold. It is quite unfortunate when the church fails in its purpose and elevates unrepentant members to leadership. The system of seminary-based denominations prevent the church from acting in the way it was designed to act. You only need a degree to be a pastor, not the Spirit-led agreement of the congregants.

Jerry,

How do you know that the original church was spirit-led to begin with? How do you know that the majority of the early church history wasn't conjured up? How do you know that Christianity isn't the way that it should be?

A simple belief that Christianity can be a better system than it currently is is no substitute for actual results. Where are Christianity's results? Sure, it's been successful in growing, but what lasting "good" has it actually done that science has not done better? On the other hand, how has it been effective in reversing the evils that it has done? It seems that it's been much more effective in ignoring than correcting.

On a little different note, since this is ExChristian.net. Nothing new about child predators, on either side of the fence. I wonder, if this guy did have this problem, if he ever prayed to be "delivered?"

At issue is, the convicted guy claims he was framed vs. porn on his computer, and the jury was almost hung on that cross (sorry).

How is it that a pastor and pastors wife/daughter don't know the biblical directive that believers are not to go to court with their, er, disputes. Why didn't they all get together and pray instead and let "God" judge? They could've prayed and asked their all knowing, all seeing "God" and then chosen straws, like when Judas was replaced. I would imagine these same people go to the doctor when sick and not the elders ("Gods" representatives). And what of the "divorce" issue? Doesn't "God" "hate divorce?"

Paul,...why are you still quoting the babble on this site?
freedy

freedy,
Just pointing out direct contradictions between the faith and the faithful, all tongue in cheek. Why do you ask? I thought it was kind of obvious.

I guess it seemed like your stradling the fence like I did for so many years.

I did not get your "tongue in cheek" referance,...sorry.I'll read your posts more carefully in the future.

freedy

freedy,

lol, no problem. Probably my fault. Tone is hard, if not impossible, to convey with the written word. One of the things I try to remember to do is to put "God" in quotes, but sometimes am presumptuous about who might be reading and am not as careful as I ought to be. If it turns out I am wrong, I am really going to fry in hell because "God" would know I am one sarcastic s.o.b. when it comes to "the faith."(another joke) Like yourself, I was in the thick of it for a long time (45 years). My own take is that the sincere Christian is the de-convert of tomorrow. It's hard to be really familiar with the bible and not see all the problems and outright hypocrisy...I think the bible, sooner or later, makes hypocrites out of all Christians. I realize that Christians wander onto this blog and am just doing my part to point out the problems.
cheers
paul

First I would like to say how much this site repulses me. We all know it was developed by some hypocritical christians. These exact people are why others are turned away from conformed religion, especially christianity. There are no such thing as ex christians. You wonder why we have such a unjust justice system is because our nation was founded on such a hypocritcal religion.

In reference to the last blog posted by paul. I don't think its the bible that makes christians hypocritical. Christians do it to themselves. IE reading a verse and interpreting that single verse and not its context entirely. Or hating gays, or people who have sinned in their eyes. In Gods eyes no sin weighs more than another. So wether you commit adultery or tattoo you body its all sin according to the bible.

We as human beings all have fetishes and fantasies. Unfortunately, there child fetishes do exist in these realms of fantasy. It seems to me this individual did have such a fantasy. However, acting upon these desires is completely different. From this article it does not seem at age 35 this man had any intention of having sexual relations with a minor. I hope an appeal for this man is won and that he fights our corrupt justice system with all his heart mind and soul. More importnatly why is it that we as a society feel we should outcast such an individual instead of address the problem at hand and help. We just assume put them in jail and live with something that no one person can fix alone.

its too easy to cry wolf on someone and get away with it. now this man's live is potentially ruined for the next 10-60 years, name is destroyed and can never live a normal life unless its resolved truthfully.

Mark said...
"First I would like to say how much this site repulses me...Unfortunately, there child fetishes do exist in these realms of fantasy. It seems to me this individual did have such a fantasy. However, acting upon these desires is completely different. From this article it does not seem at age 35 this man had any intention of having sexual relations with a minor....its too easy to cry wolf on someone and get away with it. now this man's live is potentially ruined for the next 10-60 years, name is destroyed and can never live a normal life unless its resolved truthfully."


Having child porn is a crime. He was convicted. It matters not in this case whether he intended to have sex with a child, he did intend to watch child pornography.
He deserves what he gets.
And what about the children. I don't think they will ever be able to live a normal life. He contributed to this shit so that makes him part of the problem.
And how old he is doesn't make him less of a threat to children.

So, truthfully, he can rot in jail and you can go get counseling for the misplaced compassion for him and not the children he helped to defile.

It is people like you that repulse me.

Mark said "First I would like to say how much this site repulses me."

Oh, it's probably good that you got that off your chest straight away. It can be unhealthy to keep that sort of thing pent up. Let me extend a warm welcome to you.

Mark: "We all know it was developed by some hypocritical christians. These exact people are why others are turned away from conformed religion, especially christianity."

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that apostates (like the many who contribute to this site) are responsible for convincing others to leave Christianity? No doubt some believers do begin their journey to apostasy by talking to other apostates, so it seems you must be at least partly right. As for the site being developed by "hypocritical Christians", it seems that you must now be referring to the WebMaster, as he alone developed it. So what hypocrisy, specifically, are you accusing him of? I don't think you are simply referring to the fact that he at one time believed in Christianity and now he does not. Changing one's mind does not make one a hypocrite, does it?

Mark: "There are no such thing as ex christians."

Well, that depends very much on how you define "Christian", does it not? If you simply mean a person who whole-heartedly accepts the tenets of Christianity, and tries their best to live by Christian principles (as they understand them), then what you just said is clearly not true. So you must mean something else by a "Christian", such as one in whom the "Holy Spirit" dwells. Is that your intent? We can discuss the implications of that definition further if you wish.

Mark: "You wonder why we have such a unjust justice system is because our nation was founded on such a hypocritcal religion."

I think our justice system (in the US) is among the better ones, but I completely agree that it's not perfect. As for why it's not perfect, I wouldn't pin it all on religious ideas, whether hypocritical or not. I think it's much more complex than that. Are you suggesting that we would be better off if we adhered strictly and exclusively to Biblical principles? If so, my first question would be how that could even be accomplished, given that there is such disagreement over what those principles even consist in (witness the thousands of Christian sects, all with substantially different ideas). Have you given that much thought?

Mark: "I don't think its the bible that makes christians hypocritical. Christians do it to themselves. IE reading a verse and interpreting that single verse and not its context entirely."

You may be right! You know, one of the things we can probably agree upon is that context is very important. So, let's try to be especially careful about that.

Mark: "In Gods eyes no sin weighs more than another."

Hmmm. That's not my understanding. Isn't blasphemy the one unforgivable sin? Mark 3:29 - But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Does that not suggest, minimally, that some sins are worse than others in the eyes of god? Do you think the context of this passage changes this apparent meaning?

Mark: "...why is it that we as a society feel we should outcast such an individual instead of address the problem at hand and help."

That's a fair question. For example, why are so many drug offenders incarcerated rather than treated? I hope, as a society, that we do move in the direction of placing more emphasis on treatment (where it makes sense to do so) rather than punishment. So that's another point we can agree on.

Mark, are you sure you don't spell your name, "Marc"? Nevermind.

Mark: First I would like to say how much this site repulses me.

Honestly?... I didn't think anything could be quite as repulsive as grown men getting their rocks off at the thought of having sex with little boys and girls. Nonetheless, if you find this site more repulsive than that, you are under no obligation to stick around.

There, that was simple enough, wasn't it?

Mark: We all know it was developed by some hypocritical christians.

Wow!...this is a new spin on things. Okay, so you seem to be suggesting that every person who has ever chosen to believe the tenents of Christianity is essentially "stuck" with the belief, thus, they will remain a life-time believing "Christian" by default. Yes, just like, underneath it all, a Republican turned Democrat is really just a "hypocritical Republican", and they will remain so for life, right? 'Sound asinine? Yeah?..well, that's because it is.

FYI, Christianity is a "belief"; it's a philosophy. People choose philosophies; philosophies don't choose people. Nice try, though.

Mark: There are no such thing as ex christians.

Yes, yes.....we just went over this--- Christianity is like the "Hotel California" of religious philosophies---you can "check in", but you can "never leave". We get this bullshit from Christians all the time, and as I just pointed out, the notion is asinine.

Mark: I don't think its the bible that makes christians hypocritical. Christians do it to themselves. IE reading a verse and interpreting that single verse and not its context entirely.

Good, then.....so we can count on you to NOT quote any scripture, unless you post the entire bible. Perfect.

Mark: In Gods eyes no sin weighs more than another. So wether you commit adultery or tattoo you body its all sin according to the bible.

And it's a "sin" to work on the Sabbath, too. Tell me, have you ever worked a Sunday?...like maybe a fast-food place, for instance? Have you ever purchased something on a Sunday?...you know, enabling "sinners" who work on Sunday? Tsk, tsk. That makes you one of them thar hyp'critical Christians, don't it? Yup.

Makr: We as human beings all have fetishes and fantasies. Unfortunately, there child fetishes do exist in these realms of fantasy. It seems to me this individual did have such a fantasy. However, acting upon these desires is completely different.

That's odd, because according to "God's Word", we shouldn't even "covet" the neighbor's wife, let alone have sex with her... yet, you seem to be saying that it's okay to "covet" a child's ass, as long as you don't "act" on it. Hmmmm, again...."hypocritical Christian" immediately comes to mind.

Mark: its too easy to cry wolf on someone and get away with it. now this man's live is potentially ruined for the next 10-60 years, name is destroyed and can never live a normal life unless its resolved truthfully.

If he's a "True Christian", I wouldn't think that "God" would let this happen to one of His own. Well, if "God" existed.

wow, if only you all knew the truth...

this guy "Richard" deserves more than the mesley 5 to 10 he may get.

christian or non christian, I would like to think anyone having and watching movies of children having intercourse is wrong.

have you not thought about the poor children that have been forced to make these videos? think about them, for the rest of their lives, they will be effected, just so some sicko can get his plesure.

bad things happen to good people, BUT hopefully HORRIBLE things happen to bad people. I am sorry, but as much as I would love to turn a cheek and say he needs help, blah blah blah reform... i can't,...

He made his choice, he chose kiddie porn, and the worst part was he worked with children daily. what do you think was on his mind?

let's think if it this way, if I have a weight issue, do I need to work in a bakery making chocolate cakes all day? Nope, I need to run in the other direction as far as I can.

This MAN chose to put himself in daily interation with young boys. I know he took advantage of them, one day, the ones that were effected will come forward. It may be later, when they have grown up and start families of their own and see the importance of letting people know the truth.

as far as the convection, well the hang up in the trial had to do with a stupid legal formality, not the evidence. soemthing about the porn crossing state lines, the jury was confused on what that exactly meant. Again, another example of our FLAWED legal system.

I can promise you this, the appeal will not go through! but keep wasting your moms money, she doesnt need it!

Good bye Richard, pucker up, it's going to be a long RIDE!!! hope you enjoy it. maybe now, you can endulge in you homsexual fantasies!

RE: Stronger Now

You are right child porn is a serious crime. No matter the circumstances I believe the person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. However, on the grounds that there is substantial evidence. This article is very vague in the details of the case. So be repulsed by me, no sweat off my back. I am not pro child pornography. I was merely playing devils advocate for the defendant. Afterall that is what the article was about him, not the damages the children in the porn will face down the line in life.

RE: JIM ARVO

By "hypocritcal christian" and the making of this site I am assuming the webmaster is or once was a christian. I just feel unless you proclaim otherwise you are still a christian no matter what life throws at you. That relationship is purely between you and God. Not you, God, and the entire christian community. Christians are just known for being "do as i say not as i do" type people.

As for our justice system. I by no means think that we should adhere to biblical principles. It just would not be feasible. WOW can you imagine! This country would instantly be at war and fall into the ocean.

In reference to Mark 3:29 this is true. One can take this verse and context for what it means. Blasting the name of one you believe in should be unforgivable to a God who has given so much of himself to his people (applies for christianity not all religions). As for all other sins i believe what i said to be true.

I do not think we should move towards a society in which treatment is emphasized over punishment for crimes. However, like any system there are always ways to slip through the cracks. Federal prisons are not always the strict environments we believe them to be. Drugs, supplements, etc are readily available. Of course such luxurious are obtainable for a price. This happens in most prisons around the world not just ours.

Here we see an amazing display of backpeddeling by mark.

I would hardly consider it backpeddling some of us can have a discussion with out acting like caddy queens! Again I was by no means defending people who commit crimes such as taking advantage of minors or contributing to the issue. Maybe you should reread what my blog says before you comment.

RE: BOOMSLANG

Not to sure what you are incinuating by a change in the name of my spelling other than its a non-biblical version. And this coming from someone known as "boomslang"?? I rest my case.

This site does repulse me. If you read my responses to other blogs...just because a christian has sinned does not label them an "ex-christian". But then again from your response it seems you have you own doubts about religion and God, so I am not even attempting any further explanation. Educate yourself and then maybe just maybe we can elaborate on this subject.

Unless you chose to practice another religion or denounce yourself as christian, when you become a christian you remain one no matter how far you stray from your relationship with God. He doesn't say "now my son you have sinned you can no longer be apart of the christian community". Not so asinine now is it! What's even more fatuous is your comparison to religion and which politcal party you choose. If you are not a registered voter, which i will assume not, you do have to register for a certain political party in order to vote. You have the right to change your political party, providing you proceed with the proper documentation. Besides political views change with age.

First off, lets not make the mistake of me working in the fast food business. Those of us who are educated tend not to have such remedial jobs as working at Mickey D's. Your reference to working on the Sabbath is old testament which is exactly what it is OLD! If you abide by strictly biblical principles most people now live in the new testament. However, if you are an Orthodox or Hassidic Jew then no you do not work. Again educate yourself it does a world of good.

Christians and many non-christians make the mistake of interpreting the bible in verses as opposed to context. In 1 Timothy it says women should not wear braids. Now just readin that one would assume its a sin to wear braids. BUT if one reads the verse in full context one will find that wearing braids was associated with being a prostitute, which is a sin. Get it? YAY!

I am not justifying the actions of any persons sins, especially in regards to sexual acts on children. What I am saying is that its unfortunate that people are born with this inherent fetishes. Most of the population controls these urges or satisfy the urges in healthier ways. Think about a fetish you may have...

What is your definition of a "true Christian"? is there a false christian? oh wait i know you are referring to my previous comment about "do as i say not as i do" type of christian. Good you are learning! Religions are faith based. God does not come down and slap you on teh hand and say "no no thats not what we do as christians". At the end of the day we are all humans and have to deal with what life throws at us. And we hope that by having faith and a strong relationship with God we can continue down the path inwhich he would have.

NEXT!

RE: EVEN THE ROCKS...

With such highly intellectual remarks one would think you could have chosen a name that does not display your profound ignorance.

From you comment it seems you know this individual. No? Again my comments are in reference to the article which was about the defendant. If the article was about the effects child porn has on its child stars and their mental and physical reprecutions then we could discuss your comment. Clearly my stand would be completely different.

It seems you know little about the jusitice system. When a jury is hung and deliberates for an extended period time the defendant has the right to choose a new jury and retrial. However, because the US has more interest in the justice and judicial economy most courts attempt various means to allow/persuade a jury to continue deliberating and only declare a mistrial when certain the jury is incapable of reaching a verdict. Hence my statement of having a corrupt justice system. This is why we hear of prisoners be let out after 30 years of incarceration being found not guilty. These seems like a big issue to me.

PS the use of the word fag is so early 90's. Or maybe you suffer from internalized homophobia and need to seek thearpy to help you come out of the closet. This is generally the reasoning for such derogatory remarks to someones sexuality.

Mark said... " now this man's live is potentially ruined for the next 10-60 years, name is destroyed and can never live a normal life unless its resolved truthfully. "

As opposed to:

"No matter the circumstances I believe the person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

If that ain't backpeddeling, I don't know what is.

Mark responded to several of my comments:

Mark said "By 'hypocritcal christian' and the making of this site I am assuming the webmaster is or once was a christian. I just feel unless you proclaim otherwise you are still a christian..."

Did you somehow miss the fact that the WebMaster proclaims to NOT be a Christian any longer? Either way, you did not answer my question. What is the hypocrisy? Stating that one no longer believes something is not hypocritical. Failing to do so when that is in fact the case would be a candidate for hypocrisy.

Mark: "...That relationship is purely between you and God."

Or, in the case that god exists only in the imagination, that would be between you and you. Right?

Mark: "Blasting the name of one you believe in should be unforgivable to a God who has given so much of himself to his people..."

Sounds like you agree that not all sins are equal then. Right? (Not that it matters.) As for blasphemy being unforgivable, you say that you believe it should be. What do you base that on? Do you believe there are moral principles that exist outside of your god? You must, for how else could you hold an opinion on what god's position ought to be?

Mark: "I do not think we should move towards a society in which treatment is emphasized over punishment..."

Did someone here suggest that? I don't think so.

By the way, you did not tell us how you define a Christian, except to say that it's between a person and their "god". If that's the best you can do, then how is it that you can state anything at all about whether one can be an ex-Christian or not? Wouldn't that also be between a person and "god"?

Jim Arvo said...

"Did someone here suggest that? I don't think so."


Jim, I think it was mark himself who suggested that when he asked:

"...why is it that we as a society feel we should outcast such an individual instead of address the problem at hand and help. We just assume put them in jail and live with something that no one person can fix alone."

Jim are you not the same person who wrote your initial remarks to my first post?

"I hope, as a society, that we do move in the direction of placing more emphasis on treatment (where it makes sense to do so) rather than punishment. So that's another point we can agree on."

Completely moving to such a society would not be feasible but finding a middle ground for punishment and treatment would be much more tactful.

Make up your mind, don't just hop on the van wagon for the ride.

As i said "unless you proclaim otherwise you are still a christian". Thereofre, making your self ex christian, much like the webmaster. However, the idea of this website suggests as a christian if you sin then that makes you an ex christian.

I am really beginning to think you have multiple personalities. Here again you are forgetting what you wrote initially. Aside from your reference to the book of Mark. I still believe all sins are the same in the yes of the Lord.

Maybe I should be using Lord or Jesus and not God so you will undersatnd that all my statments are in reference to the Christian God. But one would think since the name of this site is "exchristian.net" you would be under the assumption that it is christianity being discussed.

Mark said...

"...the idea of this website suggests as a christian if you sin then that makes you an ex christian."

The idea of this website is stated clearly in the site purpose and legal disclaimer.

Mark: "Jim are you not the same person who wrote your initial remarks to my first post?... Make up your mind, don't just hop on the van wagon for the ride."

Mark, you are the one who gave my statement the absurd interpretation of placing treatment ABOVE punishment. I simply asserted that we ought to place greater emphasis on treatment than we currently do, and only in situations in which it makes sense to do so. Are we clear on that now? Do you disagree with that sentiment?

Mark: "However, the idea of this website suggests as a christian if you sin then that makes you an ex christian."

That is purely your own fanciful interpretation. I don't recall ever seeing this position seriously advocated by any of the regulars at this site (except, perhaps, as a challenge to visiting Christians).

Mark: "I am really beginning to think you have multiple personalities. Here again you are forgetting what you wrote initially. Aside from your reference to the book of Mark. I still believe all sins are the same in the yes of the Lord."

I've been quite consistent. It's clear that you have great difficulty understanding what is written here. That is hardly our fault. As for your dogmatic position, you clearly believe that all "sins" are unforgivable then, is that right?

Mark: "Maybe I should be using Lord or Jesus and not God so you will undersatnd that all my statments are in reference to the Christian God. But one would think since the name of this site is "exchristian.net" you would be under the assumption that it is christianity being discussed."

I have no idea what you're complaining about here. Of course I assume that you are referring to the Christian god, although not all Christians agree as to who/what this god is.

Mark replies to me: Not (too) sure what you are (insinuating) by a change in the name of my spelling other than its a non-biblical version.

Yes, I was fully aware that you wouldn't be too sure of what I meant, hence, why I interjected a "nevermind" at the end. Y'see, I knew the regulars here would instantly "get" my inside joke, which BTW, was directed at another Christian fundamentalist, but who spells his name "Marc".

MarK continues: And this coming from someone known as "boomslang"?? I rest my case.

Yes, yes....you wIN! Now here....here's $1.05---that should be enough to go call every one of your Christian friends and celebrate your "victory".

MarK continues: This site does repulse me.

Okay.

MarK asserts: If you read my responses to other blogs...just because a christian has sinned does not label them an "ex-christian".

There's no such thing as a "sin", and I no longer believe in your biblegod, nor do I give a rat's hind-quarters if you "believe" that "He" still "believes" in me. But I'll play along for the moment.

You seem to be asserting that if someone who labels themself a Christian does something "wrong"; something against the alleged wishes of their biblegod, that that, alone, isn't sufficient reason for them to be labeled an "ex-christian". Well no shit. Who has said differently? The point that you are either willfully, or ignorantly failing to grasp, is as I stated originally:

People choose beliefs; beliefs do NOT choose people.

Here, let me try a different, much simpler analogy, since the political party analogy went over your head:

If a pizza-lover(the "Christian") one day decides for him/her self that they no longer love pizza(because NO ONE ELSE can decide FOR them), and this former pizza lover, in turn, tells another pizza lover(another "Christian") that they no longer love pizza, then obviously, that isn't grounds for the second pizza lover to call him/her a "hypocritical pizza lover". Only the one eating the god-damned pie can determine if they(him or herself) "believe" that pizza tastes good, or not. It is not for someone else to determine...::hic'p::...it is NOT for someone else to determine.

So in conclusion, yes...yes there most certainly IS such a thing as a non-"hypocritical" former Christian, or "EX-Christian".

MarK: But then again from your response it seems you have you own doubts about religion and God..

How astute. That is an astonishing deduction.

Mark continues: ...so I am not even attempting any further explanation.

Promise?

Mark bleated: Educate yourself and then maybe just maybe we can elaborate on this subject.

Okay, while I educate myself, can you please revisit your definition of "belief", and "hypocrite"? Thanks.

MarK continues: Christians and many non-christians make the mistake of interpreting the bible in verses as opposed to context.

Oooh, I see, so then let me guess---if I agree with you on what any particular extracted verse says, I've "interpreted" it correctly, yet, if I disagree with you, I've taken it out of context, right? lol Um, add "subjective" to your refresher word list of definitions to research.

Mark submitted: In 1 Timothy it says women should not wear braids. Now just(reading) that one would assume its a sin to wear braids. BUT if one reads the verse in full context one will find that wearing braids was associated with being a prostitute, which is a sin. Get it? YAY!

Yes, really, I'm feeling more enlightened by the minute.

Okay, speaking of "prostitutes", could you enlighten us on the following verse?..since I'll bet you'll say we cannot take it at face-value:

(Thanks in advance)

1) "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

...or how 'bout this one concerning a talking domestic ass:

"And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, 'What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?' And Balaam said unto the ass, 'Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.' And the ass said unto Balaam, 'Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee?' And he said, 'Nay.'" (Numbers 22:27-30)

Donkeys can speak the human language? Or I'm taking it "out of context"????

Counting the minutes.

Mark picks up with: What is your definition of a "true Christian"? is there a false christian? oh wait i know you are referring to my previous comment about "do as i say not as i do" type of christian. Good you are learning! Religions are faith based. God does not come down and slap you on (the) hand and say "no no thats not what we do as christians".

No, from my view-point, "God" doesn't "come down", because "God" doesn't exist. Interestingly, from the Christian view-point, "God" is, without fail, always defined by the negative..i.e..what "God" does NOT do, and/or, what "God" will NOT do. Oh, and coincidently, "God" just happens to be invisible, as well.

Hmmmm...the invisible and the non-existant look a lot alike, don't they?

...::yawn::