Rick Joyner is a false prophet. Unfortunately, people from his circle, which is the most abhorrent wing of the Charismatic church, have become the public face of Christianity.

Christian teachers should be evaluated by the scripture. The scripture will expose their wrong teachings and motives, and what they really are will be proved out over time. If someone is pushing an abhorrent form of Christianity, they should be called out and condemned.

This session that we watched is extremely unfortunate. The participants failed to discern that Rick is a false prophet, and like the false prophets described in the bible, he comes with dreams and visions he claims are from God but are actually against the purposes of God.

I do not condemn Jim Baker, or David Barton or the others..I think they are sincerely deceived. They need to be corrected and discern the true spirit behind the false prophet Rick Joyner.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Daily Show, John Stewart, David Barton, Liar, History, Jesus' to 'Daily Show, Jon Stewart, David Barton, Liar, History, Jesus' - edited by gwiz665

In reply to this comment by RFlagg:
The lies are Barton's mouth having words come out.

In part 2 he purposely misrepresents the National Day of Prayer case as if it was an attempt to stop Christians from praying, or having an organized day of prayer. That wasn't what the case was about, it was about the government sponsoring it, and John should have called him on that one.

In part 3 he noted, wrongly, that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states, just the Federal Government. But the 10th Amendment doesn't mean that the states are excluded from the establishment clause, otherwise states could ignore all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, although he seems to try to make that argument.

Add to this Barton's general lies outside this interview and revisionism.

>> ^Morganth:

Where are the lies? Did you even watch the other two parts of the interview?


right on.

The lies are Barton's mouth having words come out.

In part 2 he purposely misrepresents the National Day of Prayer case as if it was an attempt to stop Christians from praying, or having an organized day of prayer. That wasn't what the case was about, it was about the government sponsoring it, and John should have called him on that one.

In part 3 he noted, wrongly, that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states, just the Federal Government. But the 10th Amendment doesn't mean that the states are excluded from the establishment clause, otherwise states could ignore all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, although he seems to try to make that argument.

Add to this Barton's general lies outside this interview and revisionism.

>> ^Morganth:

Where are the lies? Did you even watch the other two parts of the interview?

>> ^bobknight33:

Need to added to lies.

This is such slanted how about having David Barton on to debate these accusations. That's right the left doesn't believe in fair and balanced.


liberals to admit a defeat immediate.

Need to added to lies.


This is such slanted how about having David Barton on to debate these accusations. That's right the left doesn't believe in fair and balanced.

I think you're missing the point. The issue is not whether or not he should be criticized/reprimanded for saying what he did. He's a public figure, words matter, and he should be thrown to the wolves for it (though it probably won't happen). The issue is whether or not he actually believes/endorses what was said. You watch the video, listen to his tone and his actions, consider who is audience is, and its pretty obvious that he's just getting carried away in the moment and doesn't realize the full import of what he's saying at that moment. For some reason, politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to forget that cameras and the internet exist.

This is no different from how the Republicans attempted to portray Howard Dean as mentally unhinged after footage of him getting exuberant at that one rally back in the day when in reality he was just getting carried away with the excitement of the moment.

>> ^jimnms:

That Imus guy was just making a joke too, a bad joke, but he got fired for what he said. Huckabee jokes that all Americans should be forced at gunpoint to listen to the brainwashing of David Barton and he's considered presidential material?
If a politician joked that everyone should be forced at gunpoint to listen/read Richard Dawkins, he'd be be hunted down and burned at the stake.
>> ^VoodooV:
I'm no fan of huckabee, but you don't think this is taken just slightly out of context?
Guy was just making a joke...a bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.

>> ^bmacs27:
Title Fail. First of all, obviously he is being tongue in cheek. Second of all, he technically says they should be forced to listen, not believe, or be indoctrinated or anything else. While he terrifies me (mostly because of his electability), he's not the craziest son of a bitch in jesus camp.

>> ^shuac:
Yes, he was just making a bad joke. If you insist on inferring more into it, help yourself.

That Imus guy was just making a joke too, a bad joke, but he got fired for what he said. Huckabee jokes that all Americans should be forced at gunpoint to listen to the brainwashing of David Barton and he's considered presidential material?

If a politician joked that everyone should be forced at gunpoint to listen/read Richard Dawkins, he'd be be hunted down and burned at the stake.

>> ^VoodooV:

I'm no fan of huckabee, but you don't think this is taken just slightly out of context?
Guy was just making a joke...a bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.


>> ^bmacs27:

Title Fail. First of all, obviously he is being tongue in cheek. Second of all, he technically says they should be forced to listen, not believe, or be indoctrinated or anything else. While he terrifies me (mostly because of his electability), he's not the craziest son of a bitch in jesus camp.


>> ^shuac:

Yes, he was just making a bad joke. If you insist on inferring more into it, help yourself.

qruel:

http://www.afa.net/Petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=257

WallBuilders president David Barton is questioning why the U.S. government is seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god. Barton points out that since Hindus worship multiple gods, the prayer will be completely outside the American paradigm, flying in the face of the American motto "One Nation Under God."

Speaking as someone who was raised Catholic - they believe in one God; the Trinity you spoke of are parts of the whole.

I wonder if there've been invocations by rabbis or Muslim clerics, which theoretically would not upset Mr. Barton (as they also have monotheistic deities), but I'm sure would make his blood boil just the same.

None of any of it makes a goddamned bit of sense to me.
And I fail to see why "extremists" does not apply to these people.
If any of them looked even the slightest bit Middle-Eastern, they never would've been able to get into the Senate to pull their little stunt.