Slashdot Mirror

Actually, the four horsemen do not come from the ground, though I guess it could be interpreted that way. According to Revelation 6, the horsemen "appear", presumably from Heaven.

Smoke and locusts come from "The Abyss" Revelation 9

Your mileage may vary :-)

and in fact it's usually considered a sign of weakness in one's faith to actually pursue actual truth

Interesting. Since you don't mention what faith you're referring to, I won't assume you're talking about Christianity, since this is clearly not proper Christian behavior. =) If I found any of my students doing this, they'd get an earful.

Of course some believers are distinctly anti-intellectual. I've met plenty -- easily too many. Yet, it would certainly be enlightening to see some hard numbers for your claim of "usually." Seriously, if you have such data, I would be appreciative; I'd have use for it.

because that challenges the foundation of the religion in question. When an entire way of life is built up around fiction, the only way to preserve it is to make questioning the story the one thing that's not allowed.

Again, quite interesting -- since I was taught, and now teach, that questioning is not only welcome but obligatory. Perhaps this has something to do with our actually having confidence that Christianity is nonfiction, as opposed to hoping that's the case without really finding out. (Again, yes, there are a good number of Christians who do the latter. Big deal, it just means they're not very bright. I've met some pretty dim atheists, too. ;-)

--
Dum de dum.

-matthew

Roman Catholics know the bible isn't a literal translation, this is even scientific fact because of the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and their corresponding parts in the King James Bible.

please, just go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ and see how many different versions there are.

Also, unless you are reading the bible in it's original ARAMAIC as a fluent reader, you can't possibly say that you are reading the One True Bible.

Go to Harvard Divinity School if you want to learn more about this from smart people.

oddly enough, it also says you have to be "over sexed" and not yeild to your desire for women, but instead want money more than anything else. (btw, this is the secret he alludes to throughout the entire book...) For those of you who don't read other books, here an interesting bit on this strategy for success from a different author...

The message of Christ: being respectful, faithful, honorable, truthful, modest and humble make living a lot easier, even if you don't belive in the Messanger.

I don't think that this is entirely true. I think this is the message of Christ that people find easier to believe and accept.

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
Link

I still thought of this.

Moses wasn't a Rabbi anyway. He was a prophet tho.
http://biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapte r=7&verse=37&version=31&context=verse

Obviously, if you believe the Bible, you cannot believe in Evolution. The two are complete opposites.

To quote Ken Ham and Dr Jonathan Sarfati's article "Why Is There Death and Suffering": "Belief in evolution and/or millions of years of history necessitates that death has been a part of history since life first appeared on this planet. If you believe that the fossil layers (containing billions of dead things) represent the history of life over millions of years, it's a very ugly record--full of death, disease and suffering." http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

Clearly the Bible teaches:

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans %205&version=31

This, and many other similar passages, are not those kind of passages where we can wonder if it should or should not be taken literally. This is one of the very strong themes throughout the entire Bible and is meant to be taken literally. If we do not take this literally, then there is absolutely no point in the Gospel or God's redemptive plan.

Well, at least the most published book on Earth, the Bible, is safe from tinkering. Let's hope no one starts revising our ancient history next.

Today we have a bazillion translations of the Bible, many even available online

http://www.biblegateway.com/
Click the drop down next to the search box and you'll see all the languages.

He didn't say the Bible actually said anything about condoms (or even about anything). He said that the so-called religous right will claim that it does - and what's worrisome is that'll be enough for most people.

Martin Luther published one translation of the Bible into German and everyone read it, because the peasants then knew that once they read the Bible for themselves, they would know if the clergy were lying to them. Today we have a bazillion translations of the Bible, many even available online, and we trust the religious right to tell us what it says - to tell us what He says. Is that wise for us, to hand our religion to a political group?

You say "I'm sure it speaks of pre-marital sex." Are you sure because you know for a fact it does, or are you saying "I'm sure" because society has implied that it does, so you think it does? (I know it does because I've seen a few of the passages, but I've heard reasonable arguments that question the translation, and even the passages themselves don't condemn it that strongly IIRC.)

Believe me, the religous right has read the Bible cover to cover, and that's how they know how to wield it. A religious left can as easily read it and use it to their ends too. The Bible doesn't have much to say as far being on the right or on the left (except perhaps Joshua 1:7).

No, not at all. That's a ridiculous (although not uncommon) caricature. I won't deny that occasionally Christianity has become a tool of the state, and in those cases it has become one of a number of means by which the state attempts to control its population, but control over the masses is really foreign to the Christian ethic. It's far more about the individual learning to control himself. When it becomes about controlling others, it devolves into a mere cult.

It indeed is intended to draw focus away from earthly things -- or rather, one earthly thing: the self. The only path to heaven is on earth, by doing good for others, treating them the way you would wish to be treated, giving what is needed. It is all about serving others. Most Christians do not forget the admonition in one of the Epistles that faith without works is dead.

If this is "population control", then so be it.

No, not at all. That's a ridiculous (although not uncommon) caricature. I won't deny that occasionally Christianity has become a tool of the state, and in those cases it has become one of a number of means by which the state attempts to control its population, but control over the masses is really foreign to the Christian ethic. It's far more about the individual learning to control himself. When it becomes about controlling others, it devolves into a mere cult.

It indeed is intended to draw focus away from earthly things -- or rather, one earthly thing: the self. The only path to heaven is on earth, by doing good for others, treating them the way you would wish to be treated, giving what is needed. It is all about serving others. Most Christians do not forget the admonition in one of the Epistles that faith without works is dead.

If this is "population control", then so be it.

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
Matthew 24:3 (New International Version) MT 24

"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.
Luke 21:25 (New International Version) LK 21

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
Matthew 24:3 (New International Version) MT 24

"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.
Luke 21:25 (New International Version) LK 21

By any sane measure (heh, ironic) using the 'begats', the world is only about 15-20 generations older than it was when christ was born, which would make it much YOUNGER than the creationists believe.

I don't understand your statement. We know when Jesus was born through information outside of the Bible, and we know it's been about 2000 years since then. Figuring an average birthing age of around 20, that makes about 100 generations.

Also, there are about 76 generations listed between Adam and Jesus. Luke 3:23-38.

Personally, I think the argument is wasted effort on both sides. To those of faith, it does not matter what is proven, because their faith is what guides them and they don't need to prove it, because that's why it is called faith.

But anyway, Jesus didn't say, "know how old the Earth is and be saved," or, "take the Bible 100% literally and be saved," he said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved."

I'd love it if people actually read the Bible.

The Bible doesn't prohibit premarital sex.

There's two cases close to it. The first is a man who "seduces a virgin". He has to pay a 50s fine (which is done for purely economic reasons -- if she can't later find a husband because she's been deflowered, at least she won't slowly starve to death). It is not catalogued either as something worthy of death, or even as a sin -- it's simply an economic matter. (Ex 22:16-17)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus %2022:16-17&version=9;

The second is the fact that you can use and then throw away any attractive slave girls you can find. Their only recompense is that they have to be freed if they get discarded. While the Bible calls it marriage, it doesn't go through any of the normal rituals of marriage, and they don't even need to go through the normal process of divorce (which in OT times was just the writing of a divorcement notice to the wife). No real divorce, no real marriage. The man can sex her for as long as he want, and when they break up -- no harm, no foul.

This is fairly similar to the relationships we have today.

Also, it's important to note that Moses gave virgins as rewards to the conquering Israeli armies -- but he put all the captured women to death as punishment for having drunken orgies with the men of Israel, and getting them to worship Baal.

All in all, I think the Bible makes a lot of sense, I just think that a lot of churches these days are lying to their congregations in order to "do what's best for them." As a Christian, I find that to be anathema -- one should never misrepresent what the Bible says, even if you think its for a good cause.

At least a few churches are teaching the correct exegesis now. My friend's Methodist church, the, (ugh) UCC, my church remains quiet about it in order to avoid lying to teenagers that sex is a sin (the look away and whistle defense?). Even the main Jewish Church (the Conservatives) states that premarital sex is not against Talmudic Law.

In NT times, you had prohibitions against adultery and prostitution (same as the OT), and against general 'perversion'. The word for perversion was translated as 'fornication' which was then defined as 'premarital sex'. Some verses of the Bible are utterly absurd with this interpretation. Jesus says you can't divorce a woman except for fornication. Well... married women do 'Adultery', not fornication. (I.e., extra-marital sex, not pre-marital). The Bible has a word for Adultery, believe me. When you subsitute perversion instead, the verse actually makes sense.

Don't listen to me. Read the Bible, figure it out for yourself. Don't reply here until you've gone through the whole concordance on the topic of sex. The Bible prohibits a massive number of things (prostitution, adultery, incest, bestiality, drunken orgies, anal sex with little boys, even homosexuality) -- premarital sex just aint one of them.

Please enjoy this meaty passage (my favourite, especially the last sentence, somehow the BDSM enthusiast in me rejoices :-P ) I took it from the "New International Version" on http://biblegateway.com/, see this link, too: http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Deutero nomy%2028,%2015-68;&version=31;

15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.

17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.

18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.

20 The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. [a] 21 The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.

25 The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. 26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 27 The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. 28 The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. 29 At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.

30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and ravish her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. 31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. 32 Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand. 33 A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. 34 The sights you see will drive you mad. 35 The LORD will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.

36 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. 37 You will become a thing of horror and an object of scorn and ridicule to all the nations where the LORD will drive you.

38 You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it. 39 You will plant vineyards and cultiv

If you're going to give to a religious organization, give to an established church's relief effort (shoutout to UMCOR, since I go to a Methodist church). A lot of these strange organizations like Operation Blessing that you mentioned take a percentage off for "administrative expenses" - which in this case appears to be the Robertson family.

Not that I know that Operation Blessing is necessarily corrupt, just that Pat Robertson isn't exactly the most trustworthy guy (seriously, what "Christian" goes around asking to kill authorities? but I digress), and this type of organizational structure is also not that trustworthy. UMCOR, on the other hand, is volunteer run, and all its administrative expenses come from the regular offering plate in Methodist churches. Donations to UMCOR go 100% to the people who need them.

If you're going to give to a religious organization, give to an established church's relief effort (shoutout to UMCOR, since I go to a Methodist church). A lot of these strange organizations like Operation Blessing that you mentioned take a percentage off for "administrative expenses" - which in this case appears to be the Robertson family.

Not that I know that Operation Blessing is necessarily corrupt, just that Pat Robertson isn't exactly the most trustworthy guy (seriously, what "Christian" goes around asking to kill authorities? but I digress), and this type of organizational structure is also not that trustworthy. UMCOR, on the other hand, is volunteer run, and all its administrative expenses come from the regular offering plate in Methodist churches. Donations to UMCOR go 100% to the people who need them.

An amateur Christian, as well, apparently. Not an insult, just an observation. We're all still growing.

I am increasingly disturbed by an administration that ignores whole chunks of the Bible

I feel the same way, except my issue is Israel, not Creation. See my journal for details.

(namely, nearly every word of Christ) in favor of pandering to a small and crazy fringe group who wants an untenable literal interpretation.

If you read the words of Christ, you'll see that He was a literalist. He taught, making references to the flood of Noah's day. And if you read the polls, you'll see that a majority of Americans believe that God created the earth. However, some of them may be "theistic evolutionists."

The literalist interpretation of the Bible is not what's untenable. What's untenable is the materialist interpretation and practice of science.

I understand why someone in your shoes should be frightened. To believe in both evolution and Christianity causes a crisis of faith. They are not compatible, and, understandably, you don't want to be mocked and made fun of by the unbelieving world.

You have a crisis because you are judging the Word of God by the "reality" as defined by the prevailing wind of philosophy, which has hijacked science. Christianity has not been hijacked; science has been hijacked -- by materialists; those who refuse knowledge of the supernatural. You should be judging what you hear humans saying by what God has said. You have reversed the order. Instead of reexamining and reinterpreting the scientific data, "scared-to-death" Christians like yourself marginalize, water down, and "spiritualize" into oblivion the supremely authoritative words of the Creator.

Put God's words first. He was there! And got the t-shirt to prove it. If some "science" doesn't jibe with what God said, throw it out! (And wait for more research.) That may sound radical, but come on now. If it's accurate, rest assured, it will not - it cannot! - conflict with the Holy Bible.

You said you were a Christian.

Whom. Do. You. Trust?

Do some soul searching. Make your decision. If the answer is not "God," please stop calling yourself a Christian. If it is, halleluyah! Start putting His authority and intregrity far above that of mere men, who whither as grass (Isa. 40:7).

The words you've quoted are those of the nobleman/king in the story, speaking to his servants, and refer to those who had sought to stop him being appointed king. Your implication that this quotation is some sort of a command from God to Christians is therefore completely unfounded. Whether this is because of ignorance or duplicity on your part, I can't say.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%20 1&version=31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%204 5:12;&version=31; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jo%203 8;&version=31;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%20 1&version=31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%204 5:12;&version=31; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jo%203 8;&version=31;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%20 1&version=31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%204 5:12;&version=31; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jo%203 8;&version=31;

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Most public schools promote a materialistic secular humanistic world-view. Kids that do not come from strong homes cannot fend off the destructive effects of this philosophy.

Have you ever actually read the Tanakh? Take a look at the second Book of Kings sometime.

For instance: This passage and this one (specifically the bit at the end, Elisha is Jeered).

Have you ever actually read the Tanakh? Take a look at the second Book of Kings sometime.

For instance: This passage and this one (specifically the bit at the end, Elisha is Jeered).

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
...

30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Real science and the Bible have yet to conflict.

Taking a theory (Darwin's) and turning it into fact (today's "science" of evolution) without proof conflicts directly with science. Or, taking something that has been proven or is obvious (natural selection) and generalizing it into something different (macro-evolution) is also not science.

Keeping your mind open to suggestions, by allowing both to be theory when neither have been proven, makes you a better scientist and open to ideas and viewpoints other than those taught to you by a narrow few.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Christian and I recognize the same can be said about many Christians who close their minds to the narrow viewpoints they've been taught. I consider this an incredible weakness in ministry because even if they are right, the point of Christianity is not proving creation, the flood, or other miracles, but rather showing love to others. 1 Corinthians 13)

The wise man I mentioned, the originator of this quote, actually already answered your question: have a look.

My personal belief is that many parts of the Bible are correct, and that God has given us an agent at sorting out the gold from that which glitters.

Basically we can not know for sure that anything we believe is true, but the act of believing makes it true for us.

I'm not completely sure how to explain it, but it seems to me that God would not throw us to the wolves without any hope of salvation. I don't know what it is, and I won't know until I meet him in a way that I can ask "Yo, Whats up with all that stuff?".

All I can be expected to do is follow the basic plan that is laid out in front of me, and pray.

I'm not clear on you saying that the Bible says that it is the word of God. The only places I can think of are these two. One of which just says that the scripture is useful for instruction, and the other which says that God is his Word. So if the Bible was the Word it would be too holy for fallen creatures like us to touch or even look at.

The Bible is a signpost pointing to salvation, but it isn't in itself salvation.

God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are.

Or at least that is my belief. Don't let me lead you astray if you believe differently.

My personal belief is that many parts of the Bible are correct, and that God has given us an agent at sorting out the gold from that which glitters.

Basically we can not know for sure that anything we believe is true, but the act of believing makes it true for us.

I'm not completely sure how to explain it, but it seems to me that God would not throw us to the wolves without any hope of salvation. I don't know what it is, and I won't know until I meet him in a way that I can ask "Yo, Whats up with all that stuff?".

All I can be expected to do is follow the basic plan that is laid out in front of me, and pray.

I'm not clear on you saying that the Bible says that it is the word of God. The only places I can think of are these two. One of which just says that the scripture is useful for instruction, and the other which says that God is his Word. So if the Bible was the Word it would be too holy for fallen creatures like us to touch or even look at.

The Bible is a signpost pointing to salvation, but it isn't in itself salvation.

God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are.

Or at least that is my belief. Don't let me lead you astray if you believe differently.

I kinda actually like the reference joking about libraries and a holy book... that's cute. But you missed a little something. Yes, scripture talks about the corners of the world, but it talks about them as the directions, north, south, east, west, not as in that the earth is a square. And funny that you would say that it IMPLIES otherwise, when it actually directly talks about the world being a circle... check out Isaiah 40:22, and in case you don't have it handy, here's a link. I also like that you talk about religion being there to subvert science. I guess I've never gotten to see scientists spend their lives trying to subvert religion either... nope, that never happens. No, I'm not trying to get a flame war started, just responding somewhat in jest to your pot shot in jest as well...

If Race Research Is Banned Now, How Will We Cope With A "Brave New World"?

By Steve Sailer

Through genetic selection and modification, we will be soon be able to transform human nature, for better . . . or worse.

Some find this exciting. I find it mostly alarming.

The good news: we still have time to figure out what the physical, psychological, and social impacts of these gene-altering technologies might be - by studying naturally-occurring human genetic diversity.

The bad news: we won't fund research into existing human biodiversity - because it's politically incorrect.

Genetic engineering, and associated technologies such as neural implants, is explored in two new books.

Microsoft programmer Ramez Naam, author of More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement , never seems to have met an idea for fiddling around with our genes that he didn't like. I find his optimism likable even though I don't share it. Unfortunately, the numerous small errors of fact in his book saps confidence in his overall reliability.

In contrast, Washington Post reporter Joel Garreau - known to VDARE.COM readers as author of the provocative The Nine Nations Of North America - can't seem to make up his mind in his upcoming Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies--and What It Means to Be Human.

Garreau evenhandedly interviews futurist cheerleaders, like inventor Ray Kurzweil, who takes hundreds of nutritional supplements daily as part of his plan for living forever, and doomsayers, like Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy, who fears that genetically manipulated germs could wipe out all of humanity.

(The inaptly named Joy strikes me as a Gloomy Gus. But, just in case some apocalyptic catastrophe does transpire, it would make sense to pay a couple of dozen military families to live for two year stretches at the bottom of a Kansas salt mine, from which, if the worst were to happen, they could eventually re-emerge like Noah's family to repopulate the planet.)

What Naam and Garreau can agree upon is that the post-human age will be here Real Soon Now.

I'm not so certain. Medicine progresses slowly these days. But I am sure that that it's time to start getting serious about whether we want it or not.

The situation oddly resembles the political impact of immigration. When I first started writing about immigration, it was widely assumed that the Hispanic share of the vote had become so huge that it was political suicide to try to cut back on immigration. Yet closer study showed this was far from true.

For example, in the overall

Thank you for your questions, Travis. I hear what you say about a substance with no active component, but I don't remember saying anything about always feeling great.

What I cannot reconcile with your use of the word placebo is what I see in the lives of Jesus and his followers, then and today. The reason is no-one ever promises an easy life if you follow Jesus. But there is a new life that meets all the challenges without sweeping them under the carpet.

There are some interesting pointers as to how this works in the historically verified stories of Jesus. One of his earliest followers had the following words to say on the matter:-

"And it was only right that God--who made everything and for whom everything was made--should bring his many children into glory. Through the suffering of Jesus, God made him a perfect leader, one fit to bring them into their salvation.... And let us run with endurance the race that God has set before us. We do this by keeping our eyes on Jesus, on whom our faith depends from start to finish. He was willing to die a shameful death on the cross because of the joy he knew would be his afterward. Now he is seated in the place of highest honor beside God's throne in heaven."

I hope this is interesting to you. If you would like to check my sources please feel free to follow up the references that follow:-

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%20 2:10;%2012:2;&version=51;.

My earlier post has url pointing to similar life stories of 21st century followers.

You may not believe this, but don't critisize others when they follow their own beliefs.

When Christians follow their beliefs they tend to write and support amendments to state constitutions that prevent gay people from having "any benefits of marriage." As a gay, adoptive parent in a 9-year committed relationship, what does that mean for my family?

Does it invalidate my partner and mine's co-parent adoption of our adopted son? Will it render illegal the partner benefits that my partner and I receive from my company? It's sad to say, but many Christians would happily have both of those things taken from us because they view our relationship as counterfeit and abhorrent to their god, and many other Christians won't lift a finger to stop them since they have more important priorities than getting the gay-bashers out of their religion. The gay-bashing Christians are only following their beliefs, so why should I complain?

So, Christian, I respond to you: Agreeing to disagree is unacceptable because your people attack my family through the force of the state. I openly and unashamedly reject your evil religion and your evil god. Since you worship a baby-killing, abortionist god, you have no room whatsoever to criticize my morality. I will continue to criticize, mock, and reject your religion as long as Christians choose to use their religion as the excuse to criticize, mock, and reject me. Fair enough?

You may not believe this, but don't critisize others when they follow their own beliefs.

When Christians follow their beliefs they tend to write and support amendments to state constitutions that prevent gay people from having "any benefits of marriage." As a gay, adoptive parent in a 9-year committed relationship, what does that mean for my family?

Does it invalidate my partner and mine's co-parent adoption of our adopted son? Will it render illegal the partner benefits that my partner and I receive from my company? It's sad to say, but many Christians would happily have both of those things taken from us because they view our relationship as counterfeit and abhorrent to their god, and many other Christians won't lift a finger to stop them since they have more important priorities than getting the gay-bashers out of their religion. The gay-bashing Christians are only following their beliefs, so why should I complain?

So, Christian, I respond to you: Agreeing to disagree is unacceptable because your people attack my family through the force of the state. I openly and unashamedly reject your evil religion and your evil god. Since you worship a baby-killing, abortionist god, you have no room whatsoever to criticize my morality. I will continue to criticize, mock, and reject your religion as long as Christians choose to use their religion as the excuse to criticize, mock, and reject me. Fair enough?