Slashdot Mirror

"they asked whether Bulletstorm, an upcoming M-rated shooter from Epic Games, is the worst game in the world."

They obviously have never played the Leisure Suite Larry franchise.

No! I think they've never seen the worst of the worst: These newfangled video games called "Doom" and "Quake" and "Afterlife". You may not have heard of these games, because the far too liberal-biased (yes, Fox too) lamestream media keeps news about them down. But if you ask your any friendly neighbourhood pastor, family rights activist or conservative blogger, you'll see they know quite a lot about these dangerous new threats to kids.

</sarcasm>

Seriously, it's a glorious day! A moral panic about an upcoming computer game, not ones that were released ~15 years ago.

Really? Have any data on that? Or are you referring to the minority Protestant Church leadership?

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/christian-discussion/47723-why-catholic-isn-t-christian.html

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

I've been in SEVERAL churches of various denominations in the past, and this is in tune with the overwhelming majority of opinion.

Not part of it all anymore, just a casual comment.

It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. -- "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", Jonathan Edwards, 1741.

1611 version
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And the version I used....
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Same version, different times, still differences. Note the second one has been modernised. You could say that I shouldn't just copy and paste off the internet, but that would prove my point as well. Things change.

Actually, smoking was viewed as harmful by some from quite a ways back.... http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjcounte.htm

Here's a wikipedia article on his role in modern patent law, and a somewhat-religion-heavy-bio that goes in great length into the work he put into getting his version of the bible out. Not that I'm christian, but he seems to have been an intellectual and a writer (friend of Shakespeare) who even then valued free speech and human capacity (in this case to translate important stuff) higher than a blind allegiance to catholicism or protestantism - the subject of a huge war which was going on in the rest of europe during his reign.

Strange that someone who lived so long ago ended up dealing with both patent law and free speech - issues that today are so crucial to some.

I know the above user I'm responding to is a troll, but I just think it proper to respond on derivitaves of the Authorized Version; King James (1611) Version, Holy Bible.

To my current small amount of knowledge on this related subject; As background on the King of Britain, James; he was born offspring to Scottland's royal family and England's royal family. When he arose to be King, self-evidently combined England and Scottland crowns to what it is now known as Brittain.

King James (1611) Version was decided and Authorized by King James to be public domain and owned by only the public (the flesh and blood people) and so technically nobody owns it and nobody is realistically allowed to claim it as theirs to regulate it.

However, corporations today are taking the KJV AV's text, incorporating the modification (theft from the people), and modifying the text in such a way that will allow them to hold a Copyright on the corporation's modification.

Many of their modifications are verry satanic. I suggest any tempting or penetant people to go visit http://www.jesus-is-lord.com and visit the "AntiChrist Slideshow" as well as visit many of the related works of the jesus-is-lord.com website that compare the satanic inspirations from the Zondervan corporation into its copyright New Internation Version.

Speaking of the non-Authorize Version look-alike King James versions; they are not the same. New King James Version, 20th Century King James Version, and as well a many others that bear the words "King James" are arrogant theft and modifications that have no inspiration similarity discussed by the many scrolls that were used to convert to english and are intently against the "King James Version, Authorized Version" (1611) Holy Bible. Their modifications are self-evidently intent to help the reader understand the text easier that it not have duplicate message as the KJV AV and so-far have only split people into conflicting groups.

The middle-english dialect and poetic touch in the King James Version Authorized Version Holy Bible is not difficult to comprehend to understand the laws and the historic documentation which its intention to transcribe. There have been some past articles on slashdot.org featuring old-english texts finally transcribed to digital formats that can be transferred electronically. One such articled was featured; titled "Treatise on the Astrolabe", and the article on Slashdot can be found here. Reading this "Treatise on the Astrolabe" will help anyone comprehend the fragrant customs of english-speaking people of years past. Try it out and it'll brighten your day, if any day exists where you are standing.

KJV AV Galations 5:14;
"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Yours in Christ,
Gregory

We're talking about pseudomilitiant extremist Christians in America today, aka the "Christian Right", which is more of a cultural group than a religious bloc. And while there's probably some militant Catholics out there somewhere, they probably don't get to be counted as part of the "Christian Right" club. In fact, that particular movement sometimes seems to hate Catholics even almost as much as they hate us homosexuals.

No, clearly not all Christians are in with this crowd. And not all Christians are "turning a blind eye" to things like abortion clinic bombings. But within the Christian community a violent minority does exist. And the number of "Christians" that are turning a blind eye, or even to some degree tacitly approving, to the extremists among them is large enough to be rather scary. And the number of Christians who practice their personal religion in a totally healthy, positive and loving way, yet seem to be totally unconcerned that a nontrivial number of people out there are applying the name "Christian" to a religion based essentially around hate, is much larger.

Basically, if you're trying to protest the painting of all Christians with a wide brush, then yes, you're right, good point. But other than that, I don't see how one Christian minority group disapproving of violent tactics makes the actions of another Christian minority group which does approve of violent tactics any less of a "lynching".

If the Constitution of the NewSates is passed, I suppose all the U.S. * federal franchises will dissolve. What are the chances all the corps with mis-leading names like "California Space Authority" say they are the ones that control space and if you don't pay their tax they'll screw with the tide tables?

Why don't I be a corporator to a corp called "Space Authority of Earth" ? Because then some asshole will come around and make a corporation called "Trans Universe Travel Authority" ! And then another assh^H^H^H^H my deer Lord and Savior will return and kick the shit out of the Romish Pontiff for being the custodians of doctrine that manifest the following quotes I recently read on slashdot from "zealotasd" ;


"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED."
--CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882

"[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

"...We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [pope]."
--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

"No person shall preach without the permission of his Superior. All preachers shall explain the Gospel according to the Fathers. They shall not explain futurity or the times of Antichrist!"
--Pope Leo X, 1516

The GPL is not specific to Linux. You can have an application built upon Win32 and released under the GPL, and it will not run on Linux. The point of the GPL is not to help any particular operating system, yet to assist software to have a conditional freedom and authority backed by copyright law in recognition that if it were true public domain then it could be "hi-jacked" into another software.

The GPL establishes penalties for people or artificial entities that don't provide the sourcecode of the software, yet the GPL states it is voluntary to accept the GPL and if not accepted then copyright law is the premise for not accepting the GPL's distribution rules. And in copyright law, whoever using the copyrighted software needs the permission of the copyright owner on use of the alleged "software." GPL is a harmless fuzzball, fear the copyright owner.

If you want true freedom, then software would be released anonymously in the Public Domain and the risk is someone could steal the software and claim they own it. An example of a Public Domain work is the Authorized Version Bible aka King James Version Bible of 1611 A.D. All the recent alleged "Bibles" such as "New International Version", "American Standard", "New American Standard", "New King James Version" (false King James AV), and "Century New King James" (false King James AV), and many more are all actualy copyrighted! They are known as false Bibles because in their preface or inserts there is a text from a corporation that establishes conditions of their usage, unlike Public Domain bibles such as the King James Authorized Version Bible and also Gutenberg Bible. Further example, the NIV aka "New International Version" manifests conditions upon the reader: "The NIV text may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not ammount to more than 50% of a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted comprise more than 50% of the total work in hich they are quoted." In short, the NIV changes the many books of the Bible in such little ways to change the outlook and image of God's message and issues a copyright'd patent proclaiming they own and say how much you can quote without express permition! How long before a alleged "Bible" is released that says you can only read it on Sunday and only upon the permission and interpretation of an alleged "father of the Catholic Church" and you must accept the Catholic Church without condition as the divine authority of all scripture:


"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED."
--CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882


"[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
--POPE LEO XIII


"...We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [pope]."
--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302


"No person shall preach without the permission of his Superior. All preachers shall explain the Gospel according to the Fathers. They shall not explain futurity or the times of Antichrist!"
--Pope Leo X, 1516


Although I may seem offtopic, my point I try to emphasize is copyrights are evil to the extent they can regulate and infringe upon others by use of truth and law that is vested in the mere essence of man if not written on paper. The GPL uses copyrights for the good of mankind, as if to turn copyrights into a double-edged sword, yet even the GPL can be used for evi

The GPL is not specific to Linux. You can have an application built upon Win32 and released under the GPL, and it will not run on Linux. The point of the GPL is not to help any particular operating system, yet to assist software to have a conditional freedom and authority backed by copyright law in recognition that if it were true public domain then it could be "hi-jacked" into another software.

The GPL establishes penalties for people or artificial entities that don't provide the sourcecode of the software, yet the GPL states it is voluntary to accept the GPL and if not accepted then copyright law is the premise for not accepting the GPL's distribution rules. And in copyright law, whoever using the copyrighted software needs the permission of the copyright owner on use of the alleged "software." GPL is a harmless fuzzball, fear the copyright owner.

If you want true freedom, then software would be released anonymously in the Public Domain and the risk is someone could steal the software and claim they own it. An example of a Public Domain work is the Authorized Version Bible aka King James Version Bible of 1611 A.D. All the recent alleged "Bibles" such as "New International Version", "American Standard", "New American Standard", "New King James Version" (false King James AV), and "Century New King James" (false King James AV), and many more are all actualy copyrighted! They are known as false Bibles because in their preface or inserts there is a text from a corporation that establishes conditions of their usage, unlike Public Domain bibles such as the King James Authorized Version Bible and also Gutenberg Bible. Further example, the NIV aka "New International Version" manifests conditions upon the reader: "The NIV text may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not ammount to more than 50% of a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted comprise more than 50% of the total work in hich they are quoted." In short, the NIV changes the many books of the Bible in such little ways to change the outlook and image of God's message and issues a copyright'd patent proclaiming they own and say how much you can quote without express permition! How long before a alleged "Bible" is released that says you can only read it on Sunday and only upon the permission and interpretation of an alleged "father of the Catholic Church" and you must accept the Catholic Church without condition as the divine authority of all scripture:


"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED."
--CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882


"[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
--POPE LEO XIII


"...We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [pope]."
--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302


"No person shall preach without the permission of his Superior. All preachers shall explain the Gospel according to the Fathers. They shall not explain futurity or the times of Antichrist!"
--Pope Leo X, 1516


Although I may seem offtopic, my point I try to emphasize is copyrights are evil to the extent they can regulate and infringe upon others by use of truth and law that is vested in the mere essence of man if not written on paper. The GPL uses copyrights for the good of mankind, as if to turn copyrights into a double-edged sword, yet even the GPL can be used for evi

The GPL is not specific to Linux. You can have an application built upon Win32 and released under the GPL, and it will not run on Linux. The point of the GPL is not to help any particular operating system, yet to assist software to have a conditional freedom and authority backed by copyright law in recognition that if it were true public domain then it could be "hi-jacked" into another software.

The GPL establishes penalties for people or artificial entities that don't provide the sourcecode of the software, yet the GPL states it is voluntary to accept the GPL and if not accepted then copyright law is the premise for not accepting the GPL's distribution rules. And in copyright law, whoever using the copyrighted software needs the permission of the copyright owner on use of the alleged "software." GPL is a harmless fuzzball, fear the copyright owner.

If you want true freedom, then software would be released anonymously in the Public Domain and the risk is someone could steal the software and claim they own it. An example of a Public Domain work is the Authorized Version Bible aka King James Version Bible of 1611 A.D. All the recent alleged "Bibles" such as "New International Version", "American Standard", "New American Standard", "New King James Version" (false King James AV), and "Century New King James" (false King James AV), and many more are all actualy copyrighted! They are known as false Bibles because in their preface or inserts there is a text from a corporation that establishes conditions of their usage, unlike Public Domain bibles such as the King James Authorized Version Bible and also Gutenberg Bible. Further example, the NIV aka "New International Version" manifests conditions upon the reader: "The NIV text may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not ammount to more than 50% of a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted comprise more than 50% of the total work in hich they are quoted." In short, the NIV changes the many books of the Bible in such little ways to change the outlook and image of God's message and issues a copyright'd patent proclaiming they own and say how much you can quote without express permition! How long before a alleged "Bible" is released that says you can only read it on Sunday and only upon the permission and interpretation of an alleged "father of the Catholic Church" and you must accept the Catholic Church without condition as the divine authority of all scripture:


"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED."
--CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882


"[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
--POPE LEO XIII


"...We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [pope]."
--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302


"No person shall preach without the permission of his Superior. All preachers shall explain the Gospel according to the Fathers. They shall not explain futurity or the times of Antichrist!"
--Pope Leo X, 1516


Although I may seem offtopic, my point I try to emphasize is copyrights are evil to the extent they can regulate and infringe upon others by use of truth and law that is vested in the mere essence of man if not written on paper. The GPL uses copyrights for the good of mankind, as if to turn copyrights into a double-edged sword, yet even the GPL can be used for evi

The GPL is not specific to Linux. You can have an application built upon Win32 and released under the GPL, and it will not run on Linux. The point of the GPL is not to help any particular operating system, yet to assist software to have a conditional freedom and authority backed by copyright law in recognition that if it were true public domain then it could be "hi-jacked" into another software.

The GPL establishes penalties for people or artificial entities that don't provide the sourcecode of the software, yet the GPL states it is voluntary to accept the GPL and if not accepted then copyright law is the premise for not accepting the GPL's distribution rules. And in copyright law, whoever using the copyrighted software needs the permission of the copyright owner on use of the alleged "software." GPL is a harmless fuzzball, fear the copyright owner.

If you want true freedom, then software would be released anonymously in the Public Domain and the risk is someone could steal the software and claim they own it. An example of a Public Domain work is the Authorized Version Bible aka King James Version Bible of 1611 A.D. All the recent alleged "Bibles" such as "New International Version", "American Standard", "New American Standard", "New King James Version" (false King James AV), and "Century New King James" (false King James AV), and many more are all actualy copyrighted! They are known as false Bibles because in their preface or inserts there is a text from a corporation that establishes conditions of their usage, unlike Public Domain bibles such as the King James Authorized Version Bible and also Gutenberg Bible. Further example, the NIV aka "New International Version" manifests conditions upon the reader: "The NIV text may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not ammount to more than 50% of a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted comprise more than 50% of the total work in hich they are quoted." In short, the NIV changes the many books of the Bible in such little ways to change the outlook and image of God's message and issues a copyright'd patent proclaiming they own and say how much you can quote without express permition! How long before a alleged "Bible" is released that says you can only read it on Sunday and only upon the permission and interpretation of an alleged "father of the Catholic Church" and you must accept the Catholic Church without condition as the divine authority of all scripture:


"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED."
--CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882


"[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
--POPE LEO XIII


"...We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [pope]."
--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302


"No person shall preach without the permission of his Superior. All preachers shall explain the Gospel according to the Fathers. They shall not explain futurity or the times of Antichrist!"
--Pope Leo X, 1516


Although I may seem offtopic, my point I try to emphasize is copyrights are evil to the extent they can regulate and infringe upon others by use of truth and law that is vested in the mere essence of man if not written on paper. The GPL uses copyrights for the good of mankind, as if to turn copyrights into a double-edged sword, yet even the GPL can be used for evi

The GPL is not specific to Linux. You can have an application built upon Win32 and released under the GPL, and it will not run on Linux. The point of the GPL is not to help any particular operating system, yet to assist software to have a conditional freedom and authority backed by copyright law in recognition that if it were true public domain then it could be "hi-jacked" into another software.

The GPL establishes penalties for people or artificial entities that don't provide the sourcecode of the software, yet the GPL states it is voluntary to accept the GPL and if not accepted then copyright law is the premise for not accepting the GPL's distribution rules. And in copyright law, whoever using the copyrighted software needs the permission of the copyright owner on use of the alleged "software." GPL is a harmless fuzzball, fear the copyright owner.

If you want true freedom, then software would be released anonymously in the Public Domain and the risk is someone could steal the software and claim they own it. An example of a Public Domain work is the Authorized Version Bible aka King James Version Bible of 1611 A.D. All the recent alleged "Bibles" such as "New International Version", "American Standard", "New American Standard", "New King James Version" (false King James AV), and "Century New King James" (false King James AV), and many more are all actualy copyrighted! They are known as false Bibles because in their preface or inserts there is a text from a corporation that establishes conditions of their usage, unlike Public Domain bibles such as the King James Authorized Version Bible and also Gutenberg Bible. Further example, the NIV aka "New International Version" manifests conditions upon the reader: "The NIV text may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not ammount to more than 50% of a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted comprise more than 50% of the total work in hich they are quoted." In short, the NIV changes the many books of the Bible in such little ways to change the outlook and image of God's message and issues a copyright'd patent proclaiming they own and say how much you can quote without express permition! How long before a alleged "Bible" is released that says you can only read it on Sunday and only upon the permission and interpretation of an alleged "father of the Catholic Church" and you must accept the Catholic Church without condition as the divine authority of all scripture:


"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED."
--CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882


"[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
--POPE LEO XIII


"...We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [pope]."
--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302


"No person shall preach without the permission of his Superior. All preachers shall explain the Gospel according to the Fathers. They shall not explain futurity or the times of Antichrist!"
--Pope Leo X, 1516


Although I may seem offtopic, my point I try to emphasize is copyrights are evil to the extent they can regulate and infringe upon others by use of truth and law that is vested in the mere essence of man if not written on paper. The GPL uses copyrights for the good of mankind, as if to turn copyrights into a double-edged sword, yet even the GPL can be used for evi

One thing to note are the political motivations behind the translation of the King James Bible. This translation was mandated to be used in all Church of England services, IIRC. It was instrumental in helping King James wrest control of England from the Catholic church to the Church of England (controlled by the monarch, i.e. James himself). This gave the British monarchy significantly more power in their own country, as well as preventing such a large portion of the funds from being diverted to the Vatican.

As a spiritual and literary work, the King James Bible has had an immense impact on western culture. It has also had a large impact on Great Britain, and, in turn, its many former colonies. Mute your sound beforehand, but there are some interesting articles about King James and the period here.

http://www.timecube.kids.us
http://www.alexchiu.k ids.us

And to a much greater extent, i am waiting for http://www.jesus-is-lord.kids.us or http://www.wicca.kids.us. I am waiting for someone to set up some kind of racist, anticatholic, hyper-right-wing site clothed as a "christian values site for kids" and have a bunch of left-wing mothers wig out. I am waiting for someone to set up a page of basic information and activities on pagan religions for kids, and have a bunch of right-wing mothers wig out. I am waiting to see if there is really any long-term effects from either of these scenarios.

Remember, there are people out there who consider it just as offensive and criminally rediculous that you have some kind of right to tell their children to worship doormats, as they would find it offensive and rediculous that you have some kind of right to tell their children it's okay to be gay. And there are people out there who consider http://www.chick.com just as bad as your average white-supremacist hate site (there are pages on there claiming that the holocaust was orchestrated by the Roman Catholic Church, with the nazis just as a puppet government for their greater plan. Do You Want Your Children Reading That?). And there are also people in both of the above groups who consider it either vitally important that kids have access to information on alternate religions, or vitally important that kids read chick tracts and know The Truth.

Welcome to america, where thankfully we are all still divided by design.. for now, anyway..

This, of course, is just yet another attempt by the powers that be to perpetuate their lies of the solar system and universe.

All space travel, of course, is impossible under currently perpetuated misconceptions of a 'solar system' that revolves around the sun. A man-made sattelite will never be able to leave earth's most immediate orbit until "scientists" finally recognize that everything in the universe revoles around the earth Thank you, and God Bless.

As to the Anti-Abortion sites, it will be the ones advocating killing Abortion Doctors which are being 'hidden', anything else would be totally unacceptable here.

I'm not sure that's the case.

Consider this hidden site. While it has some rather unkind things to say, in particular about the Catholic church, I don't think it advocates violence.

The removal of nazi websites from Google's index can be safely blamed on Germany and France.

But the removal of religious websites cannot be. Neither Germany nor France have laws against such material.

If Google wishes to take a stand on religious or political issues, that is certainly their right. But it's Google's stand, and only Google is responsible for it.

You're correct when you say that the objects that scientists like to call "black holes" are nothing of the kind. They are sin receptacles created by the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Just as His death on the cross cleansed Earthly believers of all their sins nearly 2000 years ago, His cosmic sin receptacles suck all of the sin out of the Universe itself, leaving a moral and wholesome cosmos for all to enjoy.

I hope this clears a few things up.

> one should either take a literal interpretation of Genesis

Oh really? What does Gen 2:17 say?

Now since Adam did not literally die in the 24 hours that he ate the forbidden fruit, that means, that one must NOT take a literal interpretation.

Do yourself a favor, buy a Interlinear Bible, and READ IT. You'll be amazed at how many words are just plain translated badly.

> one should either take a literal interpretation of Genesis

Oh really? What does Gen 2:17 say?

Now since Adam did not literally die in the 24 hours that he ate the forbidden fruit, that means, that one must NOT take a literal interpretation.

Do yourself a favor, buy a Interlinear Bible, and READ IT. You'll be amazed at how many words are just plain translated badly.