RoR: Forum

Bibles Don't Kill People, People Do.

This is a pretty sophisticated argument - for a second grader. The guy who made this video needs to put more effort into getting laid. The Bible is not repulsive. It is a book. It is a collection of various literary genres ranging from unsophisticated oral histories and mediocre wisdom sayings to outright forgeries and lunatic ravings published in hundreds of different versions. What is repulsive is that some people do indeed believe that some certain versions of that text are the literal word of God - and of course those people either haven't read the Bible themselves or they make excuses for it. And that repulsivity doesn't even compare to Communism or Islam.

There are many places in the world where one can indeed be lined up and shot for not obeying the commands of some authority - based on whatever text or whim that authority follows. None of those places is Israel or a Christian theocracy. Bibles don't kill people, people do.

There are many better targets than Christians, whom no one in this country truly fears. How brave do you have to be to go after American Christians? Are they going to slit your throat? Suicide bomb you? Put out a fatwa? Icepick you in Mexico? Put Polonium in your tea?

There are bigger fish to fry than ICHTHYS.

Ted Keer

Post 1

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 4:33am

Well Ted, I'm sure we thought the Soviets were far more dangerous when we backed the Taliban in Afganistan so that the "real bad guys" would get a drubbing.

Every day we hear how the Bible is the root of American law and that we are a Christian nation. I think pointing things like this out is important.

Ethan

Post 2

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 9:57am

A good sophisticated analysis about the Classical basis for American law would indeed be a good thing. The insistence that this is a Judaeochristian nation is the Big Lie of the right in this nation.

My problem with works such as this video is that they either are or come across as, naive or pleading. They show a great ignorance of the actual beliefs of the majority of Christians and Jews - Jews no longer sacrifice in the temple, or stone people for wearing cloth made out of more than one type of fiber. Christians (for the great part) take the Old Testament as superceded by the New, which does not teach violence. Indeed, Jesus preached that the Pharisaic obsession with the law (Judaism can be seen as a religious form of obsessive-compulsive behavior) was invalid, and that the whole of the law could be summed up with the thoughts love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. The Rabbi Hillel preached the same thing.

We have the work Sic et Non of the Scholastic philosophers of the Mediaeval Church which shows dozens of instances where the Bible explicitly contradicts itself. The Jews have a similar tradition of interpretation and amelioration of biblical texts.

This attack was hamfistedly aimed at a straw man - like I said, about a second-grade level of effort. There are plenty of real things to attack, such as the sexual molestation of children and women by priests - none of those abuses stem from biblical commands.

The entire exercise struck me as the work of someone who is absolutely ignorant of what most religious people actually believe. His attacks would make most otherwise moderate, reasonable, compartmentalized believers laugh, not cringe.

I myself cringe when I hear people claim that our nation is founded upon Judaeo-Christian law or so forth. That is simply false and ignorant. But this hamfisted preaching to the choir doesn't address that issue any any useful way.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/21, 10:03am)

Post 3

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 11:16am

But if you asked a Christian if they follow the Bible and if our laws should be based on the Bible what would they say? If you pointed out these things do you think they would say "oh, not that part!" If it really is the word of God then why not those parts? Elections won't change our world. Wars with guns won't change the world. To fundamentally change the world you need to change the underlying philosophy. Does such change start with the adults? No, it starts with the youth. Youtube is full of younger people who may still be willing to think.

Post 4

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 12:08pm

Ethan, I have no problem with the principle of educating people of the true basis for our laws. But this video could just as easily have been made by a Satanist. Also, this specific video simply shows a total lack of understanding of the thought processes of the great majority of the religious in this country. Catholics make up the large plurality of Christians, none of them wants a theocracy, (most oppose the Church's stand on abortion) and the Church itself views the Bible as divinely inspired, not literal truth or self-evident law set down for all time. Bush's Methodist beliefs are the same, the Methodist Church believes in a separation of Church and state. Bush prays that he does God's will, but he does not believe that he has a special revelation into God's will beyond his own conscience. I'm not trying to defend literal-word fundamentalists or idiot "so-called" Christians who sleep through Sunday ceremonies - a good 60-80% of the parish I attended as a youth. My sole point here was that this video is simply not sophisticated enough philosophically, academically, or rhetorically to be worth any praise. I can 't help but thinking that only people who have no religious background whatsoever could possibly believe that this video will either shock or move anyone who does have a religious background or knowledge.

I am quite sure that you or anyone else here could do a much better job. And yes, everyone should read Leviticus to see how repulsive its commandments are. Maybe if children studied the Bible in public schools, we'd have more atheists. Indeed, most public school friends of mine were believers, and almost no Catholic school students were.

Ted

Post 5

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 1:10pm

I'm sorry Ted, but I think you should listen to what a lot of religious people say they believe. Straw Man? Perhaps to some, but there are many who believe some or part of what is being critiqued in this video. That many disagree over the details is not the point, it just further highlights the hypocritical or contradictory beliefs that people hold. They are inconsistent because they can't be consistent. If a Christian says to me in response to that video, "I don't believe that" then I'll say "Good, what do you believe?" I don't contend that all Christians are bad people, that would be ridiculous. I don't contend that they all believe the Bible is literal truth and all the rules have to be obeyed. There are, however, a great many who do believe this. Do these people want Theocracy? No not all of them. But they will tell you that the laws they want arise from their morality and that morality comes from God through his words in the Bible. The end result is the same. Irrational life destroying laws.

Do I think that militant Islamic people are less of a threat? No. But I don't think all Muslims are a threat. I don't care what religion people wish to practice. That is their own choice. I don't wish to see it affect my life negatively. While we are focused so much on the threat of terrorists we often neglect to see what is going on right around us. Compromise with one evil to fight another and you are likely to get bitten in the butt. I have friends who are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and enough other religions and creeds that I have no problem with. They are all good people. Their votes and beliefs are often things that I wouldn't agree with. These people have no fear speaking there minds about their beliefs, nor should they, and I have no problem speaking of mine.

Ethan

[EDIT to fix some of the bad spelling :-)]
[EDIT This time I used the spell checker :-)]

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 9/21, 3:05pm)

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 9/23, 4:53am)

Post 6

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 9:43pm

And we have a group of people that enlist AA fortunately for me I have a Constitution to put as a place to place my confidence unfortunately there is no free speech say what you want if you have the "muscle" to back it up. Sure the bible is repulsive just like the rise and fall of the third reich is repulsive. By the way have you noticed the similarities in the sons of Abrahams works. I guess there is probably some hairy stuff in the jewish bible whatever it is called. If you haven't looked the Roman Codex is also repulsive even more so because for the laws in it an offense had to be committed for the people to write an offset. To bad god wasn't watching and prevented the valueless, unethical, immoral acts to begin with, forgive my relative statement because aren't values ethics and morals relative terms anyway. Repulsive may not be a bad idea anyway now there is a standard that can be used as a bad example,athough some of those quotes sounded a lot like Herod spouting off. What did the lion say about The Atheist and The Christian? they both taste the same. You know whats attractive living in a land where I can read what I want and not having to have a liscence to read anything. I had to learn the hard way on how I stated my opinions though and to whom. long live Pythagorias.

Post 7

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 7:58am

WHAT IS REPULSIVE???

In an address to the West Point Military Academy on March 6, 1974, Rand said:

[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.

^[55]

Post 8

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 2:01pm

Carlon said: WHAT IS REPULSIVE?"

The Bible. Read the title. Your comment isn't a refutation of what was contained in the video, of course.

As to Ayn Rand comments at West Point regarding Native Americans. I, for one, think that the treatment of Native American by the United States government was appalling. Forced relocations, Broken agreements, etc. There is nothing worse than speaking strongly on things you don't fully understand.

Never the less, your post is a classic "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" type fallacy. Instead of dealing with the issue you seek to distract from it. See, I can deal with your points, now can you deal with mine?

Ethan

Post 9

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 4:08pm

And Now, For Something Truly Repulsive:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Kind makes you want to hide under a rock, doesn't it?

Ted Keer

Post 10

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 4:26pm

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things

My favorite passage from the bible, other than 'know the truth, and the truth shall make ye free'.....

Unfortunately for them, religion itself is a 'childish thing', objectively speaking.....

Post 11

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 4:52pm

I thought it was a good thought provoking piece for young people to come across on youtube, if it hadn't occurred to them, in their upbringing, to question or to really actually read the bible. Some teen angst ammunition, if you will, toward seeking the truth amidst blinded adults.

Post 12

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 5:21pm

In private conversation with a poster here I agreed that the piece itself was entirely appropriate for youtube and does serve a purpose. I just felt that it was not significant or sophisticated enough to warrant special attention here. Anyone who posts here is already an atheist or is a religionist in dissent and knows enough about religion to be able to make nuanced responses just as have Rabbis and Church theologians for the last two millennia. Only the most ignorant of atheists and the most ignorant of fundamentalists would really be "shocked" by the contents of the bible.

In its favor, I suppose that a secluded child of lunatic fundamentalist parents might derive some solace from that video in the same way that a young child discovering his sexuality might be encouraged by reading certain sci-fi authors. I find that a pre-occupied focus on anti-Christianism amongst Objectivists makes Rand seem like a one-trick pony. Objectivism isn't anti- anything in its essence, it is pro- reason/life/liberty/happiness. It often seems that I am alone here in not having been traumatized by Christians at a young age. Where I grew up, everyone went to public school unless they were troublemakers and needed the extra discipline of nuns with rulers. The Catholic school kids all grew up to be atheists. And the Jews outnumbered the evangelical fundamentalists 10-1. When the Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door here in NYC I politely apologize, saying that I am a Satanist, and firmly close the door.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/23, 5:55pm)

Post 13

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 6:17pm

Yes, I too , was not traumatized by religion. I don't feel threatened by it. In fact in my childrens school ,the thrid grade curriculum involves study of the old testament as historical literature, the time in history around the world and also native american storys, and incorporates the anthropology of these earlier eras to jump off into the various subjects of an elementary education . It's pretty fun. : )
(I did feel threatened by the creepy lying pastor at the summer day camp they attended ,who misrepresented the program)

Post 14

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 7:47pm

Ted, I don't understand your hostility to anyone who criticizes Christianity. You seem intent on white-washing it and insulting anyone who dares speak up against it. What's the matter with you?

Here's two examples from this thread of your quest to insult atheists. First, from the first post:

"The guy who made this video needs to put more effort into getting laid."

And then, for anyone who thinks Christianity is bad:

"It often seems that I am alone here in not having been traumatized by Christians at a young age."

Why do you so often resort to slander and insults?

You say "My problem with works such as this video is that they either are or come across as, naive or pleading. They show a great ignorance of the actual beliefs of the majority of Christians and Jews".

This video was quite clear. It did not say most people believe this crap. It says that most people probably don't know even know this crap exists. Your criticism is entirely invalid. Did you even watch it? Christians think the bible is about love and giving, and don't let the fact get in the way. This video brought up the facts.

Like other issues you're wrong about, you throw in a few insults, a few poor arguments, and then claim we shouldn't even be talking about it. In this case, because "there are better targets than Christians". Sure there are. And if you want to focus on those other targets, feel free. But your attempts to defend Christianity by attacking it's attackers doesn't square with this. If you think attacking them is a waste of time, surely attacking their attackers is more of a waste of time. Unless you disagree with them.

Why does this stuff matter? First, because there is an active group of American's trying to get the 10 commandments integrated into our system of law and government. Same with the bible. While they may think that Christianity is hugs and kisses, it's just as easily a tool of murder and ignorance. It's well worth fighting. And one way to fight is to make those people with a fuzzy view of it understand that we're not arguing against hugs and kisses, but against stoning children to death for talking back to their parents. It's great that so many Christians are hypocrites and are completely selective about what parts of the bible they accept, but that doesn't mean anything if they integrate it with the government.

I see this as similar to Communism. I'm sure many communists wanted to help the poor, bring paradise to earth, etc. And I'm sure people tried to point out that their system, if allowed to be put into practice, would result in widespread death and tyrrany. I'm also sure that people like you then attacked those critics, claiming that there are bigger fish to fry and that nobody who understands the beliefs of the people could possibly think that they promoted death and destruction. They might even suggest that those critics need to put more effort into getting laid, or that they must have been tramatized by government as children.

The second reason this is important is that religion is a serious issue in the world. Look at the mad muslims! But how do you criticize them without insulting Christianity along the way? You can focus on non-essentials, like the specific tactics of terrorists. Or you can claim their "extremists", ignoring the fact that the religions are extreme, and moderates just don't take it seriously enough. Or you can address the real issues. Religion. Faith. God-based morality. Books that promote violence being accepted as the literal word of god.

But how do you do that when you're drowned out by the religious moderates who claim there's nothing wrong in principle with Islam (or religion), and that it's only "extremism" that is bad. There's nothing wrong with irrationalism and faith, as long as you don't go "too" far, whatever that means. There's nothing wrong with violence in god's name, as long as it's moderate.

And the moderates obscure the picture by making it seem like religion isn't that bad. Or that religious people are good-hearted and well-meaning. Or that nobody really believes those horrible parts. Or whatever.

We're at war with Islam Totalitarianism, and yet we can't even be clear about that because we might offend the moderates who want to believe that everyone is as unbelieving as they are.

So there's a very real reason to attack not just the extremists, but their enablers, the moderates. There are bigger fish to fry, but there are good reasons to think we need to address the enablers before we can seriously address the worst. This is no different then suggesting we need to argue against the pacifists and appeasers in this country before we have a chance of waging an effective war on our enemies.

But there's no good reason at all to attack those people who are challenging religion in this country, or those people who support them. You're simply protecting the enemy.

You claim that this video was a sophisticated argument for a second grader. One obvious response is that even a second grader can see the problems with religion. Those problems have not been addressed. They're simply evaded.

But let's see what you have? Instead of defending religion at every turn, and slandering those people on the side of reason, why don't you step in and show us your sophistication? Why don't you challenge religion? Why don't you fry some bigger fish?

Post 15

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 8:42pm

Nolo Contendere

Joe, I'm not interested in defending religion as religion, but in promoting reason and happiness, and, when criticizing religion, if it is the enemy of reason and happiness, in doing so from a sophisticated standpoint. Simply saying "religion bad" doesn't differentiate Objectivism from Communism or Madalyn Murray O'Hair (however you spell that fraud's name) and saying that the Bible is repulsive doesn't differentiate Objectivists from Satanists or Wahhabists or what have you.

As for that video? It was puerile. "The Bible" is a collection of dozens of different books, each of their own kind. Some quite disgusting, some merely bad history, some poetry - all sorts of things. If we accept that the common denominator of the audience is a second grade mentality who knows nothing of the bible, then maybe this video would have value. But is that the audience we expect here at RoR? As I said, anyone in Dissent like Gilbert Gottfried would laugh at that video.

====

I would ask this:

Have I never said anything critical of faith or religion? Who here reviewed god is not Great?
And of all I contribute here, do I focus primarily on recommending good things, or attacking ugly things?
Should I limit my future contributions to condemning stupidity and sanctioning the condemnation of stupidity, no matter how stultifyingly done?

====

As for people being traumatized by religion, those are the very own words of others who have posted here. I myself wasn't, just like I was never molested as a child. But some people here have said that they were traumatized, and I can see, believe, and respect that. That one was traumatized should be stated as a fact, but this is not a self-help group (I assume) for such people. It is (I assume) a forum for sophisticated argument. This video, and much of the "me too-ing" about "religion bad!" is very unsophisticated, and I sometimes point this out. After all, I came to Rand not because she to hated God. It was her validation of an objective reality, objective concepts, and the derivation of morality not from commands but from man's nature that hooked me. I can assure you that if the first sentence of VOS had not been that Rand used the word selfish for the very reason that made people fear that word, and had instead been "religion is stupid" I'd've put her down and moved on to something better. Rand didn't talk that way - listen to her on Phil Donahue. I will never talk that way either. Faith is evil - and it comes in all flavors - religion is not the only brand.

And yes, the guy who did that video certainly does seem to need to get laid - or to have some joy in his life. Of course that's not a logical criticism of his argument, but it does seem like a valid observation about his personality. My initial comments were flippant, I'll grant. But that video was puerile and puerility merits flippancy.

Given that I am defending myself against ad hoc charges, it's hard to make a coherent point, and I prefer to post when I have a point to make, and not an accusation to rebut. I apologize for rambling, and any uncorrected grammatical errors, and hope this is sufficient.

Ted

Post 16

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 11:36pm

Ted, the Bible is not just some random collection of writings. It is the source of a religion. Your attempts to deny this just add to this mystery. You treat it as if it were simply literature, and nobody treats it as the word of god. You argue this video is "puerile", but your approach involves complete denial of the problem. How is that sophisticated?

Sure, these guys aren't Objectivists. But their point is valid. The bible, qua moral authority, is disgusting. If people interpret it as the word of god, their god is a sick deranged monster. But you don't care about the validity of their point. In fact, you attempt to deny it by pretending the bible has nothing to do with Christianity!

I'm all for Objectivists making our own contributions to the arguments against religion and god. But that doesn't mean I have to reject other people's valid arguments. Your statements don't show why you find it necessary to attack atheists?

Yes, you did a review of God is Not Great. And it was clear you appreciated the literary value of the writing. And that's it. If Christopher Hitchens hadn't written it, you would probably have called it "puerile". Certainly there's plenty in there that could be called just that.

And while you may recommend things, on this topic you're on a one man mission to discredit or insult any atheist who speaks up against Christianity. I didn't say you were constantly negative. Only on this topic. Which makes the mystery even deeper. Are you a Christian? Do you not want to offend certain Christians? I don't know. But when someone attacks an ally on a topic, and in fact most allies on this topic, I have to ask what's the story?

Should I limit my future contributions to condemning stupidity and sanctioning the condemnation of stupidity, no matter how stultifyingly done?

Is this really what you read from my post? It's a non-sequitor. I'm criticizing your constant need to attack atheists whenever they turn their guns on Christianity. You somehow take that to mean you should only criticize people? Or that you should criticize stupidity? It's nonsensical. All I'm saying is either stop attacking every atheists who turns their guns on Christianity, it tell us why you feel the need to defend it through this indirect way?

The sad part here is that your posts are the height of puerility. He needs to get laid? Talk about lack of sophistication. Your posts are an infantile smear job, with scattered insults and distortions for laughs.

So let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Let's see you try to take on Christianity in a "sophisticated" way. Let's see you stop criticizing the honest and useful efforts of others and start doing something yourself.

Post 17

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 4:09pm

Joe, even in your first sentence your thoughts are confused. The Bible is not the source of a religion. The Hebrews worshipped Yahweh at least many centuries if not a millenium before most of the Bible was written and compiled the several books of the Old Testament over various periods. Deuteronomy, attributed to Moses, was supposedly found during spring cleaning of Solomon's Temple, centuries after his death! The final formulation of the now canonical Hebrew Testament did not occur until after the beginnings of Christianity, hence the Christian Bible often contains Old Testament books from the Septuagint that the Jews consider apocryphal.

Likewise, there were some several dozen extant "gospels" in circulation until the codification of the New Testament in the Fourth Century AD.

It is this sort of oversimplification and ignorance of the issues which I take exception to in making serious arguments in an intellectual forum. You lecture about the burden of proof, yet see no need to counter one's foes sophisticated arguments with equally sophisticated refutations. What is the argument here? If it is that this video might benefit some kid who sees it on youtube, I concede. Otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about regarding my beliefs, which are orthodoxly Objectivist regarding faith, (and taxation - another idee fixe of yours) or about biblical criticism. The religionists' authorities know these subjects inside and out. Merely repeating "bible bad" makes Objectivism look unserious and unacademic.

Ted Keer

PS

"If Christopher Hitchens hadn't written it, you would probably have called it "puerile"." [?!]

"All I'm saying is either stop attacking every atheists who turns their guns on Christianity, it tell us why you feel the need to defend it through this indirect way?"[sic] JR

Please show me where I have defended Christian faith and please explain how my calling unsophisticated arguments against Christianity unsophisticated means that I am defending Christianity. This is a non sequitur, as is your statement on Hitchens, where you blatantly put words in my mouth. As for putting my money where my mouth is, you are asking me to post on an issue in which I currently have no interest (until god is not Great II comes out) in order to disprove your misunderstanding of my opinions? No thanks. Take my posts at face value, ask me to clarify my statements if you like, (no, I am not a Christian, I haven't been since 13 when the priest talked about Orignial sin and how homosexuals are evil, I've been an outright atheist since 11th grade, and I am not afraid of offending indiuvidual Chritians when they deserve it) make your own counter arguments that don't rely on your emotional response to your imaginations of what I might say, but don't ask me to write just to make you feel better.

Since I haven't defended anything here but myself, and certainly not Christianity, can we drop this? It is noisome.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/26, 4:48pm)

Post 18

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 5:09pm

Ted,

I don't consider sophisticated evasions as being the same as sophisticated arguments. You started off saying the Bible is simply a book, rejecting the obvious connection between it and Christianity, and more specifically, Christain morality. I don't care that these religions were a slow and tortured evolution over countless generations, or that it was simply a selection of a larger body of works, or any of the other arguments that show how preposterous it is to believe in it. People still do! How can you sit there pretending the Bible has no significance to the Christian religion? This isn't sophisticated on your part. It's blatant evasion. And you claim the maker of this video doesn't understand the religious

So again, what's your motivation? I can understand why theologians would attempt to distort and evade to save Christianity from the obvious problems (that even a second-grader can see), but why do you work so hard at it?

I'm sure there are theologians that don't believe in the bible, don't believe in special creation, don't believe in Noah's Ark, don't believe the 10 commandments are the word of god, don't believe....well, anything of substance. I know there are. Their ability to claim to be Christians while distancing themselves from every concrete premise of Christianity is their problem, not mine. It doesn't make them sophisticated, any more than a post-modern philosopher is "sophisticated" for rejecting reason and reality.

I could point out that altering a theory or system of thought to be more evasive, less substantial, and more removed from reality is not an improvement. You can call it sophisticated if you want, as many systematic forms of irrationality are.

Christianity, and the Bible itself, are easy to criticize and ridicule. The ease of those criticisms doesn't mean those making the criticisms are fools. We don't have to avoid blatantly obvious criticisms because pointing it out would look poorly on us. It looks poorly on the believers. And there will always be theologians who manage to not believe any element of the religion and still call themselves Christians. But we aren't more sophisticated by trying to confront these professional evaders while ignoring the 500lb gorilla in the living room.

The only purpose your "strategy" has is to make criticism of Christianity seem to be quibbling over tiny, unimportant points. That coupled with your vulgar attacks on anyone who criticizes your favorite religion, it's quite clear you are defending them in practice. I don't care if you want to call it that.

So again, why?

Post 19

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 7:15pm