Monday, December 25, 2006

Splitting over hate.

Peter Akinola calls himself an archbishop. He thinks he speaks on behalf of a deity. But he’s a humble man -- just ask him. As he told one reporter: “Many people say I embarrass them with my humility.” The contradiction in that statement just whizzes past the archbishop’s little brain like a plane breaking the sound barrier.

Akinola is a symbol of an age old hatred within the Christian church -- a hatred for homosexuals. He is leading a schism within the Anglican church to protest the growing acceptance of gay people. Much the way the American church divided over support for slavery the Episcopal/Anglicans are dividing over whether to show acceptance of gay and lesbian members of the congregation.

Akinola says his church in Nigeria (that hotbed of enlightened intellectualism) is facing a threat from radical Islam. He argues “Should the church in this country begin to teach that is appropriate, that it is right to have same sex unions and all that, the church will simply die.” Interesting argument.

Fundamentalist Muslims are violent and hateful. If Christians don’t match them in hatred then they will lose out to Islam. So Christians must show they are willing to be as nasty as Islamists at least toward homosexuals. No wonder they call archbishops primates -- they act like primates.

Akinola is a key supporter of legislation that will turn all homosexuals in Nigeria into criminals. Not only that but the new law would make it illegal to oppose the new law. Very Stalinist of him, perhaps even Jehovah-like.

The New York Times writes that the legislation “includes measures so extreme that the State Department warned that they would violate basic human rights. Strictly interpreted, the bill would ban two gay people from going out to dinner or seeing a movie together. It could also lead to the arrest and imprisonment of members of organizations providing all manner of services, particularly, those helping people with AIDS.”

Primate Akinola argues that Nigeria has the right to pass legislation stripping people of their rights. “Does Nigeria tell America what laws to make? Does Nigeria tell England what laws to make? This arrogance, this imperial tendency, should stop for God’s sake.” Damn right! And Nigeria ought to reimpose the laws supporting slavery just to teach England a lesson.

Islamic slavers ought to be free of imperialist do-gooders and have the right to capture Primate Akinola and sell him into bondage. At least he’d be doing something productive with his life instead of wasting it on a fairy tale and hatred. The primate ought to know that there are many more Bible verses which condone slavery than which oppose homosexuality.

Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States of the United States, argued that slavery “was established by decree of Almighty is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.”

Davis was right. The Bible does condone slavery. It was traditional. It was the way the world worked for centuries. All the major churches of the day supported it. Only a few cranks spoke out against it. Now if you have tradition and Scripture both supporting slavery then who the hell had the right to end it? Even today Calvinists in the Christian Reconstructionist movement argue in defense of reinstating slavery as an institution based on Biblical law.

Slavery existed all around the prophets and the messiah when they walked the earth. And they never thought once to condemn it. Enslaving others was considered natural and normal, even moral. Slaves were commanded to obey their masters by St. Paul. He said slaves should serve their masters “as you would serve Christ.” The most the Bible did was lay down rules for slaves and masters but not one verse condemned the practice. To oppose slavery is to oppose Scripture.

Nor is there any shortage of Biblical arguments made through the ages defending the inferior rights of Africans like Primate Akinola. Their black skin was described by many fundamentalists as the “curse of Ham” from the Old Testament and the Bible said the descendants of Ham would be servants to others.

Of course many Christians today, including some fundamentalists, no longer believe that. Instead they accept the modernists, liberal, non-literal interpretation of Scripture. They compromise the faith you could say.

In southern America the fundamentalist tradition supported slavery. There was no shortage of tracts and books defending slavery and arguing the inferiority of blacks. And all of it was done in keeping with Christian tradition. Entire books were written using the Bible to argue that the black race are the “beasts of the field” described in the Bible and that they were subhuman and required to serve the white race. No doubt there were some who had no trouble embracing both the Ham theory and the beast of the field theory though they contradict one another. But contradictions have never troubled the faithful.

Even today the Christian Party takes the view that blacks are “a serving order”. They find all sorts of justification for their position in the Bible. But one is apt to find justification for almost any position in the Bible. But there is more Biblical justification to enslave Akinola than there is to deny rights to gay people.

The last great split in Protestant Christianity was over whether or not to deny black people equal human rights. So it is no surprise that the current split is over a similar issue.

It should be noted that one of the American churches which has placed itself under the authority of Akinola has a history of leading antigay initiatives. The Truro church actually got the fraudulent exgay movement off to a start with the Liberation in Jesus Christ ministry under Guy Charles. They kept the delusion going for several years that they could change people’s sexual orientation via the white magic of religion. That illusion ended when Charles was shown to have not been as liberated as he felt it necessary to claim.


Blogger Ethereal said...

This is one of the many reasons why I abhor christianty and most religions. I am a black male and I personally dislike the bible because of it's support of slavery. I believe that you have a right to your own life and not to impose it on others.

I am glad that I have read this article and further my knowledge as to why the bible is evil.

I hope you had a safe travel during the holiday season Mr. GodZone.


December 26, 2006

Blogger Publius II said...

How does the actions or opinions of a man indicate the disposition of "evil" in a book? Come to think of it, how is an inanimate object evil at all? What IS the definition of evil anyway?

January 01, 2007

Blogger GodlessZone said...

What is meant by the term "the bible is evil"? I think Publius is wrong here in a way he has not considered. He asks "how is an inanimate object evil?" I ask this question often. It is thought that guns are inherently evil or alcohol, etc. And yet they are inaminate objects incapable of doing acting and only acted upon. So at first glance this seems like a good question. But there is a second level here which Publius needs to consider as well. Would he say that the ideas of Hitler were evil? I mean the ideas. An idea is not even an inanimate object. It is less real than a book. You can't see an idea, touch it or experience it with any of your senses. But I suspect that Publius would admit there are many ideas which he considers to be evil.

When Robert said the Bible was evil he was clearly not speaking about the physical object itself but the ideas it contained. Now Publius, being a Bible addict and proud of it, won't agree with the appraisal but surely he can see why a person can say the Bible is evil. While the terminology is not 100% precise it is is common and understandable. He is saying the ideas of the Bible are evil. He is probably not even saying that every idea in the Bible is evil but that that the bad ideas outweight the good ideas. I think the ideas are evil on several levels. Ideas and beliefs can be evil. The physical object itself is not evil but the beliefs it contains can be and I think it is pretty clear that is what Robert was speaking about.

January 01, 2007

Blogger Publius II said...

Good. I'm glad we've clarified that to a satisfactory point. Though we've still not defined "evil" properly, it's interesting that it seems to be a universal term understood by everyone.

So I'm going to continue this discussion without going into defining it, while noting that it has not been properly defined, lest we need to fall back on that point later.

Now the question becomes, what ideas in the Bible are evil, exactly? As I believe that the Bible is the written communication of a perfectly and wholly good God, I (as you rightly surmised) do not agree with the appraisal. However I am more than willing to hear you out on such an accusation. So lets have it then. What's evil, idea-wise, in the Bible. And I'm not interested in arguments deriving from how men have interpreted it for their own benefit in whatever shape or form that can take. I want the ideas, which are clear, which you think are evil.

January 01, 2007

Blogger GodlessZone said...

It is not interesting that there "evil" is a universal term understood by everyone. It is most certainlyf not understood by everyone. The fundamentalist believe evil is that which is contrary to the will of some deity. And the deity is allowed any moral standard he chooses. If he demands monogamy then polygamy is evil. If he sanctions polygamy then it is not evil. If he says thou shalt not kill then killing is murder. If he says go into the town and kill every man, woman, child and animal then genocide is moral.

My definition of evil is human action which is destructive to human interest and includes no issue of the divine. I divide it into two areas. The first is that which violates the sanctity of another person which is anything that treats others as a means to an end, strips away their life, their liberty or their justly acquired property. It must involve human action as evil implies choice and only rational beings choose. A flu virus is bad but not evil. Slavery, which was the topic of this post and thus the topic for comments was evil because it does precisely that -- it violates the sanctity and rights of another person. In my view that which is evil that does the above things also ought to be a crime. But in the Bible slavery was not a crime. God was very, very concerned about what people did with their genitals and wanted gay people executed in a bloody manner. But he had no such worries about slavers. Your argument was the Bible recognized the reality of the culture.

Of course that "recognition" is very selective. Homosexuality also existed from the beginnings of human evolution and in most species of animals. But the Bible say kill gays who are not violating the rights of others and sanctioned slavery which was an institution based on violating the rights of others.

January 02, 2007

Blogger Publius II said...

Alright, a few points here, if you'll permit me. I'll start from the bottom of your post and work my way up.

"But the Bible say kill gays who are not violating the rights of others and sanctioned slavery which was an institution based on violating the rights of others."

The Bible does not say "kill gays who are not violating the rights of others... etc." The Bible records that in a point in history, in a specific place, in a specific form of government (Theocracy) for a specific people group, under their civil laws sexual immorality (including homosexuality) was punished by death, along with a slew of other crimes.

As for slavery, I'm fairly sure you will not find any endorsement for it anywhere in the Bible. It simply records that it existed, and gives instruction that applies within that institution. As I've said before, the Bible is more concerned with what's going on with the individual rather than social institutions.

"God was very, very concerned about what people did with their genitals and wanted gay people executed in a bloody manner."

I want you to understand here, that as I discuss this particular topic, that I'm not trying to convince you I'm right about this, or that the Bible is right, or anything of the sort. All I want to do is express the logic behind this idea. And I understand how difficult it would be to grasp it, coming from the vantage point that God does not even exist, much less that certain things are the way they are because He created them to be that way. So just hear me out on this, and try to read it without getting red in the face.

What we get from Scripture on the topic of sexuality, is that it was designed to not only facilitate reproduction and express love or attraction (which seems to be as far as the common atheist wants to take it), but it also creates a bond between two people (emotionally, spiritually, etc). Again, Scripture teaches that marriage, consumated by sex, is a life partnership, that the two are joined together as one. That is probably the most important aspect of what sex does, it seals an intimate relationship of two people. I don't say all this because I think you need a lesson on sex, but only to set up my next point.

It seems to me, that when two people have sex (which might be compared to the duct tape of a relationship), and then have sex with someone else, it's like pulling that duct tape off and trying to use it again to tape up something else. It doesn't quite stick so well. The more you try to pull the tape off and stick it again, the more worthless it is.

Hence the lumping together sexual misconduct, adultery and homosexuality with the same penalty under Levitican law. They all abuse the duct tape, so to speak. Is one worse than the other? Certainly not. The fact that today it is treated differently is a shame to those who condemn another for their sin. It's hypocracy at it's worst.

Now why is marriage so sacred, and the abuses of it punished so harshly under Levitican law? Because marriage, it seems was instituted to reflect, show, and help us understand the relationship between Christ and the Church. That much is clear from Scripture. And so when marriage is clouded and muddied in it's meaning and structure, it clouds and muddies our understanding of Christ. I hope that at least sheds some light on what and why the Bible says what it says. If it doesn't, ask me some more specific questions and I'll try my best to answer them.

My goal, again, is not to convince you I'm right, but simply to get you to the point where you say, "OK, you start from this particular worldview, and so that position on this issue makes sense, but I reject your starting point." And that's ok, I don't mind at all. But having arguments and insults thrown at me based on misunderstanding drives me up the wall. :)

Happy New Year.

January 02, 2007

Blogger GodlessZone said...

Until this point all comments here were 2 or 3 paragraphs. Your newest one is almost 4 times longer. So in keeping with my request to keep replies short (so that they can be responded to) I will take your reply in order and then ignore the rest of it. Otherwise these comments get entirely out of control.

The law that God gave in Leviticus most assuredly says that men who lie together shall be executed. Your reply is very modernist and “liberal” of you since you. So let me take the argument that every aspect of the Bible is about a point of history, in specific place, etc and therefore not applicable to anyone alive today.

Of course when you resort to that argument you cherry pick what you want to believe and what you don’t.

As for slavery it is not a social institution but “what’s going on with the individual” which is precisely what you say the Bible is about. And it never once told an individual slaver to free slaves who were individuals. It was not an institution, it was one individual violating the rights of another individual. And the Bible condoned it telling slaves to obey their masters.

If someone told a woman to obey her rapist we’d find it repugnant. That the barbarians who wrote the Bible told slaves to obey their masters is the same sort of crime.

January 02, 2007

Blogger Publius II said...

Yeah, sorry about the length there. Hard to get the point across otherwise though.

Yes the law that God gave in Leviticus says that, but who was the law given to? Was it given to all nations or one nation in particular? Upon reading it in context, we find that the other nations were not given this law from God, nor expected to obey it. So the application there, is that the Church (because it is the church that Israel represents) if we are to follow after our God, should adhere to the principles of sexual purity that was given to Israel. Just as the law had no application to nations outside of Israel, it also has no application outside the Church. That's not a liberal view at all. It's simply the way it is to be applied, logically. What was given to the Israel, is given to the Church (speaking of the standards, that is).

I suppose your logical mind might ask why the Church doesn't try to put people to death for their sins? Churches like that of the Phelps clan have a huge misunderstanding of this whole concept, which is what is causing all their theological problems in practical application. If you want, I can explain this further.

"If someone told a woman to obey her rapist we’d find it repugnant."

Actually, I think in not so many words (and not quite as graphically), this is exactly what the Bible says to do. The principle that Christ taught, was that the violated should take his violation, and not only this but take it with a glad heart. "When someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other as well. ... When someone steals your cloak, give him your shirt as well." These principles apply when one is violated in any way.

But it also clearly prohibits violation of other people. You see, it basically says, "do not violate others, but when you are violated, respond with grace, not vengence." Hence the commands for slaves to obey their masters. That's not condonement you see there. It is encouragement for those who are being continually violated, to bear their violation with grace.

In short, God tells us, "Yes, I know you're being violated, and it's not pleasant, but this is where your place is at the moment. Bear it gracefully." And more ultimately, God is saying, "This life is but a blink of an eye, and your circumstances here are inconsequential compared to what you have to look forward to."

January 02, 2007

Blogger GodlessZone said...

I think you were closer to the truth with your first answer which was so time and culturally specific. At best your answer means that Jehovah was a vicious barbarian at a specific point of history with a specific group of people.

Phelps is not alone. Many fundamentalists still argue that the death penalty applies. And it was a rather typical view among most Christians for centuries. I believe South Carolina only abolished the death penalty for homosexuality in the last 1860s.

I also suggest you only managed to show that Jesus was an idiot.

But again we are off the point which is that the Bible most certainly condoned slavery, never condemned it in any form. That is also called for killing gays is no surprise. It is not god’s book but it is written by a people from a certain culture at a certain time showing all the limitations of that culture and time.

January 02, 2007

Blogger Publius II said...

In a sense, it IS time and culturally specific, in that there was once a civil law for God's people that made sexual immorality punishable by death. In another sense, it's an absolute truth that God still abhors sexual immorality and it is a sin amoung many that still deserves death as a penalty (but again, this is no different from any other sin). The difference between then and now, is that the penalty has been paid already, once and for all.

And yes I know Phelps isn't alone, but I'd rather not get off on the topic of how people contort what the Bible actually says to suit their own desire to control people.

Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think Jesus was an idiot?

But yes, back on track, I think it would be a stretch (if not plain illogical) to say that because it doesn't black and whitely condemn slavery, then it condones it. An argument from silence on either side is not a very strong one.

January 02, 2007

Blogger GodlessZone said...

"Slaves obey your masters" is not an argument from silence. In Joel Jehovah said: "I will sell your sons and daughters to the Judians and they shall in turn sell them to Sabeans.." In Timothy is says: "Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor." In Titus slaves are told "Be submissive to your master." In Leviticus the Hebrews are told: "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.” In Deuteronomy Jehovah tells the Israelites to kill the male enemies but "the women and children are to be taken as the spoils of war.".

These are not an argument from silence. The Bible condones slavery.

January 02, 2007

Blogger Publius II said...

OK, I'll give you credit for actually looking up the passages. :)

One question that immediately comes to mind is, is all slavery equally wrong? If so, then I'd say you would be right on this topic. I know for a fact that slavery as practiced in Biblical times was not the same as the race-based slavery of the last few centuries. In most cases people sold themselves into slavery because they couldn't pay their debts or afford to support themselves. This I think is what's going on in the Leviticus passage.

I'm skipping the New Testament passages, because clearly they are instructions for slaves in how to regard their masters, given they are already slaves, and I've covered that ground already.

As for the Deuteronomy passage, which would be worse, to leave the enemy's families to fend for themselves with no provision, or to take them under the care of the conquerors as servants?

January 02, 2007

Blogger GodlessZone said...

You implied such passages did not exist and the Bible didn't condone slavery. Now you give me credit for actually looking up the passages.

In the OT the Hebrews were also told to militarily conquer people and take them into slavery. And yes I say that all slavery is equally wrong. You can be the moral relativists if you want on this issue not me. It is wrong. And just because it is not race based is not a good thing. It is still wrong. It is wrong to enslave people no matter their race. Just because Jehovah didn't think so doesn't make it right. He was a barbarian deity invented by barbaric people.

And it is rather horrifying to watch what sort of logic you must resort to in order to defend that damned book. You are now arguing that enslaving women and children is to "taken them under the care" of the conquerors. So first the Hebrews march into a territory they didn't own and engage in genocide. They they enslave the women and and children and you are so desparate to defend the Bible you have to try to turn that into compassion. By that twisted logic the Nazis were compassionate when they gassed children along with the parents since otherwise they would live the children orphans. I'm sorry Publius but that logic is sick. It is the warped kind of thinking necessary to defend the disgusting cruelty of the Bible. This is not your finest moment by a long streatch.

And I suspect you are decent man. If you were faced with the same situation in any other context you would condemn it. But because you can't get over the idea the Bible is a collection of fables you are forced to turn your back on your own moral senses.

January 02, 2007

Blogger Publius II said...

I understand your frustration, and I'll admit, you are challenging my thinking here. But I am also confident that upon enough examination of the context, logic, and circumstances surrounding these instances of slavery, I will be satisfied with the final position. I've just never been concerned enough with this particular topic to study it indepth, and so I'm learning as I go here.

And for the record, I'm not turning my back on my moral senses at all. For a human to enslave another human is, in general wrong, because we do not have that right to do so. But if the one who created us (who has the right to control destinies and stations in life, by order of the Law of Creation) orders the enslavement of one human under the other, then it would be morally right, by definition.

Again, as I've said before, it all comes down to who has the right to do what. If God creates man, man is completely subserviant to that creator, whether he be evil or good. This is the case whether we like it or not. Would you agree with that statement? Keep in mind, I know you don't believe that this is true, but IF God is the Creator, then does he not have the right to do with the creation as He pleases?

January 03, 2007

Blogger GodlessZone said...

You are confident that you examination will satisfy you because you can't accept any other conclusion without throwing out your faith. The crisis here is not just slavery but the whole role the Bible plays in your beliefs.

And thus you retreat to the moral relativism of the Christian. It is wrong to enslave unless God tells you to do so. It is wrong to murder unless God tells you to do so. It is wrong to steal unless God tells you to do so. And it is only wrong when God says it is wrong. So this alleged deity can justify genocide, slavery, killing children, stealing land, burning people at the stake, killing witches, executing homosexuals, ad nauseum.

So now the problem? The Islamists say they are obey God when they kill in terrorist attacks. Christian fundies advocating incarceration or execution of gays are saying they are doing God's will. The American South (and the fundamentalists sects there) said they were in tune with the Bible when they defended slavery. How do we know that God doesn't want gays killed now? Do we pray about it? You say he wanted that in the OT but not under the NT. Well the NT was a long time ago what if he has decided that it is time to go back to killing them as many Calvinist Reconstructionists and Theonomists believe. It is not like God writes in big letters in the sky that everybody can see. He supposedly has a tendency only to appear to "prophets" or talk to people in ways other don't see.

It wasn't that the victims who were killed by the Hebrews heard the voice of God and refused. They heard nothing. Only a few Hebrew nuts claimed God spoke to them and killed others. Calvinist Paul Hill said God wanted him to kill a doctor at an aboriton clinic. So you have to deal with the silence of god to most people but the supposed voice of god to a few. Maybe he just isn't revealinmg himself to you but is talking to Fred Phelps!

And in the end you have just said there is no such thing as a right. The Calvinist position is that there are no rights only rules from God. If God can do what he pleases, and do it through his agents on earth (which is what is under discussion here) then those agents can kill, plunder, steal, etc. And there can be no such thing as "all men are created with certain unalienable rights". Rights then are not a biblical concept but a secular concept. Are you ready to throw out rights in order to save the Bible?

January 03, 2007

Blogger Publius II said...

To correct your analysis, I am confident because I've experienced enough of Scriptural Truth, and the understood enough of God in the last 15 years, that I can fairly comforatably make such assertions. I've done this enough times on my own, making my own intellectual challenges and feeding my own doubts through the years, that I'm familiar enough with the consistent outcome. That's what I meant by that.

And what I'm relying on here cannot be called "relativism" really, because it's an absolute principle. It's only relative to the individual entity to which the principle as a whole applies. The principle is that no human has the right by his own will to violate another being. God on the other hand, by rule of the law of creation has EVERY right to do as He pleases.

How we know when it is God and when it is not, is another large topic. You claim that God does not write in big letters in the sky, but that's actually kind of what happened. The Israelites had seen the miraculous signs that God did as recorded in the OT. The primary purpose of these signs was to BE the writing in the sky, saying "Hey, this is really God, not some crackpot with a stick and a beard."

Today, there is no need for miracles and signs because the Word of God is the only manner in which God speaks to us today. Anyone who has claimed to hear direction from God, from Fred Phelps to George Bush, better be able to either prove from Scripture that what they're doing is right beyond a shadow of a doubt, or else be able to point to some serious miracle like fire in the sky or whatever.

You say the victims didn't hear the voice of God and refuse but instead heard nothing. This isn't quite right, according to Scripture. You DO have quite a few times where signs were shown to the pagan nations and they refused to turn to the Creator. Not only this, but there is no excuse for any who refuse to acknowledge Him, as I'm sure you're familiar with the passage in Romans 1.

Let me ask you this: Is killing in battle or in self defense murder? I assume you'd say no (I could be wrong) but it's the same principle. It's not relativist, just a matter of who has the right to do what.

January 03, 2007

Blogger GodlessZone said...

That you have convinced yourself previously though similar systems of circular logic confirms my suspicion it doesn’t answer it.

And a logical conclusion based on false premise is not only logical within the system but not in relationship to reality. Now if your god wants to smite people I worry not one bit. He’s not there. But that’s not what happens is it? It is people deluded into thinking that they are obey this god who do the smiting and pillaging not a deity. It was Moses, David and the rest of them who slit the throat of “little children” not Jehovah. And when murders have taken place it was the followers of god who did the killing. The delusion starts with the idea there is a god, and then that he speaks to us, then the premise is that he sets all moral codes and then those of us who hear him speaking to us can do almost anything provided we claim it was on his instruction.

That is still moral relativism except you pretend that God is telling you do the nasty shit.

As for him not speaking except through the Bible you would think if he wanted to talk v ia the Bible he would have done a better job of it. It would be alot more convincing it he wasn’t a tyrannical monster ordering the killing of “little children”.

January 03, 2007

Blogger Publius II said...

It's not circular logic, you misunderstood what I said, again. It's a logical conclusion and worldview based on a premise, yes. But what convinces me is that I've never been able to disprove it AND my life experiences not only fit comfortably within that worldview, but my worldview (in my opinion) most accurately and fully explains what I experience and know. That is why I believe. Most simply put, it is the worldview that is most compelling to me.

And as I've said before, one cannot claim that God speaks to them, without some sort of verifying evidence - something seen by a multitude. Not just something that the one claiming he heard from God allegedly saw or heard.

January 04, 2007

Blogger GodlessZone said...

First, you are going backwards. You need to prove the theory not disprove the theory. Second, you ignore evidence. You start witht he assumptin the Bible has to be true and the Stalinist in heaven you worship is a good thing. Then you justify anything that proves the contrary. You argue that god is loving and good and then we show by the words of your own bible that he is vicious. You first deny that he is vicious and then you argue that he is vicious but has the right to be so. You believe and adjust the evidence to your belief.

January 04, 2007

Blogger Publius II said...

I'm not ignoring any evidence at all, unless it's completely irrelevant. Yes I'm starting with the assumption that the Bible is true, hence the wording of my question beginning with the condition statement "IF God exists...." And I'd say you're pretty effectively ignoring the question.

As for your label of Stalinistic viciousness, is a judge vicious who carries out a sentence because the principles of justice incite him to do so?? Certainly not. This is what I'm getting at here. There is a difference between what men have the right to do to men, and what God has the right to do to men. This much you must admit, by the sheer weight of logic. Again, I'm speaking from the vantage point of IF he exists. Take away the emotional attachment to the alleged "victims" here and answer the question. Does a Creator have right of dominion over the creation or doesn't he, IF the Creator exists.

January 04, 2007


Post a Comment

<< Home


Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites