What Has Religion Done for Us This Month?

Daniel is back with another montage of some of the awful things done in the name of God over the past month:

(via ConversationWithA)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

    Wow. A six-minute cure to apathy about religion.

  • http://twitter.com/maxbingman1 Max Bingman

    God’s Gentle People. They’ll love the fuck out you until you’re dead.

    • JD77

      Thankfully atheists are opposed to killing.

      • coyotenose

        Oh good, another one who doesn’t know the difference between having a belief and doing something as opposed to doing something because of a belief.

        Sarcasm only works if you understand what words mean.

        • http://twitter.com/maxbingman1 Max Bingman

          It’s troll brain-dead troll central around here lately.

      • Baby_Raptor

        Nah, you don’t really think that. If we weren’t, all those fantasies you lot martyrbate to might start coming true. Wouldn’t you just love that? Then you’d be even more persecuted!

        • Drakk

          >> martyrbate

          Thank you for the new favourite word.

  • GorillaAttilaZilla

    Even after all this chaos…people still think religion is good.

    • Pseudonym

      Biassed sample is biassed. You will note that stories like this one tend not to get covered in these videos.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eukota Darrell Ross

    I am not a fan of child pornography, but I dislike people getting in trouble for porn. Looking at pictures is not the same as performing the acts in those pictures.

    The anti-porn news where priests get in trouble for porn should be troubling to anyone that likes freedoms. The religious are generally anti-porn. I think it’s an extension of puritanism and their anti-sex stuff.

    • Edmond

      Looking at porn involves complicity with those who TOOK the pictures. It enables them to take more pictures, because now they have a willing audience. Those who enjoy porn (and I count myself among them) should limit their viewing to pictures of people who willingly posed for those pictures.

    • http://twitter.com/maxbingman1 Max Bingman

      Next time you find you find yourself typing “I am not a fan of child pornography, but…” you might want to stop and rethink whether or not you want to share the rest of that thought with social media.

    • allein

      I would agree with you if the children involved were consenting adults.

    • indorri

      The general view I take is, constructed (drawn, CG, etc.) is fine. Looking at real stuff does create a market for it, though. It is of lesser magnitude than the producers, and I think the disdain heaped on viewers is excessive, but I don’t think viewing it is OK.

    • marilove

      This is just plain stupid. And wrong. AND STUPID.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

      i’m going to take the high road and just assume you are ignorant of the reality of child porn. i sincerely hope you haven’t viewed any, although your comment leaves that open to doubt.

      i am pro-sex. i believe sex work should be legal, taxed, regulated and seen in society as a valuable industry and aspect of the economy like any other type of work. consenting adults should be able to perform, view and enjoy porn of their choice, for profit if that is their choice. they should not be penalized later for making that choice by those who don’t approve of porn.

      however, just as we regulate race car driving, or medicine, or a host of other industries, we need to regulate porn. children cannot legally consent. we don’t let 8 yos on a race track with adults, or in the operating room, and most other industries require people to be adults before they are allowed to participate. this is simple common sense. there are many things children can’t, and shouldn’t be doing, while children. porn is one of them.

      now, the reality of the porn industry is far from the sunny picture i’d like it to be, and child porn is merely the tip of an iceberg of horror, when it comes to what children in porn are forced to do. often, rape, forced prostitution, slavery, physical abuse, and drugs are involved. ask any child rape survivor- the psychological effects of child rape last a lifetime, and often ruin lives forever, for the victims.

      there are some standards every society should maintain. murder is wrong. fraud is wrong. stealing is wrong.

      child porn is wrong. those who traffic in it or consume it should be punished, severely.

  • DT

    And yet, it proves nothing. If every person of faith was horrible and evil and butchered babies all day long (that’s butcher, not abort, since most atheists are fine with that part of the deal), it would prove absolutely nothing about the existence of a divine being or spiritual realm. Of course since atheists typically shun responsibility for other atheists or atheism as a whole, it’s tough to argue back, but sane and reasonable people would know better. If every atheist in the world butchered and slaughtered the innocent, it would prove nothing at all.

    This line of attack reminds me of an old Charlie Brown cartoon. Charlie Brown and Schroeder (the piano virtuoso) were engaged in a heated argument. Violet walks by and hears the insults: Who has a stupid piano! Who has a stupid striped shirt! Who can’t play baseball! Finally she asks them what they are arguing about. Easy, they explain, they’re arguing over who is better: Davy Crockett or Beethoven. Sane and reasonable people get the joke. Atheists, apparently, do not.

    • Persephone

      I guess you need the point explained to you. Proponents of religion like to state that religion is the source of morality, and that without it, people would be deranged. The video above shows those who are supposedly the most religious doing the most deranged things.

      As for the existence of the supernatural? The burden of proof is on those who claim it exists.

      • DT

        And if proponents of religion said religion is a source of perfect people who are always wonderful and fabulous and never do anything wrong, then you’d have a devastating point. As it is, a perusal of most religious texts will demonstrate a fundamental awareness within most religious communities of the faithfuls’ problems and evils . We won’t even get into the tired, worn out ‘religious people have to prove religion’. I thought that went out with VHS tapes. You mean there are still atheists who lean on that? Wow.

        • Persephone

          Ha ha awesome. We “lean” on the burden of proof being on the one who makes the claim because it’s still correct.

          I’m done with you. Either you’re being deliberately thick for the sake of argument or you are genuinely thick. I haven’t the time for either circumstance.

          • DT

            You lean on your entirely non-demonstrable belief that all of reality has to be subject to proof as you currently understand it,. If it isn’t “proven” as you accept proof, it can’t exist. That, my friend, is a belief with less evidence than a person who believes God wrote a book in the King’s English and dropped it out of a cloud.

            • allein

              I don’t know any atheist on this site that says something “can’t” exist just because it’s not “proven.” But without credible evidence we are under no obligation to live our lives under the assumption that whatever anyone claims is actually true.

            • coyotenose

              Jesus but you are bad at understanding words. This one you keep using, “belief”, it does not mean what you think it means.

            • indorri

              As mentioned below, that is not necessarily the position of atheists. You do not have to believe everything true is subject to “proof” (i.e. evidence). But that does not warrant simultaneously holding that therefore asserting something which has inadequate evidence is true is a valid position. The easy way to see this is to realise that if that were the case, any arbitrary hypothesis would also be valid unless it was explicitly shown to be false. This is where we get into Russell’s Teapot territory.

        • alfaretta

          Perusal of Old/New Testaments will show large gaps in the awareness of their authors of the “problems and evils” of the faithful. Slavery and child/spousal abuse come to mind as salient examples.

          Of course, Christian dominionists argue that the only thing wrong with American slavery was that it wasn’t Biblical .. but whatever.

          • DT

            If you’re condemning all ages against our current moral beliefs, then yeah. If you’re saying that the authors of the OT and NT (and other texts, don’t forget other religions) failed to reckon with our own current morality (and by that, you probably mean your morality, not the morality of, say, someone today who opposes gay marriage or abortion rights is not what you mean), then yeah, there are gaps. But that assumes all moral truth is only valid when measured against you. Which is a pretty hefty claim, one usually made by religious fundamentalists, or so we’re usually told.

            As for the slavery statement, I’ll assume by your allusion that you’ve spent precious little time actually studying the history of slavery in Europe and America, the history of slavery in general, the history of the debates over slavery both pro-and con dating from before the European discovery of the Americas. A topic far too large and complex to handle within a blog, and not fair to the blog owner to chew up space. Go and study it, you’ll see the arguments are far more than the one you mention (if any have really ever made that claim at all – it might be that you simply have no understanding of actual religious arguments, which I notice isn’t uncommon in the 21st century incarnation of atheism).

            • alfaretta

              You’re right, genocide is only wrong because I think it is (if the Bible is your holy book).

              I’m aware of the religious arguments against slavery — also of the arguments for it, based on the Bible.

              • alfaretta

                And you’d be mistaken if you think I’ve spent little time studying the history of slavery — it is one of the elements in my conclusion that the Bible was as much of a hindrance as a help in developing morality in the western world, based on my 19th/20th/21st century morality.

              • DT

                Then we must hope that you don’t change your mind and arbitrarily decide that genocide is OK. In fact, by your statement, when humanity believed slavery was OK, it must have been OK. And if it concludes down the road that genocide is OK, then it will be OK. In fact, by that definition how can you condemn anything in the past? Unless you’re saying that you are the yardstick of infallible moral truth against which all of humanity is to be judged. Again, a hefty claim. As for your awareness, I merely questioned it as what you said did not really measure up to most arguments as presented, at least by informed people of faith.

            • coyotenose

              Slavery was approved of and encouraged by the religious text you’re defending that was supposedly inspired by the infinite Creator. Defending that is kind of moronic.

              Your insinuation that you know anything about American slavery, which was propped up by the Bible before enough Christians with SECULAR ENLIGHTENMENT VALUES guiding them spoke up against it is dishonest.

              Oh, and you ended with a Courtier’s Reply, making your defense a complete failure. Nobody believes for a moment that you have some special sophisticated knowledge of the subject that you just can’t explain, so yep, you’re just another shoddy liar.

              • DT

                Of course it was defended by those who believed in the Bible. It was also condemned by those who believed in the Bible. Nobody ever said that once you have a Bible in your hands you’re perfect. In fact, few people more than the religious bemoan the evils done in the name of religion more than the religious. The problem is, none of this proves anything about the truth of religious claims one way or another.

        • http://twitter.com/JasonOfTerra PhiloKGB

          Shouldn’t a belief system whose proponents claim it as a superior model for right behavior have to demonstrate that it, y’know, improves behavior on the whole before lecturing us that all other models fall short?

        • RobMcCune

          religious texts will demonstrate a fundamental awareness within most religious communities of the faithfuls’ problems and evils

          And yet they almost never address that the beliefs that motivate or excuse the kinds of atrocities seen above. It’s always attributed to the faithful for not living up to the perfect religious standard, never that the standard itself.

        • coyotenose

          Proponents of religion quite frequently say that their religion is the key to morality and that atheists/secularists therefore cannot be moral. This is frequently said even at the national level. Therefore, you are either too ignorant of the subject to have a valid opinion, or you’re just another shoddy, lying whiner. Feel free to take your pick.

          Yeah, they do have to demonstrate evidence of their supernatural claims. Your dismissively claiming otherwise and concurrent foot-stomp is a massive fault in your grasp of logic, not an argument that actually works in reality.

          Weird how that awareness of the harm that people can do while claiming religion almost never actually makes it all the way from the texts to the people who keep citing the texts, isn’t it? Jesus warned us about people like you.

          • DT

            Well, duh. Of course their morality is based upon their understandings of their religion. Naturally. That’s not to say it’s as simple as ‘it’s only right because the Bible said so.’ In fact, that entire line of argument doesn’t even account for the overwhelming Catholic/Orthodox majority of Christians. Nor does it account for the various other religions. Even within Protestant Christianity, that is an oversimplification. As for atheism, my personal view is that atheists have nothing to say on the matter until atheists say that yes, atheists in the name of atheism have done horrible things As long as atheists are unwilling to admit that, there is no reason to take their objections to evils done by religion seriously. That’s wanting the rules to apply one way and not another. To have cake and eat it too. It’s trying to say we’ll only play Monopoly if we get all the houses and hotels to begin with. Until atheists admit that obvious fact, there really is no sense in caring what they say about the evils done in the name of any other truth claim.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              But they haven’t. Atheists have done horrible things, and often in the name of an ideology. Stalinism is a pretty awful ideology. But these people didn’t do bad things because they were atheists or in the name of atheism- they did bad things in the name of Communism. Christians, among other religious people, have done bad things in the name of Christianity. In other words, they killed people because God said so. They tortured people in the name of God’s love and mercy. Atheists have never done that because they were atheists but rather for other reasons.

              Since you still probably don’t get it, let me compare two horrible, bloody events, the Crusades and the Holocaust. The Crusades were in the name of God, because the Crusaders thought God wanted them to do it. The Holocaust, while carried out mostly by Christians, was not. Hitler did not claim God wanted him to murder lots of people and take over the world. Thus, the Crusades were an evil done in the name of God and the Holocaust was an evil done. Do you understand the difference? Atheists have never done evil in the name of atheism.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              But they haven’t. Atheists have done horrible things, and often in the name of an ideology. Stalinism is a pretty awful ideology. But these people didn’t do bad things because they were atheists or in the name of atheism- they did bad things in the name of Communism. Christians, among other religious people, have done bad things in the name of Christianity. In other words, they killed people because God said so. They tortured people in the name of God’s love and mercy. Atheists have never done that because they were atheists but rather for other reasons.

              Since you still probably don’t get it, let me compare two horrible, bloody events, the Crusades and the Holocaust. The Crusades were in the name of God, because the Crusaders thought God wanted them to do it. The Holocaust, while carried out mostly by Christians, was not. Hitler did not claim God wanted him to murder lots of people and take over the world. Thus, the Crusades were an evil done in the name of God and the Holocaust was an evil done. Do you understand the difference? Atheists have never done evil in the name of atheism.

            • Glasofruix

              My you are a thick one, aren’t you? Say what, Hitler had a moustache and was a vegetarian, so following your “logic” (or lack of) vegetarians did nasty, nasty things in the name of vegetarianism.

        • Baby_Raptor

          It’s always funny when people try and ban certain arguments because they know they can’t actually debate them.

    • Carmelita Spats

      Stop ignoring Dr. Yahweh’s (licensed OBGYN) MORAL standards! God is more than okay with butchering babies so quit dumping Dr. Yahweh’s drunk-with-blood morality on atheists…Dr. Yahweh invented the first morning after pill to test unfaithful wives. He’s perfectly okay with aborting the product of fornication. In order to prepare Dr. Yahweh’s preferred abortifacient you will need the following: curses written on a scroll, a hairy priest, holy water in a clay jar, dust from the tabernacle floor, a grain offering for jealousy, loose hair on the woman. She will drink some icky water and if she’s guilty of adultery, her belly will swell and she will miscarry as per Dr. Yahweh’s detailed instructions. This is a late term abortion procedure since the pregnancy was probably observed after the 12th week of gestation.

      Dr. Yahweh’s abortion procedure, Numbers 5:11-29

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-29&version=NIV

      And Yahweh was not “speaking in riddles or metaphors”…Psycho-God STRESSES that he spoke directly to Moses so there are zero questions as to the meaning of the Law…Numbers 12:7-8

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2012:7-8&version=NIV

      • DT

        You’ve obviously only read the parts of the Bible that fit your attacks. You appear to have no interest in accepting how people of faith have wrestled with those passages (you are aware that they’ve been dealing with those passages for a couple thousand years, aren’t you?). When you are, then we can talk. I much prefer atheists who’ve done their homework and are willing to deal with religion on its terms, not invented terms of their own making.

        • RobMcCune

          The point is that christians have to ‘wrestle’ with these passages in the first place, usually in order justify things that are contradictory to said passages. Also I doubt the book of numbers is an atheist invention, but then again I tend to err on the side of religious belief being genuine and not a cynical ploy.

        • allein

          The fact that it’s been 2000 years and they still haven’t figured it out sort of stacks up against, them, doesn’t it?

        • Baby_Raptor

          The fact that he’s saying things you don’t like doesn’t mean he’s only reading the parts he finds convenient.

          Further, there’s no wrestling to be done with passages like those. Your god ordered abortions. Therefore, your god is not against abortions. You can disagree with him all you want to, but that means you have a personal issue with him, not that suddenly his views changed.

        • coyotenose

          You never did bother to Google “Courtier’s Reply”, did you? You were beaten before you ever even wrote this post.

    • coyotenose

      Atheism isn’t a belief system. There’s nothing for us to take responsibility for when it comes to other atheists. If, for example, I was an atheistic Chinese Marxist, then I would be rightfully ashamed of how my belief system was being used to justify persecuting religious Chinese. But I am not a Marxist, and I don’t share a, you know, ACTUAL PHILOSOPHY OR BELIEF SYSTEM with any them or any group known to do such things.
      Why are you people so godawful bad at knowing what words mean?

      Speaking of rightfully ashamed, isn’t it odd how when you see horrible things being done in the name of religion, your only reaction is to attack the people criticizing those who do horrible things? So much for morality.

      Might wanna take a gander at that beam. It looks painful.

      • DT

        Atheism is very much a belief system. Unless you know for a fact that God or a spirit realm or the supernatural do not exist, you merely believe they do not. Or you don’t believe That play on words simply points to the same fact: you merely believe that all that exists can be proven one particular way, and if it can’t, then it cannot exist. Even the belief that ‘proof’ as it is demanded is appropriate for the existence of something like the divine is, itself, a belief. If you don’t think so, then try to prove that the existence of a supernatural being must be proven. Kick that one around for a while and see how fast your head hurts. It sure got my head to hurting when that was pointed out to me, and I finally had to admit the obvious.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          To steal a phrase, atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

          • Glasofruix

            Or bald a hair color, or abstinence a sexual position.

        • Glasofruix

          So much stupid, i don’t even know where to begin…

          God or a spirit realm or the supernatural do not exist, you merely
          believe they do not. Or you don’t believe That play on words simply
          points to the same fact: you merely believe that all that exists can be
          proven one particular way, and if it can’t, then it cannot exist.

          You don’t get it, YOU claim that it exists, and WE are asking you to prove it, so until you bring something tnagible to the table we do not feel obligated to swallow your bullshit. Oh, and science can explain everything, given the right amount of time and a lack of hindering idiots like you and your religios friends. I do not believe in things, i merely understand and accept the evidence that supports those things.

          It sure got my head to hurting when that was pointed out to me, and I finally had to admit the obvious.

          Proves that you’re an idiot, yes. You’re just throwing debunked circular arguments against a wall in hopes that something sticks.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You must have a really small brain then.

          I have no trouble at all calling your claim bullshit. And I had no trouble processing it…it only took one read-through.

          Requiring proof that something exists is not a belief. That doesn’t even make sense. It’s just more stupid mumbo-jumbo to make your god sound mystical and special and worthy of reverence.

        • coyotenose

          You’re trying to argue here despite being unaware that not believing in something for which there is no evidence is not a belief system? Seriously? “Believing X is not true” is not synonymous with “Lacking belief in X”.

          Also, playing the little “How can we know anything” philosophical word game is never done honestly, except by students who have one semester of Philosophy under their belt and haven’t been slapped around by their professor enough to get that they don’t actually know enough yet.

        • baal

          ” and I finally had to admit the obvious.”

          That there is no reason to behave as though god* exists?

          *and by god I mean Bolivian pink invisible flying unicorns or Thor.

    • RobMcCune

      The “religion justifies atrocities” line of argument has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of the supernatural, if that’s what you want to argue about there are other posts and other blogs that cover arguments for the existence of God quite a bit more thoroughly.

      Atheism is an attribute of a person’s worldview and belief system, so there is no “whole” to take responsibility for. It’s a stupid point anyhow since no one is arguing that a religious person must bear responsibility for religious atrocities.

      Your Charlie Brown synopsis seems to unintentionally mirror your own posts since you seem intent on arguing about anything besides the content of the video and it’s main point.

    • Baby_Raptor

      It proves a lot, actually, since this supposed god of love, mercy and justice that you lot worship does exactly jack shit about all the bad stuff that happens in his name. So either the bible is entirely a lie when it comes to his personality or he doesn’t exist. Which would you prefer?

      And, yeah. We are fine with abortion. Because destroying tissue when it causes a living woman harm is not comparable to ending a life. Maybe one of these days, you lot will realize that.

    • http://www.facebook.com/brian.westley Brian Westley

      “If every atheist in the world butchered and slaughtered the innocent, it would prove nothing at all.”

      “Sane and reasonable people get the joke. Atheists, apparently, do not.”

      I’m getting whiplash from your sudden change of decrying stereotyping, followed immediately by stereotyping. Make up your mind.

  • Daniel

    Darrell Ross, I find it disturbing that you don’t think looking at child pornography should be a crime. The only reason child porn exists is because there is a demand for it. People who look at these images create this demand. If it weren’t for these people, child porn wouldn’t exist.

    • Glasofruix

      Not to mention that the sole fact of making those pictures is a crime.

    • Baby_Raptor

      It’s one of those tricky questions of “Do you stick up for something you personally find disgusting”?

      Personally, I don’t find child porn at all attractive. But I don’t think looking at it should be a crime, either. The act of looking at porn hurts nobody, even when it’s child porn. And as long as it hurts nobody, then it shouldn’t be policed. That’s just other people sticking their noses where they don’t belong.

      Does making it hurt people? Yes. And that’s where this situation gets a whole nother level of complicated. There’s probably not a tidy answer for it. And no, I’m not defending people who make child porn, before anyone decides to throw that at me.

      I think we do take it too far, however. A 16 year old sending a naked picture of themselves to their partner is NOT child porn in reality, yet by law it is.

      • marilove

        Child porn involves REAL CHILDREN.

        Does making it hurt people? Yes.

        And this is why it should be illegal. Full stop. Well, that and because it is video and pictures of REAL CHILDREN being molested and raped.

        This is not complicated. Not on any level. Not one.

        Why does it matter that there is a demand for it?

        It shouldn’t be made in the first place and therefore it shouldn’t be sold. FUCK demand. It is not important. It matters not at all.

        I really hope you’re just trolling or using sarcasm poorly and I’m missing something and you’re not serious. Please please please tell me that.

      • marilove

        “Personally, I don’t find child porn at all attractive. ”

        And wow, I really, really hope so! I just … really? If you have to state that you don’t in fact enjoy child porn, then maybe you need to reconsider the words that will follow.

        “I really don’t like child porn, BUT!”

        Wow…

      • Sandra Duffy

        You’re an idiot. They aren’t cartoon characters you’re watching in child porn. Nobody drew them you know. Adults forced those children to perform on camera. Some people are too stupid to exist.

  • DT

    Wow, the threads are odd on this blog. After a couple comments, you can barely keep track. Oh well. I’d love to stay and chat, but I’ve got to go and get ready for the great St. Patrick’s Day revelries. Fact is, bringing up religious atrocities only counts if atheists are willing to admit to and subsequently explain the atrocities done by atheists in the name of non-religious philosophies and theories, as well as the eradication of religious thought. Trying to pull the lame Bill Maher explanation that they treated atheism like religion is about as convincing as a Jack Chick tract.

    The fact that it’s constantly used by atheists suggests weaknesses in the foundational arguments of atheism. Evil religious people proves nothing. Plus, it must be measured by the good done by religions and religious people. And, again, balanced by whatever good and/or evil committed by atheists, both in general and in the name of their loathing of religion. In the end, it’s a diversion, and nothing more. At best it may suggest that this or that particular approach to religion is bad, or filled with error. Most likely, a reasoned and rational person will conclude that it’s not religion that causes evil, but evil done in the absence of religious environments shows that evil happens with or without the presence of religion: something every major religious tradition in the world freely admits.

    Now, for proof. The old canard that the burden of proof is on the religious. Again, rather shocked that atheists still say that. I thought by now they realized what many now concede: the burden of proof is on atheists to prove – that’s *prove* – that the existence of God is subject to their particular demands for proof. Now, my goodness my Guinness. TTFN.

    • Persephone

      Holy shit you’re stupid.

      • RobMcCune

        Their writing from a script. It’s close enough to seem like there is actual conversation taking place, but in reality their actual response has little to do with the topic of discussion. It’s trolling motivated by a petty “Oh yeah, then I’ll get you back” attitude.

    • indorri

      “the burden of proof is on atheists to prove – that’s *prove* – that the existence of God is subject to their particular demands for proof. Now, my goodness my Guinness.”

      So you reject falsification?

    • Glasofruix

      Holy fuck! We really need to find another source of facepalms, because i’m all out.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Nobody but the voices in your head has ever conceded that. I’ve never even heard anyone but you try and claim that pile of tripe you presented up there. Nice lie. Either way, though, here’s your proof: If you expect people to believe in your god and submit themselves to his rules, then you have to offer the proof he exists that they require to believe. Otherwise, you’re Fucked. Seems obvious enough, but you’ve proved time and again that you’re not exactly working with much in the brain department.

      The rest of your shit isn’t worth addressing as it’s just you trying to handwave stuff you can’t otherwise argue.

    • coyotenose

      Poor, poor little stupid liar. Your post here requires you to ignore what’s already been said. Not deal with it, not refute it, just pretend it wasn’t written.

      Does Jesus love that you lie? Ask yourself that the next time you look in the mirror. C’mon, you shoddy liar. Let it stare over your shoulder.

  • s0l0m0n

    Jesus is not God. He’s only a prophet who brings the true religion, not Christianity.

    • baal

      Only until the next prophet comes along and gives us the next true religion. Joe Smith / Mormonism is currently trying for the true religion position.

      • s0l0m0n

        baal,

        The next prophet have already come & gone bringing the same true religion and there will be no more next prophet after him.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X