Dear Facebook: If This Isn’t Hate Speech, Then What Is?

Last month, I and many of my friends filed a complaint with Facebook
against an aggressively anti-Christian Facebook page titled “Virgin Mary Should’ve Aborted”.  Each of us received the following standardized response:

“Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the page you reported for containing hate speech or symbols and found it doesn’t violate our community standard on hate speech.”

One could argue that a page which mocks the deepest convictions of a majority of Americans—those who believe in Jesus Christ—by depicting a woman (Mary?) masturbating with a crumpled page from the scriptures, and which shows the unborn Christ in utero muttering the “f” word and Mary enjoying a cigar, is, in fact, a blatant form of hate speech.

But Facebook’s automated response generator doesn’t think so.  And after a brief review, the group’s administrators received an affirmation from Facebook, explaining that their page had been reinstated.  They published the response with a belligerent “Haha!”


Facebook friend and pro-life speaker Rebecca Kiessling called attention to a new Facebook fan page, the title of which I won’t even post.  It’s called “F*** Jesus Christ and F*** Christianity”.  Its posts are tired atheist rants about evolution and science.  Its heading explains (with poor spelling and punctuation, and misguided theology), “The crucifix that you wear around your neck is an ancient torture device used to make the death of a criminal slow and painful.  When you put on or worship the crucifix you are in fact worshiping murder whether you admit it or not.”

Is this offensive?

Nope, same message comes back from Facebook.  There’s nothing wrong with this, they assure us.

BUT HOW ABOUT RAPE:  Rape is offensive, right?

Apparently, rape is not offensive.  The group RINJ (Rape Is No Joke) has opposed a number of pro-rape and rape joke pages on Facebook, arguing that removal of the pages would not be a violation of free speech in the context of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the concepts recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. RINJ has repeatedly challenged Facebook to remove the rape pages.  Finally, RINJ has turned to advertisers on Facebook, urging them not to let their advertising be posted on Facebook’s ‘rape pages’.


Breastfeeding mothers are offensive.  Facebook’s “no bare breasts” policy in its decency code means that even if the baby is covering the nipple, posting a breastfeeding shot can alarm Facebook censors and get your post (or your entire Facebook account) removed.

And posts which are perceived as offensive by the Jewish, Muslim, and LGBT communities will be removed.


Please continue to notify Facebook when you see instances of unfair discrimination, threats, and derogatory posts concerning your faith on Facebook.

*     *     *     *

Facebook’s vice president of global public policy, Marne Levine, has tried to explain the company’s confusing content policy on a page devoted to Facebook Safety.  The policy seems weighted toward gender issues:  deleting images and content that “threaten or incite gender-based violence or hate”.  Facebook has listened to complaints from the Jewish, Muslim and LGBT communities (although not to the Christians), and has established protective policies which ban offensive content regarding these groups.

In the letter, Levine explains:

Recently there has been some attention given to Facebook’s content policy. The current concern, voiced by Women, Action and The Media, The Everyday Sexism Project, and the coalition they represent, has focused on content that targets women with images and content that threatens or incites gender-based violence or hate. 

Many different groups which have historically faced discrimination in society, including representatives from the Jewish, Muslim, and LGBT communities, have reached out to us in the past to help us understand the threatening nature of content, and we are grateful for the thoughtful and constructive feedback we have received. In light of this recent attention, we want to take this opportunity to explain our philosophy and policies regarding controversial or harmful content, including hate speech, and to explain some of the steps we are taking to reduce the proliferation of content that could create an unsafe environment for users.

Facebook’s mission has always been to make the world more open and connected. We seek to provide a platform where people can share and surface content, messages and ideas freely, while still respecting the rights of others. When people can engage in meaningful conversations and exchanges with their friends, family and communities online, amazingly positive things can happen.

To facilitate this goal, we also work hard to make our platform a safe and respectful place for sharing and connection.  This requires us to make difficult decisions and balance concerns about free expression and community respect.  We prohibit content deemed to be directly harmful, but allow content that is offensive or controversial. We define harmful content as anything organizing real world violence, theft, or property destruction, or that directly inflicts emotional distress on a specific private individual (e.g. bullying).  A list of prohibited categories of content can be found in our Community Standards at

In addition, our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ( prohibits “hate speech.” While there is no universally accepted definition of hate speech, as a platform we define the term to mean direct and serious attacks on any protected category of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease. We work hard to remove hate speech quickly, however there are instances of offensive content, including distasteful humor, that are not hate speech according to our definition. In these cases, we work to apply fair, thoughtful, and scalable policies. This approach allows us to continue defending the principles of freedom of self-expression on which Facebook is founded. We’ve also found that posting  insensitive or cruel content often results in many more people denouncing it than supporting it on Facebook. That being said, we realize that our defense of freedom of expression should never be interpreted as license to bully, harass, abuse or threaten violence. We are committed to working to ensure that this does not happen within the Facebook community. We believe that the steps outlined below will help us achieve this goal.

We’ve built industry leading technical and human systems to encourage people using Facebook to report violations of our terms and developed sophisticated tools to help our teams evaluate the reports we receive and make or escalate the difficult decisions about whether reported content is controversial, harmful or constitutes hate speech. As a result, we believe we are able to remove the vast majority of content that violates our standards, even as we scale those systems to cover our more than 1 billion users, and even as we seek to protect users from those who seek to circumvent our guidelines by reposting content that has been taken down time and time again. 

In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate. In some cases, content is not being removed as quickly as we want.  In other cases, content that should be removed has not been or has been evaluated using outdated criteria. We have been working over the past several months to improve our systems to respond to reports of violations, but the guidelines used by these systems have failed to capture all the content that violates our standards. We need to do better – and we will.

As part of doing better, we will be taking the following steps, that we will begin rolling out immediately:

  • We will complete our review and update the guidelines that our User Operations team uses to evaluate reports of violations of our Community Standards around hate speech.  To ensure that these guidelines reflect best practices, we will solicit feedback from legal experts and others, including representatives of the women’s coalition and other groups that have historically faced discrimination.
  • We will update the training for the teams that review and evaluate reports of hateful speech or harmful content on Facebook. To ensure that our training is robust, we will work with legal experts and others, including members of the women’s coalition to identify resources or highlight areas of particular concern for inclusion in the training. 
  • We will increase the accountability of the creators of content that does not qualify as actionable hate speech but is cruel or insensitive by insisting that the authors stand behind the content they create.  A few months ago we began testing a new requirement that the creator of any content containing cruel and insensitive humor include his or her authentic identity for the content to remain on Facebook.  As a result, if an individual decides to publicly share cruel and insensitive content, users can hold the author accountable and directly object to the content. We will continue to develop this policy based on the results so far, which indicate that it is helping create a better environment for Facebook users.
  • We will establish more formal and direct lines of communications with representatives of groups working in this area, including women’s groups, to assure expedited treatment of content they believe violate our standards. We have invited representatives of the women Everyday Sexism to join the less formal communication channels Facebook has previously established with other groups.
  • We will encourage the Anti-Defamation League’s Anti-Cyberhate working group and other international working groups that we currently work with on these issues to include representatives of the women’s coalition to identify how to balance considerations of free expression, to undertake research on the effect of online hate speech on the online experiences of members of groups that have historically faced discrimination in society, and to evaluate progress on our collective objectives.
"I'll follow you over Kathy. I was probably in more sympathy with your point of ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"If you're at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Thank you, Mrs. Harris! Christmas blessings to you. I hope to see you over at ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • jenny

    I sent a message to Facebook to remove that page ….. I will do it again.

  • Pecos2

    Another reason why I Don’t Facebook.

    Facebook is the enemy and I will not add to their wealth.

    Facebook is not a free service. You are seeing and blogging about the price you pay. Stop paying.

  • We don’t have the right to not be offended. It seems to me that this is a consequence of living in a society that protects free speech.

  • moseynon

    The Facebook pages are certainly offensive. But are they actually hate speech? Do they encourage or lead to violence to Christians? In the US, we don’t have a legal category for hate speech, and we offer very broad protections to speech that some find offensive.

    In contrast, other Western countries define hate speech broadly, and curtail the freedom to express negative opinions. I think many of us are familiar with instances when Christians in Canada and the UK were, at least temporarily, restricted from publicly voicing their faith regarding homosexuality. Is this a standard we want to encourage?

    Facebook is not exclusively American, nor is it bound by an obligation to allow free speech. The company seems to be trying to strike a balance between freedom of expression and not providing a platform for content which many users find offensive. Finding that balance is difficult. Personally, I think if some content promotes violent behavior towards others, it has crossed the line into hate speech and should be removed. I think a case could be made that rape jokes enable violence, and thus they should be censored. But I also recognize that many persons would dispute my claim, and proving the claim might be tough.

  • Guest

    “The current concern, voiced by Women, Action and The Media, The Everyday Sexism Project, and the coalition they represent, has focused on content that targets women with images and content that threatens or incites gender-based violence or hate. ”

    Seriously? I reported a bondage page and they took no action. A page like this encourages violence and twisted thinking in the boys and men who see it.
    Has Ms Marne seen this horrible page? I Love Bondage.

  • Pamela Webster Ward

    Having witnessed the power of long-term persistent prayer, I take a deep breath and pray for the people who are involved in these things. Praying as individuals, that is a good thing. But when we join our efforts together and pray for the same things, the Holy Spirit can move hearts that seem immovable. Hate for Christianity is not new. Our response should be to ask for mercy, grace and blessings for the haters. They are not the enemy. Satan is the enemy.

    • gabhpr

      Prayer does nothing
      Keep on praying when you get sick instead of believing in science and medicine.
      Enjoy a early death

  • Digital Hairshirt
  • Palamas

    Kathy, thank you for this. Facebook claims:

    “Many different groups which have historically faced discrimination in society, including representatives from the Jewish, Muslim, and LGBT communities, have reached out to us in the past to help us understand the threatening nature of content, and we are grateful for the thoughtful and constructive feedback we have received.”

    If that’s the case, what is this doing on Facebook:

    This is a Holocaust denial/anti-Semitism site regarding which I have been trying to get Facebook to enforce their hate speech prohibition. I have received the same response as you. I have written about this here:

    I also have a page to protest the presence of anti-Semitic pages on Facebook:

    I join with you in the effort to get Facebook to enforce their own standards, and to do so in accordance with those standards, instead of using an ideological filter to decide what the “hatiest” are.

    David Fischler

  • John E

    Facebook is not showing much sensitivity to Jews either, as they refuse to take down a pro-Nazi, Holocaust denying, Jew-hating page called “The Real History.”

  • Patty Beggs

    thank you for keeping us informed. I am amazed at such hatred to Christians and this is from the same people who claim they love and accept everyone….the world is full of hypocrites.

  • Is it your opinion that there are no anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, or anti-gay pages on Facebook? Several comments have made this point, but I’m curious as to whether you actually believe Christians are being singled out for “hate” (what some might call ridicule) more than the other groups you name.

  • Well I was going to argue for the free speech angle since the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t apply. But when I got down to see that FaceBook won’t allow photos of breast feeding babies, then they are guilty of the worst kind of hypocrisy.But they are billionaires and don’t care what the customers say anyway. A campaign directly aiming at the advertisers is the only hope of fixing this institutional problem.

  • ken Ball

    Its difficult I am on some heavy facebook pages, one was taken down by trolls today. Must admit to rather be involved in intellectual debate than heve it hidden. Guess some of us are used to stronger debate if it be religious or political. Its much better to have debate than hidded cells

    • oeb25

      What in Hades is a “hidded cell?” Typo? Did you mean HIDDEN cell?

  • Sophia Sadek

    Oh, for the days when people like these were burned at the stake for such blasphemy!

    Oops! I hope I did not offend anyone by such satire.

  • John S Rubenkoenig

    There are plenty of Christian pages that wish death to non believers and compare homosexuality to pedophilia, yet somehow and not surprisingly it’s the Christians that claim to be persecuted.

    • kathyschiffer

      John, I’m going to have to take issue with this claim. There is, of course, the pseudo-Christian group the Westboro Baptist Church. Other Christians have spoken out strongly against them. I challenge you to find a single Christian group that “wishes death to nonbelievers.”

      • Nizzemancer

        There are plenty, just because they’re not american doesn’t make them non-existant.

      • Try “Freedom From Atheism Foundation” for one. They immediately ban all atheists, even if they are being civil. They then openly flame atheists after going to their personal profile pages and finding pictures of them and their families. They spread lies about atheism. And, after being reported many times, the same response is given by Facebook.

        It’s a two-way street. Christians don’t have the market cornered on persecution.

    • BobBobson

      John S Rubenkoenig – You don’t understand in what way homosexuality is being compared to pedophilia? First of all, they’re both perverted. Both children and same sex are examples of something that means perversion if you look at it in a sexual way. Secondly, in the same way that men can choose to look at a child in a sexual way, so too can men choose to look at the same sex in a sexual way. And lastly, if someone says that homosexuality isn’t wrong because of the fact that homosexuals look at the same sex in a sexual way, (that’s what being a homosexual is), somehow means that they aren’t choosing that and are in fact just born that way, and therefore to call homosexuality wrong would be like committing racism, than that person would have to be fair and obviously apply that “reasoning” to pedophiles as well. It’s a very simple and easy to understand comparison, and it’s based on logic, rational thought, commonsense, and honesty. And yes, the logic of that comparison is quite literally “scientific”. Yet Christians can’t even state those commonsense truths without being persecuted in many different ways. Loosing their jobs, fines, jail time, harassment, and threats of violence are all just some of the ways that Christians are persecuted because of their commonsense, honesty, and morality. Christians all over the world are even murdered because they speak against wrong, and yes that is obviously “persecution”. And even if you don’t agree with me, you must at least see how facebook is not being fair to Christians based on the facts stated in the above article. Did you even read it?

  • Sojourning Whyman

    I hope you have thick skin, Mr Zuckerberg,because there is a sizable campaign out to defame you – on your very own social media website.

    Given that you have a high profile, it is expected to come with the territory that you’ll be on the receiving end of a number of unjustifiable attacks.And for that reason (amongst many others) some reading will completely (and deliberately) miss the points that I am making by writing this. But being a high profile character is no excuse whatsoever to be misrepresented and attacked in such a manner as I and many thousands of others have observed.

    However, of course,I am not talking about pages which occasionally grumble about unwanted or misunderstood changes to Facebook. I am not even speaking of those who convey their strongly held disagreements with you and your policies via satirical means. People are still by and large entitled to exercise their freedom of speech whether it be factual or not.

    What I am referring to is an open, unwarranted and deliberately cruel and inhumane attack on you, your character and everything you believe and stand for on a personal level and they are flaunting it on your site in the belief that you will do nothing about it in spite of your stand against such behavior.

    There is a semi-organised yet exponentially growing and influential network of people who not only disagree with you- they hate and utterly loathe you and will not hold back from proselytizing that sentiment. In fact, that is the stated purpose of many of these pages in their ‘about’ section or even as the title of their pages themselves! From the pedestrian ‘I hate Mark Zuckerburg’ to the more colourful ‘Mark Zuckerburg, son of a slut should be raped and die’ these pages only exist to bring misery to you and those who care about you. I am confident that you would agree that such pages are not covered under ‘freedom of speech’ and as such have no place here.

    Read the rest here:

  • Nizzemancer

    No, realistic, And I find it ironic that you think NOT having an invisible friend is childish…

    • kathyschiffer

      Nizzemancer: So you are not a believer. I’m still going to require respect here on my blog. Christians are not “childish”. Comments will be closed if the name-calling doesn’t stop.

      • Nizzemancer

        Aren’t they? When was the last time you had an invisible friend tell you what to do?

      • Scientific studies have been done. There has consistently been found no significant effect from prayer, in fact, in some cases prayer had worse results.

        • Ed The Oregonite

          Hi’s your Christian friend from Oregon…hope all is well with you, I’m finishing a book you might find interesting: The Righteous Mind – Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt. The author is an an atheist (as far as I can tell), but he has some fascinating findings about human nature and religion. In his research, he finds that the reason for religious practice often does NOT revolve around ‘God’, but from other intangible benefits that participants receive from being a part of the group. He also shows, through several studies, how religions provide stability for culture. When religion is absent, the mind of man often looks to fill a vacuum, which is most easily filled by an inspirational dictator who implements his own morality on the governed. Anyway, you might check it out.

          • Hi Ed,
            I certainly do recognize that religion can be a force for good. I understand it’s cultural significance as a force by which to draw people together to form a community. However, I personally feel that people can do the same without having to believe in anything supernatural. There’s simply no reason to continue believing in unfounded things as an excuse to do philanthropic work or to be neighborly.

            As I view evil as a human problem, not a religious problem, I do recognize that some people will do evil in the absence of religion. However, many evil people also use religion as a force for evil. We know that morality and religion are not an exclusive combination. While many people may feel hopeless or purposeless without religion, many people realize that there is plenty of reason to live and do good without religion.

            Personally, if people want to be religious, I’m fine with that. I just don’t want them forcing their beliefs onto others, especially via the government. If someone is professing religious beliefs in an open forum, they are open for criticism, as any idea should be. It would be one thing if we had evidence that prayer worked or if it were simply a toss-up, but actual studies have shown it to be ineffective, at best.


          • Ed The Oregonite

            Thanks. I understand your point…we can all act good and behave altruistically. However, the author’s research and other studies he refers to show that people in cultures where religion is important tend to act in more productive ways, resulting in greater overall happiness with their lives and surroundings. In cultures where faith is discouraged or disallowed, there tends to be less satisfaction and less trust of others.

            Do you think that a completely atheistic culture/society would be better than what we have now? In such a society, who would define morality?

            Thanks again,


          • I think that religion has an inherent advantage when it comes to philanthropy because it is ingrained in our culture and the church/temple/mosque has been a meeting place for the community for centuries. Also, religion can inspire people to be selfless and charitable.

            However, this doesn’t give religious claims any veracity. Sure, believing that something is true because it comforts you or gives the appearance of purpose might inspire goodwill, but it doesn’t really speak to reality. Just as religion isn’t for everyone, a worldview that seemingly has no ultimate purpose or objective sense or morality is not for everyone.

            I think there are few moral absolutes. I think empathy can be the basis for morality. I feel that anything which causes harm to another against their will is immoral. Beyond that, it’s up to society to decide where to draw additional boundaries.

            Some modern examples of secular countries include Japan and Sweden. They enjoy lower crime rates, better standards of living, and better treatment of the poor in comparison to more religious countries.

          • Ed The Oregonite

            Thanks again. From as much as I know about you, I don’t doubt that your morality is a product of western values. However, many atheists could claim a different morality, since atheism by definition has no absolute moral authority. How can there be moral absolutes when there is no moral reference point? In an atheist society, all morality is relative and is determined either by the people or the leadership.

            So, if the people or leadership decide homosexuals should be imprisoned, castrated or killed…that is moral, at least in that religion-free culture. Pol Pot’s morality said intellectuals should die. Stalin and Hitler both had their own ‘morality’. How can an atheist say they were ‘bad’? Isn’t that just like one atheist trying to impose his morality on another person or people group? Likewise, if society dictates morality, what is wrong (from an atheist point of view) if some cultures practice human sacrifice or kill people who don’t live according to societal standards?

            Obviously, religions are useful because they provide a structure that becomes the standard of right and wrong. With atheism, there is no standard. Of course, what always happens is that people will want a ‘source document’ to provide standards. Perhaps that would be The Humanist Manifesto. Or the Swedish constitution. But in any instance, it would be man’s will imposed on other men. Which of course is social Darwinism, and has all the trappings of a man-made religion.

            I understand that your unbelief in God is a comfortable place for you and many others. You don’t see the evidence that you would require to have faith.

            Our culture, founded on Christian principals, allows you freedom of belief OR non-belief. But there are innumerable examples throughout history where Godlessness has resulted in great misery and horrific behaviors. Some tyrants and very evil men have claimed to be Christians, but their actions prove otherwise.

            Of course, as a Christian, I can consult my Bible and show where they did evil according to the established standards for Christian behavior.

            If I were an atheist, there are no moral absolutes except for the one’s I adhere to myself…but I certainly could not claim authority over others based on my personal standards. To do so would be to subject others to my morality.

            My wife lived in Japan for awhile, and we’ve spent time in Sweden…both are nice places to visit, but I don’t see humanists or atheists flocking to either one. Both countries are very homogeneous and restrict immigration to avoid outside influences. Both cultures have their own ‘moral’ standards that are in some ways less ‘free’ than ours. Interestingly, both countries have very low fertility rates which bodes poorly for the future survival as cultures.

          • Ed, I do take issue with several of your assertions.

            1. If the Bible is the source document for morality, I have a big problem with that. There is a lot in the Bible that any rational person would consider immoral, including things commanded by or condoned by Yahweh. Things like rape, slavery, and genocide. A few examples are:
            – Numbers 31:17-18
            – Deuteronomy 23:1 and 22:28-29
            – 2 Kings 2:23-24

            And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If God is your moral authority, I’m sorry, but at no point in time are any of those things acceptable. Additionally, if you believe in hell, an infinite punishment for a finite crime is not morally just, either.

            2. The United states is not founded upon “Christian principles”. There is literally no facet of our government that is uniquely and originally traceable back to the Bible. I agree that most of Jesus’ teachings do set good moral standards, however, one need not believe in Jesus to accept such lessons. The founding fathers incorporated the works of many famous philosophers and law-givers, both Christian and non-Christian, when designing our government. This includes figures like Moses, Socrates, Mohammed, and others.

            3. I find it odd that you posit that atheism will lead to things such as Social Darwinism, persecution of homosexuals, and other atrocities. In my experience, it is most often conservative Christian fundamentalists who espouse the “survival of the fittest” doctrine with regard to society. Additionally, the overwhelming majority against homosexuals are religious, specifically Christian in the US. Without religion, this wouldn’t even be an issue, aside from a small fraction of homophobes who find such behavior to be “gross”.

            4. I also find your comment on fertility rates to be curious. It’s no secret that many religions highly encourage procreation, and discourage any attempt at inhibiting it. The reason is simple, this is how they can ensure the survival of their belief system. Humanists are more likely to restrict the number of children they have, be it out of concern for the environment, better interaction with fewer children, wanting to accomplish other things in this one life, etc.

            Again, just to summarize, I do feel that evil is a human problem, not a religious one, and I believe that both faith and lack of faith can be utilized for good or evil purposes. There isn’t really a clear-cut winner. I’ve no desire to force my beliefs onto anyone else, but I will critique any idea that I feel may be flawed. If I am unable to convince someone, then so be it. Like I said, religion isn’t for everyone, and neither is non-belief. One thing that we should be able to walk away agreeing on is the fact that those who don’t ascribe to religion are perfectly capable of being moral and decent people.

          • Ed The Oregonite

            Agreed…there are some atheists that live to a higher level of Biblical morality than some Christians.

            I think the writings of the founders of our nation show a profound knowledge and acceptance of biblical teachings. References would be found in the Declaration of Independence (‘men are created and endowed by their Creator’). I would also invite you to read the works of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, George Washington and many others. Obviously they did not want to create a Theocracy, and had disagreements, and some were Diests (not Christians)…but it would be a tremendous stretch to think that the religious beliefs of early American leaders had little or no effect on the government they established.

            I think your first point is the most relevant. People reject the God and the Bible because it doesn’t fit their own personal morality. I agree that God told the Israelites to do some surprising things that are hard to accept by today’s cultural standards. With the coming of Jesus, things changed for those who chose to follow God. I don’t see Christians today looking for people to stone, or advocating for death of disobedient children. Why not? Because Jesus taught otherwise, and true Christians seek to follow the teaching of Christ, as well as the New Testament.

            In the end, faith usually comes down to accepting God’s view of things, or clinging to our own, limited understanding. I realize that some things in the Bible don’t make sense to us, and even offend us. At those points, Christians need to ask themselves, ‘does God know more than I do?’

            If you have raised children, you know that kids can be very self-assured that they are know what is good for them. But parents know better, and using their more extensive knowledge and experience, direct their children in helpful ways…protecting them from bad consequences and encouraging them to develop traits that will produce benefits in the future. Only a foolish parent grants every wish of his child…because he knows that some requests would lead to pain and suffering if granted.

            I might think my way is the right one, but what if I am just childish in nature…not seeing the consequences.

            As I look at other Christians who are living according to Biblical principals, I see people who are warm, gracious, loving, giving, patient, tolerate and self-controlled. When asked, they usually say something like, ‘it’s not my nature, but God has shown me the way to behave’.

            My friend, suppose we are both wrong…suppose there is an unknown God…completely unrelated to Jesus. I would still maintain that following Christ is a good thing, and superior to following the my own personal notions and the impulses of my brain…which tend to be selfish and not lead to a better overall existence for me or my culture.

            Anyway…enough for today. As always, I appreciate the conversation.

          • Belinda Duras

            child Christianity is NOT a religion it’s a personal intimate relationship with our Father “Abba” God. no wonder people turn off to the cold clinical no live still working miracles god of the demonational churches of today

          • Child? Are you calling a 32-year old molecular biologist a child? Or is “child Christianity” some new-age thing?

            Yes, belief in the claims that Jesus was the divine incarnation of Yahweh is absolutely a religious belief. I don’t know where you people are getting this nonsense that it is anything but that. My best guess is that you’re trying to distance yourselves from the dogma that accompanies church-led doctrine. Yes, a supposed “personal relationship” with an incarnate deity very much falls under the umbrella of “religious belief”. It also falls under the umbrella of psychosis.

            Please cite some examples of these alleged “miracles” which are occurring every day, including your proof that the impetus behind them is “Abba God”.

        • Belinda Duras

          this lame studies obviously done by atheists of course in denial of all the miracles and healings going on 24/7 around the globe daily

          • No, in fact, robust studies done according to the scientific method, the same method that does things like make accurate predictions and develops technology like the internet and computer you’re using to make your comment.

            Many scientific achievements throughout history have come from theists and atheists alike. Bad science is bad science regardless of who does it. If the studies I’m referring to were not properly done, then I wouldn’t be citing them. I actually don’t know the beliefs of the people who conducted the study, they may have been collaborative between theists and atheists.

            However, that probably matters little to you. You dismiss any evidence that contradicts your beliefs in Iron Age mythology as “atheist propaganda” while holding up unsourced, unreliable ancient manuscripts as pillars of truth.

            There are no miracles or magical healings occurring. Science is healing through the development of technologies to diagnose and treat diseases. If you want to rely on your god for a miracle, have fun waiting.

  • Belinda Duras

    as a Christian moral woman I don’t think ANY part of a woman should be exposed to the public even if just baby feeding. you do have stupid men who get off on just that and it shows a lack of Godly character in the woman herself who lets herself be ogled like that by millions

  • Jeasica

    Respectfully, there are tons of pages that are blatantly anti Semitic that Facebook refuses to take down. We are in the same boat. Considering cancelling my account. It makes me feel sick.

  • Shrek

    I’ve liked that page. I love it. It speaks the truth.

  • TJ Bradders