It's Okay to Kill Babies — If You're God

I thought this answer was quite appropriate, since God kills innocent children a number of times throughout the Bible:

firstborn-sons-of-egyptians

If you’re a human and kill babies, you’re a monster. But if you’re a kind, loving, just god, then sometimes it is just the right thing to do.

Perhaps pro-life protestors should start protesting their god, since he’s the one who:

  1. Kills 1/4 of all potential humans through natural miscarriages
  2. Doesn’t stop or persuade women from having abortions
  3. Lets thousands of children die each day of starvation,
  4. Lets millions of children be physically abused by their family, and
  5. Slaughtered innocent children numerous times in the Bible.

If a god exists, he/she/it is responsible for the death of more innocent children than all the most evil human beings combined. Why would this god be deserving of our worship and praise?

(via)

  • zach

    It’s useless, there’s always some type of excuse from religious people.

    • ?

      Indeed, it’s like aguing to a tape recorder. Theyr’e so brainwashed by their shepherds that they can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction.

  • reckoner71

    But Daniel,

    That was the OT god; when he came back, as himself, in the NT, he was feeling much better.

    “You called your book New, and said our book was Old. We’ve got a better book, with a better character, YOU’RE GONNA LOVE HIM!” – Lewis Black

  • trj

    I predict we’ll hear variations of the following excuses:

    1) We humans somehow brought it on ourselves
    2) God is unknowable and who are we to judge him?
    3) Heaven makes up for all the bad things happening to innocents.

    Have I forgotten any?

    • Cootabux

      These aren’t a lot different, maybe just a variation, but it’s just the way people say these things that gets to me.
      In the 70s, I watched my 2 friends 7 yr old daughter die of Bone Cancer. It was a fast acting Cancer but not fast enough.
      She was in the DC children’s hospital. We were there everday praying for her to be healed (I was a born again Xian back then…..but not anymore! ;-).
      She got rapidly worse. I had seen men die different kinds of deaths but this was hard to handle for me. Also, this event convinced me god didn’t answer prayer.
      We had the whole congregation praying for her. As she got really bad, I prayed so hard for god to at least take her quickly & with as little pain as possible. I figured that he must have had a reason to let her die, but I couldn’t, and still can’t, think of any reason to let her suffer! Well, god must have been playing golf that day or something bcuz he sure didn’t answer that prayer either.
      When that beautiful little girl finally got “peace,” I was very angry, but not at god. I knew he didn’t exist at that point. I was angry for allowing myself to accept so much nonsense without giving it any critical thought. It also angered me bcuz of all the others who had gotten duped, and the people who would be duped in the future.
      Anyway, at the viewing, I heard so many people giving “their” reasons for her death:
      “I know its hard for you to understand but god has reasons for everything he does.”
      I thought, what possible reason could any kind of a loving god have for allowing a beautiful llttle baby to be ravaged by such a horrible disease, suffer immensely, then to snatch her away from life at such a young age?
      Another couple said, “God ended her suffering and took her home with him.”
      He took his god damned time about it, and why didn’t he answer all those Xian’s intercessory prayers for her?

      Recently, I’ve had Xians on YTube give other excuses that were variations of the same but after all these years, I think about it from time to time and think that reincarnation could be the only “religious” answer for such a thing, but that is only a fleeting thought bcuz there’s also no evidence for that either.
      The bottom line for me is…shit happens! No “one” or no “thing” is pulling the strings. Life is just the way it seems. That’s even more of a reason to value it and live the best lives we can. It’s all we have.

  • http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com Michael Caton

    There is right now a full court press in right wing talk radio about the stem cell issue. Basically it comes down to a) embryos are full humans, and b) they don’t help research anyway. I would assume the same message has been “cascaded” to evangelical church leaders as well (as we say in corporate America).

    b) above is my favorite, because why are scientists insisting on using stem cells then? Because they just can’t wait to kill babies? And why do companies insist on using them (putting the Bible against corporate profits is a fun rhetorical trick).

    And for a) – what is the proposed penalties for stem cell researchers? Why don’t we hear calls for their imprisonment for murder? Certainly if Obama told me I could kill people and then I went and did it, I would be more directly culpable than him. Good questions not to let them get past.

    http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com/2009/03/stem-cell-research-answers-for-tired.html

    • Cootabux

      You come on here and pretend to be an Atheist and make such a vile, disgusting remark!!
      That’s very Christian of you! No, I mean it. I know many Christians who lie and deceive every day. They’ll do anything to push their religious bullshit agenda.
      You accuse us of not having morals! That’s hilarious! I see more immoral behanior from Christians than any other group of people.
      A “real” Christian, you are not!!

  • KILL [a lying theist bastard impersonating an atheist]

    What’s wrong with killing babies? I see no problem with it. I have enough mouths to feed. I don’t get the argument and I am an atheist. Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in anything characterized as good, bad / right, wrong. So, what’s the big deal?

    [Admin note: I have confirmed this person is a theist poorly pretending to be an atheist. Good news, though. If he's right about an afterlife, he's going to hell for repeated deception. :) ]

  • DarkMatter

    I think we cannot lump judaism with christianity together to be fair.

    For those who are unfamiliar with judaism, you can listen to Rabbi Tovia Singer‘s mp3s and no, I don’t believe in judaism and I am not a Jew or an Isrealite.

    Rabbi Tovia Singer‘s mp3s:
    http://www.outreachjudaism.org/biblical.html

  • heroix

    I have an idea how christians can excuse! That baby killer is Allah! Anyone have questions?

  • http://www.fallenandflawed.com/ Demian Farnworth

    Okay, let’s say God doesn’t exist. If he doesn’t exist, nothing to praise or worship. Got it. Also, that means no. 5 is a fiction.

    Then, no. 1 is tough–if not impossible–to prevent. So you’re good there.

    That means you’re left with babies dying by abortion, starvation and abuse.

    I imagine someone might respond that abortion and starvation are natural ways to prevent overpopulation. [Great argument, as long as it's not YOU who is starving, right?]

    Is there a current argument for NOT preventing child abuse? And do you really care about babies dying from abortion, starvation and abuse? Or do you just want to exploit their pain for your own purposes? Just curious.

  • http://blog.dc-agape.com dc-agape

    Demian,
    Let’s get back to the subject.

    If god does exist he does:

    1. Kills 1/4 of all potential humans through natural miscarriages
    2. Doesn’t stop or persuade women from having abortions
    3. Lets thousands of children die each day of starvation,
    4. Lets millions of children be physically abused by their family, and
    5. Slaughtered innocent children numerous times in the Bible.

    Abortion is a woman’s choice…a tough choice but a required choice. Think about rape victims, teen pregnancy (due to poor sex ed) and births that risk the life of the mother.

    Starvation…instead of teaching proper sex ed, most of the children who are starving are born to parents who are taught by christians that birth control is evil.

    Physical abuse…again most of these cases are due to parents who were taught that birth control is evil. Or worse, that having children is acceptable to parents that are “straight” but have drug habits or are alcoholics. Hence, they have too many children for their financial situation and the children are the ones who are hurt by the condition.

    Starvation and abuse…Innocent children placed in horrible conditions by a loving god.

    Or, if god does not exist. Starvation and abuse…Innocent children placed in horrible conditions by the loving teaching of Christianity.

    Either case is pretty sickening. Population control is required. If sex ed is not allowed (and done properly), then abortion, starvation, and abuse are the outcome.

    • Dave

      Good Lord, at least make a token attempt to stick to facts. Most starving children are not Christians. Likewise, Christians are not responsible for creating starving babies because some branches don’t believe in birth control. Christians are a small portion of the world population. Many children are starving in China and Africa, and very few of them are Christians (or have Christian parents).

      Despite your twisted hopes, the world is a far better place because of Christianity. Christians are far more charitable than atheists (on the average) in both donating time and money.

      I do indeed struggle with why so many horrible things happen in this world. Part of my belief is that there must be free will. Why send people to Hell if they were destined for Hell before they were born? But that doesn’t explain cancer, earthquakes, and Austin Powers. So I’ll have to close with “Peace be with you” rather than being able to provide all the answers. :P

      • Michael R

        Dave,
        “Most starving children are not christians.”
        Even children who aren’t xians suffer due to xian dogma. Take, for instance, the vatican’s involvement with the millions of starving and aids-stricken in Africa. They go in a teach ignorant tribal people that birth control is against god’s will, instead of helping them by using methods that actually have been statistically proven to be more effective, like…..birth control and basic sex education. This results in more unwanted pregnancies and the continued rapid spread of aids. They have the facts available to them. They’re well aware that preaching abstinence doesn’t work well, but they do it anyway. It’s almost like they WANT to kill more Africans and condemn more children to abject poverty and death.
        “Christians are a small portion of the world population.”
        There are roughly 6.7 Billion people on the planet. Christians comprise over 2 Billion of those, making Christianity the largest religious group on Earth. I know your pastor/preacher/minister has been screaming from the pulpit that we’re in a moral decline and that there are only a few of you left, but please do try to arm yourself with some facts occasionally. It wouldn’t kill you (though if you’re right you may burn in hell for learning something).

        “Despite your twisted hopes, the world is a far better place because of Christianity. Christians are far more charitable than atheists (on the average) in both donating time and money”
        Oh really? Historically, christianity has been a powerful driving force behind things like murder, torture, deception, fanaticism, slavery, bigotry, hate, war and genocide. Sure, some christians actually do good things, but there are just as many, if not more, who use the bible as a justification for the most abhorrent acts imaginable. It’s almost as if you could interpret it any way you wanted to.
        And where might I find some statistics or evidence that proves christians donate more time and money “on average” than do non-christians? Can you support that claim, because it sounds like you made it up.

      • Siberia

        Despite your twisted hopes, the world is a far better place because of Christianity. Christians are far more charitable than atheists (on the average) in both donating time and money.

        That may be because there is a pathetically small number of atheists, compared to the number of christians – and, considering you don’t exactly knows what goes on the heart of people, how many of those christians are real, practicing theists and how many are just nominally so?

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    Daniel “he/she/it” god would not have a gender. just say ‘the omnipotent being’ or you could use ’3 distinct persons inside one omnipotent entity’ or even ‘a ball of pure energy’ or my favorite:

    ‘a vast, amoral, impersonal power, which nevertheless is Love.’

  • reckoner71

    Yesterday, someone cited the Ben Stein movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, as a beacon of truth, so I thought I’d counter by watching Dogma.

    Apparently, God is Alanis Morissette, and cannot do a handstand.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Okay, I figured out what’s going on with “KILL/novice/makeup/c3PO.”. We assumed he was a theist in disguise. Guess what? We were right.

    Ends up this moron started out as “grass/TOM/aatheist/apl/Kyle” and some others. Here are a few of his first comments as a fundie Christian:

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/#comment-23583

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/#comment-23665

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/#comment-23674

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/#comment-23676

    etc

    After realizing he wasn’t getting anywhere with his arguments, he tried to impersonate atheists under different names. He didn’t do a very good job.

    So to the commenter I say: Way to lie for Jesus! I’m sure you make your imaginary boyfriend proud.

    You are now banned.

  • Pingback: Chaz’s Lifestream » Blog Archive » Daily Digest for 2009-03-17

  • latsot

    Oh come on Daniel, are you even *trying*? :)

    > 1. Kills 1/4 of all potential humans through natural
    > miscarriages

    Surely they are only potential children if god wants them to live. Otherwise every wasted opportunity to copulate would be a sin, every sperm and egg not resulting in a zygote would be murder. So obviously god has a plan and brings together the circumstances by which certain children survive, according to that plan. If a potential child is not in god’s plan, then obviously it is not a child, so god isn’t killing children here. Remember, god can see the future so he *knew* those children weren’t going to be born. If they weren’t going to be born anyway, how can he be accused of killing them, eh?

    > 2. Doesn’t stop or persuade women from having
    > abortions

    Ah but he does this through the anti-abortion people. It’s not god’s fault if women choose not to listen. After all, he gave us free will precisely so we could explain away apparent contradictions like this.

    > 3. Lets thousands of children die each day of starvation,

    But he preaches that everyone should be nice to each other (at least in the blockbuster best-selling sequel). This should be enough for everyone to come together and eliminate poverty. Again, it’s hardly *his* fault if people don’t do this, is it? What can an omnipotent being do if people refuse to listen to him?

    > 4. Lets millions of children be physically abused by their
    > family, and

    But you’ve got to put these things in context, Daniel. Their suffering is necessary because it makes them stronger and gives them even more reason to praise god. It develops their character. If we don’t know what suffering is, how can we work to eliminate suffering in others? Often by wiping them and their families from the face of the earth.

    > 5. Slaughtered innocent children numerous times in the
    > Bible.

    Yeah, but we’re talking about the original, which was widely panned by the critics. I refer you again to the blockbuster sequel, where god shows his gentle, meek and mild side. Of course, he also advocates all the rules he set down in the original, including those about brutalising your children at the drop of a hat, but he doesn’t go about smiting children as a hobby, so that’s an improvement, right?

    • Cootabux

      You’re funny! You kinda remind me of me when I was Xian. I used to make excuses for all the monstrous things god did in the OT.
      You commented on God’s killing of babies in the OT to say but he had a loving and gentle side too. Well, I’m sure Saddam Hussein & Hitler had their kind moments too, but they were still sadistic, evil monsters.
      God was only as good as his worst deed!

  • huanghou

    Is this post for real? Seriously?

    First of all, I don’t understand why non-believers care so much about something that does not exist for them. Perhaps, they are not that sure about this and are trying to convince themselves that there is nothing beyond what they can touch or see.

    In any case, spiritual things, not just religious faith but also love or altruism, will never be explained from a scientific point of view. Somehow, spiritual and sienctific visions of the world are complementary. In addition, to demonstrate the non-existance of god is as impossible as to demonstrate the existance. Thus, both atheism and christianism (i.e.) are based on faith.

    As far as the post is concern, if God is culpable of all the bad stuff that it has been said, it is also responsible for all the good stuff that it has not been said. So complain about the bad things, but acknowlege the good things (i.e. about the good time and the laughs with your friends in the bar accusing God of crimes against humanity…).

    Seriously, it appeals to me the lack of rigour of such this post. Obviously, the religion as is understood and interpret today is not the final version of human being’s belief. Centuries ago, we believed in several human-like gods, now we believe in one almighty God,…undoubtly, we are seeking for answers. Science and faith have taken separated ways through the history. However, there is no answer without any of the two. Religion needs science to narrow the approach of faith in the correct direction. Science need faiths to fully understand the un-measurable parts of the Universe. I suggest everyone to read the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins (Director of the Human Genome Project).

    • Cootabux

      I’ve been debating a Xian for over a month now and he’s always using that same ploy…”why do U talk like U believe in god? You’re a non-believer, aren’t you?” As if he thinks his point is clever. I had to explain it to him over and over that its not that “I” believe it, but that “he does,” so I use his perspective to show the absurdity of much of Christianity. It’s funny, he had problems understanding my point but no one else on the YT video thread did! Yeah I know, I felt that he really understood but was just being obtuse, which was not at all difficult for him.

      Again, it’s interesting how many Xians try to offset the cruel, evil acts of god by talking about the good he’s done. As I had just previously stated, god is only as good as his worst deed! If you were living in those days and just happened to be fiends with an enemy of god’s, you’d be up the creek! Yahweh would kill you, your wife & children, even your dog and goldfish. Nothing would survive! Xians say, “but jesus was god and he changed in the NT, became loving!” Well, I got news…Jesus was worse than daddy! Yahweh would just kill you and everything around you, but jesus will chase you into the next world and cast you into hell to suffer unspeakable agony, forever, and ever, and….
      Some love-bead wearing Hippie Jesus turned out to be!

      You talked about how, “we believed in multiple gods of the past but now we’re down to one almighty god.”
      The reason people believe in one god as you say, isn’t bcuz we are “progressing in our search” for god, but bcuz science has continually replaced superstition with “real” knowledge.For example, jesus taught that physical and mental disease was caused by evil spirits!! He gave instructions to cast out the demons thereby healing the victim! But wait a minute! If jesus was god, wouldn’t he know that diseases aren’t caused by evil spirits…..
      Today, we continue to eradicate ignorance and superstition until one day all of mankind will be free of religious bondage, and free of the fear of an egomaniacal, childishly insecure demon-god, who would torture his children in some subterranean furnace for all eternity!!
      In just reflecting over this, how can anyone in their right mind profess to believe in such a nightmare, much less pretend to love and respect it??

  • DarkMatter

    Are you talking about harmony between christianity and atheism apart from killing babies?

  • boomSLANG

    @ VidLord,

    Correction on previous reply—yes, the lack of knowledge makes me an “agnostic” by default, however, again, I can still not harbor a belief in “God”, thus, making me an agnostic atheist.

  • Dave Olbrich

    If you are going to use a Zach Weiner cartoon from SATURDAY MORNING BREAKFAST CEREAL, the least you can do is give him the appropriate credit.

    Dave – Zach’s friend

    I would also recommend everyone here check out SMBC-COMICS.COM … always good for a laugh or three.

  • Pingback: Blogger Outs Pastor for “Lying for Jesus” « Xenophilia (True Strange Stuff)

  • hallie kempt

    GOD; A BABY KILLER?

    The god of the old testament was different from the GOD of the new testament. He killed babies on many occasions. Was there a contradiction because he commanded us not to kill and he killed babies and animals along with the enemy when he commanded them to be killed.
    He killed innocent children during the flood.
    When he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
    During the Passover in Egypt.
    When he commanded the Israelites to go into the land of the Canaanites and killed everything living.
    He killed David’s infant son because David has sinned.
    Exe 1;, 4;23, 20;5 and many occasions but was against murder? I understand why he allow humankind to bring suffering upon themselves but to command it?

  • RobotzAreAwesome

    Yeah, sheeesh, come on Daniel, haven’t you ever heard of character development? God, in all his wisdom, just wanted to make “his-story” a bit more dramatic.

    What’s the big deal!?

  • Slurm

    it will undoubtedly all come back to #1 on your list i.e. original sin caused all of our problems.

    Original sin, otherwise known as “the great cop-out”

  • claidheamh mor

    Yep, it’ll be #1: we’re born evil – “in sin” the christians will call it – and then they’ll say god offers us mercy!

    Some will deny it and say ‘what’s with that born evil crap?’

    Yet EVERY belief they have will be nonsense without the premise that we’re born evil.

    If we’re not born evil, we don’t need:
    redeeming
    forgiving
    god’s mercy
    jesus
    to submit
    mercy
    to punish children
    hell to scare us
    to be saved from anything

    Have I forgotten any?

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    I am an atheist

    I don’t believe in God

    Doesn’t your holy book have rules against lying and against denying god? I think you’re going to get in trouble for this…

  • Ty

    You’ll go to hell for lyin’, same as fer stealin’ chickens.

  • GBM

    “Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in anything characterized as good, bad / right, wrong. So, what’s the big deal”
    This is a non-sequitur; gods are utterly unnecessary to underwrite a belief in objective morality.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Yeah, I’m guessing this a fundie in disguise.

  • claidheamh mor

    It’s just like “makeup’s” incoherent rant on The Tragic Trap of Christian Marriage blog. I think it’s the same idiotic rambling such that I can’t tell the sarcasm from the sincere.

    It sounds like a simpleton’s moronic, baseless, fact-free assumption that being atheist means being without ethics. In spite of *cough* some of the recent postings by atheists saying that they couldn’t treat people, animals, or other life cruelly, and by christians saying that if there were no god, they would steal, rape and kill.

  • RobotzAreAwesome

    Christianity would have done itself a favor by severing itself from Judaism completely, rather than force and jam a bunch of ambiguous “prophecies” into their text.

    Jesus and the God of the OT are perhaps the biggest contradiction in the Bible. They can’t be one in the same, it just doesn’t work. Only a fool, or someone unintentionally deluding themselves would state they can.

  • http://blog.elliottcallahan.com Elliott

    If god were so loving, and forgiving, wouldn’t he just absolve us of original sin?

    Oh no, of course not. Then he couldn’t twist our arms into believing in the bastard.

    However, if you believe this CRAZY and nasty tale about god knocking up some non-consenting virgin, so he can father himself, and then teach people for a while until he lets himself be tortured and murdered by people who believe he doesn’t exist, and while dying ask himself why he hath forsaken himself, and then fly up to heaven so he can sit at the right hand of himself… then yeah, god will conditionally forgive you. But you can still fuck it up.

  • Woogs

    Original sin?

    You mean the thing God created and tempted humans with, whom he should have known would be tempted as he created them, and punished us for eternity?

    How can anyone be stupid enough to put fiath in that?

  • DarkMatter

    This is one of my main concern.

    There is such a strong belief among christian community that God will destroy USA if she divide the biblical land of Isreal. No, I am not anti-zionist nor anti jew, neither do I avocate for the destruction of the jews or the UN mandated land for them.

    Christians should study the bible to find out what is the real deal concerning the jews in this present time and speak the truth according to what they believe the so called Word Of God is saying. It is not what they believe the church is telling them.

  • NonyNony

    I suggest you check out the book “Lost Christianities” by Bart Ehrman. He makes a convincing argument (to me anyway) that Christianity would never have succeeded if it hadn’t co-opted a lot of Judaism. Co-opting the “old” testament gave the religion a sense of “ancientness” that the Romans and other folks in the Roman sphere of influence respected. Without the “ancientness” of the Old Testament and the “obvious” prophecies there that early Christians could point to to show that their religion was the right one, Christianity wouldn’t have looked credible at all to the Romans – and something like the Mithra cults or the Isis cults (which did have links back to antiquity) would have been more likely to win out in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Empire.

    He even goes through some examples of Christian offshoots that tried to divorce themselves from Judaism entirely – like the Marcionites, who claimed that Jesus had nothing to do at all with any older god and he was a new and unique thing all to himself. And the Gnostics who insisted that there were two gods, with the god of the Old Testament being responsible for the material world and the god of Jesus being a spiritual god of true good and love (a way to answer those questions about why if god is so good there is so much suffering in the world). The whole book is very well done and quite informative.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    And do you really care about babies dying from abortion, starvation and abuse?

    Yes.

  • aproustian

    Can I point out that it isn’t “babies” which abortion destroys?

    I care very much about babies who are abused or starved. But no, I don’t care about the cells being aborted; I care about the woman’s life which would be affected by those cells when they eventually *become* a baby after being born.

  • Slurm

    As a father, I can’t stand the thought of a child dying from neglect.

  • http://blog.elliottcallahan.com Elliott

    I don’t like that your idea of humoring pro-choicers involves finding a justification to abort babies.

    You don’t have to think abortion is a good idea to want it to stay legal. It’s a terrible form of birth control, and I think everyone can agree on that. Nobody wants to have an abortion: it’s not something you aspire to, it’s something you’re reduced to.

    I agree that it should still be socially stigmatized, because it keeps people proactive — it keeps them using birth control. But you can’t just criminalize people without offering them any solution. It won’t do anyone any good.

  • DarkMatter

    I think only in recent times, there is a group, maybe some groups advocating judeo christianity, but I may be wrong, out of touch…

  • Ty

    Don’t confuse him with facts, he’s lyin’ jer Jayzuz!

  • Ty

    Yarp.

    I’d never shoot heroin, not for a million bucks.

    But I think clean needles should be freely available.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    ” I agree that it should still be socially stigmatized, because it keeps people proactive — it keeps them using birth control. ”

    mark: I agree with you, abortion should be illegal and rare. Social pressure should be put on women not to have abortion, serious social pressure should be put on the father of these babies to grow up and live up to thier responsiblity as fathers.

    Lastly if the antibortion forces are going to exist in a tizzy over abortion, then those hypocrits should also be fighting to make sure there is universal health care and very strong early childhood education oppurtunities for every american child.

  • John C

    Hmm…a militant black clenched fist for an avatar? I suppose you’re the quiet, peaceful, pacifist type there Zach?

    Wanna rumble? lol

    I wouldn’t if I were you cuz my daddy’s bigger than yours…hahahaha

  • vorjack

    There’s always Jews for Jesus, though they’re sometimes accused of being Christians trying to convert Jews.

    I know that there are some sects who consider the “real” Jesus to be a liberal Pharisee and add him to the list of Rabbis found in the Talmud. It’s not unlikely.

  • http://www.fallenandflawed.com/ Demian Farnworth

    Interesting. So you think it’s that 7 inch trip down the birth canal that turns those “cells” into a baby?

  • http://www.fallenandflawed.com/ Demian Farnworth

    Good answer. :-)

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    More likely, it’s when the brain begins to function that they turn into a baby.

    Just like it’s when the brain stops functioning that a human turns into a corpse.

  • Ty

    Just because you insist in there being a binary, on/off definition of when one becomes human doesn’t mean there actually is one.

    The 7 inch drop isn’t any less a nonsensical and arbitrary starting point than the sperm beating its way into the egg.

  • xian-x

    This is somewhat of a tangent, but now that the issue has been raised: Regardless of the significance that one attaches to the “7 inch trip down the birth canal,” the notion that the fetus becomes a distinct human being at the moment of conception is a recent innovation in Christian theology. Ancient and medieval Christians (at least those who wrote about human nature) commonly believed in “late ensoulment” or “delayed hominization.” Augustine and Aquinas, for instance, were opposed to abortion, but did not consider it homicide until the fetus was “ensouled”–which did not occur until later in a pregnancy.

  • RobotzAreAwesome

    Yup, that’s probably the best comment you can leave in hopes of refuting this post. The case is really that stacked against you.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    zach’s been here for awhile, and has shown absolutely no sign of being militant.

    But then, why actually bother to sit back and observe over time when you can just make a quick and dirty assumption to use in an ad hominem attack?

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    Thanks. Shame it was such a bad question.

  • DarkMatter

    It sounds a little bit like a “trap” post, maybe it is not.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    ” Either case is pretty sickening. Population control is required. If sex ed is not allowed (and done properly), then abortion, starvation, and abuse are the outcome. ”

    mark: This point right here is why I literally despise the christian right. Because they are so fucking ignorant. They complain about abortion inspite of the fact that some people should never be parents, some people shouldnt be parents until they are a little older, more expierenced and more mature.

    The christian right in my opinion are a bunch of ignorant, self righteous ass holes.

    Sorry for my choice of words folks but when grown adults advocate strongly about abortion and at the same time dont want to educate teens about sex ed, using condoms and birthcontrol if not married to prevent those abortions they are in a tizzy about it is more than I can stand.

    I have a solution if the religious right is going to teach and advocate abstinence only education then every person involved with that program should be required to tell exactly how they were able to wait until marraige to have sex.

    Anyone who cant give examples on how they were personally able to wait until they were marraide should not be allowed to publicly advocate for abstinence only because that would make them hypocrits.

  • http://www.fallenandflawed.com/ Demian Farnworth

    Wow. You almost had me there. How old are you?

  • Ty

    “I agree with you, abortion should be illegal and rare.”

    Do you mean legal and rare?

    “I agree that it should still be socially stigmatized”

    Really? I think that most women who are in need of an abortion need stigmatization like they need a .44 shot to the back of the head.

    The promiscuous girl using abortion as birth control has largely been shown to be a myth. Stigmatizing abortion doesn’t promote use of birth control, what it does is stop the girl who’s been raped because she doesn’t want the stigma of an abortion on top of the stigma she already feels.

    Reducing abortion isn’t about stigmatizing those who use it. It’s about educating people on their reproductive and birth control choices, and offering assistance to pregnant women who need it.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    ” “I agree with you, abortion should be illegal and rare.”

    mark: Yes I meant legal.

    ” The promiscuous girl using abortion as birth control has largely been shown to be a myth. ”

    mark: I was raised in group homes/foster care I can tell amongst some people (way to many) abortion is used as birth control.

    Im not talking about hurting anyones feeling but enough is enough. I have seen first hand the negative affects of people who shouldnt be having babies ( or who shouldnt be having them when they do) having them.

    I live in Washington DC where the results from people bringing children into this world when they shouldnt be is having very negative results. It isnt the only problem in Washington DC but it is a huge problem and to be honest you can rest assured that the children born single parent homes in washington dc have a much, much, much harder life than the average american child.

    I hope that explains where I am comming from, I am not about hurting people but I do think that positive social pressure can be a good and progressive thing.

  • Ty

    I don’t equate stigmatization and positive social pressure. In fact, they are the opposite thing to me.

    And how will you aim that social stigmatization so that it hits only the irresponsible person who’s aborting as birth control, and doesn’t hit the fourteen year old who was just raped by her father?

    I don’t think you can. Better not to us it at all.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    ” Reducing abortion isn’t about stigmatizing those who use it. It’s about educating people on their reproductive and birth control choices, ”

    mark: Ty I agree maybe stigmitizing is not the word I meant but as a man if my little brother isnt taking care of his children it is my job as a citizen of the community I live in to put pressure on him to man up.

    Your point about education is right on.

  • http://blog.elliottcallahan.com Elliott

    I can’t speak for Mark, but when I say abortion should be stigmatized, I mean our current social attitude towards abortion itself should be maintained — namely, that it’s a last resort, and it’s not a place where you want to end up.

    Let me clarify: I strongly agree with you that women themselves should not be the target of any negative social pressure.

    I guess stigmatized is too strong a word, and implies ostracism of a person. I wanted to tease out the difference between condemning the act and condemning the person who commits it, which I think fits into the heroin analogy earlier — we should offer help and support to the heroin user, while maintaining the opinion that the act itself is bad.

    This line of reasoning was meant to assuage the fear held by many conservatives that if abortion remains legal, it will become socially accepted.

  • http://blog.elliottcallahan.com Elliott

    Y’all beat me to the punch.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    ” and doesn’t hit the fourteen year old who was just raped by her father? ”

    mark: A fourteen year old who is raped should be supported, any women raped should be supported fully and should have the option of not having to have a baby by a rapist.

    I aint arguing against abortion, or harming folks but I do believe that the only way to get people to change sometimes is POSITIVE SOCIAL PRESSURE.

    I talking about the kind pressure your brother puts on you for jacking up in school when you can do better. This pressure use all the time, Ill give a personal examples I grew around a lot of guys that would socially refer to women as bitches when I would here it I would usually say something like yall shouldnt be calling women bitches.

    Of course I talked down during these times that is the type of social pressure I am talking about. It is done all of the time by most families every single day.

    To be honest Im not talking stigmatization that wasnt a good choice of words. And Im not talking about forcing a 14 year old rape victim to have a baby. No one in my opinion should be having babies when they are 14.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    ” This line of reasoning was meant to assuage the fear held by many conservatives that if abortion remains legal, it will become socially accepted. ”

    mark: A problem I have with the conservatives is this. I believe.

    It is an obvious contradicition to advocate abstinence only when the majority of americans have had sex before marraige.

    When the republicans are usually vehemently against universal health care.

    When conservatives are usually against free early childhood education.

    If conservatives are going to insist that women stop having abortion shouldnt they also be fighting for a lot more support for single mothers?

  • http://www.fallenandflawed.com/ Demian Farnworth

    I apologize, but I’m not following. You wrote that last sentence like you were making a point. What are you trying to say?

  • http://blog.elliottcallahan.com Elliott

    @ Demian

    Wintermute just presented a very cogent argument for what constitutes ‘being human.’

    Now, you can either rebut, or concede, but venom doesn’t win an argument.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com/ wintermute

    What Elliott said. It’s at least a reasonable argument that a functional brain is a necessary prerequisite for personhood.

    Personally, I’m not sure where the line should be drawn, but “at the onset of brain activity” seems to be as decent a starting point as any.

  • Ty

    Condescending much?

  • spence-bob

    Wow, what an asshole.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    Wow, could you actually try responding to these posts with intelligent criticisms instead of condescending bullshit?

    You know, I think there’s a certain Nazaraen who may have had some qualms with your approach, Demian…

  • claidheamh mor

    Wow.

    The tired old “age card”.

    What an asshole. (No matter how old he is.)

  • claidheamh mor

    AND regardless by which presumptuous and emotionally-loaded language he calls them, demian seems to think fetuses are as important as already-born adults.

    Or apparently even MORE important than adults- the adults are apparently supposed to be walking incubators for these precious growths.

    But then, his god found adults and already-born babies to be wholly dispensable!*

    *the point in the original blog.

    Why would this god be deserving of our worship and praise?

  • DarkMatter

    Sperm and egg, every division of cells counts in the womb of my wife, those cells are already my baby.

    There are execptions, our humanity do not deny that.

  • claidheamh mor

    Repeat:
    (Because you are ignoring, denying, excusing, avoiding, subject-changing, re-interpreting, “yes-butting”, interpreting, excusing, weaseling away from, and otherwise refusing to face the facts in the original blog)

    But then, his god found adults and already-born babies to be wholly dispensable!*

    *the point in the original blog.

    Why would this god be deserving of our worship and praise?

    Christians do not get along with facts.

  • Matt

    Ty….it’s okay because as Demian says on his site:

    “One last thing: I love you” (in his ‘why I’m doing this’ section)

    ….That’s why he is rude and condescending…because he loves you.

  • MilitantAtheist

    That’s christians for you, they just love us all to death.

  • John C

    It was in jest Tele…you know, a joke??

    Wanna rumble? ha…see???

    C’mon I know even Atheists have a sense of humor!

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    lol….some people have a funny way of expressing humor.

    This is the first time that I ever saw a person call someone militant as a joke.

  • MilitantAtheist

    He’s not too keen on Unitarians either.

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    kinda reminds me of how god ‘breathed the soul of man’ into hominid type creatures, causing them to become Homo sapiens. Interesting huh.

    As far as Aquinas goes, he claims to know the nature of god himself. Imagine that, a human being knowing the nature of god! He invented the beatific vision, out of thin air, and now it is believed by millions. A complete and utter absurdity and falsehood propagated by a corrupt catholic church. I have friends that think they will “see” god better than others thanks to this special “vision”.

    According to Aquinas, the Beatific Vision surpasses both faith and reason. Rational knowledge does not fully satisfy humankind’s innate desire to know God, since reason is primarily concerned with sensible objects, and thus can only infer its conclusions about God indirectly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision

  • John C

    Tele-

    You’re pretty young. My generation remembers that as a symbol of defiance from the black power movement on display from the 1968 Olympics.

    They raised their black-gloved hands in defiance, in protest, they were known as militant…thats where that reference came from, just so you know.

  • Novice [a lying theist bastard impersonating an atheist]

    I’m guessing you people don’t have too much to do around here….but very interesting posts! – I might come back more often. : )

    Quote: “It sounds like a simpleton’s moronic, baseless, fact-free assumption that being atheist means being without ethics.”

    Comment:
    I would actually make the point that while atheists can have ethics and morals, they also have the “option” not to have them. So, being athiest doesn’t mean you are without morals/ethics, but who’s to say they even exist? They’re just options to take based on how you feel. Thus, one commenter said something about murder, rape, stealing – those can and cannot be morally acceptable. It depends on who you are and how you feel.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    That’s because this is the same person as “makeup” — this person is using a number of different names and emails. I’m sticking future comments of theirs into moderation for now because I don’t like that game.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “I would actually make the point that while atheists can have ethics and morals, they also have the “option” not to have them.”

    Whoaaaa there Sparky – this “option” sounds an awful lot like that “free will” jazz the believers are always trying to beat us over the head with.

    Believers have just as many options to be “immoral” as athiests.

  • claidheamh mor

    Novice [a lying theist bastard impersonating an atheist]

    I’m guessing you people don’t have too much to do around here….

    That, besides being so false it’s ridiculous (and yes, you are deserving of ridicule); it’s simply a hostile, passive-aggressive verbal attack. Without saying anything of factor substance.Typically Christian behavior, I’ve noticed on these blogs.

    I might come back more often. : )

    Don’t. You don’t add anything constructive or intelligent.

    I would actually make the point that while atheists can have ethics and morals, they also have the “option” not to have them. So, being athiest [sic] doesn’t mean you are without morals/ethics, but who’s to say they even exist? They’re just options to take based on how you feel. Thus, one commenter said something about murder, rape, stealing – those can and cannot be morally acceptable. It depends on who you are and how you feel.

    That is rambling, incoherent nonsense. Your point is unclear. You must not have one.; you must simply be out to verbally attack. You say nothing, support nothing, prove nothing, accomplish nothing.

  • Novice [a lying theist bastard impersonating an atheist]

    My point is that for theists who believe in a God/ Creator, and especially those who believe that God has laws or order, they are bound to those laws/rules, and would face punishment if they break the “rules.” Since the atheist doesn’t have to have any “rules,” they obviously would not nescessarily exist. I can do what I want,when I want, to whomever I want…although there are repurcussions according to govt laws. Still, the principle.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “My point is that for theists who believe in a God/ Creator, and especially those who believe that God has laws or order, they are bound to those laws/rules, and would face punishment if they break the “rules.” Since the atheist doesn’t have to have any “rules,” they obviously would not nescessarily exist. I can do what I want,when I want, to whomever I want…although there are repurcussions according to govt laws. Still, the principle.”

    This makes no sense.

    I’m pretty sure those “govt laws” you reference are just as applicable to atheists as they are to believers.

    Yeah I don’t believe in eternal punishment for breaking imaginary rules, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t negative consequences for any bad behavior I engage in.

    As you seem to admit is possible for atheists, I also happen to have an internal sense of right and wrong even without god threatening me.

    I’m having a hard time seeing how I have any “options” to behave immorally that aren’t equally available to believers.

  • Novice [a lying theist bastard impersonating an atheist]

    Who says you can do bad behavior? If you said you killed somebody, I’d say, “So.” That’s not necessarily bad behavior.

    It makes perfect sense:

    There is no such thing as MORAL or IMMORAL, “bad behaviors” etc etc- who says? If your conscience tells you that, cool beans, but if not me, then that’s fine too. I agree that any rules/laws are applicable to any human, but as an ATHEIST, I don’t have to worry about any eternal consequences, and therefore, if I can buck the system or get away with breaking “govt laws” there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Let me say again, there is no good or bad, right or wrong, it’s all how I make it out to be.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    You are making less and less sense with every post.

    I think you are trying to make the tired old point that atheist lack morals, but you seem to be having a tough time getting your thoughts together.

    If you really can’t grasp that morals can come from places other than god though this conversation is going nowhere.

  • John C

    Yea, thats not cool.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    Thanks for the heads up.

  • claidheamh mor

    Daniel, it looks like it posted using several different emails. If it sneaks back in using yet another email, I think it will be easy to spot by the incoherent, irrational, hostile rambling.

    Didn’t jesus say, “By their irrational, hateful spewings (rotten fruits) shall you know them.”

  • Bystander, non-believer.

    Yay, go Daniel!

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    Huh. I recall Grass and aatheist being a bit stubborn and maybe not the sharpest knives in the drawer, but generally decent, polite people. Was I so wrong? I’ll have to check their posts again…

  • GBM

    “However, if you believe this CRAZY and nasty tale about god knocking up some non-consenting virgin…” lets not forget that she was also engaged at the time–apparently showing that god roundly does not deign to follow his own commandments. To make it even worse, not only does this violate the 7th commandment, but it violates the teachings of jesus himself in Matthew 5: 27-28. I wonder If god tore out one of his appendages–Ugh I’ll never understand why people seem to think that this book is an appropriate thing to base a family off on.

  • Slurm

    This subject is like Kryptonite.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    Heh. I got as far as #1 on that list of 13 things the author didn’t know about Unitarians, which translates to “they’re Unitarians! That’s what it means!” and had to give up.

    And then, five minutes later, I went back and looked again, and saw that they were making the same point for #2.

  • cello

    Me too except I think Daniel is saying that grass also posted as other posters who were not so pleasant.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    He started out decently. But he ended badly.

  • claidheamh mor

    latsot

    Ah but he does this through the anti-abortion people. It’s not god’s fault if women choose not to listen.

    Wow.
    What an idiot. AND a bigot.

    But you’ve got to put these things in context, Daniel. Their suffering is necessary because it makes them stronger and gives them even more reason to praise god.

    Wow.
    What an idiot.

    > 5. Slaughtered innocent children numerous times in the
    > Bible.

    Yeah, but we’re talking about the original, which was widely panned by the critics. I refer you again to the blockbuster sequel, where god shows his gentle, meek and mild side. Of course, he also advocates all the rules he set down in the original, including those about brutalising your children at the drop of a hat, but he doesn’t go about smiting children as a hobby, so that’s an improvement, right?

    Wow.
    What an idiot.

    Atheists: 1!
    God: 0!

    God’s bigoted defense lawyer and self-appointed spokesman: -5!

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Geez–I gotta get back on my blogroll and start getting up earlier each morning. It takes me ages to get through the posts.

    @latsot:
    “Otherwise every wasted opportunity to copulate would be a sin …”

    I consider every wasted opportunity to copulate to be a sin not mortal, but definitely more than venial.

  • spence-bob

    I’m pretty sure that comment was meant as a joke, mainly based on the inclusion of this line:

    “What can an omnipotent being do if people refuse to listen to him?”

    That’s a dead giveaway, if you ask me.

  • claidheamh mor

    Oops… Maybe I was a “Poe”.

    (The way I use the word, = one who can’t tell the difference between real incoherent rants and parodies of them.)

    (But it sure sounds like a circular reasoning, ASSumption-filled, fact-free Christian rant!)

  • latsot

    The smiley might have given it away as well.

    Come on, did you *really* think I was serious?

    *rolls eyes*

  • latsot

    I’m definitely going to refer to myself as “God’s bigoted defense lawyer and self-appointed spokesman” from now on, though.

  • claidheamh mor

    Don’t give yourself eye-strain.

    Yeah, I did think you were serious.

    But I’m really happy (and laughing to myself right now) to find out that you weren’t.

  • claidheamh mor

    You have to admit, so many Christian rants are so illiterate and irrational that a ranting, incoherent, loony parody comes off as Christian.

    Call me Poe’d.

  • Sunny Day

    The inanity, it’s breathtaking.

  • boomSLANG

    huanghou: “…..to demonstrate the non-existance of god is as impossible as to demonstrate the existance. Thus, both atheism and christianism (i.e.) are based on faith.”

    ‘Don’t know about anyone else, but I grow very tired of this worn-out, but especially, fallacious, argument.

    True!….you cannot “disprove” invisible, conscious beings, absolutely!

    Similarly, you cannot “disprove” invisible, pink pixies, either. Please take note that both the latter and the former are not falsifiable. There is no demonstrable “proof” that either one do not exist. This is why we rely on *evidence* (not “proof”) FOR the existence of a given thing. The burden of having to “demonstrate”(your word) that a given “thing” exists, falls firmly in the lap of the one asserting that said “thing” exists.(that’d be you, if you assert invisible, conscious beings exist)

    Finally—-the nonbeliever’s position is not one that “God” is disproven; their position is that “God” is UNproven. There’s a difference between the two propositions.

    As for “faith”—-it requires no more “faith” to disbelieve in “Yahweh”, than it does for the Christian to disbelieve in “Poseidon”.

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    boomslang: “Finally—-the nonbeliever’s position is not one that “God” is disproven; their position is that “God” is UNproven. There’s a difference between the two propositions.”

    Very well said. I would tend to agree with that however wouldn’t that make you an agnostic? Someone who just doesn’t know if god exists or not?

  • huanghou

    There are obviously many differences between pink pixies and God from a historical, philosophical and teological point of view. It’s certainly not the same discuss about the existence of God and the existence of (i.e.) tiny humans living within our mobile phones.

    There is also differences between the belief in God and in Poseidon, from a teological point of view.

    In my opinion, the spirituality inherent in ourselves has to be developed, as well as the artistic, philosophical or scientific skills. This is the only way to advance in every sense (i.e. moving from Poseidon to unique God). A good example of the approach that I have concerning all this would be as follows:

    - Scientific world: at the beginning, human beings thought that everything was made of 4 elmental components (i.e. fire, water, air and wood), later we moved to small particles called atoms (indivisible), after that our mathematical model of the world defined very small particles such as quarks. Is that the last step? absolutely not.

    - Philosophical world: at the beggining we thought that slavery was appropriate since different human beings were born to be superior to others. Later we decided from our thinking models that there shoudn’t be slaves but they should be paid (still being some the
    working beings and others the enjoying beings). Now we think that there cannot be differences whatsoever between humans and we should (i.e.) all have the same possibilities in life. Is that the last step? absolutely not

    - Religion: at the beggining fire was a God, then we moved to other believing models in which there were several Gods which punished us or rewards us depending on whether we paid tribute to them. Now, we (in general) believe that there is a God which create the Universe (i.e. before the Big Bang) and can have certain presence in the phisical world (i.e. Jesus), but that in principle let us free of choice. Is that the last step? absolutely not

    Are our mathematical/phisical, philosophical or religious models the last version of our thinking? Obviously not, but it is reasonable to think that everytime we are getting closer to the truth. And in the end, there is nothing but the truth (in the wide meaning of the world) what we humans are seeking for.

  • boomSLANG

    VidLord: “I would tend to agree with that however wouldn’t that make you an agnostic? Someone who just doesn’t know if god exists or not?”

    Not necessarily. I can lack certainty(knowledge) that invisible beings exist/don’t exist, and still not harbor a belief that they do exist.

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    huanghou: “In my opinion, the spirituality inherent in ourselves has to be developed, as well as the artistic, philosophical or scientific skills.”

    Just curious what your thought is on people that are retarded. They obviously cannot develop their artistic, philosophical or scientific skills. Would their spirituality be any less than yours? Would someone brain dead since birth have any less spirituality that you?

  • boomSLANG

    huanghou: “There are obviously many differences between pink pixies and God from a historical, philosophical and teological point of view.”

    However, the fallacy of your premise remains: Stating that it is “impossible” to “demonstrate” the non-existence of something – in this case, invisible, conscious beings, aka, “God” – commits the fallacy of negative proof.

    Continues….”There is also differences between the belief in God and in Poseidon, from a teological point of view.”

    Okay, fine….substitute “Allah”(i.e..the Arabic word for “God”) in my previous analogy, as follows….

    “As for ‘faith’—-it requires no more ‘faith’ (for me) to disbelieve in ‘Yahweh’, than it does for the Christian to disbelieve in ‘Allah’.”

    RE: “Scientific world”, “Philosophical world”, “Religion”, you end each with the following Q & A…

    “Is that the last step? absolutely not”

    True, which is why religiously revealed “Truths” fail, since they claim absolute, unchanging certainty in a Unviverse that, by your own admission, is not static.

  • huanghou

    I don’t agree with what you say that retarded people cannot develop their artistic, philosophical or scientific skills. It’s proven that i.e. down syndrome people can reach levels of happiness as high as non-retarded people. And of course they can develop their skills (they may paint better than normal people do or they may feel things in a different way, not better or worse). Needless to say spirituality.

    The case of brain dead is hard to say, cause we don’t know about their “status”. Are they aware of their own existence? They may have the same spirituality as me, as u said.

    My point about all this is that every part of our brain, mind, spirit, heart or whatever must be developed. And religion or faith is not put only in some people, but it must be developed also by oneself. It does not imply the obligatority of believing, but of taking it seriously as other things that lead our lives to be fulfilled. The understanding of the world in terms of the big question (above all, why) cannot be neglected. In most of the cases (not always), atheist deny not only the existence of sth like God, but also refute to try to seek for the answers of these questions. Likewise, skeptics assert that it is unworthy to try to resolve all this because there is no easy answer so why to bother. And obviously, an approach like this post about the crimes of God lacks of any foundation.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    The image is linked directly to smbc-comics. On the internet, linking is credit.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X