So confused about Leah Libresco

So, during the last week Leah Libresco decided to be a Catholic.  I would say she’s the new Antony Flew, except she’s not displaying signs of advanced senility and her words are undoubtedly her own, not the ghost-written work of religious slimeballs capitalizing on her insanity.

I’m reading through all her posts and I’m floored.  Leah’s really smart.  I cannot believe the things she’s writing are coming from her mind.  .

I’ve tried my best to contact her about talking out her position.  I don’t anticipate a response because I’m sure she’s inundated.

Because she’s likely getting passed around circles of religious people as proof that atheism is a flawed position, so she needs to be addressed.  I hope I hear back from her.  If I don’t though, it’s straight into deconstructing her posts – not out of any emotional distress (save for disappointment), but to give people answers to those holding her up as a trophy – a trophy they think will spare them the burden of arguing their position.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • raven

    It’s no big deal.

    One confused girl looking for a tribe joined the Catholics.


    Total church membership reported in the 2012 Yearbook is 145,691,446 members, down 1.15 percent over 2011.

    According the the xians own data, 1.5 million people left the churches last year in the USA. There are a lot of limitations on the NCC data, the real number is probably more like 2-3 million.

    One girl joined, 2-3 million left.

    Her 15 minutes of fame should be over about now. If you really want to figure out something weird, find out why my colleague’s old fiancee dropped out of a science grad school to join…the Moonies.

    • Rory

      I’m inclined to agree. Best of luck to her, as I’m sure she has a lot going on that she’ll eventually sort through and figure out, but it’s not like the state of the evidence has changed. If she has discovered some ironclad proof for the rightness and righteousness of the Catholic faith, then I’d be interested to see it. Otherwise, the atheist community is learning, growing, and (slowly) working on our problems. We’ll continue to do those things with or without her.

      I will say seeing JT deconstruct her reasoning (such as it’s been explicated) will be interesting. I don’t have much grounding in philosophy and I couldn’t make much sense of it myself.

    • TerranRich

      Other than the derogatory use of the word “girl” to describe a grown woman, I pretty much agree.

    • D N

      If I had to venture a guess I’d say that even 1 million Catholics leaving the Church last year is a huge overestimate, however I cannot prove nor disprove it.

      However, while Leah may be one girl entering the Church, she is hardly alone. Every year tens of thousands of people enter the Church of their own accord after studying history and theology and applying reason to their findings.

      The Church may be overall getting smaller in size, but the size of a group doesn’t determine its rightness or wrongness. Catholicism is true.

      • Amyc

        “Catholicism is true.”

        Do you have evidence of this?

  • Jon Voisey

    I was rather shocked by the “reason” too. In one interview, it was stated she converted due to questions over “death and morality”. While I can understand people being swayed because they LIKE the answers, she stated it was because she felt they had “better” answers.

    That’s a rather bold claim that needs to be supported and until something comes out from her supporting that, I’m not going to take her position any more seriously than I would any other theist.

    • SpaceGhoti

      That sounds suspiciously like a traumatic event leaving her emotionally vulnerable and thus open to conversion. My sympathies to her for whatever event left her so helpless, but that simply means someone (her fiancé?) was willing to prey on her moment of weakness rather than present a compelling argument.

      • Jon Voisey

        Religious people playing on emotional insecurities rather than presenting intelligent arguments?!

        Say it ain’t so!

      • Jasper of Maine

        Careful about assuming too much there.

        It’s kind of annoying when a Christian says “Awww you’re an atheist? What bad thing happened to you to cause you to stop believing?”

      • mcbender

        Let’s be clear about the facts. The original premise of her blog involved the fact that she’d had a Catholic boyfriend, but according to her, they split up about two years ago (and he is now seeing somebody else). I’ve seen the speculation that her conversion was motivated by that relationship bandied about, but that can’t have been the case and it does us no credit as sceptics to repeat it when it is not supported by the facts.

    • Leah @ Unequally Yoked

      Just sent JT an email, sorry I’d missed however you tried to contact me. Also, just popping in on this thread to correct two errors: I don’t know what interview Jon is citing, but thinking about death didn’t really play any role in my conversion.

      And, again, just factually, dated the bf for two years, broke up 6 months ago, and he’s got a very nice new gf.

      • mattmartin

        In your CNN interview, it seemed like your objective view of morality was what influenced you to make the jump. Why do we have to simplify such a complex idea as morality to a set of orders given by a deity? Why Yaweh? Why not Zeus? Why can’t morality be simply making decisions that reduce the suffering of sentient beings as much as possible?

        • Crudely Wrott

          Why can’t morality be simply making decisions that reduce the suffering of sentient beings as much as possible?

          Because doing so is hard. It’s even harder for those who are struggling with “the slings and arrows” that accompany the labyrinth of relationships and conflicting messages that make up an unduly large part of peoples’ lives. It is so much easier, and often a great relief, to accept some predefined system that is familiar, even if only vaguely applicable to contemporary and personal issues. That’s why not Zeus.

          I picture it as someone caught in a raging river and struggling to swim to shore. At some point one might grab on to floating debris and just go with the flow, hoping to wash up safely on some bank, somewhere. For a while, at least, the person can stop struggling, having found temporary relief from their battle.

          They should, I think, not relax over much; they should rest but constantly be alert for the roar of a cataract growing louder and closer.

      • Philosophy

        You’re suggesting that the Catholic Church has “better” answers on morality? Oh you crack me up, ha, ha, ha, ha. Have you noticed the number of priest up for child sexual abuse? Have you noticed the stand the church takes on homosexuality? Have you noticed that gays ans straights are not treated equally, and gays are not allowed to marry? Have you noticed that women are not allowed to be priests? Need I go on? They’ve got better answers on morality? Right! I completely reject your summation.

        • jaclark1820

          If your put your hope in human beings (Catholic Church) than one human being is not any more moral than another. All human beings act in their own self interest most of the time. If you put your hope in the Son of God (Jesus), then you find your basis for morality. Catholicism is the worship of the One who is the Truth and the standard of morality.

          What is your Epistemoligical foundation for your claim that homosexuality is moral and that women are entitled to ordination by the Catholic Church. You have no foundation for your Truth claims other than your own opinion which doesn’t carry much weight.

          • Amyc

            We typically don’t consider sexuality to be a moral question. Why should women be ordained priests? Is there something fundamentally flawed about women that they can’t be a priest?

          • anteprepro

            What is your Epistemoligical foundation for your claim that homosexuality is moral and that women are entitled to ordination by the Catholic Church. You have no foundation for your Truth claims other than your own opinion which doesn’t carry much weight.

            Hah. What’s your epistemological basis for opposing child rape? Assuming that you even do. Good luck using the Bible to defend basic human decency on that subject. Also, good luck defending women’s equality. I doubt that you’d even want to, however, because you are clearly a misogynistic asshole if you think that women are inherently incapable of being priests. The basis you believe that defends your misogyny and homophobia is a foul one that even many Christians, supposedly using THE SAME FUCKING “FOUNDATION”, would reject as well. By their fruits, you will know them.

      • http://freethoughtblogs Brenda

        Hi Leah,
        I don’t know who you are, but I’d like to offer you a hearty “Welcome” from a fellow once Atheist and now fulfilled Catholic! May you find peace and love in Jesus and your parish family.
        For those who are critical of Leah and her conversion, educate yourselves first about the Catholic Church and open your hearts to God, He is infinitely patient and waits with open arms. Don’t be afraid.

        Peace be with you!

        “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.”

        • mattmartin

          I call troll on this one.

          • http://freethoughtblogs Brenda

            I rarely post anything, anywhere and certainly don’t spend my time trolling or whatever. I chose to reach out to Leah as someone that had a similar experience. You shouldn’t take everything as an affront to your belief system. Calling someone a troll is a good way to discredit people that have different view points, but it is a low blow. Truly, I meant no harm and am sincere.

  • mcbender

    My first reaction to this was the comparison to Antony Flew also, although I think you’re right that the situations are pretty different.

    I barely ever read Libresco’s blog; I was linked to a post or two and found what I’d read unobjectionable, but nothing suggested to me this was in the works. However, quite a few people in comment threads on this issue (at Blag Hag, Camels with Hammers, Friendly Atheist, there may have been others) who said that in retrospect there were warning signs. Among other things, Libresco was apparently a dualist and had some very odd positions on metaethics; people are saying her philosophy was quasi-religious even as an atheist. As I said, I was not a reader of hers and have not had the time to read her archives to check those facts, but if true that may affect how we should view this situation.

    There is also a risk of No True Scotsman here; I’m not actually sure whether this is an instance of the fallacy or not (if what I’ve mentioned is actually true about Libresco’s prior views), because the distinction is relevant: she may well have been a different sort of atheist than what is commonly meant here. I hate to bring up “dictionary atheism”, but the term does in fact only entail a lack of god-belief; it does not mandate rational scepticism, materialism, or for that matter the lack of any superstition other than “gods”. It’s a big umbrella, and while there are often many commonalities between atheists, there need not necessarily be.

    Regardless of any of the above, this is a very interesting case, and definitely warrants investigation; understanding how an atheist of any type could convert to not only a religion, but actually Catholicism for crying out loud, seems to me to be very important (not to mention, as you say, responding to the Christians who will tout her conversion as proof of God). I would be very interested if you were able to get an interview, JT; good luck and let’s hope you can.

  • Cuttlefish

    Looks to me like she saw that her view of morality closely matched that of some of the Catholic writers that she had read. She was unable to ground her own view, and saw that they could. Their philosophy reached the same end-point as hers, but has centuries of establishment, whereas she was faced with her inability to explain why she felt as she did.

    Atheists point out that she now has to believe in all sorts of stuff (trinity, magic crackers, etc.) in order to be truly Catholic; I suspect that the Catholics she knows are not nearly so dogmatic, and really believe these things for a few minutes a week, and ignore them the rest of the time. It’s more of a tribal identity, and her thoughts on morality fit with that tribe.

    It will be interesting to see whether she feels she needs to explore and embrace all the magical thinking, or whether she’ll poke holes in her current identity as she did in her previous, and find it as lacking. The thing is, I firmly believe she could have grounded her morality without personalizing it as a god–that element of her story seems like laziness to me.

    • Ibis3, denizen of a spiteful ghetto

      And what a stupid god to choose as an embodiment of morality. I know nothing of the woman, have never read her blog (pre- or post- conversion), but if this is the reason she’s giving for choosing Catholicism, she obviously hasn’t done her homework. If she needed to deify her moral programme there are a lot of *actually* moral deities out there in the mythology.

      • Ibis3, denizen of a spiteful ghetto

        Um, well, not actually actually. You know what I mean.

    • Ace of Sevens

      That was my reaction. She always believed in the supernatural. Catholicsm gave her all the answers on a platter in a defensible form.

  • Zach

    If she says she’s a Catholic now, I’m willing to take that at face value and call her a Catholic as long as she puts the label forward.


    Given how terrible her reasons are for converting (morality must be a person, ergo God, ergo Jesus, ergo magic crackers) as well as her interest in the ideological Turing test (can an atheist pass as a theist and vice versa), there’s a part of me that wonders if this is all some big experiment.

    Do I accept that she’s Catholic now? Yes. Will I be surprised if she isn’t? Not at all.

  • Mark

    From the CNN article you linked:

    “According to Dan Welch, director of marketing for Patheos, Libresco’s post has received around 150,000 page views so far.

    ‘Leah’s blog has gotten steadily more popular since she arrived at Patheos, but a typical post on her blog is probably closer to the range of 5,000 page views,’ Welch wrote in an email. ‘Even now, a few days later, her blog is probably getting 20-30 times its normal traffic.’”

    So there IS a benefit other than personal conscience in her decision. Just imagine the hits if she switches back. Only time will tell, “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” (Matthew 7:20)

    • TerranRich

      I call this the “Cupp Effect”. Like when S.E. Cupp inevitably has a sudden, miraculous conversion, at which point she can profit like a BOSS from book deals, speaking engagements, etc.

    • Stephanie Zvan

      Don’t be silly. There’s just not that much upside in pageviews. If nothing else, writing 30 more posts is waaay easier than converting.

  • Balstrome

    So we lose one, but how many millions have we gained, and for better reasons than the waffle that she offered.

    Sometimes people really are not Scots, no matter what they say.

  • LouAnne

    In the CNN interview she admitted to having arguments with and breaking off with a Catholic boyfriend. I would question whether she is just trying to get him back??

    • JT Eberhard

      Hrm…not that all human beings aren’t subject to doing irrational things for emotional reasons, Leah is particularly bright and, from my reading of her, genuinely honest. I don’t know her motivations, but it seems that speculating that she’s been convinced by something other than the integrity of her reason is a very hasty thing to do in this case.

      She has consented to public dialogue with me. Perhaps we’ll find some answers there.

  • anon101

    JT you sound a bit personally offended. I don’t want to be condescending but I don’t think you are up to the challenge. To call Leah out on the less trivial reasons for her conversion would require extensive knowledge about the theory of morality which is not exactly your area of expertise (re: the discussion together with Matt Dillahunty). Are you going to argue that objective moral values don’t exist, or that virtue ethics are wrong?

  • lancefinney

    I’m wondering what it takes to be considered a “prominent” and “popular” atheist blogger, because I had never heard of Leah before this conversion. I would think the prominent atheist bloggers are the FtBers, Hemant, the Skepchicks, Jerry Coyne, and a few others. Who is Leah?

  • nobody

    It’s all very simple; her Catholic boyfriend. If it came down between rejecting God and rejecting her well-hung boyfriend’s papist cock, it only takes so much cognitive dissonance for Romanism to start making sense.

    Is there any better reason why she would go from noisy atheism directly to a faith tradition hostile to most everything she still believes in?

    • Ace of Sevens

      Isn’t think rather dismissive and misogynistic? Besides, she broke up with him 2 years ao. While I’m sure he got her socialized into Catholicism and was the main reason she ever considered it in the first place, he i not a sufficient explanation by himself.

    • Reason of Science

      I’m not convinced it’s the boyfriend breakup and want to get back together thing. She does admit to being bisexual.

    • Rory

      Stay classy there, nobody.

  • beautdogs

    I don’t buy it. Her arguments for her conversion make no sense, though her previous blogs were sensible. I think she’s conducting a very interesting experiment that will make for a good book later. The alternative possibilities are laid out nicely by Bart Centre’s post today:

  • triciapetersen

    I’m not surprised she chose Catholicism. Catholicism takes a “no excuses” approach to God. There is really no need to align morality with this version of “God” because it makes no difference whether “He” is moral or not. What “He” does is holy, and thereby above/beyond all requirements of what we have established as human morality. No one asks why he allowed a church to fall and kill a group of toddlers. He simply did, and He has His reasons. Neither good nor evil plays into it.

    Now, all she has to do is establish how it is possible for the Eucharist to magically transform from bread and wine to actual body and blood, and she’ll do just fine.

    How she’ll do that, I have no clue.

  • James M. Martin

    Now, you say Leah is “really smart.” Just how smart could she be if she can be sucked into the oldest con there is: the religion grift. She now accepts myth and superstition over science and reason. Admittedly, a lot of smart people fall for it, but “really smart”? Not if she formerly embraced atheism. Atheists know. The religious believe. Nuff said. She is not “really smart.” She’s stupid.

    • JT Eberhard


      Doing stupid things does not make one, on the whole, stupid. Blaise Pascal was fucking brilliant, but had some really stupid ideas. I can see and accept saying that Leah has adopted a very stupid position (I’m presently in agreement with you on that, but perhaps my conversation with her will change my mind). But smart people can and do hold stupid positions at times. I undoubtedly have some of which I’m unaware. So do you. Leah’s just happens to be public.

  • theschwa

    This whole thing reminds me of when The Raving Atheist converted.

  • FreeThoughtStorm

    I personally don’t see the big deal here. If a theist tried to use one person’s conversion as a case for their faith I’d laugh at them. Exponentially more people leave faith for atheism than accept a religion after being an atheist as an adult. I say “as an adult” since all babies are technically atheists.

  • hilarious

    Wow so she decided to do what she wants with her life and she’s considered “senile”

    i find it funny that atheists attack anybody who decided to live their own life and not obey atheism.

    you people are pathetic

    • JT Eberhard

      Read the link. In Antony Flew’s case, the evidence is incontrovertible that his slide to deism was the result of senility. You didn’t read the link, which means you’re uninterested in the case of your opposition, only in voicing your opinion regardless of whether or not it’s informed.

      And you call us pathetic.

      And we do not criticize people because they’re different. We criticize bad reasoning. It may look like we’re criticizing the religious out of hand, but it’s only because religion is rife with bad reasoning. If you disagree, you’re free to provide the good reasoning/evidence that leads to the conclusion that god exists.

      • SuperMental

        Great stuff JT. I need to memorize these words…

  • fastlane

    I had never heard of Leah before this kerfuffle, and have only skimmed some of her older posts to try and get a feel for the
    flavor’ of atheism. While she comes across as plenty bright, I didn’t see any really deeply thought out rational support for her atheism in any of the posts I read. (I’m pulling a Scotsman, I believe she was an atheist.) I’ve found, among the few atheist-religious converts I’ve known, that they were atheists for emotional reasons, or more what I would call apatheists before their conversion. This seems to be the case here as well. I will follow this with some interest to see how rational the reasons are.

  • Joe Ott

    Here is a lady who sought the Truth and found Him. Jesus says” I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life”. I would think it would be harder to be an atheist. In order to believe there is no God, one must acknowledge He does live. Just labeling yourself an atheist doesn’t mean you aren’t culpable when we all appear before OUR LORD at judgement.

    • SuperMental

      How very painful…

    • LawnBoy

      In order to believe there are no unicorns, one must acknowledge that unicorns exist.

    • Tom Leykis

      Great, another mouthbreathing religious nutjob posts. Never let facts, data, science, logic and reason get in the way of a good straw man argument.

    • anteprepro

      ” In order to believe there is no [X] , one must acknowledge [X] does live.”

      Logic not your strong suit, huh? Oh well, you’re in good company as a True Believer. I doubt your fellow churchies will even notice.

  • Symbiote

    She wants to sell books…duh. Religion(ous) will eat up anything that agrees with itself.

  • drturi

    Leah Libresco Another Lost Soul – Re-Tweet Pls

  • someguy

    She should die. How dare she convert to a bunch of indoctrinated retarded religious nutjobs. Instead of being rational, logical, and reasonable; she converted to stupidity.

    i guess she didn’t like thinking for herself anymore. She should go back home and become a housemaid, go pleasure her man, ignore science, and just die off. the world is a better place without her

    • Ace of Sevens

      Good think you are so much smarter than those retards, amirite?

    • anteprepro

      Ugh. Foul. One of those slimepit-caliber misogynistic atheists.

      If this kind of person makes up any significant portion of the population of atheists, our movement is dead in the water.

  • rebo

    You’re a pretentious ass.

  • Hairy Chris, blah blah blah etc

    When I read stuff like this the only thing that I can think of is the People’s Front of Judea…

  • hopentosee

    Catch Leah’s brief but annimated reference to the Eucharist in her CNN interview. Catholics believe they receive Jesus in the flesh when they receive Communion. She speaks of morals, but the underpinning of her conversion would rest on knowing the Eucharist is as claimed, or her conversion couldn’t be true.

  • http://l lero

    her brilliance is hardly surprising, the most intelligent people that have roamed the earth have been firm believers (newton, copernico, einstein, even galileo with the pope conflict, planck, gauss, pascal, mendeliev, pitagoras, st. augustine was the most brilliant student in 3rd century greece……….)

    the existence of God is pretty logical, as St. Thomas Aquinas, another bright mind of history, exposed

    he would have debates with atheists,which would go:
    - St. Thomas speaks
    - St. Thomas listens
    - St. Thomas give “better” atheist arguments than the ones they would give
    - St. Thomas counterarguments his own “atheist” arguments

    • Say

      Most of the people you mention were only claimed deists and did so out of fear or retribution or scorn from society. Remember, it’s only been until recent that people could speak their mind and ideas against the church without fear of death or torture.

      Religion is the true evil.

  • Say

    I’d say it’s a faked and premeditated move.

    You just don’t do that. It’s like going from the NAACP to the KKK – you look at the Catholic blogs and web sites – they’re on the offense against the recent decline in membership and the advancement of rational thinking.

    I’m calling her out – she was an agnostic, not an atheist. You do not make that move. If she’s talking to god, then she’d better see a doctor because she probably has a brain tumor.

    I made a post to call her out:

    • anteprepro

      I agree with the basic idea that you are presenting: That it is absurd to think an explicit atheist, with any kind of half-way intellectual basis for being an atheist and who isn’t just an atheist due to lack of information or concern, would make a leap straight into full acceptance ritualistic, dogmatic religious belief system. However,

      I’m calling her out – she was an agnostic, not an atheist.

      Ugh. Agnosticism and atheism: Not mutually exclusive. She was just a very agnostic, rather weak atheist, apparently. And possibly not as rational as she appeared to be (bought into more nonsense than she let on, was willing and able to make far more “leaps of faith” in her logic than previously shown). But, despite that, she was still an atheist.

      • Say

        I think you and I define atheist and agnostic a little differently. They are absolutes. An agnostic is unsure if there’s really a god or allows for the possibility. I define my atheism as expliciting eliminating the notion or need for a god. Or as others have put it – the idea that there’s absolutely no evidence to indicate that a god exists and until scientifically proven otherwise, it’s fantasy.

        Others will define it more differently than that, but my point is the differentiation: You’re making it more grey and I’m saying it’s absolute – it’s such a new area and that’s why I’m here debating it. I think it’s time more atheists come out and admit their doubt in this ancient fairy tale of mind control and far worse. If you insist on my flavor of atheist (among the more recent common labels), then I am an atheist antitheist – I think religion is a plague; a scam that has done and is still doing unimaginable damage world-wide.

        Nonetheless – I assert that she’s premeditated this whole scheme for attention and blog hits. You don’t go from atheist to Catholic. She was an agnostic if not just someone out to get attention and attempt to lay some smackdown on atheists. The latter to me seems apparent with the wording of her CNN video interview where she says now she has a more intelligent argument and that some of her friends thought her previous atheistic ways were unintelligent and hard to argue. It’s insultingly contrived.

        I can’t prove it, but by my definition she’s a fake – this can’t happen without some form of mental disorder or brain tumor.

        • anteprepro

          At least in the atheist community, they are generally accepting of my definition: That atheism is “no God” on an axis of Belief in God and agnosticism is “don’t know” on axis of Knowledge of God. It gets confusing though, because the best and only good definition of someone who is truly neutral on the question of believing in God is also “agnostic”. But I also don’t believe that such people actually exist. Your definition of atheism is good, and your distinction of atheist antitheist is also good. I think most people who identify as agnostics would probably qualify as atheists given your definition in your first paragraph.

          So, yeah, I’m with you on almost everything except your definition of agnostic :P I’m sure we’ll both survive that storm. Oh, also, I slightly disagree about Leah: She may not be a fraud as much as she is simply being guided too much by emotion and has been misguided regarding the best cases for atheism because the particular group of atheists she’s surrounded herself with happen to be more dimwitted than, say, the atheists of FTB. Okay, I’m good. I’ll start boasting and gloating elsewhere now.

  • MarkByrn

    So CNN think it’s big news when an allegedly rational person becomes irrational and adopts a blood religion superstition. While I don’t wish to paint the broad brush, if one belongs to a website that devotes itself to superstition under the euphemism of faith (e.g Patheos) and Atheism is counted among the ‘faiths’, I have to question the rationalism or at least the maturity of the members of that so called Atheist community.

    I suppose the idea is to immerse oneself in this cauldron of superstitious nonsense while simultaneously railing against it and carrying the righteous and true banner of Atheism. Unfortunately, it’s akin to going to a Church with the foolish intention of helping the folks to abandon their religious superstitions yet ending up being ‘converted’ because you spend countless years soaking up the ‘loving’ goodness and dunning preaching of their superstitions with the mythological promises of eternal bliss.

  • J

    I’m puzzled as to why atheists care so much about what another person believes. Isn’t it just the result of electro-chemical reactions in the brain? Why, on atheism, is that even newsworthy?

  • AfzalHasan

    To Leah Libresco

    An open letter from my soul to you asking you to reflect please on..

    Now you have accepted Jesus, as your Lord and Savior. Jesus is the ineffable God who incarnates.

    Jesus, who is one being with the Father, the creator.

    Jesus is God.

    Jesus is Yahweh.

    Yahweh becomes man – Jesus is not a new god, not a fresh god, but the God of humanity of Adam, of Moses, of Abraham..who intervened in human history who became man yet remained fully God.

    Necessarily, then.. ineluctably then – since in Christian doctrine they are one and the same being…

    ‘I will make parents eat their children’ says JESUS in the Old testament!

    ‘I will kill the first born of Egypt’ says JESUS in the old testament.

    Remember Jesus/God/Yahweh is the same being.
    Xtians are blind to this and are insensible.

    If they are true, then they will print red letter editions of the Old Testament.

    Leah, you speak of morality yet you willingly love, embrace, worship, revere a child killer:

    Jesus who makes parents eat their own children; Jesus who send plagues on children..

    Jesus who promises that babies will be basht against rocks and pregnant women’s wombs will be ript out.

    Leah – realise the enormity of what you embrace.

    with best wishes
    afzal UK