Official Christian Thread! - Page 9

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 30 mins ago



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/...n_the_simpsons

By TIA GOLDENBERG, Associated Press Writer 9 mins ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11593990

21 October 2010 Last updated at 08:28 ET

But...but...they told me the Pope was infallible??

http://www.skepticmoney.com/how-like...tion-of-jesus/

Sego, what do you think about this list of ancient writers who should or could have mentioned Jesus but didn't?

I think it is a very valid point and one which needs serious consideration. In fact it many even be evidence against Jesus as God.

But I don't think it is evidence of Jesus existence per se.

My take is this:

1) If Jesus was just a man (as I believe) then he was just one of any number of similar preachers around at the time. John the Baptist was another one and there were hundreds. Many of these are not mentioned anywhere by name. Many were put to death also.

Jesus would only be different IF he was Seen to be God...... seeing as he was not seen as this by his contemporaries then the only people who would be interested in recording his doings were his followers

2) These original followers - imo - did not view him as God and there writings, such as they were, reflected this. For this reason they were destroyed by the later Christian sect that took over and became the traditional Church we know today.

We have a classic proof of this actually in Nag Hammadi - as you know these were early Gnostic writings hidden so they could not be destroyed and found in 1945. These writings do not portray Jesus as God at all.

It is logical to think that these writings represent a survival of a much larger group.

I would argue from that that not just such religious references to a human Jesus were destroyed by the early Church but secular ones too. So maybe these writers in the list described a human Jesus - or perhaps a Jesus out of line with doctrine - and hence they were censored also.

This is just my opinion though- one could argue against that list if one was a fundie (they are indomitable and can argue against any fact at all) by another strange fact: there is no written record anywhere at all of another figure far more likely to be mentioned than Jesus; Pontius Pilate. In fact, the only evidence for Pilate's existence is a milestone discovered in the 60s.

The more one delves into this - with an open mind -the weirder it becomes. I believe Jesus existed but revisiting this question and thinking about it to answer your post I have to admit there is something very strange here which, if not explained by my possible solutions above, pretty much has to point to a strong possibility Jesus was a fiction. I don't believe it though.

I found this on a humanist site, which I think is a clear and accurate summation of the problem:


Link

This site seems to posit a different solution: that a Jesus did exist (I think there is evidence of another preacher 'Jesus' contemporary with the one we are talking about but I can't remember where I read it) but the Christian mythos was foisted on to him.

A bit like some people believe happened to the actor Shakespeare being credited with another's works.

I'm not sure about this but there is definitely a big, big problem. In a nutshell, if anyone else wants to address it, it is this: there is no written mention of Jesus outside the Gospels (including COMMENT on the Gospels) for almost a century before the early Church gets in on the act and starts demonstrably forming a mythos.

This is very odd.

As always, you don't disappoint. Thanks for providing an interesting, detailed response. I'll check out those links tomorrow when I have some more time.

Oh, also, did you happen to watch the Ricky Gervais interview on the new stupid Piers Morgan show? I think you'll like Ricky's responses to Piers basically saying atheists shouldn't speak their minds because they are inherently offensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7KFkTfGEPE&t=2m40s

Yeah, Piers Morgan is such a dick...I think the UK shipped him out to the US to get rid of him.

The question about the end atheist comment is just stupid and shows how little Morgan knows about US culture. Penn and Teller have been saying far worse for years and no-one cares. Many Christians go to their shows and love them.

Gervais totally owned him in that atheism discussion. It's a totally stupid position to think that atheists feel 'doom and gloom' when they get to 70 or whatever. That's just stupid and his reasons for believing seem lame to me.

Just thought I'd leave this here for you guys...



See, we have so much in common! Shit, you guys are like practically atheists. How about you just go one god further? Hell, you can just round down pretty easily.

What does "Believe in" mean int this context?

I would submit that Christians DO believe in some of the Gods on that list, they just don't worship them. Well...that would be true if they followed the Bible correctly anyway.

Remember, Jehovah commanded to 'have no other Gods before me'. He did not deny these gods existed.....the Jews of that time actually believed these gods existed.

And perhaps they did.

We create our own realities to a large extent.

That list is incorrect also btw: Buddha is not a God and as such you should, as an atheist, believe in him as he certainly existed and did not believe in God himself.

Semantics, but yes, I get the point. It is funny that the JudeoChristian religion is supposed to be monotheistic, but does specifically discuss other gods existing. And Buddha is not considered a god in most flavors of Buddhism, but there exist some that do deify him. So I would not believe in the deified form.

Anyway, aside from the nit picking...you get the point, don't you?

I get the point, sure. I even agree with you up to a point.

I don't think it is possible for a sane, compassionate, sincere and spiritual person to take any religion whatsoever in a literal sense.

So as far as atheists oppose literalist interpretations then I am with them 100%.

I tend to take a symbolic approach though which I think is justified and would argue makes more sense.

For example, if one goes round being aggressive, greedy and full of hate - then one is in hell. Or will be in a form of hell when 'judgment day' arrives. As it surely will.

You don't need to believe in an afterlife as such. All these teachings point - in my interpretation - to things that occur right here right now.

There are 'devils' and 'sins' and inside you is a guiding 'God' that you can follow or reject with the attendant consequences.

Btw,I have recently been reading an Arabic book by a very early philosopher and atheist of the 10th century; al Ma'ari.

You might find him interesting.



Wiki entry.

He has some cool poems I think you might like.


Needless to say I don't agree but is interesting his arguments so early and that he was free to do so in an Islamic context.

Sego, that Al-Ma'arri fellow seems rather interesting. The Arabic book you are reading...there an English translation?

I want to address this in a separate post. You certainly know I'm in agreement. However, I ran across this article...

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/bl...-the-big-bang/

Ken Ham, a very prominent Baptist and young-Earth creationist, makes a rather compelling argument. Without a literal interpretation of Genesis, the entire point of Christianity is undermined as there is no original sin to be saved from.



That logic actually is flawless. Unfortunately, he takes it to the wrong conclusion. If the evidence demonstrates that the Genesis creation story was indeed allegory, the conclusion is not to throw out the evidence because he doesn't like where it leads. That's how science works--sometimes the evidence takes you places you didn't expect or didn't want to go.

The evidence demands the logical conclusion that the gospel has no foundation. Genesis is an allegory. Sin is an allegory. Adam is an allegory. That leaves nothing real for a savior to save us from. Ken Ham is so very right...and yet still so very wrong.

I'll try to find out...I know there a English translations of the poems and books about him rather than by him.


Well, I would say the whole point of HIS Christianity and perhaps Christianity as is currently known is undermined.

I don't see how the teaching of Jesus could be undermined - it may become even more valid.

Ham (great appropriate name!) is disingenuous though also in several ways:

First the idea of original sin is not actually in the Bible as such - - this idea came from Augustine in the 4th century. It is certainly not Judaic. So he is undermined in his own argument.

Secondly, the acts of creation he cites he comprehends solely from translation. Are they implicit in the original? Is difficult to say as one thing we know for sure: not only do we not have the original, what we have is TWO conflicting copies of a possible original that have been moulded into one. He sidesteps this and possibly does not even know.

How can one be a literalist when passages contradict?

The marriage thing is pure insanity. If Adam and eve were married then so is everyone who lives with his girlfriend or boyfriend. No priest sanctified their union. They had no ceremony or paper - nothing.

And that's before you get to the question of where Cain and Abel got their wife from and whether they were 'married' to their mother.

A literal interpretation of Genesis can lead to only one reading there: incest out of wedlock.


Is it flawless? The Bible has been tampered with for millennia - it's like saying the evidence you get from a Carbon 14 dating or DNA sample left out in the rain for 2 months and handled outside clinical conditions by unknown amounts of passers by is flawless.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't - but the sample is useless.


This is true I think but this is because of the corruption of the scripture. A literal interpretation of Genesis requires a stupid reader.

This to me is evidence that 'the sample is contaminated' - if you look at purer samples like the original Judaic or Islamic scriptures this problem won't be there.

You may still disagree - that's not the point I'm making - just that the interior logic will be intact.

I don't think anyone who wrote scriptures was stupid - on the contrary, imo, they were trying to understand things in an ancient time with the limited means at their disposal.

When scriptures appear stupid it is because someone like the people who believe them has altered them somewhere down the line....

*Btw: I don't mean 'stupid' in terms of science that could not be known then but we know now but rather internal logic - only a stupid person would write something then contradict themselves a page later or else make glaring errors that are irrational. I don't believe the original Jewish writers WERE irrational. Not in the way Ham is anyway.

Hey Seg and BR etc!

It has been a long while since I have logged on to browse these boards. I have been busy living life with a little less time spent with activities such as appleinsider. That said,, here I am today reading over some of the threads here.

I don't share the zeal of what I am seeing in some of the posts within this thread of recent entry. We have the mention of some guru who in times past can insult all religious people as lacking intellect. I am supposed to be impressed somehow? Because the guru who penned his "ideas" (insults) was in an islamic setting / environment back in the day is supposed to count as something valuable? Color me less than intrigued.

We have the deceptive cottage industry of literal or allegory one or the other or of course BOTH being grounds to outright dismiss the need for Jesus to have paid a price for sin. Original or otherwise.

Wow... In love I have to tell you that you both come across to me as Lost.

Saying this however I am glad to see you on the search for truth.

I hope one day you give Jesus a chance.

Dale.

Hey Fellows!!! Welcome back! Great to see you again...hope you stick about and contribute a bit before you get back to real life!! Sure you have more important things to do than hang out with us wasters though!!


I hoep you comment on some - I've thought of you a few times in some of them. Some could definitely have done with your input!


Well...you have to see the context. I am not an atheist as you know and I don't agree with al Ma'ari on virtually all levels but he IS significant for several reasons:

1) First he was a major poet and philosopher though little known in the West. He is important in the same way, say, Heidegger or Kierkegaard is important.....both to east and west.

2) He was an atheist...possibly the first who defined atheism as a school of thought. I could be wrong here...BR will know better.

BUT, even though I do not agree with him that IS important in the history of human thought and just because I don't agree does not mean I am not interested.

3) He was able to express his ideas in an Islamic Context pre-medieval times. That is a very important thing to know now as Islam is portrayed as somehow 'crushing' alternate views like his.

In fact it is the West that crushes those views - he is well known in the Islamic world.

4) He was a thinker....he arrived at his opinions through reasoned thought rather than following the herd...thinking should be respected!!!!!

It may lead people to different conclusions and one's we disagree with but that's fine. God will judge. Or maybe not!!! You pays your money.....


I was thinking about this sort of thing re another real-world conversation earlier today so it is odd it comes up.

What I was thinking was that some of us who think a lot and are that way inclined are trying to make sense of the world,asking the questions like 'what's it all about?', 'what's the point of life?', or even 'is there a God?'.

Some people aren't interested in these questions and that's fine too - but for those of us that are we set out on a kind of 'search'.

This makes us brothers in a way... the search may lead you to Christianity, BR to be an atheist but it's all ok. If it's a considered and reasoned opinion.

Of course some people never search but are just born into a religion without thinking or ever questioning. I'm not talking about them. And some people don't think as atheist but just react against religion...not talking about them either.

For those of us though that search and SINCERELY come to a conclusion that is right for them then I think it's fine.

Who am I to tell BR say that my way - which is the result of my own unique life experiences - should have relevance for him? Or vice versa?

This is why I respect both you guys - because you have considered positions and your opinions and beliefs interest me but I don't think you are right and I am wrong or I am right and you are wrong....we just happen to have found the solutions that work for us. Or are evolving them.


I think you may see it like this though (and 'see it like this' is right - we may or may not be 'lost' I certainly don't feel it though I have in the past) because you haven't realized that we might have different solutions because we are different people.

I don't think you or BR are lost though. I might think that your solutions and life-positions would not work for me but that's as far as I'd go.

One exception would be if either of you held to a fact that was demonstrably disproven by science say - then I think one might challenge it but as far as religious or philosophical beliefs go about 'God' and such....your views are as good as mine...as long as we are being true to ourselves and not adopting postures which I know you guys are not.


Yes.....but I think that while searching for truth one finds that there may not be an absolute. That it may vary depending on position and context.


I actually have.... but it was not fitting for me so I kept going. It would have meant making myself smaller to fit it whereas I think that with religion it should be bigger and you fit in as being small if you see what I mean.

There are many things in Christianity which I would have to 'give up some knowledge' to accept. So it doesn't work for me. Evolution is one for example. I believe in evolution because I believe in science and cannot accept a religion which denies it - so Islam, which accepts these things is a better fit.

For some people science is enough of a fit on its own...it's all ok.

Btw... think making such a statement makes a barrier. I don't mind but some people might. BR might I don't know. I DO know that I would never want you to try something else other than Christianity or BR to (say) 'try Islam' UNLESS your systems were no longer working for you and you were questioning and looking for something else. Not something 'more' - just something 'else'.

But you guys are fine as you are so what I hope for you is you keep going and learn more in your respective areas.


Welcome back!!!

You have more than earned a lengthy reply to your above post. In several hours (4-6) ish I plan to give you a reply to your reply post above. I am a bit stretched for a proper reply at this hour but I must say I enjoyed reading your reply filled with respectful, earnest well thought out response. Thanks Seg.

I value you highly as well as BR despite my long delay since my last posting.

I will get back directly to your points above when I have the proper time to give to your comprehensive reply.

You guys have a great one!

Fellows

Good to see you back Fellows, although I can say I'm sad you're still peddling Jesus. :P

I don't have much time either to reply in detail at the moment, but here's a nifty flowchart that explains why even if your god existed, I wouldn't worship him.

LIke all flawed hypothesis the problem is building on a false foundation - building a house on the sand in Biblical parlance

The first question is a set-up.

For a start: who says God's love is unconditional? The whole schemata stands or falls on this one but I don't recall it having any scriptural basis in either Christianity or Islam, the two religions I am most familiar with.

Certainly in Islam it is not the case. God has 99 'faces' or 'names'. These are aspects like 'the forgiver' or 'the punisher' - these two are contradictory but the point is that the one you meet is a response to how you lived.

So if you lived doing bad things but yearning to be better and really trying you might meet God as 'the forgiver'.

If you did the same things but gloating you got away with it you might meet God as 'the punisher'.

Or something completely different - it is entirely up to God.

In Christianity it is different but still your diagram does not hold up. Is God's love stated to be unconditional? I don't think so but Fellows might know better.

In any case it is still erroneous: one can love and still see someone do 'the wrong thing' and take the consequences.

There are other errors imo:

The question about God being 'just' is loaded. In the Christian tradition the punishment for sin is hell. Ok, I have problems with this but it is what they believe. Given that then it IS justice for God to punish someone for doing a sin.

You are arguing that doing SIn X and going to hell is not just - but if God exist and He says so then SURELY IT IS?????

It's only 'not just' if God does not exist paradoxically.

Put another way: if a being exists who created the entire universe and all the things in it then it is UP TO HIM what is a 'sin' and what is not. He makes the rules. He therefore cannot be unjust.

If you think it IS unjust then ok...do as I do...don't believe in that sort of God or religion but to argue it is internally incoherent is illogical.

The best you can say is "it makes sense if you believe it but I don't"

And btw: I can explain exactly how the moon got there.

I will be back in a few hours.. In the mean time I have an audio file that is well worth the listen. I don't go to the Church where this man teaches but I liked this particular message.

It is about the prodigal son. It is masterful and it touches on the condition of the heart which is what I find key to understanding Jesus.

http://bethesdafortworth.com/clienti...mage_10_24.mp3

Fellows

About Des:
http://bethesdafortworth.org/templat...938&PID=643813

The last part is a jab at Bill O'Reilly.


I know you love to break down these arguments, but I don't think it requires that level of depth in this case. Ask your mainstream Christian to describe the qualities of his god. You will hear these terms: just, merciful, kind, unconditionally loving. And it really does follow that if there are requirements to get into heaven, he cannot be unconditionally loving. If he is merciful, he is suspending justice in special circumstances. If he is not merciful, he is merciless.

So, who says these things? Your run of the mill Christian who goes around oppressing Atheists. I'll need to start a new Atheist thread because studies have recently come out showing that Atheists are the most hated and ridiculed minority in the United States.


Sego, sometimes you have to climb down from your ivory tower and blow up the misconceptions in the trenches.

Love does not always mean that one always gets what they want.

You've made an error in logic here. At the very least you have an underlying assumption which has not ben proven and, until it is, your statement is a non sequitur...in other words it does not necessarily follow as you've claimed.

I firmly disagree that I made a local error. Unconditional means without conditions. One cannot be turned away for all eternity and somehow still be loved. Your error, not mine.

Furthermore, it is rather rich that you would ask for evidence to support a claim. That is one Pandora's Box you don't want to open when it comes to god and religion.

Eternally turning someone away or eternally condemning someone? That's not love.

Define love.

Of course you do.



Correct.



This is where the potential error exists. You are making an assumption about what actions God's love demands (or doesn't.) In effect you are proclaiming what God's love should or should not be or do. What if you're wrong?



I firmly disagree.

Thank you for your kind welcome back! I appreciate you and your humor re wasters



Thanks again. I am sorry it has been such a long time away for me.



I see your 4 points about Ma'ari. I am not sure what you mean however in the last part of 3) that "it is the West that crushes those views"



I get the whole considered and reasoned part. I don't blindly adhear to my beliefs. There is much that weighs into the equation. I too respect others who do the same yet find differing conclusions. I may from time to time speak my mind and what something looks like from my perspective but that is all I am doing. I hope to do it in love to the best of my ability. None the less it goes without saying that I do have a great respect for others who are on the search who may not see things as I do.

You could or he could or I could try to convince the other that their perspective may offer something of value I don't think we all have to live in a private bubble with regards to our beliefs or lack thereof.

I respect you and BR as well!

This is very interesting to me. I hear what you are saying here but I have to admit this smells off to me. I love science but not false science and you have to understand that much that goes in the name of science is anything but. Just as religion has those who work the system and it is anything but furthering the cause of given religion. Evolution is not scientific. It is not religious. That is my view.

Thanks again for the welcome Seg.

Whatever love is, it requires forgiveness. Not conditional forgiveness. Just forgiveness.

I thought Jesus died for everyone so that we are forgiven, no matter what, not only if we believe in Him, not only if we live by His rules (or God forbid, the obsolete and often idiotic "rules" of the VOT--Very Old Testament) but no matter what, even if we have gay sex or cheat on our spouses or get divorced (or all three). Even if we're Muslim or Buddhist or Christine O'Donnell or Socialist or Atheist.

If that's not the case (that we're unconditionally forgiven) then where is the love?

Bingo.

And now that I'm home, I can finally post the apropos Bad Religion lyrics...

God's Love

Striking at mental apparitions
Like a drunk on a vacant street
Silently beset by the hands of time
Indelicate in its fury
An aberrant crack as skeletons yield
To unrelenting gravity
While viruses prowl for helpless victims
Who succumb rapidly

(Tell me!) Tell me; where is the love?
In a careless creation
When there’s no “above”
There’s no justice
Just a cause and a cure
And a bounty of suffering
It seems we all endure
And what I’m frightened of
Is that they call it “God’s love”

Twisted torment, make-believe
There’s a truth and we all submit
“Believe my eyes,” my brain complies
To all that they interpret

[Chorus]

I know there’s no reason for alarm
But who needs perspective when it comes to pain and harm
We can change our minds; there’s a better prize

But first you’ve got to…
[Chorus]

They call it God’s love
My pain is God’s love

I can understand taking a break for sure!!


Yes, I didn't express it well..I thought that at the time. What I meant was that the West does not publicize the fact that these views exist or existed in Islamic Culture..... ie that is has room for many contrasting approached. The West tends to show Islam as this rigid monolithic entity and contrast it with the West which is pluralistic.

I was just saying there is diversity in Islam too as shown by al Ma'ari but the West doesn't ever show such examples which are commonplace.


Yeah..I know that!! Or I wouldn't talk to you!! Hehe


No, very true.

Personally my approach is to take things from wherever and add them to my own personal mythos. Some things I might take from BR for example as (sometimes!!!) he has a scientific/rational approach so that is useful. If such an approach is sometimes lacking in religion - and it definitely is - then take it from atheism if it is there and add to your view, that's my policy.

No one system has all the answers. One of my favourite poems is The Kasidah of Haji Abdu El-Yezdi (in reality Sir Richard Burton) - there is a beautiful passage:

All Faith is false, all Faith is true:
Truth is the shattered mirror strown
In myriad bits; while each believes
His little bit the whole to own. I think as individuals we can attempt to put the pieces back together - it's doomed to fail but the effort is the point imo.


I agree with you there....all the accusations against religion as being dogmatic can also be found in science. Many, many scientists are very rigid and some have extreme bias.

It can be sometimes almost fundamentalist.

Re evolution, I'm not sure that you can say it is not religious. Perhaps it is not Christian but there is nothing in Judaism that would militate against it per se and I would argue it is actually an Islamic concept and Islam is religious.

The Qur'an for example says life came from water and the forms of beings all originated there. Many Muslim thinkers (at least 3 I can think of) state evolutionary theory hundreds of years before Darwin.

But it may not be the whole theory as yet. I see our knowledge of 'creation' as evolution too. We went from:

Literal creator God -> Symbolic creator God -> evolution -> ? -> ?

So we may go on to something else that explains it better in the light of new science or discoveries. What we WON'T do (unless a man-made effort to bring about disaster occurs) is go back to any previous position. We're learning and advancing.

Hopefully.




I hope you stick around for a bit!!

I think I preferred al Ma'ari or Omar Khayyam


To be fair this is a very serious point against some forms of religion and one it is very difficult to refute.

It's up there with the old paradox of "can an omnipotent God create a weight it is impossible for Him to lift?"

If He can then he is not omnipotent as there is something He can't do (lift the weight) and if He can't then ditto.

But this is the point: many religions actually address these issues and try to evolve some form of rational thought from them - I don't mean angels dancing on pins either. Sometimes it can be just BS for sure but imo any rational use of the mind is a good thing!

Another point on this: the example you gave really only applies to Christianity and even then to only a certain type. And this is because those type of Christians have painted themselves into a corner with bad theology and illogical thought.

The first mistake was creating Satan as an equal to God who is not an equal to God. They will deny this but theologically this is what they have done because they could not accept that God would have anything to do with 'sin' so they needed another figure to offload that on to. But then they have another problem: someone who can counter God - and then they need Jesus to 'save people' with a sacrifice that is not a sacrifice which doesn't actually save EVERYONE and then they start to whirl around in a devil's-intestines of their own unreason.

Islam avoids this by saying: everything is God's and there is no other power. That shifts the onus on to the believer to try to work it out rather than have a flawed theology.

Also, if Satan hates god so much, why would he torture the people that actually are on his side? Wouldn't Satan totally love all those people who reject god, too?


But again, it's the flawed theology that utterly dominates modern Christian thought and it's under that flawed theology that Atheists are the most reviled minority in America. So, I will pull no punches against mainstream Christianity.

The lead singer of Bad Religion, Greg Graffin, actually has a masters in geology and a Ph.D. in Zoology (with his dissertation on religion and evolutionary biology). He is a great modern day thinker, and not just as one of the pioneers of the entire punk music movement.

Yes, massive problem...logically there would be one paradise for those who choose Satan - I guess with orgies, gay sex and loads of drugs etc - and one for those who choose God - with hymns and stuff.

Then each would be hell for the other.

Actually you've hit on the 'smoking gun' here - the fact that Satan's hell is somehow a punishment is proof that the Christian's invented it and defined it as what they would want to happen.


I'm with you there. Not sure atheists are more reviled than Muslims though. Literally every time I have to Google something on Islam - scholarly searches not news as such, which makes this much worse - every time then I have to wade through dozens of hate links.

Try it - pick a random topic on Islam and one on atheism. I guarantee you you'll find dozens of hate links on the first page, more than the objective links, for Islam and hardly any hate links for atheism.

For example: if you Google Islam's view of the devil - chosen at random because we are talking of His Infernal Majesty - you get the following:

Concrete proof islam is of the devil

Islam is of the Devil - Website | Facebook

"Islam is of the Devil" T-Shirt

Satan's Anti-Christ 666 : Islam Actually, all these links are fundie Xian sites so I'm with you there...Xianity (as opposed to Christianity) in the US does indeed seem to be a religion of hate.

I do not believe there are any "Christianity is of the Devil" T-shirts from Muslims or any anti-Christian sites.

That tells you something.

I also don't see any equivalent hate going towards atheists but you would know better...I'm willing to be informed on that one.

Ok...cool. I never really listened to them to be honest - always saw them as a low-rent Crass.

If you're into punk you should check out the Muslim Taqwacore bands.

These guys are rocking the Islamic world - again, no Western coverage - and imo will kick off a youth revolution as soon as the Mullahs start failing to keep a lid on it. Which will be soon.

Movie Trailer

Never Mind The Burkas article

That's intellectually weak don't you think?

If Adam and Eve were the only two humans then there obviously were no need for any declarations or pledges, there would be no other women and men that the two could practice adultery with.

Likewise with Cain and his wife, as far as I remember the genesis-account claimed long lifes for Adam and Eve, multiple hundred of years, and dozens and dozens of children born during it . Enough to provide wifes for Cain, sure it's incest from today's view... but this is again lazy thinking, because then there was only that possibility, so it would be the defacto-norm, more than a norm actually, since a norm assumes variant possibilities.