The Antichristian Phenomenon

Through the Austro-Athenian Empire I’ve noticed LifeWay presenting 10 questions to Atheists and I thought this is a good reason to activate the ACP once more. Hopefully, the rest of the co-writers around here will add their part as always.

So LifeWay presents these questions which fortunately avoid becoming strawmen as I expected and display an actual willingness to hear the other side of the story. Wether anything good will come of it or wether the answers provided will be quote-mined for a nefarious cause is yet to be seen, but from me, you’ll get the Epicurean perspective.

I am only going to quote the actual question part of each point to save space. LifeWay has written a bit of introduction to each question so I’d advise you check out what the reasoning behind it is.

Edit from Anath: Added my responses, more to come as they are added in the forum thread.  Each person’s response will be marked with their name, so readers can choose to read only responses from a particular author if they like.

1. Creation

In light of the troubling evidence for a beginning, and that we may not even be able to find a natural cause in principle, what explanation is given to the questions, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “Where did it all come from?”

Db0: This is the kind of question that I am really comfortable in leaving unanswered and simply say “I don’t know”. We may find the answer in the future or we may not, but it’s not really important in the grand scheme of things.

Personally I have the impression that the answer to this question is simply that something has always existed. We may have discovered the time edge of our universe but that does not mean we know everything. How do we know that there are not more than one universes out there, in the same way that there are more galaxies? How do we know that there was nothing before the Big Bang? I think it’s quite possible that we are simply another iteration in an endless series of Big Bangs, one universe starting where the previous one ended in a Big Crunch.

And you know what? My random materialistic theory makes more sense than the magical sky daddy one.

Anath: There currently is no verifiable explanation.  Personally, it doesn’t bother me the slightest bit.  There are a lot of things that are more relevant to me than arcane, unanswerable speculation.  We may NEVER answer these questions, and even if we do somehow answer them… the answer will have no bearing on my everyday life, moral values, behavior, goals, or relationships.

2. Order

How is it that we live in such an exquisitely fine-tuned universe?  Even assuming that the universe could have popped out of nothingness, why should it have been such an orderly and hospitable one?  Is there a scientific, testable answer for this question that does not simply appeal to imagination?

Db0: This is actually a very simple question to answer. It is not actually the universe that is finelly tuned to human life. On the contrary the universe is an extremely hostile place that for 99.99999(you get the idea)% of its area cannot support human life. We cannot survive in full vacuum. We cannot survive in the surface of a star. Indeed we cannot survive in most of the surface of our own Earth.

Scott Pruet is actually seeing the question inverted because he has a human-centric viewpoint. It is not that the universe is finely-tuned to human life. The universe just is. It is human physiology that has evolved to be sustainable in a very specific range in an Earth-like environment.

The question Scott is asking is akin to a sentient puddle of water on a hole in the ground wondering how wonderful a deity must be that it made the puddle at exactly the size and form it is in order for it to fit in perfectly.

Anath: There is only one answer: We couldn’t live in a universe less finely tuned.  If we were a form of life that HAD developed in a universe with different “tuning”, we would be saying the same thing about that universe.  Plus, ex post facto questions are virtually useless.  It’s like claiming your life is somehow miraculous and special because YOU were the specific result of your parents copulation.  Had a different sperm reached the egg first, or had something interrupted your parents before transfer that particular time, a totally different person would be saying the EXACT same thing.  We are all products of chance.  “Order” is an illusion, you are simply looking for rabbits in clouds.  How can you not accept this?

3. Abiogenesis

What hope for an explanation do you have?  Are you satisfied to have problems like this that are unanswered, or even unanswerable?

Db0: I am not an expert in Abiogenesis but there are others who have done considerable research and have come with pretty good explanations. This problem is far from unanswered or unanswerable.

In telling the tale of life on earth science writers often unconsciously use the word “miracle” for the appearance of the first organisms.
What kind of evidence is needed before we are to actually accept that something like this really is a miracle?

Scientists may use various words to explain themselves to that layman but they may not necessarily be using them in the same way you do. For example, when a Scientists says “Miracle”, he may actually mean something with a probability so low, that it’s amazing that it even happened. Of course if one consider the sheer size of the universe, the possibility of anything like that not happening is what starts to get low.

However to take a word in general, claim that science writers use it, while not providing a context, and then use that as some kind of subconscious belief is nothing more than equivocation and very intellectually dishonest.

So to answer this question, I first need a clear definition of what you mean by “Miracle”. If you mean the act of God or something like this, then I would need nothing less than proof that it was actually the Christian god which made it happen. It shouldn’t have been difficult for example for an omnipotent deity to make DNA code spell his name or something equally obvious.

Anath: I will need to quote from their explanation for this.

“The fossil record does not give evidence that there was a “prebiotic soup,” or that there were any biological precursors to the first organisms, or that the atmosphere was the ideal mix to yield the necessary molecules, or that there was the expected long period of time between when the Earth could support life and when it actually appeared. Evolutionists regularly segregate the abiogenesis problem from the issue of evolution because (1) it is a challenge they’d rather not be saddled with, or (2) it is the most logical point for possible divine intervention. “

No.  Nonsense.  We are misled before the question is even asked.  “Evolutionists” segregate abiogenesis because abiogenesis is a separate field of study.  The Theory of Evolution deals only with the events AFTER abiogenesis, and can not explain the origin.  This is not a defect of Evolutionary Theory but rather akin to how a homicide investigation team can only work after a murder has occurred, but is not involved in the murder.  And why exactly woudl one think the FOSSIL record would say anything about atmospheric conditions or non-organic matter?  Only organic matter is fossilized, which means there would be NO fossils until after complex life was formed.

As far an “answer”, I am also comfortable with the fact that we do not yet know.  I look to abiogenesis theories with hope but it is entirely likely that these theories will not be proven within my lifetime.  My current favorite theory is the RNA world theory but I understand that it is not without its difficulties.  The reason I like it primarily has to do with the fact that I can visualize how it might occur and it seems like a logical explanation of how complex life could arise through simple enzymes and inorganic material.  However, I also freely admit that my knowledge of biochemistry is pretty weak so I will never push the theory on anyone or really attempt an in depth discussion of it.  I just like it.  However, if it is proven wrong I have no problems switching to a more accurate theory.

As far as science writers using the term “miracle”… so what?  Science writers are trying to explain science to the general public, in terms they understand.  It is very easy to understand certain aspects of science with religious or spiritual terminology.  Its simply a writing technique and means nothing.  What evidence will we need?  A crocoduck.  Something COMPLETELY impossible and unexplainable.  Life rising from non-life is NOT a crocoduck.  It is unusual and potentially quite improbable, but it is not unexplainable.

4. Transcendent Principles

What is the source of math and logic?  The existence of this remarkably fine-tuned universe aside, how is it that we have these “languages of reality” to so elegantly describe and interact with it?

Db0: As previously explained, concepts such as math and logic are not fine-tuned to be used by humans. It is actually humans brains that have evolved in this particular way so as to be able to formulate maths and logic.  For an animal they don’t exist at all.

In short, Logic (and by extension math) is simply the tools that the human brain uses to evaluate the signals provided by the senses. And like our senses have evolved to make use of the signals our environment gives us, so have our cognitive abilities.

Anath: The source of math and logic is the human mind.  How do we have these “languages”?  We made them.  We are trying to quantify reality to make it comprehensible and explainable, and we have created tools to do this with as well as simplify our own life.  I will leave it at that to avoid repetition.

5. Morality

Do you deny objective morality; that the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler is not just a matter of preference, like chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream?  If not, then how do you ground morality; how do you explain where it came from and why we ought to be moral tomorrow?

Db0: It’s funny that Mother Teresa has been used in comparison as she’s been thoroughly exposed as a Fraud, doing far more harm than good, but lets for the moment consider that she was a good example for the sake of this question.

Yes I do reject the concept of an objective morality as empirical evidence shows us that there is no such thing. I also reject moral relativism as being inherently useless. In fact, I am firmly in the middle of those two extremes. I hold that our morality starts from an evolutionary psychology base and is modified by our beliefs and desires. I do not however claim that whatever  morals one has are as good as any other set, but claim that we can find the best moral system from a utilitarian perspective. This last belief (that the best morals are the ones that would lead the largest amount of humans to the largest amount of happiness) is in turn is indeed subjective, but it is based on logical argumentation and I hold that it is superior to any other (necessarily subjective) belief about what the best morals are.

It’s all very materialistic really.

Skeptics often bring up the “problem of evil” as evidence against God, i.e., if there is a good and all-powerful God, then why is there evil in the world.
Do you think that this is a valid objection?  If so, are you admitting that there is evil in the world?  What is “evil,” and do you not admit its opposite: “good?”
The problem of evil objection only makes sense if such things as good and evil are objectively real, not just preference statements.

The Problem of Evil is also called the Problem of Suffering which is rather more accurate and avoids falling into linguistical traps such as the one above. So yes, I do think this is a valid objection and of course I think that there is evil, or mora accurate, immorality in the world. And evil is of course, whatever action I consider to be immoral based on my current moral system.

Now some may immediately ask “Why is it your morals that define what is Evil?” Well, I’m willing to admit that I may be wrong, so if you think one of my moral values is flawed, we can discuss it and I promise that I am quite open to be convinced of being wrong. At the end of the day, all of us work the same way. The only difference is that a Christian will call their own subjective morals as coming from God (possibly through the mouth of a priest) and be unwilling to modify them no matter what.

Anath: Like Db0 I am in between an objective morality and moral relativism.  On one hand it is true that there are no “objective” (read as: ultimate, “god-given”, universal) morals, but on the other, to claim that one moral system is as good as another is also incorrect.  Our moral system is a direct result of our evolutionary history, this is the “ground” we all begin on and the theme all cultures create variations on.  Morality arose for survival purposes, and we can see forms of it in other animals through reciprocal altruism, parental investment, and others.

If one breaks down common moral codes to their core, one will find that almost all of them have to do with survival or “seek-pleasure-avoid-pain” in some way.  Morality aside, its a Bad Idea to go around murdering other human beings that could be assisting you either directly or indirectly through the community.  By doing such an act, you are hurting your own chances of survival (depending on your situation) and the cost-benefit analysis of pleasure vs. pain will show that such an act will most likely illicit more pain for you than pleasure.  Even smaller acts of immorality are likely to hurt you directly or indirectly, which is “why you should be moral tomorrow”.  Even if there are no divine mandates on morality, the morals of “seek-pleasure-avoid-pain” WILL better your existence and those around you, for your pleasure often is affected by theirs.  Unless you’re a hermit and there IS no one else.

Is the “problem of evil” a valid argument either way?  No, it is irrelevant.  Good and Evil are constructs of the human mind, not objective realities.  Even if we rephrase it as the Problem of Suffering, it is still an irrelevant question, and there are plenty of plausible (though sadistic) arguments on the Theist side of why evil/suffering might exist.  By arguing with the Problem of Evil/Suffering, we are simply nitpicking our personal opinions of what a “god-figure” should be like, not whether or not one actually exists.

6. Meaning

Does life really have no point other than what you pretend for your own sake?  Will you say, like atheist philosopher Albert Camus, that the only serious question is “suicide?”  What values and purpose will you instill in your children?  Will you be honest with them, or will you borrow ideas from some non-atheistic belief system so as not to disappoint?

Db0: There’s two answers to this question really. Consciously no, there is indeed no point to life other than whatever we make for ourselves. Subconsciously, all humans strive for the same thing. Happiness for as long as possible. It is this subconscious drive that creates the conscious goals one has, as affected by one’s own beliefs and desires. For example, I am the kind of person who likes to see other people being happy, so my life’s goal has become to make as many people in the world be happy as well.

As for my children, I will of course be honest. I will explain that one makes his own goals and that it’s in their own best interest to find the happiness the subconsciously seek in making others happy.

Anath: Life has no objective meaning, and if it does, there is no way to know it for sure.  But really, so what?  Once one comes to this realization and embraces it, one is free to create their own meaning, since the only possible “meaning” is created by oneself.  Cost-benefit analysis often yields the conclusion that suicide isn’t worth the trouble, anyway, since in most cases the pain end is maximized and the pleasure end minimized, not to mention there is no definitive way to know what comes after death so uncertainty must also come into play.  (I figure that I’ll die soon enough anyway, so I may as well just wait and find out naturally.)

I am not sure yet what I will teach my children if and when I have any, but I know for sure that I will not fall back on any belief system that tries to present a meaning for them.  When I realized that there was no ultimate, absolute, universal meaning, that there WAS no “plan” for my life, or anyone looking out for me from above after being taught this by my parents, elders, teachers, community, peers… I felt cheated, furious, resentful, depressed, alone, and lost.  The initial nihilism almost broke me.  I would NEVER put my child through that, I would be honest from the beginning, and teach them how to construct their own meaning instead of relying on someone else to give them one.  If they decide later that they believe there is a God or ultimate meaning, that is their choice to make.

7. The Mind

Are you prepared to accept the idea that no one is really morally responsible for their bad behavior and, conversely, that virtuous behavior is not commendable?  In what way will you seek to convince me that I am really not a conscious and self-aware being; that it is just a complex biochemical illusion?  Can you accept that computer programs may one day be just as much “persons” as you, yourself?

Db0: Accepting that humans are indeed “computers made of meat” does not lead to the concept that no-one is morally responsible for their bad or good actions. As I mentioned above, all of us start with an evolved psychology that gives us some basic moral feelings (aversion to killing babies for example). But this is not something we cannot overcome which makes us indeed responsible for our own actions.

The reason why bad behavior is morally wrong is simply because we have a reason to want this bad behaviour to stop. If someone is killing babies, we want them to stop doing it because we have reasons to want babies to survive. Thus we label this kind of behaviour “bad” and try to avert people from doing it.

Similarly for good actions. We have reason to commend virtuous behaviour, because we want such behaviour to continue and spread. As such we label it “good” and we promote it.

So I don’t feel the need to convince you that you are conscious and self-aware. I only need to convince you to avoid bad behavior and seek virtu0us behaviour. And I convince you through my words and my actions, as will everyone else. Disregard that at your own risk.

As for Computer programs becoming conscious, I can see it in the future and I have no issues with it.

Anath: Again, I must start by quoting their explanation:

“In the world of atheism, where there is no soul or transcendent “self,” humans are simply biological machines, and our minds are just computers made out of meat. With this in view there is really no room for something like freewill, since we are all just operating according to our “programming” and our environmental influences.”

Again, nonsense.  And somehow you claim that you have free will in a world with a God that already knows what you are going to do and what choices you will make and has presented you with a “choice” to either accept him or go to hell even though he already knows what you will do beforehand? If we go by your worldview, then I was created to go to Hell, since God knew my choice before I was conceived.  Where’s the free will in that?

Now onto the question.  How can the idea that no one is morally responsible for their actions POSSIBLY be derived from the attempted meat-machine argument?  And how is it assumed that because we are essentially complex computers, we do not have the capability of stepping outside our “programming and environmental influences”?  If that were true, there would be no change, but we can adapt and grow and choose, and we would expect a true AI to be able to do the same.  We can even make choices outside our “nature”– do you really think the extreme asceticism some people put themselves through is aligned with our “programming”?

And we ARE self aware.  No one would deny that, even the most materialistic atheist.  The reasons for self awareness ARE biochemical, and a brief foray into the realm of neuroscience will show you that dualism is inherently wrong.  Mind and body are one and the same.  But this does not mean that we are not self aware or conscious, just that the explanation is a natural one.

As for computers, I would LOVE to hear about one actually passing the Turing test.  The only reason to fear something like that is due to watching too many Sci-fi movies like Terminator and the Matrix.

8. Supernatural Experiences

Every known time and culture is rich with stories of near death experiences, ghosts, angels, demons, prophetic dreams and visions, and miraculous healings.  While some of these are certainly spurious or not well documented, others have reasonable experimental support.  In addition to this, humans seem to be incurably religious; the idea of God and the spiritual is deeply entrenched in the human psyche, if not in its actual experience.
What are we to make of all this?  If man is simply an adapted biological organism, then how is it that we did not manage to adapt to our natural environment in this area – why are we not “naturalists” rather than theists?  Can’t any of this be a hint toward reality, or must we think that the bulk of humanity flirts with insanity?

Db0: I have to actually take issue with the leading paragraph (which is the reason it is quoted here). Unfortunately there is no reasonable experimental support. At all. There is only anecdotal evidence. Humans are also not incurably religious, otherwise I wouldn’t be an atheist, nor would Atheism be the largest growing theistic stance in the last century.

So of course man is an adapted biological mechanism and the reason why we have been largely theists in the past was that various religions had much more competitive memetic group than others and thus managed to replicate themselves. Ancient environment were simply not suitable for Atheistic or secular thought since people who followed such a path would (and were) be conquered by random religious zealots on holy wars and their ideas extinguished violently. Something that did indeed happen many times in the past. One only needs to look at how violently and thoroughly Classical Greek philosophical thought was purged and indeed how much the Atheistic thought of Epicurism has been slandered and silenced.

Anath: Reasonable experimental support for supernatural phenomena?  Like WHAT?  And if all humans are “incurably religious”, what is the explanation for the outliers such as myself and those who frequent this blog?  Clearly I’m not “incurably” religious, since I’ve left mine altogether and feel no need for ultimate meaning or even an explanation for existence.

Also, since evolution is mentioned here, it is worth mentioning that we, as a species, have advanced faster than we can adapt.  We still retain many of the mechanisms required for existence in “the wild”, and our R-complex is still markedly prominent, overriding many systems at times.  Also we have developed a highly advanced prefrontal cortex (among other things) which means we can do strange abstract things like attribute feelings, actions, and desires to inanimate objects and create complex social scenarios, even involving inanimate objects.  Given this fact it is not illogical that a group of “primitive” humans, who knew nothing of meteorology, biology, the germ theory of disease, and other things, might have attributed consciousness to the sky, the earth, the animals, and so on.  Regardless of the truth or falsity, their over-developed ability to think abstractly would have led them to the conclusion of “god-figures”, and given the knowledge of the time, that is a reasonable and logical conclusion.  However, now that we have more knowledge, there is little reason to hold on to the abstractions of our ancestors, though they can be appealing… though we see here an abstract conflict between hard facts and our penchant for abstraction.

When you come home from work to find your lamp knocked off the desk, your first thought is most likely “who knocked over my lamp!?”  This question of “who” is natural for creatures who are wired to attribute consciousness to actions or see tigers hiding in shadows to avoid being lunch.  In fact maybe no one knocked over your lamp, but you had set it too close to the edge the night before without realizing it and the vibrations from a very large event outside (passing vehicle, earthquake, construction, plain gravity, a breeze from the window, whatever) knocked it over, in which case there IS no “who”.  The facts in this case have nothing to do with our attributing a “who” to the event, and it is the same with the existence of God.  It IS counter-intuitive biologically to even think that there maybe no ultimate “who” answer for everything, but as we can see with my example, or examples of people thinking their TV’s are “possessed” (when really it is a bad wire or something), the truth of the matter has little to do with biology.  Thinking there is an ultimate “who”, or that “someone” knocked over your lamp, or that those bushes just rustled because there is tiger in them has the same origin, and that origin was due to our survival-based need to see tigers in the shadows.  Nothing more.

9. Case for Christ

What alternative explanation do you offer to the New Testament documentation and the tradition of the church, and what support do you have for your theory?

Db0: While Scott claims that the case for the existence of the Jesus figure is compelling, it is rather exceedingly flimsy actually. Not only has the concept of the Jesus story been plagiarized from previous gods and beliefs (Zoroastry, Dionysus and more importantly Mithra) but there’s also very little archaeological or historical evidence for the existence of Christ outside of Christian books. The Books have been modified through translation a million times with random stories added in by later scholars (such as the King James bible which introduced the nonsense with the handling of snakes, speaking of tongues and the like).

But lets for a moment say that the Jesus figure really existed. If so, then I stand that Jesus was either a revolutionary communist (not in the Marxist sense) from a Jewish sect who wanted to bring down the Jewish theocracy of the time, or he was a con artist, who used cheap tricks and staged miracles to convince people. Most likely, it has been both and the story of Jesus is likely the aggregation of the most popular  myths, fables and achievements of the multitude of Messiahs that lived and preached in that age.

Is it because of the miracles that you doubt the Scriptures?  If Jesus really were God in the flesh, how would you expect Him to confirm that fact?

No, not really. I doubt the Scriptures because they are totally inconsistent and occasionally outright false. If Jesus was the biblical God in the flesh, then I would expect him to do something more than what a cheap trickster might do now. Why not cure all blind people in Jerusalem? Why not bring peace upon the world. Any action that would make more sense than this

And finally…

Anath: Lets start with doubting the scripture.  The miracles do not make me doubt the scripture at all.  Given the time frame, I would expect miracle claims even if “real” miracles did not occur, and if they did, the Bible is not very good evidence of it, seeing as its a biased book with a specific goal in mind.  Its the same reason you should be skeptical of pharmaceutical or political or toothpaste ads; they’re trying to sell a product.  In this case the product just happens to be a religion.

The real reason I doubt the scripture is this:  It is claimed that the scripture is divinely inspired, that the Gospel writers were dictated to by God, or something, regardless of the details, we are to expect that “Bible = God’s infallible word”.  This means we should see no inconsistances.  Yes, yes, I understand that there are certain apparent inconsistancies that have to do with interpretation and translation and inspiration and wishful thinking.

However, lets get down to basics and look at something of which there can BE no interpretation.  Lets look at a list.  Here is what Luke 3:23-38 says about Jesus’ ancestry.  Here is what Matthew 1:1-17 says about Jesus’ ancestry.  This can be confusing because one is backwards and the other forwards, but bear with me.  I’m also doing this kind of quick out of time constraints so feel free to do the math yourself, in fact I encourage you to double check me.  Matthew says there were about 42 generations from Abraham.  Luke says there were about 54. The very early generations between Abraham and David are identical but after that it falls apart.  Matthew says Jesus’ grandfather was Jacob.  Luke says the father of Joseph was Heli.  Then  in the third generation, was it Levi or Eleazer?  In the fourth was it Melki or Eluid?  In the fifth was it Jannai or Akim?  Why is the line of Solomon present after David in Matthew but in Luke we are told that he is of the line of Nathan?  If THIS is divinely inspired, why do over half the names not match up, why are there different numbers of generations?  Were Luke and Matthew just given different infallible divine revelations?  If the Bible can’t even depict the ancestry of its “Savior” consistently, then what else is wrong with it?  Lets not even start comparing the stories themselves!

As for alternative theories, I really don’t have any.  Logically I can infer that Jesus was an influential revolutionary, but was he divine?  The only evidence that he might be divine is in a book that we have already proven to be inconsistent, so I’m likely to say “No”.  My evidence is in the lack of evidence either way, and application of Occam’s Razor.

10. Rational Faith

Is it so unreasonable for us to believe that the universe had a beginning because it actually was created; the laws of physics are so fine-tuned because it had a designer; people are preoccupied with good and evil because they are real things; we long for purpose and meaning because they exist to be had; life from non-life really is miraculous; consciousness and freewill seem real because they are; people are incurably religious because there is actually something real in religion; and the historical case for Jesus is so tenacious because it is actually true?

Db0: In short, yes. It is unreasonable to believe in something in light of evidence to the contrary.

If there really is no meaning or purpose to life, no objective good or evil, and the existence of “truth” itself is open to debate, by what standard will you condemn the beliefs of Christians?

Mine. Your religion and your beliefs deserve to be condemned not simply because they are irrational, but because you teach that irrationality is something to be proud of, the Anti-Knowledge is a virtue and because your blind faith in authority figures breeds very bad results.

In short, I condemn you because you have a very unhealthy group of memes. Very unhealthy for the future of mankind.

Anath: I don’t have much to add to Db0′s comment.  Read it over, and over, and over, until it sinks in.

I will add that I really don’t care if you want to believe all that, just so long as you keep it to yourself.  OUT OF SCHOOLS, OUT OF GOVERNMENT, OUT OF LEGISLATION, POLICY, AND OFF MY DOORSTEP.  Really, go believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti monster or the Church of Google.  Just do it privately, and don’t pretend you’re qualified to have an opinion on biochemistry because you read a 6000 year old book written by some desert nomads.  If you don’t keep it to yourself, then don’t be surprised when people like us tell you that you’re wrong.

I’m sure you wouldn’t mind a senator who worked for the good of the people, bettered his community, and supported education and human rights, even if he just happened to be (raised?) Muslim.  You WOULD mind, however, if he started integrating sharia laws.  We feel the same way about you.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 17th, 2009 at 7:25 am and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.