Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

So I first saw this amazingly offensive campaign in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miULdI-qocg

Then these billboards apparently started popping up.

I only bring this up in light of Dr. George Tiller’s murder. While I’m not going to touch either side of the abortion argument, I have a strong sense of hypocrisy when I look at the contradictions in messages.

Murder in the name of God is not something unknown.  In fact, not only does it happen, but it appears to be quite condoned in (“Western”) religious texts.

For example, in a form of genocide, as recounted in the “Old Testament”:

16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Deutoronomy 20:16-17

Or perhaps this individual encouter, as recounted in The Book of Mormon, in which Nephi murders Laban:

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

…

18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

1 Nephi 4:10-13, 18

The point here is that, going by religious texts, murder and killing is not something outside of the realm of (“Western”) God’s will.

So what kind of hypocrisy is it so show images and make statements which imply that someone who doesn’t believe in God will kill?  I’m much more concerned by someone who feels a moral obligation to kill.  Take, for example, the writings of another famous abortion doctor killer, the Reverend Paul Hill:

The scriptures teach that when the government requires sin of its people that they “… must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29b). No human government can remove the individual’s duty to keep each of the Ten Commandments: these duties are inalienable. When the government, thus, will not defend the people’s children—as required by the Sixth Commandment—this duty necessarily reverts to the people. You don’t need the government’s permission before defending your own or your neighbor’s child. If the people’s children will not be defended by the government, they must be defended by the people, or they will not be defended at all.

And if you want your fellow citizens, and the government, to recognize this duty, you must assert it.  The outrage is not that some people use the means necessary to defend the unborn, but that since most people deny that this duty exists the government will not perform it on the people’s behalf.

If you haven’t read it, I highly encourage you to take a moment and read his article on why, how, and the aftermath of shooting and killing Dr. John Britton and his escort, James Barrett: http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot.html

But, here, let’s look at the truth of it.  Being Christian, for example, doesn’t make anyone more or less likely to kill any more than being an atheist or agnostic does.  Individual people make individual decisions and justify them by whatever means they want.

I think we should put more emphasis, as individuals, on our own value on life than on defeating our enemies.

Community. It is a pretty powerful word–a pretty powerful idea. I have to admit that it is also somewhat foreign to me. I am ever in contact with the idea because of my study of religion–in fact, one of the “not-definitions” of religion is community. But, when it comes down to it, I do not feel like I have much community.

I have some good friends who are very important to me and who I definitely do not spend enough time with. When I talk about community, I do not talk about individual friendships or groups of friends and associates. I am talking about being a part of something bigger than oneself–about having a network of people to invest in, to lean on, and to support. I’ve tried to find groups who share passions that I do: atheists, hockey fans/players, readers, etc… While I’ve met good people and even found groups to be a part of, I’ve never felt like I belong.

Some of that I attribute to my childhood. Until I got into the middle of my freshman year of high school, I moved every year or two–three times I moved states. Each time, I had to give up everything I knew–everyone I knew–and start over. I look at pride with being able to be self-sufficient and to find the strength I need to get through in myself, but I often wonder what it would be like to feel part of something bigger.

The other side of the coin, though, is that community often includes necessary exclusion–by definition, there are outsiders. Sometimes this is nominal and sometimes it is highly marginalizing. I have joked about this before, but I really do feel marginalized sometimes. A big issue is religion–not believing in God (and the lack of belief being important to me) makes me quite a pariah–and not being militant about it makes me feel distant from many, if not most, atheists.

There is something about atheism which breeds militancy. Someone very important to me recently said, on an unrelated but similar topic, “I don’t want to spend my life on the defensive.” I think that feeling plays into it–what better defense than an offense? I know I went through a period of militancy, but I just felt empty and hollow–I don’t hate religion, I don’t hate people who believe in God. I do hate ignorant group-think. I do hate blind thinking and perception. I do hate intolerance. But none of these are unique to religion or adherents.

Intolerance is something which can come along with community, especially community with boundaries of righteousness. And the greatest irony is that the stronger the walls that a community builds, the more they are at risk from isolating themselves from society, which in turns causes inward focus on the community, which in turn builds stronger walls…

One of the areas of religion I have studied is cults and one of the characteristics which people first identity as “cultish” is strong isolation. Give up your family, your friends, your past–they are tainted, we have the answer. That sort of stuff. But people are too heavy handed with their use of the word cult. It is, important I think, to understand how any strong community risks breeding this sentiment, especially from outsiders. The challenge is finding a way to balance community and interaction with the greater society.

I know I want to feel a part of a greater community–like I belong. But the honest truth is that I will never, ever give up my ability or interest in judging a person on his/her individual merit for a sense of belonging. I would rather be entirely alone and honest with myself and my relationships with others. I will never be a part of something which draws lines and says “you are in or you are out.” Those of you who know me or have been reading my writing for long enough know that among the top of my frustrations is either/or ideas. If my options are “all or nothing” then there is a serious problem with my options.

I’ve often said that I am firm believer in the individual or communal religious experience. I do not think I’ve made strong efforts to qualify what that means. One of the defining aspects of an institutional religion is the codification of practices into laws, rituals, acceptable practices, etc. For me, this is one of the great turns offs of organized religion. When you try to codify an ideal or the divine or whatever, it often fails to translate. Laws can become burdensome, legalistic (hard to understand), or, even worse, serve as the antithesis of their spirit.

But I have to wonder–is there something acceptably human in the failure of the attempt to codify the divine ideal? Take the line of thinking: Humans are fallible (let’s assume some kind of personal, divine intention for this), God reveals truth to humans, humans attempt to interpret that truth, the interpretation becomes codified laws, those laws are not perfect–that seems to make some sense to me. Unless of course you choose to believe that divine inspiration is divinely perfect, and then you’re just screwed in explaining how things go wrong and why that is okay.

And how does individual interpretation of revelation factor in? Does the institution have divine inspiration and therefore represent the full and actual culmination of God’s will and desire? If the church is seem something as man made, and therefore fallible, I find my level of acceptance for problems in law and practice much higher. But, again, if the codified laws are divinely inspired, no way. Can the individual decide for him or herself what is right and wrong? How does human fallibility play a role in that interpretation?

Besides the fact that I believe the codified laws found in organized religion can simply be wrong, I also believe that at some point the religion becomes more about the worship of the law than about any kind of relationship with divinity. That, to me, is an ultimate tragedy. I find beauty, wonder, and grace in the world around me. If I were theistic, I would probably try to find divinity in the world, in my relationships with people, in life here and now. I’m sure it is a generalization and highly biased, but I feel like there is so much stagnation when the doctrine of law becomes more important than the doctrine of spirit.

Wanted to let you know about my invited post on the most excellent Mind on Fire.  It is part of the “Leaving the Garden” series.

http://www.mindonfire.com/2008/02/22/leaving-the-garden-isaacs-journey/ 

From the site:

“Leaving the Garden” is a weekly series in which we ask someone to reflect on their encounters with religion and uncertainty. Religion is filled with stories of faith; here we will collect narratives of unbelief. If you’d like to share your story of doubt, please leave a comment indicating your interest and I will contact you with guidelines.

Editor’s Note:  It has been pointed out that this article is from 1970, so I suppose that changes things a little bit.  I preserve the original entry nonetheless.

Apparently not in New Jersey.

According to this Time article, a New Jersey couple has been denied the ability to adopt a child because they are not religious. Let us just cut to the chase–here is what the judge who ruled this says it is all about:

Inestimable Privilege. In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” . . . he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”

Here is the argument in a nutshell: 1) the law says no one shall be denied the ability to worship God, 2) the parents do not worship God, 3) therefore the child is being denied the ability to worship God.

First, if nothing else, I am simply offended at this, even if the logic was not flawed. If I may be frank, this judge can suck my left nut. I think this kind of rough-shod abuse of authority is absolutely asinine. The judge obviously is simply making a point and, I would guess, knows that this bullshit will never stand up over time. I am a big fan of the idea of the judiciary, but any asshat who uses the bench as a pulpit (or other type of soapbox) deserves to be stripped down and run out of town.

Now that is out of the way, let’s take a moment to look at the logic. First, to make this work, the judge is taking a narrow definition of the word “worship.” I.e. the law only protects the actual worship (positive), not lack there of. While there are those who would agree with him (and may even define the “freedom to worship however they like” to mean “the freedom to be Christian and, oh, by Christian, I mean my denomination”), legal precedence (and perhaps just using you head) tells us that “freedom to worship” has a much broader definition which happens to include the option of not doing so.

Second, the judge is appealing to all kinds of logical bullshit. You wouldn’t want to deprive the child of her right to make her own decision, would you? This poor, innocent, little child, depraved and left to shallow ignorance by her, while highly moral and ethical, adopted atheist parents. There’s no other way to put it. It’s bullshit.

Third, the logic is incomplete. The assumption being presented here is twofold: 1) parental influence necessarily defines a child’s ideological framework and 2) the parents would necessarily only present the child with the option of atheism. The judge tried to lighten the blow by talking about the “influence” of the parents, but he’s basically saying the above. Neither of these statements are axiomatic and it is wrong to simply present them as assumed fact.

Lastly, and most ironically, the flawed logic allows for some interesting thinking. I mean, if the judge is correct (and I’ll look to his own words, where he says “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit”), I would that we should not allow Catholics to adopt, as they parents may influence the child to believe in, of all things, Catholicism and not give the child the freedom to worship “as she sees fit.” For that matter, Jews are out too. In fact, maybe we shouldn’t let anyone adopt. Well, really, that’s a bit of a slippery slope, but seeing as the logic is gone from the judge’s argument already, might as well!

Since I began writing on the topic of atheism, the landscape of who is involved in writing about or evangelizing atheism has changed dramatically. Today, there are “heroes” of atheism. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. And many, many more. The ability to form virtual communities has obviously bolstered the atheism “community”–a group of people who are not likely to find people close-by through simply talking to another person on the street. There are no “atheist” churches, synagogues, etc. There are those of you who might claim there are and they are called “universities,” but this is just ignorant or hyperbole; universities are places to learn and thus you’ll find: a) a whole variety of views, be they atheist, theist, republican, democrat, etc. and b) people interested in learning.

However, with the rise of these heroes and apparently representatives of atheism, the issue of “what is” atheism is even more stark and apparent. Many Christians in America seem downright confused about what atheism is or is not and deservedly so, I ‘d have to say. Why? Because “atheism” describes a person who holds a single, particular view and does not describe the type of values a person holds. Some theologians would disagree with me here, but this is the point I have been making for years–you cannot judge an atheist by his/her stance on God but rather by his/her value (ethical) system.

So, as I read through atheist postings, I get so upset when I read atheists proclaiming “atheism means this or that.” Some (atheists) say atheists are modest, or ethical, or nice, or the like. And, as an atheist, I say this is absurd. Because, as I’ve said, being atheist has no bearing on these sorts of things. It may be a harder argument to make, but I believe it hurts our ability be relevant in conversations about morality if we say atheist = moral. Because if you can make the argument atheist = moral, you can make the argument atheist = immoral. Whereas, my argument is that atheist does not equal immoral NECESSARILY. This is an important distinction.

The are other dangers in this line of thinking as well. If one steps forward and makes blanket statements about, say, how atheists are moral people who just to be left alone and not force their views on anyone, this can be retorted with something smart-ass like “well, what about the Communists?” And, in the context of the original statement, the retort is appropriate. I’m an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. I and Stalin do not share the same values. Not only do I not want to make poor arguments, but I definitely don’t want to be lumped in with someone like Stalin.

I say, proudly, no to “Under God.”

To properly cover the issue, the history of the Pledge of Allegiance must first be examined. Then, a discussion of the history of the Establishment Clause (the clause in the Bill of Rights which prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting an individual’s free exercise of religion) and the court’s interpretation thereof. Lastly, the relationship of the Pledge of Allegiance and the Establishment Clause will provide a clear picture of whether this phrase “under God” is constitutional or not.

Perhaps a surprise to many, the original Pledge of Allegiance did not include an affirmation to God. It was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy. It read, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” It was modified in part in 1924 to read “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In this, one can see that there is no mention of “God” or any sort of non-secular affirmation. The Pledge of Allegiance, at least in 1924, is a political affirmation of the secular state–I believe and support in my country. As can be imagined, this change in 1924 was not the last change. The last change came in 1954, when the phrase “under God” was added. When the “1954 Act” was signed by President Eisenhower he said “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.” This sentiment does not appear to be a secular political sentiment. Rather, it appears–no, it openly proclaims–to be a religious affirmation.

The Supreme Court has much to say on state sponsored religious affirmation. According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling on Newdow V. U.S. Congress, the Supreme Court has established three different tests to the Establishment Clause. The first the is “Lemon” test, created in Lemon v. Kurtzman; the “endorsement” test, found in Lynch v. Donnelly; and the “coercion” test, first used in ISKCON v. Lee. Any of these tests may be used to determine the constitutionality of something in regards to the Establishment Clause.

The “Lemon” test checks for three things: (1) does the government conduct in question have a “secular purpose”, (2) does the government conduct in question have “a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion”, and (3) does the government conduct in question refrain from “[fostering] an excessive government entanglement with religion”.

The “endorsement” test is as follows:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions . . . . The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lastly, the “coercion” test tells us that it is unconstitutional to include invocations and benedictions in the form of “nonsectarian” prayers at public graduation ceremonies. It relies on the principle that “at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or it exercise, or otherwise to act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so” (emphasis added).

Now that the background of the Pledge of Allegiance has been examined and a solid definition of what tests the Courts use to examine issues relating to the Establishment Clause, a review of the “under God” statement in the Pledge of Allegiance can be done.

As has already been explained, the phrase “under God” was not originally in the pledge and it was later added with an explicit understanding that is affirmed a belief in the “almighty God”. It appears straight forward that, at the least, the statement is not a secular statement and is clearly a religious one. In addition, the phrase lends itself to a monotheistic bent. While many have argued that it is merely a “place holder” for other religions to place their professed belief, those who profess this “place holder” belief have a hard argument to make. Not only does the history of the phrase show it is monotheistic, but to those of a non-Christian or a non-monotheistic background, this is simply not possible.

In his dissent on the Nordow v. U.S. Congress opinion, Justice O’Scannlain argues that by removing the phrase “under God”, it is favoring an atheistic platform. However, this is also not true. To favor an atheistic platform, one would need to affirm a belief that this is a nation �under no god�. Removing this affirmation does not support an atheistic platform�even if the movement is brought up, as it is in this case, by an atheist.

Speaking of affirmation, affirmation is exactly what is at the heart of this issue. Justice O’Scannlian and Justice Fernandez both argue in separate dissents to Nordow v. U.S. Congress rulings that by making the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, we must also refrain from reading historical documents and speeches, such as the Declaration of Independence, or the Gettysburg address, or even the Constitution. If the Pledge of Allegiance were just another document or speech, this argument is solid and true. However, this argument is a classic logical fallacy. The comparison is a bad comparison and riddled with an emotional appeal. To read from a document is different than to make a public affirmation to something, in this case the principles found in the Pledge of Allegiance. As Justice Goodwin says, “to recite the Pledge is not to describe the United State; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and since 1954 monotheism”.

There has been a great uproar because of the issue of “under God” and the Pledge. This is mainly due to a high level of emotional attachment to the issue. For those who ascribe to “the Almighty” as the sovereign power of this nation, by removing “under God”, something seems to be taken away. And in some sense, this is true. But, what is a greater crime, to remove “under God” for some people, or to push “under God” onto the rest?

The Court answered this best in their ruling on Barnette, when they said “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”.

When I was younger, I had a deep set fascination and perhaps even romance with the idea and personification of death. It did not help that I had such wonderful authors as Piers Anthony (On a Pale Horse) or Terry Pratchett (Mort, Reaper Man, etc.) to fuel my lonley fantastical desires.

As I have grown, I have become more aware of that fact that I do not wish for an eternity of silence, darkness, and my own thought, as I had so deerly pondered and imagined in early days.

I also realize that I find the idea of a personified death reather silly. Still cool, though, very cool. If you ever want to send me Grim Reaper-esque stuff, I’m always taking.

However, death has been a constant topic of mine over the last couple of weeks as another trip into Isaac’s study of religion has intensified. A lot of people, if not all people, fear death. And, I suppose rightly so.

In talking with a newly made good friend of mine, she was inquiring about some of my beliefs as an atheist. And she made the comment unsual, which is one of the reasons I so enjoy talking with her, that she thought atheists would be less likely to commit suicide.

See. I said unsual. I hope this is the case, but from my experiences, it is not. The average person I speak with believes (or professes the belief) that atheists cannot and do not appreciate life, and with a stark future staring ahead of them, suicide is much easier.

Aside from the fact that atheism is not a belief system (and to try to stereotype as such is wrong), I fit firmly with my friend’s perception better. If you think that you are going to die, a death that is permanent and unfulfilling, life means that much more. And trying to leave it is a horrid, horrid thought.

I can proudly say that I do not want to die. I want to live every single day, as happy as I can be. I embrace every facet of the beauty and fruit of reality.. because who knows when I will be without it?

Does the stark idea of my belief in death scare me? Absolutely. Does it make me less of a person, unhappy, or scared to live? No one bit. There are some nights when I think about it, and it makes me sad. Those nights, it would be good to have someone to hold on to, but my lonely bed is as empty as ever.

But, at least I’m alive to know that it is empty.

I thought I’d share this conversation with everyone in lieu of a rant, because I think it speaks for itself. Also, I want to note in this conversations, I did say that this is only one of the reasons I am an atheist. I do want to remind you that I am having a discussion with a 15 year old. However, just for the record, I have had very intelligent conversations with many teenagers about this and other similar topics, both atheists and Christians (and, hey, even more. Yeah, I know it’s a shock, but there are other faiths out there). However, most of the conversations I have with teenagers don’t sound like they are simply saying “BaAaAh” “BaAaah” “BAAAAAAAH!”

(CENSORED): why are u athiest

UncouthRanting: To be simple: I am an atheist because I do not believe in a God. I have found no religion that has a dogma that I find compatible with how it is to really be human. I have found no experience that indicates a necessary existent being. I am happy living life hear and now. Also, check out my website… www.uncouth.net

(CENSORED): 03/28/01 – 04/02/01

Atheism is never nailing yourself to a cross to get people to like you.

- Jesus did not die on the cross to get people to like him. I thought you might want to know that.

UncouthRanting: I did not say he did.

(CENSORED): ok

UncouthRanting: (BTW.. those are by Jeff, not myself)

UncouthRanting: Here is what that means.

(CENSORED): I think I get what it means

UncouthRanting: What do you think it means?

UncouthRanting: (For reference, I have done almost two years of Bible study and am working on completeling a Religous Studies Certificate… I am not just rebelling to rebel.)

(CENSORED): Well……. maybe you should post sayings on your website from people that know what there talking about.

UncouthRanting: That is part of what I am doing though. I do not want to lead people by the collar and say “This is what I mean, get it!?” .. I want people to think for themselves.

(CENSORED): Yes, but when the statement is soooooo far off its like your telling lies to get people to become Atheist.

UncouthRanting: But the statement is not soooo far off.

(CENSORED): Like I said though Jesus did not die on the cross to get people to like him.

UncouthRanting: The statement is saying that people:

a) Do not need to profress Christanity just to get liked

b) People do not need to whine about their “sacrificies” to get liked.

Be a good person. That is what counts.

UncouthRanting: I never said he did. Nor does that statement.

(CENSORED): what kind of sacrificies are you talking about

UncouthRanting: I’m talking about any sacrifice you need to tell people about to feel better about yourself. It’s not who you are.. not what you have done to get liked.

UncouthRanting: Er.

UncouthRanting: It IS who you are.

(CENSORED): Are you talking about christians or another religion because true christians do not tell people about thier sacrifices to feel better about themselves.

UncouthRanting: If we are talking honestly, then it must be said that True Christians are few and far between.

UncouthRanting: And that is my point.

UncouthRanting: Many, many people profress to be Chrisitians.. but are only professing that to get some sort of self worth and social acceptance. Not because they believe.

(CENSORED): That may be true with some people but that is not always the case.

UncouthRanting: I guarantee you that there are more people professing to be Christians then truly, actually believe the whole of the Bible and Christian doctrine.

(CENSORED): That depends on the person.

(CENSORED): either they have asked Christ in there life or not.

(CENSORED): I have met people that you have described to me.

UncouthRanting: That message is to those people who profess to be Christians but have not accept Christ. I am not a believe myself. But I do not judged those who believe, as long as they are true to themselves, happy, and do not harm anyone else.

(CENSORED): I am a Christian and i have asked Christ in my life but sometimes i slipp up and do the wrong thing but that does not make me a non-christian.

(CENSORED): I ask Christ to forgive me of my sins everyday because it is impossible not to sin.

(CENSORED): for*

UncouthRanting: You see.. that is one of the many reasons I cannot be a Christian. While we are human, and do things wrong, I do not see this as bad. I see it as a chance to grow and to learn.

(CENSORED): That is not a reason why you could not be a Christian………

(CENSORED): He still loves you even if you sin

(CENSORED): even if you think its a chance to grow and learn.

UncouthRanting: I cannot support a doctrine that says people are evil.

(CENSORED): You are taking bits out of the bible to make an excuse to not be a Christian. let me explian……..

(CENSORED): It is explaining in the bible that the devil will tempt you and you will sin everybody sins its are nature! and that is why Jesus died for us on the cross………not to get people to like him.

(CENSORED): so we can ask for forgiveness

UncouthRanting: 1) What will it take for you to understand that I did not say that Jesus died to get people to like him?

2) What about that does not say that human’s are evil? Sin is going away from God. Sin IS evil.

3) I don’t need forgiveness for what I do. I live and learn. And I am a damn good person for it.

(CENSORED): THAT IS WHY HE DIED FOR OUR SINS SO WE CAN ASK FORGIVENESS FOR OUR SINS!!!

UncouthRanting: It always supports the truth of a doctrine that you need to yell it at someone.

(CENSORED): just trying to prove a point so you would stop repeating ourself

UncouthRanting: You don’t need to yell to prove a point. Just prove it. However, I am repeating myself because you are repeating yourself.

(CENSORED): I don’t get it, you think that by sining you become a good person by learning from the sins?

(CENSORED): and by forgiving your sins makes you not learn from them?

UncouthRanting: No, I don’t believe I am sining.

(CENSORED): well what ever you call it

UncouthRanting: I do not believe that I am evil. I believe human’s make mistakes. I believe humans can do wrong. But I do not believe that they are inherently evil.

(CENSORED): 3) I don’t need forgiveness for what I do. I live and learn. And I am a damn good person for it.

(CENSORED): i don’t get that

UncouthRanting: I do not need someone else’s forgiveness. The things that I do that are right, I do proudly. The things that I do wrong, I take accountability for. And learn from them.

(CENSORED): I get why you don’t need someone else’s forgiveness because you don’t believe in him. I probobly would think the same thing if christ was not in my life.

(CENSORED): I find this really interesting, where do you think we came from?

UncouthRanting: I honestly don’t have an answer for that. I currently support the idea of evolution, but I know science has been putting some serious holes in it of late, so.. I do not know.

(CENSORED): why do we still have monkeys?

(CENSORED): if we evolved from them

UncouthRanting: As I said–I do not know. I am not a biologist or an anthropologist.