I do not claim people would just 'criticise it', but that people would later claim 'there is no evidence' even if God did show up for a book signing.
It is true that if god showed up for a book signing, the event would and should be subject to the same kind of investigation that does and ought to drive every other investigation of extraordinary claims. But a REAL God should, could, and would come through with flying colors! Only a few would not accept the evidence. I and millions of people would accept the evidence, overhaul our world view, and become big fans. (PS, this assuming that God showed up as god, and not as Miley Cyrus or Obama while being god underneath. The point is clarity, not traditional trickiness.)
You suppose to know how nonbelievers would react, as if something like that has happened for a test case, but no it has not. What we do have instead are the claims of often-doctored, sometimes forged, and in general humanly reconstructed and/or missing documents that millions of believers use in order to believe in a series of supernatural stories. A Real God, one who cared at all about being "believed in" could cut through all the vagueness quickly and certainly, and all that without violating any of a god's divine nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
Proof in point - God HAS showed up 'physically', and later on people (such as yourself) claim it never happened.
No, rather skeptics do claim that the level of evidence that Christians claim is true and/or reliable is much lower than that which even the same believers do consider reasonable or valid in real life--and such logical blunders become the basis for your claiming "God HAS showed up physically." Furthermore, when judging other religions, Christians DO tend to use normal critical thinking, for example, to conclude that Islam is baloney or Mormonism is baloney. And that's why you guys need so much faith--because it's not apparent to you that your religious beliefs exist alongside with the same level of silliness that other religions do.
A god who cared about his credibility (something the OT claims your god does care about)--that god could easily do better than leaving behind a haphazard set of tattered documents. For example (among dozens) if a population of Old Testament zombies really did arise from the graves and walk the streets of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' resurrection, "and appeared unto many," then that would have been well noticed and recorded independently by Romans, Jews, foreigners, or any concerned historians having no dog in this hunt. (And those documents would be DEFINITELY preserved by the Christian world.) Instead, Jesus only appears off and on to his own credulous believers--how convenient that is. Yet no contemporary documentation written in the time of Jesus' life exists (not even claimed to exist) ANYWHERE [ the last I read, anyhow--but I would love to read the sources if something has finally turned up.] The closest we have is Flavius Josephus, who wrote one blurb about Jesus in the (cough, cough...) 90s AD. He had nice things to say about the Jesus phenomenon, but scholars conclude the words he used were a bit "too Christian" for a Jewish historian, and they can both textually and linguistically show that the words were at least partially doctored by a later Christian scribe (a common occurrence for the day.) The gospel stories (originally orally passed around) don't appear written until 40 to 80 AD,--NO originals exist--and these gospels can't even show agreement about simple information such as "Who went to Jesus' Tomb, and what did they see?" Shouldn't a Real God make sure at least that the most important Divine Act the god ever performed for the world would also demonstrate a supernatually accurate level of agreement and consistency within god's own literature? Instead we have an entire human industry devoted to defending and excusing the god's supposedly divine writings (aka apologetics.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
Proof in point - God HAS showed up 'physically', and later on people (such as yourself) claim it never happened.
In order to make such a huge claim appear possibly reliable, you need to have reliable evidence--something better than a long game of Human Telephone that went on (orally) for about 50 years before any of the gospels were written, as well as for centuries (via scribes) after the gospels were written. Interesting that the level of supernaturality increases according to how late a given gospel was written. After "Mark," then "Matthew" (with more miracles than "Mark" ) then "Luke", listing even more miracles, exactly how legends grow in levels of complexity (and number of supernatural claims.) Finally, John--who was at least honest enough to label his goal, "Written that you would believe," and then goes on to describe the most supernatural and mystical Jesus of any of the previous. (The oldest surviving almost intact gospel manuscript happens to be John, circa 200 AD.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
Incidentally, what in the world makes you think God would ever choose to condescend to meet YOUR expectations?
Since supposedly god created the human brain, it's not rudely demanding to insist that here in 2013 strong claims require strong evidence. All but the meanest, most vindictive kind of god would accept the request. Besides, supposedly, your god already condescended to you, according to scripture, so condescension is already consistent with a god. So, something---anything that can necessarily make a Real God distinguishable from all other competing magical claims -- would be NO problem for a god who really cared about communicating truth with a capital T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
I mean, what possible claim do you have on God, whereby God must logically and reasonably comply with YOUR expectations, whatever they..
The bible itself has a few examples that justify normal human beings to go ahead and apply the evidence that our senses provide, even if applied to god. Example "Taste and see that the Lord is good." Or, how the doubting Thomas wanted physical proof, and he got it. So to some small degree, a precursor of the scientific method is at least acknowledged (but not developed, of course) in scripture. Today, 2000 years later, a Real God would fully understand how sacred writings become corrupted, mistranslated, lost, changed, etc. A Real God might want to show up to do something about that! But He doesn't--nor does anything else about it. A good god does not fault a modern human for needing something better than 3000 year old Bronze Age fables (complete with talking animals, per the definition of "fable.")
So, in the absence of a god who shows up when it counts, religious men are still inventing deeper and deeper iterations of FAITH. Isn't it revealing that FAITH is the same mechanism used by other tricksters whom we don't give much credence to? Isn't it interesting that some psychics and spirit mediums shy away from being rigorously tested by those who don't already believe? Yet a few psychics do not shy away, sometimes because their game of tricks and persuasion is better than an average amateur psychic, so they suppose they can handle the doubter. (Besides, they get paid just the same!) Anyhow, both religious-type faith and other type tricksters reach from the same bag of tricks--FAITH--necessary because no supernatural anything can be demonstrated to do anything measurable. Perhaps the biggest trick of all is to get you to believe that YOUR faith is really different and superior to the muslim's faith, the Mormon's faith, etc. The details change, the names of the gods change, but it's all the same--faith in the level of so-called evidence that you won't accept as true when others use it to "prove" their faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
Seems to me it is our responsibility to comply with God's expectations, not the other way around....
No, it's not an issue about anyone "complying with the other" because the god is supposedly the one being omnipotent and omniscient--he is the one in a position to help humans with their limitations, that is, if the god was even interested in being recognized. A Real Father cares about being distinguishable from the other gods--or at least my natural father wanted me to distinguish him from all the other false fathers on our block. And according to Bible, your god longs to be called "Abba, Daddy!" Instead, all the gods depend on primitive stories, and none of the gods show up to do anything detectably distinguishable as any kind of Real God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
*IF* there was a Supreme Deity, then it would make perfect sense that He does not 'owe' each of us to 'prove himself
Okay, and that is why you only have an invisible faith-world to imagine, as the supposed god has not bothered to prove he exists in any other kind of world. Therefore it's convenient to cite the above petulant nature of God--the God who is so Supreme that his loftiness disinclines him from answering to mere human beings, humans who are in other contexts his crowning jewels of creation. No, too important or too busy for that, yet his supposed Incarnated Self claimed the god cares about every little sparrow that falls to the ground. Nice display of humble Supremity in that case! No, any Real God doesn't need to even think in terms of who's higher and who's lower--that's what humans do in their own little social stratas. A Real God either wants to communicate clearly, or it does not. And so far, your god does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
considering there are quite a few intractable individuals who would not believe under any circumstances short of violating their free will.
No, there is no violation of free will to merely prove the existence of Oneself. If I have free will then I can still choose whether to serve the god after it does something, such as show up. Apparently your Boogey Man (Satan) did exactly that, without any free will issues involved. If free will is something your god designed, then the god would know how to navigate it. Or did the god violate the doubting Thomas' free will?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
You don't believe. Good for you. You may rest in your self-supposed mental superiority, and ride it as far as it will carry you.
You do believe. Good for you. You may rest in your self-supposed spiritual superiority and ride it as far as it will carry you. But the reliable evidence suggests we both end up as worm food--an unpleasant truth that in turn has instigated the invention of some religions--perhaps even yours. BTW, My time on earth became even more valuable after realizing the above, whereas believers who think they have an ETERNITY of bliss ahead of them can suppose this life is barely a bump in the road to be tolerated until they enter A Magic Kingdom. Risky stuff, there.
Considering the whole premise of 'faith', how could they be otherwise?
Consider also another promise in the bible, from Hebrews chapter 6:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Definitely. Reads like a good religious way to state the obvious Catch-22--those who reject the concept of faith altogether--claiming to know what you don't really know --cannot be made to believe ever again. Or said another way, "Those who give up on the concept of faith as a means to know truth, cannot be made to ever again believe in a Talking Serpent who tricked Adam and Eve toward the condemnation of mankind, a flood that reached up to Mount Everest, or the God-Man Jesus who claimed to be One with the divine author of all those stories.
Or recast altogether in the context of 1939 movie, The Wizard of Oz:
"For it is impossible for Dorothy, having seen the green curtain of the wizard accidentally pulled back by her Toto, and having seen the levers of fire and brimstone to be the same as the literal, mechanical levers of power and literal smoke machines, if she shall conclude a hoax, it is impossible to ever renew her again into believing the wizard would, should, or could ever magically spirit her away unto Kansas, seeing she hath seen behind the curtain and can never again be renewed unto faith in the Wizard."
[QUOTE=MarcBee;1287624]Definitely. Reads like a good religious way to state the obvious Catch-22--those who reject the concept of faith altogether--claiming to know what you don't really know --cannot be made to believe ever again. Or said another way, "Those who give up on the concept of faith as a means to know truth, cannot be made to ever again believe in a Talking Serpent who tricked Adam and Eve toward the condemnation of mankind, a flood that reached up to Mount Everest, or the God-Man Jesus who claimed to be One with the divine author of all those stories.
Or recast altogether in the context of 1939 movie, The Wizard of Oz:
"For it is impossible for Dorothy, having seen the green curtain of the wizard accidentally pulled back by her Toto, and having seen the levers of fire and brimstone to be the same as the literal, mechanical levers of power and literal smoke machines, if she shall conclude a hoax, it is impossible to ever renew her again into believing the wizard would, should, or could ever magically spirit her away unto Kansas, seeing she hath seen behind the curtain and can never again be renewed unto faith in the Wizard."[QUOTE]
Happily agnostic since 2011, that is what? 2 years.
The fruit of atheism takes time to mature, and it will be indeed bitter.
Right now is happiness and joy because in your own mind you have exposed (God) the wizard to be a sham.
in your mind you have pulled the curtain of heaven and revealed a silly old man pulling some mechanical lever, a clever hoax according to you.
I have lived a little and I have seen what happens to some of those who left the way of righteousness, it just a matter of time.
"I saw the wicked who had come and gone from the place of the Holy and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done"
__________________
**Original Matthew 28:19 Restored**
Happily agnostic since 2011, that is what? 2 years.
Ah, returning to your same theme from months ago--how much of a rookie I am! Pretty sure my personal timeline must be boring to TT readers, but since you're going there again, here's another few details.
2011 would be when I publicly came out as happily atheist. That is to be somewhat distinguished from the 6, 8, or 10 years preceding that, where I wasn't confident enough about my conclusions to be sure I was happily any label--Christian, agnostic, or atheist. I have not set foot in a church since about 2000, but continued to speak the Christian language while trying to keep believing in the bible god. At some point, one cannot exactly choose what to believe. Either one perceives a good reason to believe something invisible, or not. Considering all the fear-based beliefs and rhetoric one buys into from being a fundamentalist, it's not likely any deep believer can genuinely make a quick toggle over to an opposing viewpoint. So, it took me a long time to admit the evidence for the bible god (and the supposed Jesus in my spirit, and the supposed faith sent from god) was too poor and pathetic to be reasonably true or correct. (Of course I will happily consider any new evidence, or anyone's stellar ideas, but most likely your old faith-based claims won't work.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
...you have pulled the curtain of heaven and revealed a silly old man pulling some mechanical lever, a clever hoax according to you.
That was the Hollywood metaphor, and it's not a bad one, except that every analogy does break down somewhere. There is no single "curtain of heaven" to be pulled back. But if the imaginary faith world that you participate in is not itself consciously clever, it is at least clever in a historical, evolutionary sense. Religions adjust to do whatever it must to survive and propagate itself, as it is demonstrably still doing today, even in your Apostolica. And sometimes "hoax" is indistinguishable from "honestly mistaken."
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
The fruit of atheism takes time to mature, and it will be indeed bitter.
Ah, one of the Christian conversational buzz words, "bitter." Define it, please. It appears "bitter" is used whenever it's apparent that an exbeliever is just as driven to expose what they think is true and false to the same degree Christians spread their superstitious faith world view. I have already expressed the regret I do feel about having wasted many years believing in religious superstition--is that the bitter part, or will things get more bitter than that? Consider how an escaped Mormon who wants to tell the truth about Mormonism is very justified to do so according to real Christians. It's human nature, and a good thing. However, I also realize how Christians feel cognitive relief when they get to broadbrush exchristians as bitter, deceived, going to hell, etc. etc. And it's probably in your bible to do that, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
Right now is happiness and joy because in your own mind you have exposed (God) the wizard to be a sham.
Nope, little Toto did it. I didn't intend to notice anything negative about the god for about 25 years. I merely kept my eyes open, and the silliness of the bible god exposed itself, mostly just by reading his supposed book more closely. BTW, my world view doesn't necessarily promise any happiness and joy. If anything, cold, difficult truth is to be valued and pursued above the comfort often provided from warm, happy delusions of faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
I have lived a little and I have seen what happens
I've lived a little less, probably, so it's fine if you want to pull rank there. So what happens years from now? Feel free to keep in touch and let me know when my longevity as an atheist becomes more credible, okay? So far, I have learned to value my time on earth more, whereas a deep believer wants this world to GET OVER WITH ALREADY, and a few of them do horrible things in order to hasten the end of their temporary world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
.. those who left the way of righteousness, it just a matter of time.
Ahhh, but I haven't left "the way of righteousness" because morality is included in human nature, both individually and collectively per the societies that successfully evolve and survive. But if you want to talk "righteousness,"
the Yahweh's morality doesn't even rise to the level of most modern civilized human nature, at least per the biblical evidence. A faith-free human (such as I) is free to evaluate the morality of a situation, and act as a somewhat free moral agent, meaning to make conclusions and decisions about how to act (kinda the meaning of "moral agent." ) The fundamentalist Christian however is only free to supposedly obey or apply an ancient prescription--whatever the god permits or commands--even to the point of willingness to murder and burn your own child--and to never criticize the ancient prescription, upon pain of blasphemy. No thanks.
I blame the admin for compromising truth, for the purpose of adding additional forum members.
What's your specific evidence that this was ever their (admin's) motivation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob's Ladder
The only thing that is Apostolic in this place is the forum’s name.
By using the phrase "only thing", you are implying NO APOSTOLICS post here. That would include you, at least if you are, according to you, "apostolic."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob's Ladder
They should change the forum’s name to “Fellowship Hall” or something of that nature.
And that's (ironically?) what the sub-forum you posted to IS titled. Of course it is not the overarching forum label, as in the general website's name. Interesting that what IS labeled "Fellowship Hall" is the place that receives the bulk of the traffic, as opposed to more SERIOUSLY Apostolic sub-forums, such as the debate arena. So, to the complainers, it seems "Fellowship Hall" is supposed to be an Apostolic church service. True story--in the actually designated fellowship halls in the apostolic churches I attended for 20+ years, we expected to encounter anyone or everyone, and were also encouraged by our pastor to encounter others at whatever spiritual or non-spiritual level they existed. We just wanted THEM to BE THERE. God would do the rest, because we were.......Apostolics!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob's Ladder
This forum contains a bunch of backsliders, who really do not care about their status. This forum contains Trinitarians, homosexuals, and probably Buddhist too!
(Whipping out my crying hanky.) Why Oh why have you neglected to mention my friend Timmy (self-identified agnostic) or me the only self identified atheist? Why give Buddhists better mention?--I'm miffed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob's Ladder
who really do not care about their status.
Please consider how your Jesus was accused of "fellowshipping" with the lowest elements in his own culture. So, you now go to the interwebs--something already known to be akin to the Wild West--and expect an overwhelming display of Apostolic Piety? No wonder many pure-bred Apostolic preachers have left AFF--they are so used to 85% of their audience bowing to their prestige and position and world view. But on the internet, that percentage falls drastically. Please consider how that Jesus' own world view was probably not respected at the moment he sat down with those winebibbers and harlots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob's Ladder
who really do not care about their status.
Probably everyone here does care about their status. But some merely do not feel threatened about how OTHERS view and label their so-called status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob's Ladder
If God can allow two female bears to come out of the woods and kill, forty-two children after Elisha pronounced judgment (2Kings 2-23-25), and if God can send those who called on his name as Lord to hell (Matt 7:23), don’t doubt for one second that He will not send you to hell for ignoring or compromising truth.
Wow, a powerful and Very Active God you are claiming there. But the thing I notice from Christians is always about what their god's-a-gonna-do in the future, or how He already DONE IT in the past. But for right now in our time, our generation, er, uh, god doesn't need to really prove anything. Too bad for this generation. Okay, I'm still willing to investigate where, or when, or if the god still does anything specifically detectable in the past, present, or whatever, whenever. Maybe for now your god just needs to get some sleep.
. . .
(Whipping out my crying hanky.) Why Oh why have you neglected to mention my friend Timmy (self-identified agnostic) or me the only self identified atheist? Why give Buddhists better mention?--I'm miffed!
. . .
I had the very same thought!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
There goes another thread down the sewer.............
Or, you could just refute my logic and it might then be a thread.
BTW, we probably both think the killing of pre-born babies is wrong. But I didn't know it's a controversial call to say that more babies are aborted than living people converted to Christianity. Especially when we count the number of abortions initiated by God/Nature, (wiki link: 50%) it's no contest. We can even leave out the babies (some unborn) commanded to be killed by God in book of Joshua and other divinely-inspired scripture. Apologists (at least on AFF) claim all those babies went to heaven, naturally. All those babies had it easy.
What about my original born-again experience? What about a supposed God who gave me the so-called victory to walk with Him for 20 years? How could any of that ever go away? Well, I didn't WANT it to go away, until there was no other honest alternative.
l
Interesting story, MarcBee. I have walked some of the path you have walked here, with the exception that I am not an agnostic/atheist.
I have struggled with what to do with my conversion experience. I can't say it was a simple psychological experience. It was very miraculous. How can you change your brain in an instant with a prayer if it is simply psychological? Maybe your conversion was psychological, but mine was so powerful and life changing that to this day, I can't explain it away. I do believe people in all religions experience this, but I believe it is because they are reaching out to God in faith and to me, faith makes the difference. Faith is the spiritual "currency" that causes things to happen.
Anyway, I am not really arguing for any viewpoint, just saying that sometimes, my mind is full of cognitive dissonance and I seek to rectify that. But I am very leery of jumping on any bandwagon or into any group. My journey is my journey and I am careful not to define myself and my thinking by anyone else nowadays, after the mistakes of the past.
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
Interesting story, MarcBee. I have walked some of the path you have walked here, with the exception that I am not an agnostic/atheist.
I have struggled with what to do with my conversion experience. I can't say it was a simple psychological experience. It was very miraculous...Anyway, I am not really arguing for any viewpoint, just saying that sometimes, my mind is full of cognitive dissonance and I seek to rectify that
Thanks for comments, ILG. I suppose what some people do not like about argumentation is exactly what others (such as I) do not mind at all, in the name of discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG
How can you change your brain in an instant with a prayer if it is simply psychological?
Not too difficult, and it's demonstrable throughout history and even within some of own experiences apart from religious faith. For example, how long does it take us as teens to fall in love with someone? A day? A week? An hour? How can our brains instantly change forever and so profoundly? Maybe not instantly, but relatively quickly, especially at age 17! Do deep emotional experiences sometimes bring along with it deep behavioral changes? Yes, at least sometimes. But religious faith seeks to tap into our deepest hopes, fears, dreams, and loves, and therefore the stage is set for deeply powerful phenomena, depending on how well evolved the given religion is (some have evolved more powerfully than others.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG
Maybe your conversion was psychological, but mine was so powerful and life changing that to this day, I can't explain it away.
That's fine, I'm not asking anyone to "explain away" their conversion unless or until they perceive the need for themselves. However, there is no reason to suppose that <<powerful and life changing>> is to be necessarily distinguished from that which is wholly psychological and natural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG
...just saying that sometimes, my mind is full of cognitive dissonance and I seek to rectify that.
Reduction of cognitive dissonance is something most or all thinking people try to do. But during my faith-filled decades, the ability to withstand more and more cognitive dissonance seemed to become a particular talent that I, as well as many of the faith-filled people around me possessed, largely due to the need to hold onto our faith above everything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG
How can you change your brain in an instant with a prayer if it is simply psychological?
The world is full of amazing analogs to the conversion experience, experienced by thousands of people, but often dismissed by those of the REAL faith. But to those others, the changes to mind and spirit happen just as profoundly, just as transcendently, just as quickly or deeply as any religious faith conversion experience.
New life? New behavior? New attitude? Consider (historically) how that many people (especially the young) can and have overturned their whole lives and behavior upon buying into world views associated with:
Nazi Party. Amway Sales Culture. Eastern Woowoo Religion. A Frat House. A Street Gang. A Rock Group. A Jihad Community. And so on. Such groups provide new meaning to people's lives, so they either conform (sometimes spiritually) to the system, or else leave--or any variation in between total conforming and wanting to leave. Anyhow, all those so-called families are at first just an external influence, but once purchased for oneself, things can quickly toggle over to being and feeling internally wonderful, something beyond ourselves and therefore pretty persuasive of its underlying credibility, just like religious faith. So, provide any new Acts 2:38 convert a church full of people who have experienced the same thing, who are well trained to provide cues, to answer questions, to offer comfort, encouragement, love. The conversion feels like the miraculous--yet all still psychological. The overall result is deep internalization. What was once someone else's concept becomes our own deeply held concept of god--complete conversion, but nothing unique to the Acts 2:38 experience, nor to any other faith or world view.
The bigger miracle to me is rather how the human brain can, in the middle of seemingly intractable faith, simply think itself out of relatively deep self-delusion. The less interesting miracle (to me) is how people get hooked by a faith that has evolved intentionally "that you may believe." (John 20:31)
I do also understand why someone (probably accompanied with deep sense of gratitude, debt, or even a lingering fear of punishment) does not want to relabel or reinterpret their own conversion as "just human psychology." A few people--having untethered themselves from the traditional authority of scripture--may even toy with imagining a kind of God that does make better sense--someone they can live with, instead of the literalist-derived Bible God. So, we can then label that god "loving and personal and transcendent," and leave it there, Fine, but instead of having 39.000 versions of Christianity, and unknown thousands of other religions, we then can have potentially 7.1 billion versions of a personal god where no one can point to any particularly authoritative source of information about that god, except to say, "He's just within you, and faith is the key." But that doesn't dismiss the likes me from wanting to address the ancient fallacies about the other man-made gods, especially the petty, bloodthirsty Yahweh. Or if that's not fair to say (considering how powerful men try to corrupt scripture) then it is fair to claim the Omnipotent god has no problem in allowing himself to be represented as such throughout civilized history. Either way--not much of a god. If however, there is a different, Real God out there who's simply not saying much so far, that kind of God will probably have no punishment for the likes of me blowing the whistle on the foolishness of the other morally backwards gods, such as Yahweh & Company.
Linear Mode
