<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Friday, May 07, 2010

The Sex Trade and the Bible

A cranky atheist has been leaving comments on a post from back in 2008. He took me to task for asking him why he, an atheist, cares about the Islamic sex trade. (Yes, I know it is weird. You'll have to read the post). Rather than answering me, he laid down a challenge:

why do you, a Biblical literalist, care about drugs and sex slavery? Drugs are not forbidden in the Bible, and sex slavery is permitted, and in fact, mandated, as long as God's people do it to God's non-people. Exodus 21 says you can sell your daughters into slavery, and in those days owners always had sex with their female slaves, as the slavery laws and many stories (Abraham x Hagar) make clear, so if you're pressed for cash, sell little Hadassah into sex slavery, says Exodus 21. And in Numbers 31, Moses is positively furious with the Israelites for not killing the non-virgin Midianites and making sex slaves of the vigins [sic]

He then provided me with a list of passages that supposedly prove God not only sanctioned sex slavery, but even ordered the rape of women in some cases. Those passages include:

[Deut. 20:10–15; Deut. 21:10–14; Num. 31:1–47; Isaiah 13:16; Judges 5:30; Judges 21:10–14 ... Ex. 21:2–8; Ex. 21:20–21; Deut. 20:10–15; Lev. 25:44–46; Isaiah 14:1-2].


He then offered this closing remark: So how can you, a Biblical literalist, logically oppose sex slavery, when God's people are ordered to do it to God's non-people?

Knowing I have many readers who perhaps encounter biblio-skeptics among their co-workers and family who throw out the sex-slavery allegation, It may be helpful to put together a response. I don't expect my atheist challenger will be persuaded by my answers. I predict he will give me some clever excuses to explain them away so as to keep on suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Preliminary Remarks

To begin, there are a number of facts we need to consider.

1) Atheists and scriptural critics will regularly pretend to have a great knowledge of the biblical text. They will often string together all kinds of Bible verses like they themselves are a fundamentalist revival preacher. It is easy to become intimidated by the sheer volume of their citations because they give the appearance they know what they are talking about. This expertise, in reality, is a facade. The vast number of them come from religious backgrounds in which they were exposed to a shallow reading of scripture or never taught it in a meaningful fashion. That is why they cherry pick the ones favoring their opposition.

2) Of those atheists who were saturated in the study of Scripture, say for example Bart Ehrman or John Dominic Crossan, their criticisms of problematic passages of the Bible are spun and twisted so as to exaggerate the supposed difficulty under consideration. For instance, the allegation that God sanctions sex slavery and commanded rape of innocent people. Their goal with distorting the Bible in this fashion has nothing to do with uncovering the genuine meaning of the text, but is more for the purpose of fueling their continuing rage against their creator and to paint God as a monster unworthy of our worship.

3) It is a fact that slavery is recorded in Scripture. However, to equate the indentured servitude regulated in the books of Moses with the cruel harshness of human trafficking and slavery found in virtually every human society throughout the history of the world shows a severe lack of historical perspective. I would even say an intentionally self imposed intellectual blindness. It is also equally ridiculous to anachronistically read the struggle Western society had with slavery in the 18th and 19th century that eventually resulted in the American Civil War back into the Bible as if the slavery spoken of in the pages of Scripture is the exact same thing.

4) It is also true some men spoken of in the Bible had concubines. That is to say, a man had more than one wife, or practiced polygamy. The primary purpose for such an arrangement (apart from monarchs who gathered wives for political purposes) was to maintain the family name through the birth of a male heir. If the favored wife, the first wife the husband married, was unable to give birth, he would seek out a surrogate to produce male offspring. This is the case with Elkanah, Hannah, and Peninnah (1 Samuel 1-2). Hannah was unable to conceive, so Peninnah was taken as a wife to produce children.

These arrangements were not sanctioned by the Lord at all, but were the efforts of men to take matters into their own hands as it were. This is seen in the example the atheist challenger notes with Abraham and Hagar. Sarah gave Hagar her handmaid to Abraham so that he could produce the promised heir. Such an action mocked God's promise to Abraham, and was a blatant display of fleshly reasoning. His actions were not rape, as is supposed by the atheist critic, because Hagar already had a relationship with Abraham's family and remained 14 years with them until Sarah ran her off (Genesis 16).

The Texts

With those comments in mind, let us consider the passages offered by our atheist antagonist. Of the ones he lists, maybe five of them pose any significant difficulty for a Bible believing Christian. I have outlined them according to importance of the challenge.

Exodus 21:7-11

7 And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 "If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. 9 "And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 "If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. 11 "And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

I wrote on Exodus 21 in an earlier post from this year that can be found HERE. I recommend the reader to consider it in order to have a more detailed study of this passage. Suffice it to say for our purposes now, this passage in Exodus is not sanctioning the selling of a daughter into sexual slavery. To describe the text in such a manner reveals an ignorant bias. This is a description of indentured servitude: a family in debt who has a daughter capable of work who will then contract with another family in order for her to be used to pay off debt. This is clear from the overall context that begins in 21:1.

As happens with many of these arrangements, the man of the other family either falls in love with the girl and wishes to marry her, or maybe wants to have her be arranged for marriage to one of his sons. The text is providing detailed instructions on how this arrangement is to be made and the regulations that help safe guard the girl's purity in the situation so that she won't be taken advantage of as a maidservant. Rather than sanctioning the sex trade, the text is prevent such from happening.

Numbers 31:1-47

Numbers 31 is long so I won't cite it in the entirety. This chapter is a problematic one for a Bible believing Christian because it records the destruction of the Midianites by Israel's armies during the wilderness wanderings. It is not all that different from the record of 1 Samuel 15 where the Amalekites are utterly destroyed. When the secular talk media discusses acts of Jihad by Islamic radicals against non-Muslims, biblio-critics are quick to appeal to places like Numbers 31 to make comparisons between Islamic and Judeo-Christian views of God. If God commanded death to innocent unbelievers in the OT like the Midianites and the Amalekites, how then can the God of the Bible be any different than Allah of the Qu'ran? Of course, those nations destroyed by Israel were far from "innocent" victims, as if Israel, in a blood lust fury, chopped down villages of peace loving, poetry reading gardeners and their sweet families.

Often these passages are lifted from their contexts in which they provide a clearer understanding of the events leading up to the destruction of the nation. In the case of the Midianites, the context of their dealings with Israel begin in Numbers 22 where they are said to have joined forces with the Moabites to fight against them (22:4). They hired Balaam to curse Israel, who fails to level that curse, but instead leads Israel to sin against God by having them led into spiritual harlotry by Moabite and Midianite women (Num. 25). This act of sin aroused God's anger against Israel and the Lord judged them with a plague that struck down 24,000 people (25:8). As a result of this wickedness, God commands Israel to go to war with the Midianites (25:6-8). This judgment against them is recorded in Numbers 31.

The difficult passage, then, is Moses' words to the captains of the army who brought back all the women of the Midianites as captives,

14 But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle. 15 And Moses said to them: "Have you kept all the women alive? 16 "Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 "But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
In this act, the women that led Israel into wickedness would be slain. The death of the male children would insure the extermination of the Midianites as a people and keep them from ever again seducing Israel to sin. Only the young girls who were virgins would be allowed to live and assimilated into the nation of Israel. Our politically correct sensibilities bristle at such a description, but the death of the Midianites was not commanded capriciously for the sake of heartless cruelty. God was bringing swift and deserving punishment upon a wicked nation that reveled in their sin against God and his holy people.

The accusation of sex slavery and forced rape is raised against the comment of verse 18, "But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately." But nothing in this passage implies such a villainous act took place. Just that those girls were kept alive. Nothing is recorded as to what happened to them, though it is assumed they were eventually married off among the people of Israel. However, because men can act sinfully in such cases, God gave regulations regarding women taking into captivity because of war and that brings us to the next set of passages.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 and 21:10-14

These passages describe a similar situation: a city being taken in war and the women (presumably young girls never married) being captured. Only Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is relevant to our discussion here:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, 11 "and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, 12 "then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 "She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 "And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

The situation describes a solider or some other man of Israel wanting to marry a girl taken into captivity due to war. But rather than God allowing the man to do with her whatever the man pleases, note how commandments are laid down to protect the girl. She basically is made plain: trimmed nails, changed into new clothes, and shaves her head. Hence, those outward things a man would have seen to have caused him to desire her are removed. She is to mourn a full month for her family. After that period, if the man still likes her, he can marry her. However, if he has no delight in her, meaning, after the month she no longer appeals to him, she is to be set free. Notice also how the man is forbidden to sell her for money and to treat her brutally, which would mean, rape her or make her into a sex slave. So, rather than sanctioning such atrocities as the atheist alleges, God provides a way for the girl to be protected by law.

Judges 21:10-14, 20, 21

20 Therefore they instructed the children of Benjamin, saying, "Go, lie in wait in the vineyards, 21 "and watch; and just when the daughters of Shiloh come out to perform their dances, then come out from the vineyards, and every man catch a wife for himself from the daughters of Shiloh; then go to the land of Benjamin.

This last passage for our consideration has to do with the tribes of Israel going to war against the tribe of Benjamin for an act of wickedness that took place in their territory as outlined in Judges 19. Though the Lord directed in leading Israel's military machine against Benjamin (Judges 20:18), God did not direct the tribes in counseling them to kidnap women for the remaining men of Benjamin in order to preserve their lineage in Israel as described in 21:20-21. Those were acts sanctioned solely by the elders of Israel, and thus reflected the theme of Judges, "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

The remaining passages raised by the atheists taken from Isaiah have nothing really to do with God sanctioning rape or the sex trade, but are prophetic descriptions of what will happen to the wicked Babylonians when they are given over to their enemies as a sign of God's judgment against them. What they did to other nations, pillage and rape, will happen to them.

So to answer the atheist's charge, how can you believe the Bible when God sanctioned sex trading and rape?, God never did, and contrary to his accusations, the Bible never does either.

Labels: ,

8 Comments:

Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Good post, Fred.

6:32 AM, May 08, 2010  
Blogger Diogenes said...

You go on for two long paragraphs of attempting "psycho" analysis as to what motivates alleged atheists.

You're a poor judge of character. You think you can put people in simple pigeonholes and you know something about their character. You can't. People do not fit in pigeonholes. You don't know anything about people. (Nor does Richard Dawkins, if that is any consolation.)

Why did Jefferson snip out passages from the Bible he didn't believe? Why did Thomas Paine write "Age of Reason"? Why did Mark Twain write "Letters from the Earth"?

Does it matter? What matters is: Were their statements accurate?

If you had proof of distortion, of inaccuracy on their part, you could start with the inaccuracy, and skip the "psycho" analysis.

You write: "Atheists and scriptural critics will regularly pretend to have a great knowledge of the biblical text..."

Bare assertion. Not backed up by evidence. Heaven forbid somebody should actually read the Bible. If you actually read the Bible, literalists say you're "pretending to have a great knowledge of the biblical text..."

"Their goal with distorting the Bible in this fashion has nothing to do with uncovering the genuine meaning of the text..."

Bare assertion. Not backed up by evidence.

Oh, finally, you get around to some evidence.

Butler writes: "However, to equate the indentured servitude regulated in the books of Moses with the cruel harshness of human trafficking and slavery... shows a severe lack of historical perspective."

"Indentured servitude"? You know very well that the Bible says Jewish slaves must be set free at the Jubilee but non-Jewish slaves are permanent, and their children belong to you. [Exodus 21:2-4, Lev. 25:44-46.]

If you own the kids, it's slavery, not indentured servitude.

Exodus 21:8-11 says that if the master's son marries the female slave, and then the son marries another woman, the female slave can be kicked out, no alimony, no food or clothing. Thanks for the free sex! Buh-bye!

Butler writes: "Sarah gave Hagar her handmaid to Abraham... Such an action mocked God's promise to Abraham."

OK, a valid point in the Abraham x Hagar case. But the Bible still sanctions slavery.

Butler writes: "The text is providing detailed instructions on... the regulations that help safe guard the girl's purity..."

Total fantasy. The Bible describes handling the consequences of forcing her to have sex without her consent. No safeguarding of purity.

Re: Numbers 31, Butler writes: "They [Midianites] hired Balaam to curse Israel, who... leads Israel to sin against God by having them led into spiritual harlotry by Moabite and Midianite women (Num. 25)."

Total fantasy. Not in the Bible. Israelite men have sex with *Moabite* women, and then worship Baal. One Israelite man brings a Midianite girl home, so all the men and non-virgins in Midian have to die.

As for the plague that struck down 24,000, Yahweh sent the plague, Midianites didn't, the Israelites should take problem that up with Yahweh. The Israelite men could learn to keep it in their pants. Innocent men and girls should not be massacred because Israelite men can't keep it in their pants. Israelite problem, Israelite responsibility.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 and 21:10-14: The woman cannot consent. No consent = rape. If you make her shave her head first, no consent by a shaved female = still rape.

Judges 21:10-14, 20, 21: OK, a valid point. Perhaps this is not ordered by God but just criminality; I'll remove it from my list of God-ordered rape. Thanks for pointing out the error.

1:50 PM, May 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Diogenes writes:

You go on for two long paragraphs of attempting "psycho" analysis as to what motivates alleged atheists. ...

D. You're like a self-fulfilling prophecy. I couldn't ask for a better example of a whiny atheist angry at God who gets all ruffly when I psycho analysis him and his ilk accurately.

... Does it matter? What matters is: Were their statements accurate?

No. all those men had hang-ups with their creator and hated him. Interesting that you cite Jefferson, who owned slaves. Not the indentured servant kind.

Moving on, you state regarding my comments:

Bare assertion. Not backed up by evidence. ...

But I am right, bare assertion and all. I have yet to meet an atheist who has read the Bible with a clear eye for context or with the intention of uncovering the meaning of the text. In fact, your response here is all the evidence I need. My "bare" assertion has been vindicated.

"Indentured servitude"? You know very well that the Bible says Jewish slaves must be set free at the Jubilee but non-Jewish slaves are permanent, and their children belong to you. [Exodus 21:2-4, Lev.
25:44-46.] If you own the kids, it's slavery, not indentured servitude.


Case in point of how accurate my bare assertion is. I would imagine you didn't even bother reading the other post I linked to addressing this issue, now did you? Did you even read THIS article? You gripe at me for not reading yours. Note who is being discussed in the Leviticus passage: "Nations that are around you." The nations that were to be driven out of the land or destroyed. Being a slave, whose master would be heavily regulated by the law of Moses in the theocratic nation of Israel and thus made to take care of him, was a much more humane way to deal with the person. Isn't it?

Exodus 21:8-11 says that if the master's son marries the female slave, and then the son marries another woman, the female slave can be kicked out, no alimony, no food or clothing. Thanks for the free sex! Buh-bye!

Again, another ignorant statement of an atheist who can't read. Go back and check that link I noted in the body of the text. There is no sex slavery going on here. Do you have any knowledge of the biblical worldview or do you just randomly select verses put out by hacks like Dan Barker?

OK, a valid point in the Abraham x Hagar case. But the Bible still sanctions slavery.

Ah no you don't. You don't move the goal posts, pal. I never said the Bible doesn't sanction and regulate slavery. It did so under the laws of the OT theocratic nation. You specifically stated, sex slavery. Look at the opening remarks in the article that I am quoting from you. God mandated sex slavery when such was never the case.

Total fantasy. The Bible describes handling the consequences of forcing her to have sex without her consent. No safeguarding of purity.

Another example of what I wrote. You want to picture God as a brutal monster. I have dealt with all of your passages from scripture, now go back and refute my responses or go away somewhere else with your nonsense.

Total fantasy. Not in the Bible. Israelite men have sex with *Moabite* women, and then worship Baal. One Israelite man brings a Midianite girl home, so all the men and non-virgins in Midian have to die.

Do you even bother reading the Bible? You're becoming embarrassing with your desperation.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 and 21:10-14: The woman cannot consent. No consent = rape. If you make her shave her head first, no consent by a shaved female = still rape.

There is no discussion one way or the other as to the feelings of the woman. You assume the worse and charge everyone according to your rules with a crime. Rules you have yet to justify according to your own atheistic worldview.

4:11 PM, May 10, 2010  
Blogger Diogenes said...

You're a moral relativist and you're ignorant of the meaning of the Bible.

I have yet to meet a Biblical literalist who has read the Bible with a clear eye for context or with the intention of uncovering the meaning of the text.

Exodus 21:7-11 = sell your daughter into slavery. Owner gets to decide to make her marry him or his son. No consent from woman = rape.

You can call it "indentured servitude", but the woman has no choice in the matter. If the slave has children, the children belong to the master as slaves.

Verse 10 clearly states that the son has "conjugal rights" with her, then ditches her for wife #2.

Verse 10:
(NASB): "If he takes to himself another woman, he [son] may not reduce her food, her clothing, or (F) her conjugal rights."
(NIV): "...must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."
(KJV): "...her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."

"Reduce, deprive or diminish" means that the son had sex with her already. You can't "reduce" or "diminish" the sex until after you had sex.
Note (F) in the NASB is a cross-reference to 1 Cor. 7:3,5 so NASB tells us explicitly "conjugal rights" = sex. Ditto "marital rights", "duty of marriage", etc.

No consent from woman = rape. The slave owner gets to decide to make her marry him or his son. Then his son can ditch her any time for wife #2.

Butler: "Note who is being discussed in the Leviticus passage: "Nations that are around you." The nations that were to be driven out of the land or destroyed. Being a slave, whose master would be heavily regulated by the law of Moses... and thus made to take care of him, was a much more humane way to deal with the person. Isn't it?"

You moral relativist logic is that enslaving them and raping their daughters is more humane than genocide [Deut. 20:10-18].

What next? I stole your wallet but I didn't poke your eye out, so I'm humane? Great logic if you're a moral relativist.

No, the "humane thing" is no genocide, no theft, no rape. Confucianism, Daoism, Stoicism, Mohism, they all figured that out, but Biblic-literalists got excuses, excuses, excuses...

Again, you're showing your ignorance of the Bible. You're wrong that slavery of non-Jews is heavily regulated. Only slavery of Jews is regulated. You can beat your non-Jewish slaves almost to the point of crippling them.

I did read your link about Ex. 21, it was all wishful thinking and fairy dust. I don't know any Dan Barker. Born-Again Christians told me to read the Bible, so I read it myself.

Butler: "Ah no you don't. You don't move the goal posts, pal... You specifically stated, sex slavery."

Yeah, I'm not moving the goal posts. No consent from woman = rape. Making your female slave marry anybody = rape of slave = sex slavery.

Butler: "You want to picture God as a brutal monster."

How would you know? You know nothing about people. I want to picture God as Morgan Freeman or George Burns, but then Born-Again Christians told me to read the Bible.

Butler: "There is no discussion one way or the other as to the feelings of the woman. You assume the worse and charge everyone according to your rules with a crime."

My rules? Forcing someone to have sex is rape not just according to my rules, bub. Hell, even Daoists, Confucianists, Mohists and the ancient Celts are agreed on that one. Nothing like this in the Dao de Jing or Confucian Analects.

Morally, the OT is like the Special Olympics: you think you deserve a trophy just for showing up.

9:42 PM, May 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Diogenes writes:.

Exodus 21:7-11 = sell your daughter into slavery. Owner gets to decide to make her marry him or his son. No consent from woman = rape.
You can call it "indentured servitude", but the woman has no choice in the matter. If the slave has children, the children belong to the master as slaves.
Verse 10 clearly states that the son has "conjugal rights" with her, then ditches her for wife #2.


Oh bother. You didn't read the other article did you? Why am I not surprised. Am I gonna have to repost it for you?
Let's just consider the passage you note:

(NASB): "If he takes to himself another woman, he [son] may not reduce her food, her clothing, or (F) her conjugal rights."
(NIV): "...must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."
(KJV): "...her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."


Your assumption here is that he is taking a second wife? Is that what you are saying? So in your warped understanding, the man has sex slave girl and a wife? Is that what you are thinking? Why do you think there is a second woman being added to the household here? Why? If you read the who thing in context, nothing is suggesting this at all. He liked the maid servant, appointed her to be his wife, but later chooses another (note that the word "wife" is in italics). Meaning, he no longer wanted to marry the first girl. So, he is required to let her go back to her family. Notice the text says he does not diminish her marriage rights. In your sick mind, I guess that means he has sex with her?

It means he can't keep her from getting married to someone else.

But why am I even bothering to explain this to you. I mean, it's not like your gonna listen or anything. Geesh.

Diogenes writes:
"Reduce, deprive or diminish" means that the son had sex with her already. You can't "reduce" or "diminish" the sex until after you had sex.
Note (F) in the NASB is a cross-reference to 1 Cor. 7:3,5 so NASB tells us explicitly "conjugal rights" = sex. Ditto "marital rights", "duty of marriage", etc.


You're out of your mind. The cross reference is making note of the same word used here in Exodus in the LXX that is used in 1 Cor., but the two texts are unrelated as to subject matter. The context determines how we understand the word. In Exodus, she wasn't having sex because she ain't married yet. She is appointed to be married (8, 9). She still hasn't fulfilled her duty of servitude for the 6 years.

You moral relativist logic is that enslaving them and raping their daughters is more humane than genocide [Deut. 20:10-18]

They're not raping, but why are you mad at God for being pro-choic? You're pro-choice right?

Confucianism, Daoism, Stoicism, Mohism, they all figured that out, but Biblic-literalists got excuses, excuses, excuses...

Am I gonna have to recount all the atrocities of the Chinese, Japanese, Greeks, and all the other ancient people groups who practiced genocide and rape? I am really busy today.

My rules? Forcing someone to have sex is rape not just according to my rules, bub. Hell, even Daoists, Confucianists, Mohists and the ancient Celts are agreed on that one. Nothing like this in the Dao de Jing or Confucian Analects.

You mean those Daoists and Confucianists that practiced genocide and rape? That wall was built for a reason, you know.
Yep, they're your rules. Why do you, an evolutionary believing atheist care as to how one group evolved hominids treats other evolved (or lesser evolved) hominids?

5:52 AM, May 11, 2010  
Blogger Paul said...

Good job Fred! Diogenes, of course, was known as much for his disdain for all social virtues as his "teaching." One used to meet these guys all the time at Speaker's Corner in London. Too "expert" by half. :)

2:47 PM, May 11, 2010  
Blogger Dan said...

Note to moderator: I had one use of "profanity" which I removed in this comment so you can approve it. By the way, I have witnessed much more stupidity from any religious person I have met than people who use profanity. So your heuristic on stupidity is a bit ironic considering the fact that you are religious. For a person who loves a document that supports genocide, slavery, sexism and many forms of offensive material, your distain for profanity is inconsistent.

There are a lot of comments in the article about how atheists don't understand and take liberties with the bible. However research shows that atheists and agnostics score higher than the religious when it comes to knowledge of the "scriptures." I personally have never heard a religious person say anything but supportive things about the bible, when in fact the bible is filled with completely off the wall stuff that would make most people very uncomfortable. As a work of literature, the bible is a terribly written document. It contradicts itself and is unknowable, it also very badly needs an editor. The criticisms of it are far more accurate than the praises of it. I was shocked to have a religious person who is writing this article question the knowledge of atheists and agnostics when I have been subjected to extreme ignorance on everything from ecology to biology on the part of religious people I have spoken to.

Religious people, particularly the more religious simply have lower intelligence levels than atheists and agnostics. In fact, religious individuals lack reasoning skills because they have been retarded by following unprovable mysticism. It is no coincidence that George W Bush and Sarah Palin, both love Jesus.

The stupidity applies equally to all religions, Christians complain about Muslims, but really, its all pretty much the same thing. Low intelligence individuals tying to figure out the world based upon fantasy and mass delusion.

11:43 PM, January 07, 2011  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I answer atheist Dan HERE

9:41 AM, January 28, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home