Persecuted Christians finally getting noticed

The charges include apostasy from Islam, that she had left Islam to become a Christian. Under Islamic law, apostasy is a capital offense. Whether or not the facts of the case support that charge -- and on the surface they don't appear to, but that depends on what being born to a Muslim father means under the law -- , she is not being persecuted merely for being a Christian but rather is being prosecuted for apostasy.What is Biblical Law on apostasy? Deuteronomy 13:6—10 calls for immediately killing the apostate, though it also discusses the apostate trying to talk others into following him into apostasy. A leading advocate of implementing Biblical Law to govern American society, Calvinist and Christian Reconstructionist Rousas John Rushdoony, includes apostasy as a long list of capital crimes. If all these advocates of imposing Biblical Law ever succeed, non-Christians and ex-Christians would face the same situation in this country.The only difference is that Islam takes its religious laws seriously enough to enforce them, while Christians and Jews do not. Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Conservative/"True" Christians typically condemn others for not taking their religions' God-given laws seriously and yet they also condemn Muslims precisely for taking their religious laws seriously.I most certainly do not agree with Islamic Law on apostasy, nor with the Bible nor with "true Christians", and call for her release. But please call it what it is.

I did read it, though it's obvious that you did not read what I had written (boldening added): Try working on your own reading comprehension before you criticize others'. A very well-known Pharisee teaching immediately comes to mind, but you'll just ignore it again.That part of the biblical God's Law specifically deals with the crime of proselytizing (evangelicals take heed!) and commands dealing with it swiftly by killing the perpetrator. So what part of the biblical God's Law specifically deals with the crime of apostasy itself? It certainly directly violates one of the Ten Commandments. What punishment does God command in the Bible? In the Islamic version of God's Law, apostasy is a capital crime. We also know from how they deal with Christian proselytizer that trying to entice others into apostasy is also a crime, though is it a capital crime as well? Your religious laws are in the Bible. Isn't that what you keep saying? And those laws are Absolute! At least that's what we keep hearing all the time from "true Christians". Absolute means absolute. Not "kind'a absolute" or "relatively absolute", but rather absolute. That's what "true Christians" keep insisting quite loudly, so why is that story now suddenly changing?And the confusion about God's Law as given in the Bible is mainly because we can't get a straight answer on it from the "true Christians". It's absolute! Or some parts still apply but other parts don't. Which parts? We "true Christians" just know what they are so we don't need to tell you. Or because of the Christ it no longer applies. Or it no longer applies to Christians, but it applies to all non-Christians. No wonder there's so much confusion!The important practical question is: what specifically will be implemented when "true Christians" succeed in instituting rule under Biblical Law? Which parts of God's Law will be enforced and which ones won't? Who will decide that? And on what basis? And what recourse will we have to bad parts of God's Law?The simple fact is that we will have no recourse whatsoever, because raising any objection to God's Law would be rising in opposition to God Himself, something that would also be a very serious crime. That's the problem that we're seeing in the Sudan and everywhere else that Muslims have implemented God's Law.However, I want to thank you for making me revisit that statement I made, because it's not completely correct. Yes, that is one difference, but it's not the only one and it's not the most important one. The most important difference is that Islam's God's Law has been given political power, whereas the Bible's God's Law does not. The lesson here? We have a real-life example of what happens when God's Law is given political power. And that we do not want that to happen here. Yes, of course any sane person can see that that would make zero sense. But then we are talking about "true Christians" here, so that would not apply.The Christian Reconstructionists, of which Rushdoony was only one, advocated turning American society into an Old Testament theocracy. That included capital punishment for biblical crimes which included apostasy and even lying about your virginity (I'm sure someone can come up with the chapter and verse on that one). Even though the movement is currently deemed dead and many Christians have criticized it, we must not think that the danger is past. Christian Reconstructionism was a principal inspiration for the rise of the Religious Right in the 1980's and at the grass-roots level many Christians still call for the imposition of Biblical Law. And that imposition will open a Pandora's Box upon the land.So what kind of "true Christian" might succeed in implementing the Rule of God's Law? Hot Christians! Surely you've heard of them; I've certainly gotten many earfuls of their rhetorics from them. Christians passionately heated up to do God's Will. They look down upon "lukewarm Christians", such as you have revealed yourself to be with your taking out pluralistic society into account (as well as your discovery of moral realitivism in your defense of King James), as being to weak and ambivalent about their devotion to God and to the Cause of Christ. They consider "lukewarm Christians" to be worse than worthless and as being worse than non-believers. Historically, excommunication and shunning have been the more common punishment of apostasy, though stronger punishment has been used. My Rabbinic Lit professor, Rabbi Kalir, told us about one famous rabbi who had converted from Christianity and had to keep his conversion to Judaism a secret because Constantinian Law, which remained in effect from the 4th to the 19th centuries, made apostasy punishable by death. The Spanish Inquisition was started in order to deal with the marranos, the Jewish "swine" who were suspected of continuing to practice Judaism after having been forced to convert to Christianity. Nor were the Protestants as blameless as you try to pretend; just ask the Anabaptists who were tortured and executed by the Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries (yes, the Catholics did also join in on the fun, but that does not exonerate the Protestants; mainly the Catholics burned the Anabaptists at the stake while the Lutherans and Zwinglians used beheading and drowning). Or ask the Catholics of Philadelphia when the city's Protestants turned on them in 1844, killing and burning out many (18 killed, scores injured, it took 2000 federal troops to stop the violence) -- the cause was that the Archbishop had asked that the Catholic schoolchildren be allowed to use Catholic Bibles and prayers instead of the Protestant ones being forced on them. Or the Mormons who were subjected by open genocide by Protestants. Protestants are far from being the good guys.Bottom line: Do no let any religious group take control of the government.Now, Faith, I know that you, like so many of the "true Christians" who may fancy themselves "Culture Warriors", want to claim that Christians are being persecuted. After all, that is exactly why you started this topic, wasn't it? I will also take this opportunity to point out that you are the ones who declared "Culture War" on the rest of society.Sorry, that persecution you so yearn for is not actually happening. Yes, there are instances of Christians being persecuted somewhere in the world, but they are almost always in the minority and living in a society that is already hostile to other religions. In that respect, Christians are not the only religious group being persecuted. FWIW, atheists are far more liable to be persecuted than Christians.Meriam Ibrahim is not being persecuted for being a Christian. Rather she is being prosecuted under God's Law for being an apostate. Whether that charge is true is part of the issue. Part of the issue is whether she had actually ever been Muslim. The answer to that question has a direct bearing on the validity of her marriage to a Christian, etc, etc, etc. It's a legalistic mess all wrapped up within God's Law.Why is she being prosecuted? Who initiated it? You yourself have repeatedly pointed out that it's her own family that had created this situation, apparently for personal and business reasons. That is yet another nail in the coffin of your claim of religious persecution.This is not a case of persecution against a Christian. You know that it is not a case of persecution against a Christian. Why keep pretending otherwise?It is God's Law. The problem with God's Law is that you are unable to speak out against it, since that will be speaking out against God Himself. That is true of Islamic God's Law, of Christian God's Law, of Jewish God's Law, of Hindu God's Law, of Inuit God's Law, of Scientology God's Law, and of any God's Law. All you need is for someone to claim that it's God's Law and it gains that Divine Status of being Unquestionable.Well, I oppose God's Law! I believe in and support rights of conscience as described by James Madison, the drafter of the First Amendment, in his pamphlet, A Memorial and Remonstrance (you don't trust my link? Google it yourself for a multitude of other identical copies), a few years before he would draft the First Amendment:

quote:

---

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

​

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

---

Please also note that in Clause #2 Madison described the Wall of Separation of Church and State a few years before he would draft the First Amendment, offering some insight to his "original intent" (a really big buzz-word of the Radical Religious Right in the 1980's).I also agree with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which considers the recanting of a person's religion a human right legally protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

quote:

---

The Committee observes that the freedom to 'have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views ... Article 18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert.

---

So, I fully oppose God's Law in this regard (among others, but that would be another discussion), which means that I oppose God's Law, period. And in doing so, I also oppose God Himself!Do I do so? ... yeah! (refer to Team America for the full text)

As I remember that topic, your position evolved rapidly during the discussion. You are only stating its final form (as far as we know).Comprising with real-world considerations? The fiery-hot "true Christians" would definitely have problems with you being such a "lukewarm Christian" and of far less than no use to God.

My father, strong mid-West stock with a streak of Texan, appeared to many people as being just above a red-neck (master carpenter turned general contractor). One girlfriend of mine called him an "Archie Bunker" (the TV show was current at that time). But he was much more intelligent than that, had been well-read, and surprisingly independently minded (he left Christianity and all religion at age 21 because of the rampant hypocrisy he saw; the only reason he had remained so long was out of respect for his mother, a very devout person; he kept his views on religion entirely to himself, offerring no hint of them until a full decade after I had myself become an atheist).My father had heard about Communism (coming of age in the 1930's) and read all he could on it. He found it to be a perfect system. The only problem was that in order for it to function, it needed perfect people. That clearly could never happen.In actual Marxist theory, you needed to prepare the people to be able to live in this perfect Communist society. That is why you first needed to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of the working class, in order to prepare the people for that perfect state of Communism.When I attended the US Air Force Communications Command Leadership School, one of our instruction blocks was on Marxism and Communism. The model they presented was of an ideal primordial society in which everybody was equal, but then one person discovered something that would give him an economic advantage, he took it and threw his society out of kilter into a class society. The dictatorship of the proletariat was supposed to being everybody back to that original ideal state. In class, I saw of course that as soon as society were to return to that ideal original state, then it would immediately be vulnerable to just one individual straying from the ideal to find some advantage over all the rest and then the entire cycle would repeat itself yet again.Please be patient, because this tangent will pay off. A friend at work since 1995, so then for 19 years (exactly as of 12 days ago). I'm an atheist and he's a fundamentalist Christian and we both know that and we both get along great and have mutual respect for each other and have had several fairly deep discussions over the years. If you think that a Christian and an atheist (for over half a century, BTW) could not get along, we disprove that notion.When Steve was an early teen, his father died and that caused him problems that eventually landed him on a boys' ranch, which did end up being a formative and positive influence on him. When he arrived at that ranch, there were just four rules. By the time he left, there were more than 30 rules. He was personally responsible for each and every single one of those additional rules. He would inevitably do something stupid that wasn't countermanded by an existing rule and they'd have to add a rule saying "You know this stupid thing? Don't do it!"The lesson there is that every organization's rules change through real-life experience with its members and other real-life factors.Just to drive that home, I learned a valuable practical lesson about bureaucracy during my time on active duty. The military is a bureaucracy. It runs by rules and regulations and instructions, etc. Every situation is accounted for and instructions for handling it are provided. Except that that does not always happen. There was a rule about Air Force Speciality Codes. When you enlist for the first time, you can request to work within a particular specialty, like mine (305x4, Electronic Computer Systems Repairman, subsequently superceded BTW). Of course, you could have made a poor decision (all jokes about recruiters lying to you notwithstanding), so a given number of months before the end of your first enlistment, you may request to transfer to a different speciality (dependent on factors such as trying to move from an overage field to a shortage field, etc). During my active duty, I earned my BS Computer Science and I wanted to be able to offer my services to the Air Force since they had paid for it (75% or 80% tuition assistance, upped to 90% when I made E-5). Since I had been transferred to a squadron job that gave me access to the squadron offices after hours, I even researched it. The problem was that the minimum months Time In Service was based on a four-year enlistment whereas I was on a new six-year enlistment. The new six-year enlistment changed the rules and the Air Force could not even begin to look at getting a return on its investment until far too late in my enlistment. The lesson there is that every organization that lives and operates by rules must constantly review and revise its rules. A great big happy hippy commune. A pipe-dream that could never happen.Following God? Don't you mean following what you personally think God wants you to do? Just like everybody else is following what they personally think God wants them to do. So while everybody in your happy hippy-dippy commune says that they are just following God, in reality they are each doing their own thing. Do you really think that's going to work?Normally, a commune is a small social grouping within which an informal social structure can organically establish itself and enable things to work. But the scope of an entire society is far beyond that of a commune. Informal social structures cannot possibly work for an entire society. Your "perfect Christian society" will not work; you are SOL ("short on luck", which is a euphemism for the many actual meanings of that acronym).OK, a hippy-dippy commune will not work as an entire society. Now, do try to be honest here. When and where have you ever seen that commune idea of yours to work? Ever? Ever? A church or congregation should be the closest thing. But what did you see there? A central controlling figure. An authority who was in charge, who told you what to do and what to think and what everything meant. Why would you ever think of any other power structure in your religious utopia (Greek for "no place", meaning that it does not exist)?Think of all the religious utopiae that have existed. Jonestown? Don't drink the kool-aid! Branch Davidians? What's the common factor? A central authoritarian figure who controls everybody else. How could you ever think that it could be otherwise?And what about God's Law? What is it and what is it not? Who says what it is? Which of God's Laws apply and which do not? Who says so? On what basis? Who knows? Do you even have any idea? As are we all. Ain't God's Laws a bitch?{from memory of a few decades ago}
From Dan Barker's song, You Just Can't Win with Original Sin:

quote:

---

Any god who would damn me will damn you just as quickly.

---

SO WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE VERSE ON APOSTASY ITSELF?It is obviously a serious crime. What does the Bible say about it?

Oh yes he is! Just as Vishnu is! Just as Wotan is! (sorry, I learned German long before learning Swedish) God is God, regardless of whichever god! God's Law is God's Law, regardless of whichever god! God's Law is the same in all societies and is treated the same in all societies, in that God's Law cannot be questioned! Show me one, just one, society operating on God's Law that is any different!Meriam Ibrahim is trapped in a society whose god is different from hers, but that society in which she is trapped still operates on God's Law and that has a direct impact on her situation, unfortunately.And, yes, I am quite sure that " she would agree with {Faith} about that". And with me as well! But then that's not what we're talking about, is it? God's Law is God's Law, and it operates the same regardless of whichever god you're talking about. That is so obvious! What part of that do you not understand? Or they are smarter than you think they are.In wargaming, the game designers try to design the situations and unit capabilities such that it accurately simulates the actual conflict. Ideally, you could play out scenarios that would accurately depict the outcomes if the original commanders had done something differently: eg, playing through Operation Market Garden, I had no problem until that bridge at Nijmegen (though to be honest, I had no idea how to use my engineers there -- remember the scene in the movie with Robert Redford rowing across the Rhein).In wargaming, there's something that's called "playing the rules". Normally, a player wants to play according to the simulation, to the "feel of the game". That "feel of the game" is what the rules are written for. But some players going solely for the win will use the loopholes in the imperfect rules to win instead of "playing the game".Meriam Ibrahim's family is "playing the rules". They have their own goals and objectives and they are using the Islamic version of God's Law to obtain them.And your question is? Oh bullshit! That is typical of family power plays in each and every society! Islamic God's Laws just have more bite. No, as I recall that only came later. Bullshit! No, they would not have had any say "in decisions that affect their own practical situation" if that situation had anything to do with some religious law, in which they would have absolutely no say whatsoever! And no representation in any law-making or tax-making? Ever hear of "no taxation without representation!"? You're creating a revolution there. Oh, your head is so deeply buried that it's absolutely pitiful!Atheists are indeed quite decent people. Far more so than most Christians I know! Yet I cannot think of any atheist who would not chafe intolerably under Christian rule. Just having to swallow our objections to your schools teaching your outrageous lies about the world would tax the most patience and tolerant person.And your outrageous fantasy that a "genuinely Christian government" would be " peaceable and benevolent" is absolutely ludicrous. No true Christian government could ever be peaceable, since it must forever be at war against what it thinks is "evil". What thoughts are all your subjects having? Could any of them be of Satan? Mustn't we root out all such evil? So what thoughts are of Satan? Any thoughts that are not Christian (your definition of "Christian"). Which would be the thoughts of most atheists and other free-thinkers. And would your treatment of those deviant thinkers be "benevolent"? To quote John Wayne, "Not hardly!" So show us already! This most certainly is not such a case.And yet again, keeping you from persecuting others is not a form of persecution!Get a fracking clue!Edited by dwise1, : hit the wrong fracking button!

Have you really? Why am I not so sure about that? Whatever do you mean by that?The US Constitution, including the Amendments, can suffice quite well. It is actually quite resilient, since it had built into it the capability to modify it, through amendments, as the conditions in the future may dictate. As has been done, for better or for worse.So just what are you talking about? Oh, a rational government is indeed possible on Earth. It will not be perfect, but it will be functional.So why do you believe otherwise? OK, so what else is new?Nothing ever lasts. Duh??? We're not perfect, but we keep working at it. Duh??? So what's the alternative? Just curl up into a ball and die?Quoted from memory from the Vogon destruction of the Earth to make way for a hyper-spacial by-pass (British term; not quite sure ... -- also, sorry, but the sourcebook (original radio scripts) is at work and not available):

quote:

---

Ford Prefect: The earth is about to end.
Barkeep: Well, shouldn't we all put bags over our heads and lie down?
Ford Prefect: Why?
Barkeep: Well, because that's what they'd always told us to do.
Ford Prefect: OK, if you'd like.
Barkeep: Will that do any good?
Ford Prefect: No.

---

Mind you, I am an American! I served my country in the military for 35 years, during which time I defended your right to whatever religious belief you chose to hold. And I very deeply resent any intention you may have to deprive me of the same!Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Jeez! Are you really that dense? God's Law is God's Law is God's Law is God's Law.The specifics may be different, but the end result is the same thing. God's Law is God's Law is God's Law is God's Law.To quote from a movie that I never watched: The first rule of God's Law is that it's God's Law. The second rule of God's Law is that it's God's Law. The third rule of God's Law is "Duh???????????????????"It's God's Law. You never question God's Law. If in doubt, you never question God's Law. Duh????????Of course the fundamental question is whether it's actually god's law or not. But then that's the question that an atheist would ask, but never a believer. Especially never a believer who's part of the society. You are daring to ask that question, but you are not allowed to. God's Law is God's Law. It may never be questioned. It may never be doubted. It may never be doubted.Your own god is irrelevent! Only the society's god is relevent!

And just what exactly was that "original intent"? I have read James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance. Have you? I gave you the link to that text. Have you bothered to read it? Or are you simply pratting on in complete ignorance?And, yes, the meaning of the Constitution has indeed changed over time, just as it was intended to! That is why the US Supreme Court is there, as well as the machinery for amending the Constitution over time.But then, " If you don't know what I'm talking about there's no hope of getting it across to you." Without your feedback, I cannot possibly do anything to help you.lI just reviewed my Message 71 and could not see a single thing that you could not possibly understand. Curious, that.I've been dealing with creationists on-line ever since the mid 1980's and in that time I've noticed a few things. One of those things is what I've come to know as "selective stupidity".Now, there's "selective blindness", wherein you will literally be unable to see something that you believe you must not see. I guess I should also mention here that a very important part of "true Christian" psychology is that they never ever encounter anything that could ever possibly contradict their pre-conceived world view.In connection with that, I have encountered situations wherein the evidence is very clearly laid out in front of the creationist and he just simply cannot see it. The alternative would be for that creationist to see that his position is clearly wrong, so he cannot allow himself to see that. It's purely a psychological defense mechanism.All that's left is the rationalization of why you cannot understand what had just been clearly presented to you. Selective blindness would not suffice, so I chose to call it "selective dumbness"; when presented with it, you are just too dumb to understand it.

Of course. You cannot allow yourself to understand, so you must flee immediately!

No, I have no problem understanding. Rather you have been expressing your own problems understanding.Yet again, God's Law is God's Law is God's Law is God's Law. Regardless of which god is credited for God's Law, they are all exactly the same (except for minor differences in the details of their content and in their origins back-story), they are all treated the same, they are all implemented the same, they are all administered and enforced the same, and they all have the same effects.All God's Laws were created by Man, written down by Man, transmitted to each succeeding generation by Man, implemented by Man, interpreted by Man, enforced by Man, abused by Man, and believed by Man to be of divine origin and therefore perfect. That is true of each and every instantiation of God's Law would still hold true even if there were one instantiation of God's Law that were actually of divine origin; Man has his pudgy little fingers in that pie throughout the entire process just as he does with the entire religion business.So, given Man's typical heavy-handedness in implementing God's Law, grave injustice will inevitably result. What recourse would the victims of that grave injustice have? None, nor would any recourse be possible. Since the law in question is part of God's Law, you cannot question that law without also questioning God, something which is not allowed under God's Law. When Man creates a law that is bad, you can oppose that law and petition to have it either changed or struck down. You cannot do that with God's Law, since opposing God's Law means also opposing God, which God's Law forbids. Even if a corrupt government takes power and misuses God's Law for its own corrupt purposes, as long as they wield God's Law, opposing them would be the same as opposing God. Actually, that is what happened with the Protestant philosophy of The Divine Right of Kings.Clearly, we must do everything we can to keep God's Law from being implemented.Now are your problems with understanding resolved?

When a copy of Hammurabi's Code was found, it was compared to Mosaic Law. The two law codes were found to parallel each other very strongly, suggesting strongly that either Mosaic Law had been derived from Hammurabi's Code or a derived law code, or both Mosaic Law and Hammurabi's Code had both been derived from another antecedent law code.However, in comparing the same laws in the two law codes, it was found that Hammurabi's Code was more benign. For example, in questions about slavery and whether a particular individual would be a slave (eg, the child of a slave and a freeman), Hammurabi would err on the side of freedom whereas Moses would err on the side of slavery.I forgot to mention that Hammurabi's Code is also of divine origin. It had been given to him by the god and goddess, Bel and Anu. So if Moses did derive his Law from Hammurabi's, then the Bible is in error for not properly crediting Bel and Anu for it.Edited by dwise1, : Bel and Anu.

Indeed. Gods are gods are gods. They're all pretty much the same. But of course, one's own god must be completely different from the rest! (here I am invoking a sense of humor as we are sharing a common personal joke; in each other's physical presence, we would be smiling and cocking an eyebrow)And then there's that ambiguous word, "myth".In one sense, the far more common sense, "myth" means "false", "not true". I take that to be the meaning that you are applying. In this sense, calling something "myth" intends to diminish it and its importance.The other sense is what I had learned by watching the PBS series with Joseph Campbell, "The Power of Myth". In that sense, a myth is a story or a truth that is so important that it transcends mere factual truth. This sense does not diminish a story or figure in the least, but rather elevates it to a position of very great importance. It makes it truly mythic.Bel and Anu are not mere "myths", diminished discredited stories that are not true. Rather, they are mythic! They gave us Hammurabi's Code, a cornerstone of law.Gods are gods are gods. None of them truly distinguish themselves from the others. All of them are human inventions. Even if some supernatural entity were to actually exist, it would not be the same as the human inventions of what "God" would be. The supernatural is beyond human perception or comprehension. We have imagined what "God" would be, but that is still a human invention, at best a reflection of fallible human inability to comprehend "God".Bel and Anu gave us Laws. Bel and Anu are mythic! Not mere false "myths", but rather truly mythic.On another tangent, I'm sure that you've heard this argument before. Atheists do not believe in the gods. Christians do not believe in all gods except for one. Christians are virtually no different from atheists, since they differ by only one god.

Two entirely different things. Here is the rest of what I said before you lifted that out of context: Are you claiming to be able to perceive the supernatural? And I don't mean odd feelings. You can get that from a "God helmet", an experimental device which manipulates the brain with electromagnets, inducing mystical and religious experiences. Claiming to have personally experienced God does not mean that you have actually done so, but rather it is far more likely that you have simply interpreted an odd feeling to be God. It could just as easily have been something you ate which disagreed with you, the proverbial "bad burrito". Of course, you are free to believe that it was God, but there's no reason for anybody except yourself to be convinced by it.Again, it is not God Himself that you nor anyone else believes in. Rather, it is your own image of God that you believe in and worship. You created that image from what you have been told by others about their own images of God. Everything you believe or "know" about "God" is based on hearsay from others who themselves had based their ideas on hearsay.And a lot of those ideas are stupid. That's what Rabbi Jack Bemporad and Michael Shevack wrote in their book, Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think about God. A lot of those stupid ideas (eg, God as your personal "cosmic bellhop" gratifying your every desire, God as "little Mary Sunshine" who will take care of everything for you, the proverbial "God of Wrath", "God the general" a nationalist god, "God as Master of Ceremonies" officiating at all events) were developed in our childhood and never got revisted and matured as we matured, which is why they are so childish. What a believer needs to do is to revisit his ideas about God and to replace the stupid ideas with smart ones. Of course, I'm saying that the first step is to realize that your current ideas about "God" were invented by you and are not necessarily correct. That does not mean that there does not exist some supernatural entity that could be identified as "God", but rather that fallible human ideas about it would be insufficient. Especially when it comes to all those really fine details. You're being persecuted? Really? What a joke! You have no idea what religious persecution is. Have you ever been threatened to your face with grave physical violence just because your beliefs are different? Well, I have. I've been an atheist for about 50 years now, which has made me a target for threats. I have also had to suffer gross religious discrimination while the public gleefully cheered on my persecutors. What backwards society was that in? That was right here in Southern California.You have no idea what religious persecution is. It is highly insulting for you to pretend that you are suffering from persecution just because others don't believe the same things that you do, or because society will not give you free rein to persecute others.

That "story" in the Wall Street Journal is not a news story, but rather an opinion piece. So just who is this Charlotte Allen and why should we consider her opinion to be valid? Unable to read that opinion piece (the site requires us to subscribe), I Google'd on her name. The hits I got indicate that she's a right-wing ideologue. Do I need to remind you that it's right-wing ideologues who invented and fuel the flames of your persecution fantasies?