Saturday, May 1, 2010

238: Punishment For Obeying Orders

Jeremiah 49-50
"Summon archers against Babylon, all those who draw the bow. Encamp all around her; let no one escape. Repay her for her deeds; do to her as she has done. For she has defied the LORD, the Holy One of Israel." - Jeremiah 50:29

The entire section today is messages from God "about" countries. Remember, that means that God is just going to describe how he's going to murder everyone.

God's first message is to the Ammonites. He tells them to stop worshiping their false idols and that he is going to come down and bring terror to their cities. However, God says that at some point he will restore the Ammonites. Why? So they can go worship false idols again? God always seems to restore these civilizations just so he can destroy them again. Keep in mind that God should know that these civilizations are going to again turn away from him.

God goes on to say that he's going to destroy the Edomites, the people of Damascus, the people of Kedar, and the people of Hazor. All of these people he claims he is going to completely destroy and not allow to return. However, he seemingly arbitrarily decides that the Elamites should be restored after he ruthlessly destroys them.

The entirety of chapter 50 (a rather large chapter) is a message about the Babylonians. God tells everyone that lives around Babylon to go and shoot arrows at the country because they have sinned against God. How did they sin against God? I thought God was using them to destroy whoever he wanted to. If Babylon did anything wrong it was under the direction of God. Another piece of God's infinite justice.

Actually, God goes on to say that the Babylonians are being punished for destroying the Israelites. Really? I know God did that one. The rest of the chapter is just God repeating over and over again that the Babylonians have defiled him. That's not the way I remember the book of Jeremiah reading. If the Babylonians were doing any defiling, it was under God's direction.

*News*
You get two stories today! Actually they're both pretty short, this is my finals week so I'm going to be pretty busy.

The first story comes from 4chan (so you know it's going to be quality):


While I don't condone vandalizing people's property, it would be rather amusing if people actually put those warning labels on the bible.

The second is a video of Richard Dawkins. I haven't heard much from Dawkins lately, but this is another classic:

Friday, April 30, 2010

237: 2 Girls 1 Cup and God

Jeremiah 46-48
"Make her drunk, for she has defied the LORD. Let Moab wallow in her vomit; let her be an object of ridicule." - Jeremiah 48:26

In chapter 46 God tells Jeremiah how he's going to destroy Egypt. Keep in mind that God would not be destroying Egypt had the Israelites not fled there. So much for an all just God. I've heard the argument from several people that God can kill anyone he wants and be morally "good" because of original sin. I don't agree with this argument, but lets just roll with that for a moment.

Let's just pretend that God is morally just in destroying Egypt. Shouldn't he destroy Egypt even if the Israelites weren't there? If they're such bad people, they should be wiped off the planet regardless of whether God's chosen people happen to be residing there. This doesn't seem like pure Godly justice. As if that wasn't bad enough, he's not going to kill the Israelites (who seem to be the ones responsible for all this death):
"Do not fear, O Jacob my servant,
for I am with you," declares the LORD.
"Though I completely destroy all the nations
among which I scatter you,
I will not completely destroy you.
I will discipline you but only with justice;
I will not let you go entirely unpunished."
These Israelites essentially have the power to destroy whatever people they want destroyed by going and living with them. How is this justice?

The next chapter is just God telling the Philistines they're going to be killed. He says that enemy chariots will ride into the city and kill everyone. Men will not even stop to help their sons. But they can rest assured that they are being killed by God's love. I bet that will make them feel better.

The last chapter for today is just describing how Moab should be destroyed. However, God gets a little graphic in his descriptions. God tells the city of Moab to wallow in their vomit because they defiled God. I'm sure someone is going to argue that this is metaphorical vomit, but you can never really be sure. Even if it is a metaphor, it's too late for me to get the image of hoards of people puking everywhere and wallowing in it out of my head. Those people must have done some nasty defiling to God.

*News*
Oh how I love fundie letters to the editor, this is a good one.

Brian Dine is apparently responding to someone who's said that evolution is a "fact" not a "theory". Of course, theory actually means a set of well developed facts, but I'm sure that's what he was trying to say. Anyway, Brian has a very intellectual rebuttal:
Regarding Joe Bauer's April 24 letter, "Evolution is no theory, it's fact," I have this to say: Christ lived, died on a cross, then rose from the dead - that's a fact, not a theory.

Anyone can claim something is a fact, not a theory. Joe asserts that the Bible is an inaccurate source of scientific facts and that "Evolution is not in God's plan. Because there is no God's plan,"
Let me sum this up for you in laymen's terms, "Nuh uh!" He then goes on to the classic "well, atheists have faith too!" argument. It's interesting how faith is a good thing till someone else has it (not that I'm agreeing that atheists have faith):
Asserting that God has no plan is an improvable statement of faith. Joe, at least you have faith; that's an important fact. Which is more likely accurate, "The universe and all therein came from nothing," or, "It all came from something? Nothing still comes from nothing, last I checked.

Science deals only with Big Bang forward, as that's when the laws that science attempts to discover began to form. No matter what you believe about pre-Big Bang requires faith.
Which is why I believe nothing about before the big bang! If someone asks me what I think was going on before the big bang I confidently reply "I don't know". Saying you don't know is infinitely better than claiming you do know based on nothing but faith. As for the first paragraph, this argument can be summed up with "Everything came from God, but something can't come from nothing. Except God, he can totally come from nothing." It doesn't get any more logical than that.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

236: We'll Do Everything You Say... Except That

Jeremiah 42-45
"Then they said to Jeremiah, 'May the LORD be a true and faithful witness against us if we do not act in accordance with everything the LORD your God sends you to tell us.' " ... "When Jeremiah finished telling the people all the words of the LORD their God—everything the LORD had sent him to tell them- Azariah son of Hoshaiah and Johanan son of Kareah and all the arrogant men said to Jeremiah, 'You are lying! The LORD our God has not sent you to say, 'You must not go to Egypt to settle there.' ' " - Jeremiah 42:5 & Jeremiah 43:1-2

Chapter 42 starts with Jeremiah leading the few who remain of Judah. They all say that they will follow him and do whatever he says (i.e. whatever Jeremiah "hears" from God). Ten days later, Jeremiah hears from God. God tells the remnant of Judah not to go to Egypt or they will all fall by the sword. Apparently this remnant of Judah gets no alternate suggestion of where they should settle. In the desert?

In the very next chapter, the once loyal Israelites turn against Jeremiah. They tell him that he's lying about God telling them not to settle in Egypt. What happened to following everything Jeremiah says? I guess that only applies when what Jeremiah says agrees with what they were already thinking. This whole fiasco ends with the officers of the old Israelite army leading the entirety of the remainder of Judah into Egypt. Jeremiah must be very unconvincing.

The rest of the chapter tells the story of God, once again, forcing Jeremiah to do weird stuff to make his point. Of course, to the outside observer this just looks like Jeremiah doing weird stuff (what I'm trying to say is that Jeremiah is probably a total nut job). God tells Jeremiah to find some large stones and bury them outside of Pharaoh's palace. He says that where these stones are buried is where Nebuchadnezzar will set up his tent. Man, the Israelites just can't get away from those damn Babylonians. Why didn't God just say "Babylon is going to take over Egypt"? Jeremiah really didn't need to act that one out.

In chapter 44 God continues his rant about those nasty Israelites who settled in Egypt. I'm not quite sure what God has against Egypt. Unless he's still holding a grudge about that whole Pharaoh thing (which was really God's fault if we're being honest). The remnant of Israel has also gone back to worshiping/offering sacrifices to other gods. God goes on to say how he's going to kill off the remnant of Israel so that their number is very few. I thought their numbers were already very few! That is the connotation of the word "remnant".

Chapter 25 is short and weird. God tells the scribe of Jeremiah that he is going to bring great disaster on all people. However, God says that he will spare Jeremiah's scribe. Why? What did the scribe do to receive this salvation? The bible never says.

*News*
I think I've shown a video from this guy before. The sheer mass of biblical contradiction this video shows amazes me.



You mean, the bible's not inerrant?

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

235: Has Noah's Ark Been Found?

Jeremiah 38-41
"So they took Jeremiah and put him into the cistern of Malkijah, the king's son, which was in the courtyard of the guard. They lowered Jeremiah by ropes into the cistern; it had no water in it, only mud, and Jeremiah sank down into the mud." - Jeremiah 38:6

Some of the kings officials hear of Jeremiah's blasphemous claims (namely that Jerusalem will be destroyed, and it's people handed over to Babylon). They are so angry with Jeremiah for his prophecies that they ask the king to throw him down a cistern. The king agrees (basically he says, "whatever, I don't care") so they throw him down the cistern. Fortunately, the cistern was empty at the time so there was only a little mud in the bottom. Eventually Jeremiah is rescued by some of the more level headed of the king's officials.

After being removed from the cistern, the king calls Jeremiah to ask him questions again. Jeremiah is hesitant to answer these questions honestly because he's afraid he's going to be thrown down the cistern again or even killed. Zedekiah assures him that he won't kill him or hand him over to be killed. Jeremiah just tells the king again to surrender to the Babylonians or he will be killed. I guess the king is only pissed off sometimes when Jeremiah tells him this.

In chapter 39 the Babylonians march on Jerusalem. Zedekiah tries to run but is quickly overtaken by the Babylonian army. The king of Babylon then slaughters Zedekiah's sons right in front of him. Shortly after this, Nebuchadnezzar pokes out Zedekiah's eyes and shackles him to take him to Babylon. I thought Zedekiah was going to be allowed to surrender to the Babylonians without he or his family being harmed. I guess Zedekiah wasn't supposed to run from the Babylonians.

The capture of Jerusalem turns out to be a great deal for Jeremiah. He is freed from the courtyard and sent with the rest of the Israelite captives on their way to Babylon. One of the commanders of the Babylonian army sees him and somehow knows who he is, so he sets him free to go wherever he wants.

On his way out of the city, Nebuchadnezzar appoints a man (Gedaliah) to rule over the Israelites he is going to leave in Jerusalem. The Ammonites send a man named Ishmael to assassinate this new leader (for whatever reason). A remaining official from Jerusalem's army warns Gedaliah that he is going to be assassinated, but he won't listen.

Sure enough, Ishmael kills Gedaliah. Not only does he kill him, but he kills all the Jews and the Babylonians that are with him. The next day a group of 80 mourners comes to Mizpah (where Gedaliah was staying) to see Gedaliah. Ishmael comes out to meet them, crying. As soon as he's lured the mourners into the city he has all but ten of them slaughtered and thrown in the cistern. Nice guy.

The remaining officers from Jerusalem's army try to kill Ishmael for his crimes. They end up chasing him out of the city but they are unable to kill him. The officers from Jerusalem's army take the survivors of Mizpah and flee the city. They run because they fear retribution from the Babylonians (even though they aren't the ones that killed Gedaliah).

*News*
The answer to the question in the title is no (and it probably never will be).

The latest ark find is almost certainly a hoax (I'm 99.9% sure, to coin a phrase). But you wouldn't know that if you'd only read the Faux News article. Their hard hitting journalism has struck again. They forgot to mention that nobody had confirmed the carbon dating tests ("Noah's Ark Ministries" claims the wood was dated at 4,800 years old), or that the Chinese weren't allowing anyone else to see the site except for through pictures. There is also an unconvincing video:



The nail in the coffin of this hoax comes by way of a letter from a former sponsor of the Chinese/Turkish expedition:
I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.
Yet another "ark discovery" that's proven to be fake.

(via PaleoBabble)

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

234: Party Pooper

Jeremiah 35-37
"But they replied, 'We do not drink wine, because our forefather Jonadab son of Recab gave us this command: 'Neither you nor your descendants must ever drink wine. Also you must never build houses, sow seed or plant vineyards; you must never have any of these things, but must always live in tents. Then you will live a long time in the land where you are nomads.' ' " - Jeremiah 35:6-7

Finally, Jeremiah is producing some interesting stories.

Chapter 35 is a parable (I guess that's what you'd call it) about obeying your elders. God tells Jeremiah to invite a Recabite (is this a tribe I've never heard of?) family to his house to drink wine. They accept the offer, but when Jeremiah gives them wine to drink they refuse. They explain that their forefather (Jonadab) forbade his bloodline from ever drinking wine. Jonadab also said that they were never to live in houses or plant seeds. What was this guy's problem?

God goes on to say that he wishes the Israelites were more like the Recabites. He bemoans the fact that he can tell one generation of Israelites to do something, but within a few generations they are already disobeying. Sorry God, you should have picked the Amish if you wanted generations of loyal following (this may be a bad example, I've seen Amish in minivans).

In chapter 36 we have another story about Jeremiah annoying the king and his officials. God tells Jeremiah to write down all the disastrous things that are going to happen to Israel and have them read to the king. God has an interesting quote here, he says, "Perhaps when the people of Judah hear about every disaster I plan to inflict on them, each of them will turn from his wicked way; then I will forgive their wickedness and their sin." Perhaps? Doesn't God already know? *Spoiler alert* It doesn't work. So what was God's plan here? Does Jeremiah's failure to convince the Israelites to be "good people" somehow help God's cause?

Jeremiah, being a faithful servant, writes down everything God tells him to. He tells someone else to go read it to the king because he is afraid (probably for good reason). When the king hears what's on the scroll he asks why Jeremiah says that Babylon will take over Judah (we've obviously gone back in time again), and has the scroll burned in a fire pot. The king doesn't seem to be affected by these revelations. Again, what was the point of this? God seems to be showing an inability to predict Israelites' actions. That's not very all-knowing of you, God.

The last chapter for today is about Jeremiah's imprisonment (the same imprisonment that I mentioned yesterday). Apparently, instead of just being kept in a courtyard, he was locked in a dungeon for a "long time" (the bible's measurements of time are so clear and unambiguous). Only after this "long time" was Jeremiah allowed to come to the courtyard to be imprisoned. I'm confused, did the first previous chapter just forget to mention this? This is the convoluted type of storytelling I've ever read.

*News*
I usually wouldn't find a race for county commission in Ohio interesting, but the bible is involved.

The Cincinnati Right to Life passes around a questionnaire about abortion issues. Cecil Thomas (a Democrat) answered the questionnaire, not by simply answering "yes" or "no", but by sprinkling irrelevant bible verses in his answers. His first bible quote (on the very first question) is from the book of Jeremiah.
Question:
The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton did more than just "legalize" abortion-on-demand; they prohibited virtually any federal, state or local laws from protecting pre-born children from death by abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. [Not a question yet]

Will you support reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton?

Answer:
Yes [*check*] No [ ]
Comments: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:5
They don't even seem to hide the fact that this is a leading question. Unbiased abortion questions don't come with paragraph long intros about how terrible Roe v. Wade is. Anyway, like I said on the first day of Jeremiah, this quote is widely used as a "pro-life" quote from the bible. Unfortunately, the quote is only talking about Jeremiah. In fact, the bible doesn't mention that anyone but Jeremiah gets this special "before you're born" treatment.

His other biblical reference is from Genesis:
Question:
Will you support legislation prohibiting the killing of human embryos used for scientific research?

Answer:
Yes [*check*] No [ ]
Comments: And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and beheld behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, offered him up for a burnt offering instead of his son. Genesis 22:13 (God will provide a ram for research) (Stem Cell)
Yet another terribly misleading question. I'm starting to see why no other democrats answered this questionnaire. Anyway, this has to be the most vague, twisted reference I've ever seen. Cecil seems to forget that God ordered Abraham to kill his son. Does this mean God orders abortions? Well, we know he likes to cause people to eat babies, maybe that's close enough.

That's not to mention that, in some cases, embryos are "sacrificed" to the trash can when they could be used in stem cell research. Fertilized embryos are frozen in fertility clinics all the time. If the woman decides that she has no more use for the embryos (i.e. she has a baby and doesn't want any more) these embryos are unceremoniously thrown away. Why not use those for stem cell research? What sort of twisted morality allows embryos to be thrown in the garbage without protest, but disallows their use in life saving research?

(via Politics Extra) [Cecil Thomas's Full Answer Sheet]

Monday, April 26, 2010

233: I Love You, Now Fear Me!

Jeremiah 32-34
"I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me." - Jeremiah 32:39-40

Chapter 32 starts with Jerusalem under siege and Jeremiah imprisoned. Jeremiah is now confined in the royal courtyard for saying that king Zedekiah would be defeated by the Babylonians. Apparently while he's still confined in the courtyard, God tells him to buy a field from his cousin. Sure enough, Jeremiah's cousin comes around and asks Jeremiah to buy the land. Jeremiah buys the land and says that this is God's sign that people will buy and sell things in Israel again. That's the most convoluted sign I've ever heard.

For the rest of the chapter God describes his new "everlasting covenant". This everlasting covenant isn't to be confused with the other everlasting covenants that were broken (I guess they weren't very everlasting after all). God goes on to say how this new covenant will make everyone love God, and more importantly fear God. God even says that he will always do "good" to the Israelites under this covenant. I wonder if this good involves killing them if they're naughty.

Chapter 33 is more of the bible being repetitive. God spends a whole chapter describing how he's going to restore Israel eventually to it's old ways. First of all, I'm not sure why he has to keep repeating this, as if it's going to make anyone feel any better about being torn from their homes. Second, I don't know why he's telling these people at all. Earlier in the chapter Jeremiah said that it would be 70 years before the Israelites were led back to the promised land. This means that pretty much everyone God is telling right now won't live to see the day the Israelites return.

The first part of chapter 34 is God telling Zedekiah (through Jeremiah) that he will be taken by Nebuchadnezzar. However, God says that Zedekiah will not be killed by the sword, but die peacefully. So much for God's terrible wrath. I guess the common Israelites are the only ones that get killed for their sins. As a side note, Jeremiah better shut up before he gets locked in the courtyard again.

The second part of the chapter is about God telling the Israelites to free their slaves. Wow, has God finally gotten his moral compass straightened out about slavery? No, God just wants the Israelites to free their fellow Hebrews from slavery. The rest of their slaves are perfectly fine. So God is racist and pro-slavery.

*News*
Is it time to quit believing in God? That's the question Deepak Chopra answered in the San Francisco Chronicle today. Needless to say, I disagree with this answer.

He starts by talking about science being able to detect the effects of "God". For example, when people pray specific parts of the brain become active. He says that atheists are using this to relegate God to a "chemical reaction". I don't know if I'd call God a chemical reaction, more like an imaginary friend (I wonder if imaginary friends trigger similar activities in the brains of children, I'll save that one for another blog post).

He goes on to talk about a 19th century Harvard scientist:
James found a way for science to lead to God instead of defeating God. Let me give the revelation a context. James thought that people had a right, perhaps even a drive, to say that God existed, and even though they couldn't offer evidence for their religious beliefs, it sustained them with comfort, hope, and so on.

Atheists scoff at this rationale, claiming that it's childish to fall back on fairy tales about God just because they make you feel better. Far better to grow up and see what's before your eyes: the material world operating through random chance without the slightest sign of a higher intelligence, moral authority, afterlife, and all the other trappings of religion.
I largely agree with that second paragraph, though I wouldn't call the urge to find God "childish". Sure, a belief in God can give you a "meaning" or a "purpose", and I can understand why even adults would want that. But is it a good purpose? Not from what I've read in the bible. Does giving someone's life meaning in any way provide evidence for that "meaning"? Certainly not.

Chopra then goes on to support one of my least favorite arguments (it really annoys me) "You will only see it if you believe it." He then tells me what I should think about that argument:
To a non-believer, this sounds like self-hypnosis. Being materialists, they cling to the old formulation, "I'll believe it when I see it." But no one ever claimed that God or higher intelligence or the creative principle in the universe was tangible, like a rock or a tree. Gravity isn't tangible, either, but once the human mind decided to look for it, gravity became evident. God is subtler than gravity but just as evident, and just as dependent on knowing what to look for.
Ahem. Actually, God seems pretty damn tangible in the Old Testament. People lay eyes on him, and they see him. We are "created in God's image", and as far as I know humans are tangible. This is the biggest (and most common) cop-out I hear from theists. God is intangible, therefore he is tangible to me and he exists; checkmate. There are an infinite number of other things that are intangible, that I could probably "experience" in some way if I tried hard enough. Wait... Yes, I think I just tasted green tea from Russell's teapot. You can only taste it if you believe!

(via The San Francisco Chronicle)

Sunday, April 25, 2010

232: Save the Old Lady and the Dog First

Jeremiah 30-31
" 'At that time,' declares the LORD, 'I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people.' " - Jeremiah 31:1

[My computer decided to die this morning. So if I post the blog at strange times for the next couple of weeks, you'll know why.]

In the first of two chapters today, God tells Jeremiah to write a book. So I guess what I'm reading right now is the second book of Jeremiah (or maybe Jeremiah is writing about God telling him to write this book, that would be very meta). God goes on to lay out what should be in this other book of Jeremiah. God tells Jeremiah to record how he will punish all of the people that are punishing Israel right now. I'm not sure when, presumably in 70 years when God brings the people back to Israel. Of course, by then Jeremiah will be dead. That's the best kind of prophecy, the one that doesn't get disproven till after you're dead. God also tells Jeremiah to write down that Israel will eventually be restored (I'm not sure why God has to keep repeating this).

Chapter 31, while fairly lengthy, isn't very interesting. God is just repeating all of the things he's said at the beginning of the chapter. Namely, Israel will at some point be restored to it's former glory, and what remains of the people of Israel will eventually loyally worship God again. That's pretty wishful thinking on God's part, considering he's been completely convinced that Israel would worship him and it's never quite worked out. But, of course, I'm sure that was all part of God's convoluted, seemingly idiotic plan.

*News*
Choctaw County Mississippi was hit by a tornado. One lucky woman, Jean Oswal, was spared by - you guessed it - God.

The Clarion Ledger tells her full story:
Jean Oswalt heard the shrill whistling, grabbed her dog and a pillow and huddled in a closet in the back of her house Saturday. A nine-shelf shoe rack fell on top of her; a series of what sounded like explosions seemed like they would never stop.

When they did, the first thing she saw was her husband's Bible - which, seconds earlier, was in the front room.

"And it didn't have a scratch on it, and it was not wet," she said.

That Oswalt - the mother of Houston Astros pitcher Roy Oswalt - was able to tell a tale that alluded to divine intervention was significant in itself.
A real miracle! She was saved and the first thing she saw was her unblemished bible. Unfortunately, a key element was left out of this story. A few hundred yards down the road, five people died, another 5 were dead elsewhere in the city.

Why did God spare a relatively old woman and her dog, but not the other 10 people in the city? Was this woman somehow morally superior to those who died? Probably not. What about the dog? Is God sending us a message that some dogs lives are more important than human lives? God really does work in mysterious incomprehensible sadistic ways.

It really bugs me when people claim, or imply in this case, divine intervention when they're saved and others die. In fact, these situations seem to prove that there was no divine intervention. If God is all perfect and all moral, then surely he would only pick the least moral to be killed. And if God were all loving, surely he wouldn't let any of the people die at all.

As usual, the more reasonable explanation is that there is no God at all.

(via The Clarion Ledger/The New York Times)
 

Copyright © 2009, Page Info, Contact Me