Religion
Related: About this forumWomen can't be Catholic priests? Just who incarnated Jesus in the first place?
I was listening to Relevant Radio, a conservative Catholic radio station, and the topic was how pro-women the Catholic church was. Seriously. I suspect the only way they can claim that with a straight face is because they have a cramped notion of what womanhood means, developed by celibate white males who exclude women from their hierarchy, and are imposing that definition on women. Anyone who rejects said standard or fails to live up to it is therefore pre-judged less of a woman.
Anyway, one of the supposed ways is how the church upholds the importance of Mary to the salvation of the world. That got me thinking about just what a priest does. As I understand it, when the priest says mass, Jesus incarnates in the bread and the wine. The priest is acting as Jesus did in the Last Supper by blessing the bread and wine. Therefore, so the thinking goes, the priest must be male, because Jesus was male.
But the original cause of the incarnation of Jesus was not male. It was by Mary's deliberate permission that Jesus became incarnate as a human being. If only a male can cause the incarnation of Jesus, then Mary would not have been approached by God through the angel beforehand for her assent to becoming the mother of Jesus. She was offering herself as a sacrifice through accepting the difficulty of being an unwed teenage mother, and offering Jesus to the world.
If the Catholic church truly honored Mary, they would not deny women the power to do what the Church claims she did. They would not deny women the priesthood.
EDIT: Also, now that I think of it, in the Gospel of John, Jesus changes water into wine in response to Mary's request. So if Jesus does physical miracles at Mary's request, would he not appear in the bread and wine at the request of a female priest acting as Mary?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pscot
(21,024 posts)He always had women around him.
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)But I've fallen on hard times
Long ago I had my work
When I was in my prime
But I gave it up, and all for love
It was his career or mine
Richard Shindell wrote The Ballad Of Mary Magdalen and his renditions are OK, but it's much more effective with a female lead vocalist...like Dar Williams with the singer/songwriter Super Group, Cry Cry Cry, composed of Williams, Shindell, and Lucy Kaplansky:
Jesus loved me this I know...
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And follows a book that explicitly treats women as second class. The book is contradictory and irrational. It's impossible to make a good argument for no more bigotry based on that book or on the Catholic belief system. The only time they'll listen is when they're about to fade into history. They are starting to.
rug
(82,333 posts)Oh wait, it's not. It's bigger than ever.
Wishful thinking is no argument.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Is it something the church could plausibly adopt someday?
rug
(82,333 posts)The consistent rationale for that rule is that God chose to incarnate as a male and priests are his vicars so they should be male. By that reasoning, all priests should be descended from David and speak Aramaic.
The other reason given is that Jesus could have chosen woman to be his priests but didn't, so they shouldn't. That's just as weak, given the culture of the Israel, and most of the world for that matter, at that time.
Yeah, I think it could be changed, despite John Paul's pronouncement. That has the level of authority of sententia certia which is not an invocation of infallibilty.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Just one level up from the bottom. The conservatives like to make it sound like that teaching would be absolutely impossible to change.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The stats show otherwise. Church attendance especially.
Plus, an organization that relies on childhood indoctrination for the vast majority of its growth, and which counts such children as "members" forever after is an organization insecure about its demographics.
rug
(82,333 posts)http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/
Among other things, you fail to realize it is a global church. Your ethnocentrism is showing.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)1.75 billion to 6.9 billion in that same time frame. So, the growth is what one would expect from an organization that relies on childhood indoctrination. You don't even address that disgusting fact. Who would support an organization that indoctrinated children? Who would take seriously member numbers based on that recruitment effort? I know quite a few people who aren't Catholic but still on the rolls.
Church attendance is way down not just in the US. What's disturbing is the church's success in the developing world is based on how they prey on ignorance, and perpetuate poverty with their bigotry towards women.
rug
(82,333 posts)Math!
As to your bullshit about childhood indoctrination, well, that's bullshit.
1.1 billion / 290 million is 3.8.
6.9 billion / 1.75 billion is 3.94
Math!
As for childhood indoctrination, your non-response speaks for itself. Statistics and polling clearly bear it out, not to mention the dogma of the Catholic Church. It's a fucked up organization with completely dishonest apologists.
rug
(82,333 posts)Yes, this meme of childhood indoctrination is bullshit.
And this
is just internet spittle.
phil89
(1,043 posts)Really?
phil89
(1,043 posts)sense to them?
rug
(82,333 posts)phil89
(1,043 posts)I learned philosophy in college, where critical thinking is encouraged.
rug
(82,333 posts)Even as a child, inside and outside school.
The churches were different though. They often discouraged me from independently reading the Bible, even in Sunday School. And in church, no opposing voices were allowed: only the preacher's.
The preachers, the bishops of course, had their own preferred reading; and that was all that was mostly allowed. No one could really cross "inspired doctrine" or "dogma." Or their idea of "God." Instead, we were taught to sing the same songs, say the same ritual phrases, over and over and over again.
Brainwashing is the most exact term I can find for the whole process.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Is it just a coincidence that children born to Catholic parents are much, much more likely to be Catholic themselves? Or just "attraction" to the church?
And what about Children not raised as Catholic? Is it just a coincidence they have little chance of being Catholic themselves when they grow up? Not enough "attraction"?
Ever looked at the rites of baptism? The parents swear to indoctrinate their children in it.
Heck, children are told, as fact, that Catholicism is true every time they go to service.
And this is they way with many religions. I don't even know why you try to deny it, it's just completely dishonest.
rug
(82,333 posts)Children of any ideology tend to start out affiliated with that ideology. That's a universal fact that you for some reason suspend when it comes to Catholics.
That's misinformation and prejudice.
People raised as non-Catholics can become Catholic anytime they want. Whether they do or not depends on many things. Exposure, geography, interest, experiences. etc. It is less likely a person raised non-Catholic in Kuwait will become Catholic than a person raised non-Catholic in Brooklyn.
That's misinformation, laced with ignorance.
Of course I have looked at the rites of baptism. There is nothing about religion that I take at face value. Here's the entire rite.
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/TextContents/Index/4/SubIndex/67/TextIndex/7
And here's the section you're building a mental empire on:
What name do you give your child? (or: have you given?)
Parents: N.
Celebrant: What do you ask of God's Church for N.?
Parents: Baptism.
The celebrant may choose other words for this dialogue. The first reply may be given by someone other than the parents if local custom gives him the right to name the child.
In the second response the parents may use other words, such as, "faith," "the grace of Christ," "entrance into the Church," "eternal life."
The celebrant speaks to the parents in these or similar words:
You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God's commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?
Parents: We do.
Then the celebrant turns to the godparents and addresses them in these or similar words:
Are you ready to help the parents of this child in their duty as Christian parents?
Godparents: We do.
The Celebrant continues:
N., the Christian community welcomes you with great joy. in its name I claim you for Christ our Savior by the sign of his cross. I now trace the cross on your forehead, and invite your parents (and godparents) to do the same.
He signs the child on the forehead, in silence. Then he invites the parents and (if it seems appropriate) the godparents to do the same.
The celebrant invites the parents, godparents, and the others to take part in the liturgy of the word. If circumstances permit, there is a procession to the place where this will be celebrated, during which a song is sung e.g., Psalm 84: 7, 8, 9ab.
Your statement is simply the result of prejudice.
A note about indoctrination. Literally, it is teaching someone doctrine. There s nothing at all wrong with that unless you also see something wrong with how civics classes and history are taught in elementary and middle schools. However, as you use it, it's akin to brainwashing, which again is a conclusion reached by the ignorant and the prejudiced.
As to this:
I suspect you're alluding to the Nicene Creed, recited at every Catholic Mass, although on some occasions it may be replaced by the Apostles' Creed.
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the
Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy
catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
To get from that to your statement requires a large dose of misinformation, prejudice, and plain stupidity. You should be embarrassed to post it.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)You just posted how the Catholic Church does ask parents to indoctrinate their children. How they do so at each service. You don't deny it. Heck, you post the doctrine and then stop right there, as if is somehow self-evident? No further analysis, just ad-Homimens. But what analysis could you offer? You seem to agree this is all indoctrination.
Indoctrination is selling an opinion as fact, without the expectation of critical examination. Where in the Nicene Creed does it say, "oh, this is just one opinion among many, we encourage you to think critically on this on here are other viewpoints, and here is the evidence against us." And of course, it is all done in an atmosphere of social pressure and coercion, to children no less. Their parents and community all believe this, are all reciting it, they will feel like they should too. And the price for not believing? Well according to the doctrine, they may be burning in hell for eternity, and will never see their parents. Not to mention, many tangible benefits religion brings, and being a social outcast.
By the time any "questioning" is encouraged, if it ever is, the children are grown up, steeped in the cultural identity of what they've been indoctrinated into, fully aware of the tangible benefits it brings. How many will care to critically examine and give up a system that comes with so many tangible benefits such as community by that point? Which is the whole point.
Are you so dishonest as to not be able to see that it's no coincidence children of Catholics are much more likely to be Catholic? That indoctrination, which you fully acknowledge, from a young age plays a huge role?
There's nothing prejudiced in what I say, you agree indoctrination is going on. You think it's harmless. I think it's immoral and disgusting. You are throwing words against a wall to see what sticks, all to dodge the most basic points in the most dishonest way.
You say that children of any ideology start off with their parents ideology. Except that's not true, it's just socially normative for many parents to indoctrinate their children in religion. It's seen as distasteful to do it with something like politics. And religion isn't just an ideology. It makes certain factual claims about the supernatural. If parents indoctrinate their children in an ideology, then that would be immoral. If they indoctrinate them to also believe supernatural claims as true, it just makes it worse.
rug
(82,333 posts)Your restatement and spin on it changes not a syllable.
Your problem appears to be in the word indoctrination,. Why don't you just say what you mean, brainwashing?
I suggest you focus on the facts of the matter before you use guttural rhetoric.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's obvious why children born to (insert religion) are much more likely to be that religion. It's not critical analysis, or "attraction". It's childhood indoctrination.
It's why the vast majority of Catholics have never read the entire Bible, don't know much about their own doctrines, and outright ignore many parts of doctrine they do know about but don't care to take seriously. Like so many other religions. They were indoctrinated with terrible reasoning, with the main draw being culture, community, and family, and that's why they remain, and it shows in the complete lack of critical analysis. Whether what they believe being true or not isn't important for the vast majority. Otherwise, they'd all be fervent Bible readers and knowledgeable of all doctrines.
It's also why church attendance is going down more and more. The community draw is still there, but can be fulfilled in other ways, without all the bigoted dogma.
The conflict comes when the dogma of the church clashes with their own values in a meaningful way. That causes people to stop identifying altogether. Many people are like this, but, of course, they're still dutifully counted as members by the ever-honest church.
Of course, the danger the Catholic Church and other religions are facing is that the price for challenging childhood indoctrination in religion is less and less every day, while the drawbacks and bigotry are being highlighted more and more.
rug
(82,333 posts)Children raised in religion lack critical reasoning and are brainwashed.
The "vast majority of Catholics" are ignorant of their own religion and ignore what of it they do know. Oh, and as adults, "they", the vast majority of now-adult Catholics, lack critical reasoning and remain due to an unhealthy dependence on their families, and communities.
Despite all reason to the contrary, they, the "vast majority of Catholics" continue to wallow in "bigoted dogma", lacking as they are in critical reasoning.
Catholics leave only when it becomes inconvenient in their own lives, a/k/a, they're hypocrites.
Fortunately, people like "MellowDem" are freeing them of their thrall by courageously pointing out their bigotry and childhoods that were almost irreparably damaged by the bigoted Catholic Church. The light is coming! Hallelujah!
What is fascinating is how you can post this bigoted, stupid bullshit while unblushingly calling your target, the ""vast majority of Catholics", bigots.
This is pure anti-Catholic swill which you doubtless think in your mind is simply a criticism of the institution.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Nowhere did I say children lack critical reasoning, but they are not encouraged to use it for religion.
The vast majority of Catholics ARE ignorant of their own dogma and don't follow it, this is common knowledge, shown in poll after poll. They don't go to church very often, they lie about how much they do, and they don't read the Bible much. True of many other religions as well.
Many Catholics never critically analyze their religion, so they don't wallow in the bigotry of the Catholic Church, they ignore it until confronted with it. Any Catholic that believes Catholic dogma is a bigot, because the dogma is bigoted. Thankfully, not many do.
People that do finally leave because they don't agree with the church aren't hypocrites; they're finally being consistent with their own values and intellectually honest. This does come at a price.
Community, tradition, culture, these things aren't inherently unhealthy. What's unhealthy is to tie them to a bigoted dogma.
Nothing I said was bigoted, they are facts about the Catholic Church. What's bigoted is the Catholic Church, an organization that treats women as second class, considers homosexuals disordered, and supports such claims with appeals to the supernatural. The Catholic Church often calls such criticism bigoted, much like the KKK likes to call their own critics racist. It's a transparent tactic.
Fortunately, this bigoted institution has rug to defend them at every turn!
rug
(82,333 posts)And this,
simply demonstrates you can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion. Maybe you were indoctrinated as a child, although from your posts it's probably from late adolescence.
Every other thing you've stated is bigoted. The rest is plain ignorance.
Reading the quality of these types of arguments against it goes a long way to explain why it's lasted so long.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I'm ignorant and bigoted towards the Catholic Church because...., well you never get to that part.
I have no idea what you think was bigoted in my post, my reference to polls? My reference to Catholic dogma? You never say because you're just throwing shit against a wall.
Anyone who defends the Catholic Church's bigoted dogma is ignorant. Anyone who defends the Catholic Church's bigotry with shit-throwing is intellectually dishonest and too cowardly to defend the bigoted beliefs of the church.
This is an institution that works to keep people I love from marrying, that kills millions and promote poverty with their anti-woman, anti-contraception cases. That still can't come clean about child rape among its leaders.
It's a fucking disgrace, and your apologetics are worthy of them.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you don't see the bigotry in that statement, your problems are also cognitive.
Speaking of content-free, your entire presence in this subthread has been nothing more than epithets and talking points.
You say "try this for starters", then quote me, then never explain why that's bigoted. No analysis again. I have no idea how to respond, as you've presented zero reasoning.
I don't find claims that a statement is self-evident to be persuasive. A discussion board isn't theology class. All it convinces me of is that you have no argument at all.
Let me give you an example. The position that women can't hold leadership positions because they are women is bigoted. This is because women are being pre-judged as not able or worthy of such positions on the basis of an inherited trait. It's discriminatory and prejudicial.
See? Reasoning and analysis. Try it if you want a discussion.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)"A note about indoctrination. Literally, it is teaching someone doctrine. There s nothing at all wrong with that."
One thing that is wrong with it, is that it is teaching "doctrine." Which is usually distinguished from say, facts.
See the OED on say, "doctrinarianism." Which begins to explain the problem with it: "pedantic adhesion to a theory, without regard to practical considerations" etc.. It's just a "theory." Not fact.
And of course, the picture gets much worse. If you use another of the Church's favorite words for what it teaches: "dogma." The root of "dogmatism."
rug
(82,333 posts)You left out the full quote:
And the dictionary definition of indoctrinate, as opposed to "doctrinarianism", is evident. I'm not about to dangle dictionary links in front of you like bread before an unblinking goose.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)... that "doctrine," indoctrination is good. In the case of Catholicism.
My suggestion in effect was that actually, there are really few if any cases where indoctrination is good. I was raised as a liberal: to question all authority ... and doctrines. Even as a child. Because they discourage independent thinking, and the development of an open, thinking mind. And that includes especially, religious doctrines and dogmas. It was amazing to me at an early age in fact, that the church embraced "dogma" by name; seemingly completely unaware of the really bad name that was given to dogma. In offshoots like "dogmatism."
The inflexible side and common danger to these two critical aspects of religion, was first of all, drawn out in derivative words. Words that, as derivatives, reflect back on the original root terms: "dogmatism" and "doctrinarianism." The fact that our language invented words to specifically note problems with "dogma" and "doctrine," suggest that indeed, those things commonly went wrong. Often enough that the culture felt it needed individual words for it.
And in fact, it is suggested that the very word "dogmatic," came about as a common reaction to specifically, Church "dogma." See the OED. Where indeed, a common negative quality to "dogma" and "doctrine" both, are narrated in the very definition: "DOGMA ... 1) That which is held as an opinion, a belief belief, principle; tenet; especially a doctrine authoritatively laid down by a particular church, sect, or school of thought; sometimes, deprecatingly, an imperious or ARROGANT DECLARATION OF OPINION" (My CAPS).
So there is an inherent problem with "dogma," and "doctrine." And even specifically church dogma. A problem that is noted not only in derivatives, but in the very definition of "dogma" itself.
Is that common perception of a problem there, correct? Are religious folks in general, fundamentalists and others, inflexible or "dogmatic"? Even as a child, I looked around, and did simple research. And in religious zealots and others, a dogmatic inflexibility, a bald inflexible style of delivery, is indeed, what I observed. Even as a child, in churches and church leaders.
Curiously by the way? Priests especially often had such a style. But their style, curiously, is not unlike your own flat declarative/authoritarian style. Which is often very given to simple, flat condemnations and characterizations.
Not unlike your models, after all?
I would suggest it would have been better, if you had not copied them so zealously.
If you had less confidence in such things, the righteousness of dogmatics, it would have better for the rest of us; and for you, yourself.
You note some potential problems with dogma and doctrine, to be sure. And indeed, they are very serious problems.
Would you like to deliver one of your terse, flat, judgmental, drill-sergeant like answers here? It would be better for yourself perhaps, if you stretched a bit, and looked at and used a few more words and alternative ideas, after all. Don't deliver a simple flat judgment, as if you were God, or God's hammer, himself. But carry on a debate, even within yourself.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Therefore she was different to all other women.
Of course it is also very likely that the early church had female hierophants but that does tend to be swept under the rug (no offense intended)
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)but priests can still act as Jesus.
rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)there will be a Pope Maria XXIII.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)will ever catch up.
Activist nuns are told to shut up in no uncertain terms. That's not a good sign at all.
I think women will make progress in the LDS church before they make progress in the RCC, at least on a formal level.
But as anyone who has been around catholic communities, nations or institutions knows, women do have a great deal of power, it's just not legitimately recognized.
It will be interesting to see what the conference this fall comes up with regarding the role of women.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)"We're not wrong, you just haven't understood properly. Let's explain again" route conservatives in general have been taking:
The document, anticipated by many Catholics as a barometer for what to expect from the synod, also strongly reinforces church teachings regarding the indissolubility of marriage, the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples, and that partners must be open to having children.
At the same time, the document states, the church must respond with mercy to the struggles of families to adhere to sometimes controversial teachings -- like those prohibiting divorce and remarriage, contraception, cohabitation, and same-sex marriage -- and "support her children on the path of reconciliation."
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-document-synod-family-balances-mercy-and-cultural-blame
It's tough to be optimistic.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)be to give nuns more standing and voice, but I'm just not seeing anything even close to that.
In fact, what I see is the opposite.
The synod may not even look at it, it's just that frightening for them.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)No, not really. It is all bullshit, so why would it have to be consistent?
rug
(82,333 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Where's that handy guide of contradictions when you need it?
longship
(40,416 posts)Just the gospels, even within a single gospel.
The Pentateuch is a mess. Doublets are all over the place, sometimes interleaved in the translation (the Noah story), attesting to the documentary hypothesis. Written by Moses? How can he write about his own death?
The Septuagint is no better. Kings and Chronicles repeat the same history with so many conflicts that it's amazing that people still call them histories. Who killed Goliath?
And the New Testament? Is it works (Jesus) or faith (Paul)? What were the last words of Christ? What were the names of the twelve disciples? Who wrote the gospels? Who wrote the epistles? How did the census at Jesus' birth work? Did Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt or not? And on and on and on.
The Bible is an utter mess.
(I am not an expert here. I defer to the Bible Geek and Reasonable Doubts podcast for my knowledge.)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Then the Bible flip flops back again. And John tells us that whoever "hates his brother is in darkness" (1 John 2.9). In fact, after Jesus tells us to "hate" our brothers and sisters and family? 1 John tells us that "anyone who hates his brother is a murderer" (1 John 3.15).
So John appears to say that Jesus was "a murderer."
Amazingly, there are lots more of these.
By the way? One of the smartest things I ever heard about the Bible, is that anyone who actually reads it extensively - will soon give up Christianity. Too bad Christians never read the hundreds of warnings in the Bible, about priests, and ministers. And about every aspect of religion and Christianity, from A to Z. From bad "angels" (Isa. 34.4, 51.6 etc.), and "anointings" and bad things in the major Christian "apostles," false "baptism" and "faith." All the way to warnings about false things, even in those who think they are talking to the Holy "spirit," and are following the right Christian "worship."
From A to Z, the Bible itself warned about holy men. But churchgoing Christians never read their own holy book enough.
The only thing that keeps Christianity going, is that 1) the book is too hard to read (it is endlessly contradictory and equivocal). And/or, 2) no one really bothers to actually read the document they claim is absolutely holy.
Everyone relies on priests and ministers to paraphrase the text. Churchgoers are even warned against reading the Bible objective or independently. So few of them ever really "see" the self-critical side of the Bible. The hundreds of quotes that warn against religion itself, after all.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)recurring over and over in my thoughts Matthew 7:6.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)and cut and paste EXACT QUOTES OF CONTRADICTORY PASSAGES I am accused of posting information from "an anti-Christian site."
Actually it's direct quotes and then the dancing and sidestepping begins. Such intellectual dishonesty. And when I ask people which parts they think are true and which ones are false, and point out that Jesus said some cruel and mean things, they refuse to answer.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Censorship, denial, destruction of damning evidence. Burning books, burning people, that contradict them.
When people are told that your own belief system is perfect, facing contrary evidence is almost impossible. Their hand reaches out in an automatic reflex, to destroy the things that proves them wrong.
Rather than cut and paste, try what I do: just insert a line or two, formatted your own way. Say the same thing, in individual language that can't be traced to another source. Other than ... the Bible itself.
For that matter? There are a series of free book drafts online. That show that the Bible finally criticizes itself; that the Bible warns that there have always been bad and false things in essentially "all" our holiest men and angels, and their most "inspired" doctrines. See the volume on Bad and False Priests, especially. This volume and others contain a HUNDRED quotes from the Bible, condemning holy men, including the core Chrisitian apostles.
http://woodbridgegoodman.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/god%E2%80%99s-science-v-1-0-intro-to-the-destruction-of-heaven-title-page-only/
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)