Are Christian, Jewish and Muslim Fundamentalists Taking Us Back to the Dark Ages?

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche announced, more than 120 years ago, that “God Is Dead.” In light of the global events of the last decade, Nietzsche’s assessment was merely wishful thinking. His widely quoted statement was first expressed in Die Frohliche Wissenschaft (The Gay Science) and again in his most famous book Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche’s philosophy would have never materialized without the French philosophers of the Enlightenment in the XVIII century, whose philosophical principles were practically applied by the French revolution.

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knifes: Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? God is dead, but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of year in which his shadow will be shown,” wrote Nietzsche in The Gay Science.

Furthermore, Nietzsche, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, was setting up the cornerstone of his philosophy by this question: “Dead are all gods: Now do we desire the uber man to live?”

Besides the last part of the above quote from The Gay Science, the one referring to men living in caves and still worshiping the shadows of dead gods, Nietzsche was wrong in his announcement. We are currently experiencing a setback from becoming free of the shackles of religious beliefs and becoming the uber man Nietzsche was talking about.

Nietzsche, just like composer Richard Wagner, was wrongly accused of being a precursor of the Nazis, but in reality only a small part of his philosophy was used by the Nazi propaganda. And, let us not forget that German soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with “Got Mit Uns” (God Is With Us) during World War II, not “God Is Dead.” This is yet another example that, at least in the context of their mass psychosis, many Germans wanted to believe they had god’s blessing to perpetrate their hideous crimes.

2230875959_6ef5bbfe8f_o

Nietzsche was wrong, and even the good work of the philosophers of the Enlightenment to free mankind from the servitude of religious fundamentalism might have to be revisited. Now in the 21st century, God is not dead and as matter of fact God is more alive than ever since the Dark Ages and the “old man in the sky” is kicking. Today, globally, with some exception in secular Europe, more people are finding their way back to God.

This global rebirth of  monotheist religious pursuit too often ends up not in a place where it gives individual comfort and peace, but in a move toward fundamentalism in the three Abrahamic religions. Even though Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists  are literally at war with each others, they share a lot in common in their fight against modernity, science, basic rights for women and human rights. Their anti-personal freedom, anti-sex and anti-freedom of expressions views are cut from the same cloth. What they all want to do is set back the clock, without regard for the centuries of painful progress, to a time before the supposed perversion of modern days. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are the lightening rod of this global historic regression, but they are very close in their “principles” to America’s Christian fundamentalists and Israel’s Jewish fundamentalists.

America: “Values” Voters or American Taliban?

If the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan want to go back a few centuries, America’s Christian fundamentalists or so-called values voters would be perfectly happy to return us to the 1950’s with their Jesus time machine. The values voters’ 2010 annual summit started on Thursday September 16 in Washington DC. The star speaker was newcomer Christine O’Donnell. O’ Donnell is a everything-you-need-to-know-is-in-the-bible type of gal. She doesn’t think evolution, climate change and global warming are real, and not only does she oppose sex before marriage but also she condemns masturbation. Propelled by the Tea Party movement, O’Donnell brought a populist hodgepodge anti-Washington ruling class elite message and, incredibly, promised a “Revolution of Reason.”

“They call us wacky, they call us wingnuts. We call us ‘We The People’. They call us Reagan staffers and home schoolers. They are trying to marginalize us and put us in a box. We are not trying to take back our country, we are our country,” said O’Donnell in front of a 2,000-strong, cheering audience.

The values-voters summit’s goals and political platform have been the same for decades: “protect marriage” (read oppose gay rights); “champion life” (read anti choice for women, although most values voters support the death penalty); “strengthen the military”; “limit government” (read cut taxes for everyone including the rich); “control spending” (read cut social programs); and “defend our freedom” (read give more and more money to the industrial-military complex).

Jewish Fundamentalists Abuse Women Like the Taliban and  Repress Sexuality like Christian Fundamentalists

In Israel, Jewish fundamentalism is on the rise. Many examples have surfaced in the news. Women are forced to ride in the back of the bus. Young girls from different communities are compelled to study in separate classrooms. In the Modern Orthodox youth movement B’Nai Akiba, young men are ordered to leave a concert when men and women are together on the stage. This is obviously a great concern for Jews who are eager to enjoy the reality of our modern world.

An even more disturbing example, and this time it is not against women or sex, but against science. To avoid conflict with the Orthodox fundamentalists’ growing political clout, the guides in the Stalactite Cave refrain from saying that the natural formations are hundreds of thousands of years old.

A common thread is obvious in the three monotheist religions’ fundamentalists: They are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-science, and they want to curtail the most basic  individual freedoms. All want to return to a time in our history that they view as being pure and untainted by our perverse modernity.

Share

50 Responses to Are Christian, Jewish and Muslim Fundamentalists Taking Us Back to the Dark Ages?

  1. Ole Ole Olson September 18, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    Yes.

  2. Liam Fox September 18, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    If we allow them…. absolutely.

  3. theantifeminist September 19, 2010 at 1:37 am

    Some heresies you need to consider :

    1/ By all objective standards women are happier in muslim lands thatn western ones. Not only that, but muslim women are happier than muslim men.
    2/ By all objective standards, women were happier in the 1950’s than they are now.
    3/ 50 years ago, the rationalist saint Alan Turing was jailed for picking up a 19 year old boy and screwing him. For that he has now recieved a government apology and is a symbol of victimhood from a previous monotheistic morality. Today, Alan Turing would most likely live in fear of being jailed for sending electic signals to his fingers, in the privacy of his own bedroom, in a manner proscribed by feminists i.e. clicking on an internet photo of a youngish looking 19 year old boy. I guess you call this secular progress. Feminists in the Netherlands have initiated moves to have the age of consent raised to 21 or even 23.

    The reason why feminists are so reluctant to criticise Islam and its supposed repression of women is because feminism fears the free sexual market, not Islam, with its lowest common denominator sexual contract between men and women. Feminism is 100% about the ‘rights’ of unattractive women in a free sexual market and only came into existance as technology and secularism created that free sexual market.

    Stop your genetically engrained white knightism and consider that feminism is a reaction to enlightenment thinking, not its logical outcome.

    • Gilbert Mercier
      Gilbert Mercier September 19, 2010 at 8:38 am

      I really would like to know where you are pulling your fuzzy “objective standards” from? Do you have any sort of scientific surveys or polls to back up your wild assumptions or are they just some vague “gut feelings”?

      • Bill September 20, 2010 at 12:50 pm

        Hi Gilbert, I thought I would through in to your comment about how without Christian values, our politicians arbirtrarily skew statistics, such as the issues with inflation, or unemployment. It would be better if people did have Christian values Which have more to do with enlightenment, than dark ages. I would say ignorance charachterizes the dark ages.

        • K September 21, 2010 at 3:57 am

          “2/ By all objective standards, women were happier in the 1950?s than they are now.”

          Yeah, when they were in the kitchen making my sandwiches, faced with glass ceilings if they did work, and having had the right to vote for only 30 years.

          What’s your next claim? Were black Americans happier too?

    • Really? September 19, 2010 at 3:01 pm

      This is so ridiculously ignorant, it almost seems like a troll. What the heck is an “objective standard” anyways? Have you personally polled the women populations of muslim lands, or are you just pulling that out of your ass to support a hilariously unsupported argument?
      Your only factual event that you cite is one that describes a legal (though likely morally reprehensible) one, as 19 is above the legal age of consent, and while weird, it was legal. Plus, I’m pretty sure no one has ever been jailed for controlling their fingers (wtf?) to look at gay porn.

      And feminism is 100% about the rights of ‘unattractive’ women? Hilarious.

    • Charlotte September 19, 2010 at 3:38 pm

      You’re a bloody lunatic if you think women are happier in “Muslim lands” or were happier in the 1950’s.

      My source? Women I’ve actually spoken to.

      You have never asked a woman what she thinks, yet you presume to speak for us all.

      I’m a feminist; I am also a very attractive stripper. There is no contradiction: I’m just blowing a hole in your argument that “feminism fears the free sexual market”

      I do just fine on the “free sexual market” front, yet I would kill a man who attempts to take away my rights.

    • theauntyfeminist September 19, 2010 at 3:47 pm

      hahahaha look at all those words

    • chris September 19, 2010 at 9:24 pm

      I am in no way a violent man but if I saw you in real life I would make sure to knock out your front teeth so you would look like the inbred hick that you sound like.

      You attempt to sound rational and come off as crazy. I could care less if women are happy as long as they are free to change there own situation if they feel that way. Hell its states in the koran that it is okay to beat your wife if she steps out of line..oh and murder her if she has been raped…or stone her to death if she gets pregnant from an affair. Then men on the other hand get a slap on the wrist as that temptress across the way was showing far to much ankle and was clearly asking to be raped. So screw you and screw your concept of a a just world as your dream is rotten to the core.

      • Nigel September 20, 2010 at 8:57 am

        Violence instead of rational argument, stay classy. Keep up the good work uneducated Amurica!

        • chris September 20, 2010 at 5:34 pm

          Sometimes people need a good beating to knock some sense into them.

  4. Lee Zehrer September 19, 2010 at 5:47 am

    I just wish they would leave my penis alone.

  5. Matt September 19, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    The author is neglecting to throw fundamentalist atheists in the mix. While Stalin’s repression and genocide, as well as Pol Pot’s killing fields, are in the past, China (with it’s fervently atheistic government) still is happily trampling on human rights.

    Double standard much?

    • Anonymous September 19, 2010 at 7:10 pm

      Oxymoron much?

    • Ole Ole Olson September 19, 2010 at 11:37 pm

      Pol Pot was an atheist, but the reason the Khmer killed so many people had nothing to do with that. It had everything to do with tribal supremacy. A massive display of barbarism none the less, but it was not atheism that drove it.

  6. JRod September 19, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Oh, nail on the head! All Christians are totally just like Christine O’Donnell. Win.
    /s

  7. JD September 19, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Meanwhile the Jehovah’s Witnesses are upset how atheists are “shoving their beliefs down their throats” and the Pope cries that Christianity is under attack.

    I’m tired of everyone, weak or strong, pretending they are the victims of oppression. I’m tired hearing religious calls for tolerance when they openly claim that others’ beliefs are wrong or inferior and condemn them to an eternity of suffering.

    • Oliver September 20, 2010 at 11:10 am

      And I’m tired of people thinking that if they know one religious person they know them all and then having the gall to claim their ideas have anything to do with science. I’m tired of people claiming that other people claim something as a rule just because they heard the most vocal morons state it. I’m tired of people too butt lazy to do their homework but claiming some kind of intellectual superiority

      • Evan September 20, 2010 at 11:35 am

        Unfortunately, we give the podium to anyone with a radical enough statement…ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!

      • Ayden September 20, 2010 at 10:07 pm

        This is why there are nice handy religious texts to study my friend! 🙂

        Take them literally, and it’s hilarity of the text is too much! (In the case of at least the large monotheism’s, I can’t say that for all religions as I’m not familiar with their texts)
        Take them metaphorically, and you can draw absolutely any meaning from the texts whatsoever and could therefor derive as much meaning from the bible metaphorically as you could by reading Harry Potter metaphorically. Also allowing for no unification of the meaning of the religion due to everyone having a different interpretation.

        I’m tired of the argument “You don’t understand our religion, you’re judging it on select sections of the said religion!”. It’s a complete farce.

  8. Mike September 19, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    This is the kind of thinking the Nazi party used to kill millions of people. Atheists are the problem, because they treat people like so much disposable refuse. Christians believe ALL human life is valued and sacred. Atheists like Hitler, Stalin, Pol pot, and modern day socialists think they are better than the masses and have no problem killing millions for their benefit.

    • Nigel September 20, 2010 at 9:16 am

      Actually, a high degree of rationalism even tempered by some kind of rootless humanism will easily lead to basically what we now refer to as fundamentalism.

      Plus, morality based on science is still a human construct and therefore easily suffers co-option by a political force. Plus, any system of morality is as grounded in positive reality as the Easter bunny – just another made up belief to control people.

      There is no such thing as a positive source of ethics, meaning, or belief, just the human constructs which are as nebulous and controlling as the religion you come to curse as blind insanity.

      • Ayden September 20, 2010 at 9:34 pm

        “Actually, a high degree of rationalism even tempered by some kind of rootless humanism will easily lead to basically what we now refer to as fundamentalism. ”

        That doesn’t sound rational. I believe that being rational and logical involves a high degree of objectivity which implies heavy self reflection. How is this even remotely close to fundamentalism? Logical, rational thinking is progressive, fundamentalism is not. Have you read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan?

        “Plus, morality based on science is still a human construct and therefore easily suffers co-option by a political force.”

        You can replace ‘morality based on science’ with any concept that involves society. This argument is completely empty. Of course no system is perfect. What is this Essentialist style thinking?

        “Plus, any system of morality is as grounded in positive reality as the Easter bunny – just another made up belief to control people.”

        I don’t see anyone killing each other all around me in my town, clearly there are moral concepts such as The Golden Rule which are highly compatible with humans. We wouldn’t have gotten this far if they weren’t. Why not just do what’s in the best interest of humankind? How is this a poor ethical system for at least some ground to stand on?

        Of course you can define ethical systems as nebulous, Can you name something that’s an absolute? No? Also, every single system has a form of control, even with Anarchism you could say by losing governing bodies you’re being controlled and cannot form a governing body because this violates anarchism in itself. This almost sounds like the classic retort “How can you have freedom and at the same time equality?”

        What I dislike about your post is that due to it being well written, it’s sometimes judged by a small amount of people favorably due to that, rather than the content of the arguments themselves, which were incredibly fallible but food for thought none the less.

  9. Jimbo September 19, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Hitler was not an atheist. This is modern revisionist history so Christians can sleep at night and forget that many Christians backed the activities of the Nazi party. Hitler himself never said he was an atheist and in fact used religion in his speeches and writings. An atheist would never cite providence or a creator as Hitler did in Mein Kampf.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views

  10. Questioner September 19, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    An interesting article. I hope the attraction of the medieval religious world view is temporary. I for one do not want to live in such a world. I wonder, however, have you given any thought as to why so many people find these medieval traditions so attractive? Why are they so against the modern world and its values of equality, liberty and fraternity; the very values shared by the founding fathers of these United States of America?

  11. james September 19, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    A large majority of people feel like the “cost of progress” is too high. While giving more right to women, certain sign of respect have diminished. People are afraid of the disconnect between work and wealth, also the fact that the roles of women and men are increasing becoming more ambiguous, and that science/technology has betrayed them . Giving people more freedom should enhance lives, developing new technology should make peoples lives easier, and the government should give a hand up not a handout. So they turn to fundamentalism because they feel betrayed. Also because it gives them assurance against being force to adapt to change. It is hard to truly understand how pissed people are at the government and authority in general.

    • chris September 19, 2010 at 9:38 pm

      I also feel betrayed by science…but i guess I’ll have 40 more years of life given to me by it’s advances to ponder how backwards it is eh?

  12. EqualOpportunity September 19, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    I find it interesting that no real critique of Muslims was given in this article except in the title. Is it that the author considered the evils of fundamentalist Islam so self-evident that no comment was necessary, or is it that he fears for his safety. Criticizing fundamentalist Christians and Jews may get you hate mail, while doing the same to devout Muslims may get you killed or fired from your job. I frankly agree with the author about the backwards knuckle dragging idiocy of extreme religious belief, but extremism among the Islamic religious flock dwarfs that of the other monotheistic faiths in both numbers and the ham it does. The silence of the author is both deafening and telling.

    • Gilbert Mercier
      Gilbert Mercier September 20, 2010 at 1:18 am

      READ the article again. I mentioned the Taliban as a “lightening rod of this global historic regression”, which would put them front and center stage of the global fundamentalism revival. And no, I have absolutely no fear of having a Fatwa issue against me.

  13. Martha September 19, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Regarding the political discussion of Nietzsche.

    Not so fast. 😉

    It has been argued that there are no implications: that Nietzsche’s writings are essentially a psychological lament for self-actualization.

    However, many have argued that there are political implications. Since Nietzsche’s writing style was itself an element of his critique of reason, it is multi-layered and aphoristic, and lends itself to multiple interpretations. Unfortunately for those who wish to invoke Nietzsche along particular political lines, it is tricky: he rejected democratic institutions and the concept of egalitarianism, but he embraced the ideals of liberty.

    Nietzsche’s attacks on Christianity are largely a critique of the rationalist foundations of Western society and the mediocrity and (im)morality of liberal institutions known to him in his day. He emphasized competition and elitism, and he was an aristocrat.

    There is enough in his work to suggest that his concern with self-overcoming could fit into political categories that justify domination of others.

    Make of it all what you will. The ‘God is dead’ teaching means there are no absolute values.

    cheers

  14. oz_dev September 20, 2010 at 6:08 am

    There is a major difference between the essence of a religious ideology and a political movement that claims an affiliation with that religion. You cannot judge an ideology entirely by the actions of those who allegedly follow it, since perfect following is all but nonpresent. A quick survey of the three Abrahamic religions will make it obvious that the life of a human is sacrosanct no matter where they come from or what they believe, thus criminalizing any offensive war, yet how many soldiers thought they were doing God’s will?

    Likewise, the early modern movement, and especially early Communism as thought by Marx, was fundamentally different from Stalin’s version. You cannot affiliate the two without reaching a paradox. How many communists thought that they were doing mankind a favor by suppressing and killing souls?

    All ideologies have two components: 1. the ideology itself, which should be regarded as a set of concepts internally related and mappable unto the physical reality and the everyday, 2. the political adoption of that ideology, which has elements of whim and political ambitions (external to the ideology itself) getting into the mix, which usually contradicts the fundamental bases of that ideology.

    Stalin’s political moves are no more representative of communism, as Bush’s administration (for example) are of democracy. Neither is Ahmedenijad’s politcal moves representative of Islam, German Nazism of Christianity, Israel of Judaism. Similarly the current day Nietzsche-loving atheism/ nihilism doesn’t even raise to the intellectual rigor it used to have at its onset, but it got dumbed down so much that it became a religion in its own right.

    In that light, when you refer to “religious fundamentalists” please be aware that you’re referring to a strictly political group, who claims to have an affiliation to an ideology, from which they have most likely departed.

  15. John Marshall September 20, 2010 at 7:28 am

    I dislike the current media practice of classifying all religious people as crazy and backwards, especially when the argument for an article like this one is almost always based a handful of extreme fundamentalists who do not typify the majority. The group that screams the loudest may not necessarily be the voice of the people they claim to be.

    • Gilbert Mercier
      Gilbert Mercier September 20, 2010 at 9:26 am

      I did not call religious people “crazy” a single time in this article. And if you read the article again, you will notice that my analysis/critique is targeted at FUNDAMENTALISTS. I do agree with you, they are a minority and should be denounced as such by moderate Christians, Jews and Muslims.

  16. ThinkRationally September 20, 2010 at 9:06 am

    To those on here claiming that atheism was the root of various evils, you are simply trying to put the debate on equal footing by claiming atheism is just another religion (and thereby subject the same weaknesses in debate that religion has). However, it’s really motivation that counts. Did simply not believing in God motivate these people, as a belief in God motivates those who want the rest of us to conform to their worldview? No, I don’t think it did/does. Atheism simply does not lend itself to the wild-eyed fanaticism that religion does (mental instability aside in both cases).

    As for Mike, who said, “Atheists are the problem, because they treat people like so much disposable refuse.”–this is a ridiculous lie. I don’t believe in God, but I have empathy for the suffering of others and a strong sense of justice. Your statement is nothing more than an ad hominem, and displays the true weakness of your argument (that you don’t have one). If your view of atheists is that shallow then I don’t think you understand atheists at all.

  17. Questioner September 20, 2010 at 9:23 am

    @ Chris and others. I wonder why you distrust science. It has never promised anything than a rational approach to understanding the natural world based on observation. Certainly there are those who have misused the results of science, but that is a problem of human morality, not science itself. I for one can’t imagine a world without modern science. It is responsible for so much good, from the internet services we currently enjoy, to modern medicine. Without it, we would still be going to our barber for medical advice, being bled and dying from the bubonic plague. It has given us awe-inspiring models for the universe and its origins, an important understanding of the human race and its connections to the other life forms on the planet, and workable understandings of things like light, gravity, electricity, etc.; none of which existed before its advent. It seems to me its been very productive and very useful.

    • Oliver September 20, 2010 at 11:22 am

      It certainly is. But the argument about it being a rational approach doesn’t hold water. Science is being practiced by humans. The advantage of science is not being rational, but having introduced a system of checks and balances to take into account the irrational nature of human thinking (and acting). Science can’t prevent people getting carried away with their ideas and falling in love with their models. It can’t prevent people fighting tooth and nails for funding without any regard for the actual merit. And it can’t prevent people forging results because they seek their 15 minutes in the limelight. And it can’t – and never should – prevent people following a hunch, a gut feeling that there might be something to a weird hypothesis. But it can provide for mechanisms that limit the fallout of such actions and correct mistakes eventually. The advantage of science is not being rational, but that there is a self-correcting method to the madness.

      • Ayden September 20, 2010 at 9:43 pm

        Your critic was not on science (Which IS rational and logical, if you have knowledge of the scientific method) but of the practitioners themselves. Scientific thinking can prevent all those things if people actually choose to adopt the methods of science. Science is by far the greatest system we have for understanding anything and making progress.

        • Ayden September 20, 2010 at 9:44 pm

          *Critique

  18. Infonote September 20, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Science and religion do not conflict. As questioner said, science is used to research the natural world and the universe.

    Religion is about spirituality. Christians believe that there is another world where you die and face final judgement. Get a reward if you behaved in this world by lving in heaven and eternity.

    I do not see any kind of conflict between the two personally.

    • ThinkRationally September 20, 2010 at 10:11 am

      What about policy decisions, such as the teaching of evolution, and the charge to have creationism or its stepchild ID taught as science? There is clear conflict between the science of evolution and the faithful who insist we were created in God’s image. There are also those who believe the Earth is about 6000 years old, when science can in no way be square with that (by a long shot). These are constantly being discussed, so assume that you are saying that simply being a spiritual person is not incompatible with science, and I would agree in general–it’s the tenets of some spiritualism that conflict.

      I also see a conflict when it comes to religious dogma about birth control. The Catholic Church stubbornly sticking to the “condoms are bad” line while millions suffer in Africa with the spread of disease, mainly AIDS. Church representatives have actively disseminated falsehoods to keep the faithful with them, such as saying that condoms have tiny holes through which the virus can pass. This is not a conflict? I doubt the Bible says anything specific about condoms (perhaps about birth control in general), so this is a doctrine decided by people, and one which the CC seems very reluctant back down on (probably to save face, even at the expense of many lives).

      • Oliver September 20, 2010 at 11:17 am

        You’re seeing a conflict between individual statements by individual religious groups. If you agree that the tenets of SOME SPIRITUALISM that conflicts with science, you have to acknowledge in the same vein that the tenet that science and religion conflict in general is false.

        The conflict is not the less a)with people who fundamentally believe in a literal interpretation of one or the other holy text and ignore that the idea of a metaphorical interpretation is not, in fact, a new one but has existed throughout history, and b) people who believe in a ridigly structured religion who believe one or a handful of people should decide on the official definition of what is correct belief, which necessarily makes them susceptible to the failing of these leaders.

        Unfortunately, neither of the two points is really representative for religion.

        • Ayden September 20, 2010 at 9:52 pm

          Science and “spirituality” don’t clash. There are amazing wonders to the universe that don’t involve supernatural powers that are equally awe inspiring. Science and religion clash. Especially for a practicing scientist. See Neil deGrasse Tyson short analysis on Newton.

      • Infonote September 20, 2010 at 1:47 pm

        I am not a theologian, but the Genesis message is that God created the Universe. From religious point of view, it is irrelevant if the Earth is 6,000 or a million years old. The seven days is a way of explaining this. If the Bible was written today, I guess it will include the latest science explainations to explain this same message.

        The Catholic church states that you can only have sexual intercourse after marriage and with the same man/women. If everyone obeyed this, there will be no need for condoms. AIDS and other diseases spread when they do not follow Christ’s teachings.

  19. joe September 20, 2010 at 10:46 am

    what do we call the time in Western History when the Church had ALL military power, ALL political power(or was the “power behind the throne”), and held all Christians in permanent, mortal fear for their eternal souls?
    we call it the DARK AGES.
    and you’re darn tootin’, they want to return us to it–they had SO much power!

    • Oliver September 20, 2010 at 11:12 am

      Huh?

      We’re calling such an idea a failing grade in history.

    • SAM A SAPIENZA September 21, 2010 at 8:08 pm

      “NEITHER YOU SIMON NOR THE FIFTY THOUSAND, NOR THE GREEKS, NOR THE ROMANS, NOR THE JEWS, NOR JUDAS OR THE TWELVE, NOR THE PRIESTS NOR THE SCRIBES, NOR DOOMED JERUSALEM ITSELF, UNDERSTAND WHAT POWER IS, UNDERSTAND WHAT GLORY IS, UNDERSTAND AT ALL!” CIRCA 1970 JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR.

  20. zappo September 20, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Women are happier in moose-limb lands!?

    May i ask who conducted the survey’s and under what conditions?
    [sic] with the husbands and/or brothers and/or fathers looking on?

    Sheesh, you could get a more honest survey from the citizens of north korea
    on how great their economic miracle is….

  21. SAM A SAPIENZA September 21, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    I HAVE ONLY ONE THING TO SAY. “REPENT!!, THE BEGINNING IS NEAR.

  22. Pingback: Canada Free Dating Site Experiences

You must be logged in to post a comment Login