Why I left Christianity

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 99
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,186
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lQfy1PQl2STiQ69vFs_ZJrR9gCW82WD3_I8qKCZohrA/edit.Page 1 starts out all the times God advocates the death penalty for a group that does not deserve it.

Many Christians say, “The New Testament erases the Old Testament”.

Page 10 of this document shows the New Testament stating that the Old Testament is still valid and as a result, the New Testament advocates the death penalty for all the times the Old Testament did.

Because of this, I say good riddance to Christianity.  Unfortunately God still exists, but I need to find a different religion other than Christianity.
#2
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
So, would you be a Deist then?
#3
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog


.
TheUnderdog,

When trying to find a new religion, you have to stay away from the remaining Abrahamic religions of Judaism, and Islam because they are from the same cloth of brutal murdering of others if one doesn't believe in their SAME ONE GOD proposition!

Have you looked into Buddhism even though it is not a religion?  https://www.buddhistbootcamp.com.

I am sorry that you didn't have the stomach for Christianity with all of its brutal murders, human sacrifices, our god conducting abortions and murdering innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies, and in showing how women are 2nd class citizens to man.  As I said before, you can't be a wussy bleeding-heart and be a pseudo-christian at the same time.  

Good luck in now you going to the sulfur lakes of Hell upon your earthly demise, praise Jesus' revenge!

.



 
#4
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Congrats?
#5
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because of this, I say good riddance to Christianity.

Well nobody is forcing you to be a Christian just to hold Theistic beliefs. There's always that pressure of course but it is only a matter of people making you feel such a burden that you need to be this or that.

Unfortunately God still exists

Do you really feel it is unfortunate God exists, or are you afraid that God may in fact be how the Bible portrays that?
If God exists, it is a very fortunate thing because it has very interesting implications for everyone. Our involvement with that Reality is incredible, dynamic and beautiful! sometimes we take that for granted but perhaps we are just sick of religion and dogma and all the BS that taints such a wonderful truth and the imposing restrictions of our freedom of expression and understanding. Many times it is the very thing we were told to believe that drives us away from God, at that point just let it go.
I say this from a position that Christianity has many beautiful things to offer people, on the other hand there's much more to this whole thing than you could ever dream of. Religions are just one tiny piece of the whole puzzle.

but I need to find a different religion other than Christianity.

There's a lot of valid knowledge and insights in a wide variety of religious sources, one thing people should consider is that every single religious source of information has useful data and useless data. Some things within them are accurate and some things not so accurate. This means that really you don't have to put much emphasis in any one source but study as much as you can from them all to gain a more universal and wholistic view of the Creator. You could simply call this method spirituality, and you apply to yourself that which is useful in progressing you spiritually.
You may ask yourself "well how do I know what is true and what is not true"? It's simple, what sounds stupid and illogical to you is most likely baloney and most of the time such things are not even applicable to your own spiritual development anyways. What you want to look for are things that apply to you as a spiritual being, apply whatever is applicable and leave all the nonsense behind. Don't put much emphasis in dogma, stories and cultural ways of thinking and acting but pay more attention to perhaps the heart of a message, principles and spiritual practices that are applicable.
The bottom line is that you are not expected to believe in anything that you don't find useful or true, you come from the heart of God and you are already connected to that Realty with or without religion. Religious information is there so that you have access to knowledge that you may be unaware of but you don't need it, it's simply a bonus.

You don't want to drop one ball and chain for another. Once you let go, keep yourself free yet open to new things. Don't put limits on God or limits on the way you know or understand God. Connect with God outside of religion, because in reality your connection to God precedes any religious source anyways.

Just don't be discouraged because you find pieces of religious literature disturbing....rather be happy that you don't have to accept anything you don't agree with and your freedom in God has no limits. You have everything to be proud of and excited about. 

#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Many Christians say, “The New Testament erases the Old Testament”.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lQfy1PQl2STiQ69vFs_ZJrR9gCW82WD3_I8qKCZohrA/edit.

Well this is just another - get out - excuse for the now educated 21century  Christian , isn't it?  And  the author of this thread,  YOU, TheUnderdog deserve congratulating .

Somewhere along the line it has dawned on Christians that by  adopting a god  from a time they never knew and could never understand, and from a culture that  they never knew or  could ever understand, that their early Christian ancestors had damned future generations of Christians to having to forever defend the indefensible and have left the now educated believer to reconcile all of the biblical contradictions between the Old Testament  god and the New Testament god. Indeed, they had certainly painted future generations of Christians into a nice tight corner. And with the help of liars such as Paul.


  As the author TheUnderdog (  not to mention the scriptures themselves) quite clearly show,  that there are  obvious differences between the god that the 21st century Christian  says `loves and died for us ` and will have us believe  and the barbaric, brutal, jealous god of war that the Jews knew of, understood and worshipped, and  usually out of sheer  fear.. 

For proof  of the nature of the  barbaric and jealous warmongering  god of the Jews that shows that,  to their god, humans were  insignificant, irrelevant and  replaceable   at ten a penny any day of the week, one only has to read  the  very short and extremely sad BIBLICAL story of  Job.

Job it is said was 'blameless" in the eyes of god and walked in the ways of god all his days. But non of this mattered or counted for anything when it came to Job's gods' ego.

I urge all those  reading here to read  this 5 minute story for themselves. 

Nearly every  Christian that  I have ever met have attempted to explain the barbaric story away by simply saying that  " god replaced everything, that  included 10 dead  children that he had killed and destroyed of Job".!!!!!!  Of well, that ok then, isn't it?

Jesus over 2000 years ago, himself said  that he hadn't come to change the law? Which law?

The gospels and Mathew in particular, are always harking back to the Old Testament and its god.  So the 21st century Christian has a uphill struggle on his hands when it comes to trying to convince anyone that their god loves us all.

Congratulations TheUnderdog. A+1






#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
So....Just accept the GOD principle.

And then get on with everything else that you might need to do.

Same tomorrow.

In fact, that's what most "Christians " do....Apart from donning their best hat on a Sunday morning and going for a sing song with their fellow Christian club members.

Take up a new Sunday morning hobby, like cycling or hiking or fishing, and convene with GOD that way.

Let's be honest...A sensible GOD, would be a sensible GOD.

And the Bible is archaic human baloney.
#8
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
You don't need to be religious. “Of course I am not religious,” said Nobel Laureate Philip W. Anderson (Physics, 1977), “I don’t in fact see how any scientist who thinks at all deeply can be so.”  Anderson lived to be 96 years old. He also had an interesting view on the God principle.  Anderson held a sceptical view of particle physics and the belief in the field by some that it deserved more funding that other areas. “There is a great arrogance and immodesty about that whole field, which gets on my nerves,” he told Physics World in 2006. “Particle theorists say [they’re] discovering ‘the mind of God’. It’s not the mind of God at all. In the first place, there’s no God, and in the second place, particle physics cannot explain things like superconductivity, life and consciousness. It makes no contribution to explaining how the world actually works.” He also held the view that particle theorists owe more than they realize to condensed-matter theorists like himself, particularly for having developed the concept of “broken symmetry” in the 1950s.
#9
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
There are spiritual practices  you can engage in that don't have anything to do with religion. 
#10
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
What if:

1. The Christians who advocate having replaced the Old Testament are wrong? After all, Christ did not say he replaced the O.T; he said he fulfilled it. One may think that's saying the same thing. No. When the Pharisees ask him what the great commandment is, Jesus replies, "Love your father which is in heaven..."  Is that not exactly the same sense as the first 5 commandments from Exodus given to Moses? And Jesus continues: "The second is like unto it, Love your neighbor as yourself." That settles the last 5 in a single phrase.  Jesus said much more than just those 2 simple phrases, for example, the Sermon on the Mount, the best political platform I ever heard, by the way.  If we all followed that, every single social ill we suffer today would be solved overnight.  And that covers every example your "Why I left Christianity" offers for all the alleged bad God is alleged to have caused, and mostly to people who did deserve the action for their actions. They were not all stand-by innocents.

What if:

2. As above, the N.T.  fulfills, it does not destroy the O.T. Christians who claim otherwise have read neither one completely, so, what do they know?

So, what if:

The "Why I left Christianity" guy is wrong?
#11
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lQfy1PQl2STiQ69vFs_ZJrR9gCW82WD3_I8qKCZohrA/edit.Page 1 starts out all the times God advocates the death penalty for a group that does not deserve it.

Many Christians say, “The New Testament erases the Old Testament”.

Page 10 of this document shows the New Testament stating that the Old Testament is still valid and as a result, the New Testament advocates the death penalty for all the times the Old Testament did.

Because of this, I say good riddance to Christianity.  Unfortunately God still exists, but I need to find a different religion other than Christianity.
I am a non-theist and I think the death penalty is appropriate in our day and age.  If we were to put to death all of those who are mass murderers. All of those who are kiddie fiddlers. All of those who rape and torture.  Then the world would be safer place.  Some things cancel your rights as a human because they demonstrate irrefutably that you have no respect for humanity.  

If the death penalty is a reason to leave a religion, then I wonder how genuine you were in the first place.  Of course that is you concern, and for the record,  my position is that religion as a whole ought to be done away with. I have said this - on numerous occasions. Yet - don't fall for the notion that there exists any religion or non-religion that does not support the death penalty for a whole range of reasons.   Be true to yourself. 
#12
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I hear significant buzzing, but see only fly specs
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
buzz, buzz....
#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
@TheUnderdog

fauxlaw wrote: #10


What if:
Well that's a good start for someone that rates the word "if" as useless, because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true "; isn't it? 

Or is it only when someone else  uses the word -  - if - -  that it is " useless and acknowledges something not to be true" ? #30   fauxlaw


Christ did not say he replaced the O.T; he said he fulfilled it.

No he does not! That is a little disingenuous to say the least, isn't it?   Lets look at what THE BIBLE says Jesus  actually said:


"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" . Matthew 5:17

So we can clearly read, that Jesus says nothing at all about  him actually fulfilling anything... at all - as you are  so slyly are trying to crowbar into the narrative.


So then we are  told by  the unknown author of Matthew's gospel that Jesus said he hadn't come to destroy or abolish the law ,  but he doesn't - as you say above - mention the laws of  Old Testament at all .  Are we to  amuse  Jesus means the laws of the OT, or some other law?  And to which "prophets" is Jesus said to be referring to?

Further THE BIBLE says : 

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven": Matthew 5:17-19 . So is Jesus referring to just the first law Or the second law? Or both? 


fauxlaw wrote: #10 When the Pharisees ask him what the great commandment is, Jesus replies, "Love your father which is in heaven..."

 And no one else, including ourselves, it seems:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.Luke 14:26


fauxlaw wrote: #10 And Jesus continues: "The second is like unto it, Love your neighbor as yourself."

Which is contradicted by the verse that I have quoted from Jesus above. Which incidentally,  also clearly contradicts another of the saying attributed to Jesus to " Love thine enemies", doesn't it. Matthew 5:44

Tell me, why should we "hate"  our relations  but love our enemies? 



fauxlaw wrote: #10the Sermon on the Mount, the best political platform I ever heard, by the way.

The Sermon On The Mount is completely made up of one liners said to have been spoken by many from many philosophies and  philosophers including Confucius and from before the time of Jesus.  In other words, they are not exclusive to Jesus  as the New Testament authors  AND YOU ,will have us believe.


And the way that these beatitudes are presented to us in THE BIBLE , shows Jesus prioritising one kind of person over another and rewarding one type of person  over another? 
 
 Why do some get to "see god" while others do not?  Why is it that "the peacemakers"  are called "the children of god" but don't get to actually see god?  <<< This is the nonsense that is the Sermon on the Mount! 



fauxlaw wrote: #10What if:   So, what if:

And wasn't it  you that said words to the effect that   word -  IF - is the most useless and redundant word in the dictionary?   Rather a silly retarded comment for an alleged  'author' and a man of alleged  multiple languages,to make,  in my opinion.




If is, by utility, the most useless word in existence because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. Not a great beginning to an attempt at logic.
Absolutely precious!!!!! Hahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahhahah



 I agree, the logic that you attempt to use by first  devaluing words and language and calling it "useless" just has to be the most brainless way of attempting to prove a point or to win any argument. 

All of the  alleged academic credentials that you claim to have and can't wait to brag about in your forum profile are in serious doubt, I can tell you that for nothing. hahahhahahhah My ribs are killing me, hahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahah 


#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
@Stephen

As if I am unable to wear someone else’s shoes for a moment just to demonstrate that what is not thought to be true can be true, after all. It takes compassion to be empathetic.
#16
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
@TheUnderdog
Fauxlaw wrote: 
Since what immediately follows "if" is typically not true, whatever may follow as a then-statement starts out on the wrong foot; a not-true statement, making what follows the proposition a mere wish, and that may also fail to offer any solution out of the dilemma presented by the contradiction of the proposition and the wish.#39 

If wishes were fishes...

If Democrats and Republicans could cooperate...

If everyone could agree to be kind to one another...

 .#37



But then he totally disregards his own lesson and belief concerning the word  "IF" that he has rendered totally "useless"and redundant#30 in any argument or discussion and proceeds to use the word " IF"   in  his own argument. !!!!!!!  You couldn't make it up!!!!!

Here>> One  just cannot beat the double standards of the Christians!!

Fauxlaw wrote: 

What if:

1. The Christians who advocate having replaced the Old Testament are wrong? After all, Christ did not say he replaced the O.T; he said he fulfilled it. One may think that's saying the same thing. No. When the Pharisees ask him what the great commandment is, Jesus replies, "Love your father which is in heaven..."  Is that not exactly the same sense as the first 5 commandments from Exodus given to Moses? And Jesus continues: "The second is like unto it, Love your neighbor as yourself." That settles the last 5 in a single phrase.  Jesus said much more than just those 2 simple phrases, for example, the Sermon on the Mount, the best political platform I ever heard, by the way.  If we all followed that, every single social ill we suffer today would be solved overnight.  And that covers every example your "Why I left Christianity" offers for all the alleged bad God is alleged to have caused, and mostly to people who did deserve the action for their actions. They were not all stand-by innocents.

What if:

2. As above, the N.T.  fulfills, it does not destroy the O.T. Christians who claim otherwise have read neither one completely, so, what do they know?

So, what if:

The "Why I left Christianity" guy is wrong? #10




WHAT IF ........ fauxlaw started behaving by his own standards instead of laying down rules and laws that he has based on nothing more than his own inflated ego and opinion that he presents as fact?.

What if , indeed!!


#17
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Don’t be too quick to pull the plug. 
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
One can't really pull the plug on a data concept.

The info is always available.

I'm a Christian, I'm not a Christian......The only real  difference is not.


And then the ensuing output of modified data.
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
@stephen

I am making argument from Underdog’s perspective; not my own. That I happen to believe the arguments without the “if” would be relevant to understand.
#20
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw

I am making argument from Underdog’s perspective;

 I know, he used the word -  - if -- didn't he?   And then this is what you say about anyone but your self that uses the  word  "IF", isn't it. 





If is, by utility, the most useless word in existence because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. Not a great beginning to an attempt at logic.
Like I have said, you are not as clever or as educated as you think you are.....or at least claim to be .
#21
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
@stephen

You are still missing the logic. I am not advocating the the proposition is true, but Underdog is, thus his departure. I am asking, for him, what if the proposition is false?
#22
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Good for you. Go find yourself a religion that fits your cookie cutter beliefs, instead of adopting the ethics god wants you to have. Why should you change for God? He should change for you. 
#23
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wylted
Good for you. Go find yourself a religion that fits your cookie cutter beliefs, instead of adopting the ethics god wants you to have. Why should you change for God? He should change for you. 

Not that I have anything against the emotional value of your post but it's nonsensical. God is a much higher conscious level of existence and knowledge, unfortunately authority always operates from the top down not from the bottom up and given that we are talking about God the reasons should be obvious. However he doesn't really have to change for God, he just needs a higher source to be influenced by, that is, if he wishes to advance himself within the nature of that knowledge.

Sometimes we need to improve ourselves but not always, at least that is not always the objective, and.....it's not really for God but our own progress.  God doesn't need our ethics lol, that is primarily our own battle to deal with. Sometimes we just want to learn, or perhaps get outside of ourselves and take on greater levels of awareness and knowledge, reach for something far beyond what our conditioned minds understand. Religion is not for everyone, sometimes it can become an obstacle and is not at all the objective of spirituality and honestly the only thing useful for him at this point regarding religion is perhaps someone might have insight about something that interests him. As I pointed out in post #5 it's best to simply study them all and gather a more wholistic view of the entire world of religious information.

Change is something that should occur when one begins to feel uncomfortable with themselves knowing that perhaps they are weighed down with an emotional, mental or physical element that they sense is no longer fitting with their level of awareness and they need to drop that way of thinking, feeling or acting. Religion could play a role during that process but it's not necessary, however it would be quite an uphill climb relying squarely on oneself to promote oneself. So to be able to pull from a much higher source of inspiration is the most efficient way of reaching goals that transcend our limitations and emotional baggage. Spirituality really is the practical application of the reality that transcends our personal observations and output, and should be pursued as a means of gaining much higher levels of experience and observation with or without religion.

The classic depiction of the student and the Master is always the journey of every soul during their experiences in creation, sure, the student may become a Master but there is most certainly a path one must traverse before they reach such a destination but even then they really only ever become the Master of themselves and their environment. No one will ever Master God because we will always exist within that Reality as fractions of that Reality so at best, we could become one with God when that moment would be appropriate. But as baby souls we should always look to our Creator as a Source that knows, observes and understands the full scope of reality as it exists and knows what we should be seeking to learn or acquire on our journeys.
After all there is no other Source that could possibly have a greater awareness. 


#24
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
Well, okay. I've nothing to offer but to state the often-missed advice that literature concerning religion is pretty broad and I would advise you to avoid reading original sources (i.e. Bible, Koran) since that seems to be your core disagreement. I think there's plenty of literature in both abrahamic and non-abrahamic religions and you should really explore them before re-living your disagreements. I found this lesson the hard way (after years of being heavily discouraged by religious peers).
#25
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
The New Testament is a modified covenant to the Old Testament but does not nullify the OT covenant completely. 
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ronjs
The New Testament is a modified covenant to the Old Testament but does not nullify the OT covenant completely. 

 Care to explain further?   What parts does it "nullify",? 

 I will be standing by for some serious  `cherry picking `.  Lets hope you have the support of  our resident Reverend and resident self proclaimed  High Priest Fauxlaw #36


#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
The Bible is a modified version of something.

That's the best we can say.


Topic's author
#28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,186
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Timid8967
I am a non-theist and I think the death penalty is appropriate in our day and age.  If we were to put to death all of those who are mass murderers.
The issue isn't killing people for being mass murderers.  The issue is killing people for things they aren't responsible for, like when God killed the first born sons of Egypt as a penalty for their fathers enslaving Jews.  If someone commits a mass murder, you don't punish their sons for it legally; you only punish the murderer.
#29
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why not? Isn't that just an American way of looking at things? 
#30
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
@Timid8967

Dimtim wrote: I am a non-theist and I think the death penalty is appropriate in our day and age.  If we were to put to death all of those who are mass murderers.
TheUnderdog wrote: The issue isn't killing people for being mass murderers.  The issue is killing people for things they aren't responsible for, like when God killed the first born sons of Egypt as a penalty for their fathers enslaving Jews.  If someone commits a mass murder, you don't punish their sons for it legally; you only punish the murderer.

Dimtim wrote: Why not? 

UN-FKN - believable! THIS ^^^^^^^ from the man that doesn't believe in god, that believes the bible should be burned#8 and destroyed #14 and the Christian religion to be the most dangerous in the world#153 and that it  should be stamped out and wiped from the face of the earth.#153 . What a complete and utter fraud, you are Dimtim!