The theocons have just suffered major set-back in the election. Voters have rejected two of those fools, voted in favor of marriage equality and said no to constitutional change for inequality thereof.
They can console themselves by whining that why, it not the politics, stupid, but instead individual moral change. No, even to that, because their morality is immoral!
None of them want to apply the biblical law even though their Shepherd told them not to change it at all, other than his own implied changes.Neither errantists nor inerrantists can point to any need for those evil passages. What good metaphors can the former find ? What far-fetched rationalizations do the latter use?
Haughty John Haught with temerity states, why, ti's not morality but hope that endures throughout all Scriptures, glossing over the horrors. William Lane Craig and Paul Copan defend the commands for genocide. No , might does not make right! And no being has the right ever to demand such horror!
Both sides err with their defenses of that anthology of hate!
And no need exists for that blood sacrifice for expiation and salvation!
The divine protection racket reverberates across the ages as misanthropy! Petty-minded, preachers of perversity still ever try to get others to subscribe to that racket, worse than the Mafia's,because it is eternal!
So, both errantists and inerrantists err against humanity?
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment