Wed 1st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Wed 1st Oct 2014 at 15:58pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

John Lennon’s Imagine encapsulates so many modern objections to religion

When people stop believing in heaven they often create hell on earth

By on Monday, 13 August 2012

London Olympic Games - Day 16

Last night, watching the Olympic closing ceremony, like millions of others , I heard a digitally remastered John Lennon singing Imagine. The song was familiar, but the words took me by surprise.  These words encapsulate so many of the modern objections to religion and faith, that it seems a good idea to present a few counter-arguments.

To “live for today” is precisely what we all do, all of us, believers and not. Christians do not neglect present exigencies just because they believe there is a afterlife. Rather, the call of eternal life makes this world more, not less important. To claim that Christians do not care about today, so wrapped up are they in what is to come, is to confuse Christianity with millenarian cultists, which is what we are not.

Heaven and hell, by the way, are not places – they are states. Heaven is the state of seeing the Beatific vision; hell is the state of being utterly cut off from God. The idea of these being places either above or below us is persistent, and has its roots in Classical literature, but is certainly not taught by the Church.
Again, the nation-state may well engage in war with other states, but it is important to realise that the nation exists to defend and protect its citizens. Anarchy, in the classical meaning of the word, is envisioned as some sort of utopia, but in practice, where the state withers away, anarchy of the most non-benign type succeeds. Look at Somalia today. Look at Lebanon in the time of its civil war. Look at England under King Stephen. The withering away of the state does not lead to peace – but the complete opposite.

As for religion withering away and leading to peace – have a look at some of the avowedly atheist states of the twentieth century: Albania, the People’s Republic of China, and the Soviet Union. No rational person would ever choose to live in such a society.

What about “no possessions”, then? Property is theft? “No need for greed and hunger”? Is this really saying that all poverty and hunger is caused by people selfishly hoarding the world’s resources? Funnily enough it is at this point that John Lennon says something that Catholics may recognise. The Church teaches:

In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labour, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

So, Lennon is onto something here, though he is wrong to see property as creating hunger, when ownership of property should in fact guarantee a minimum of prosperity – and in fact the greatest famines of the twentieth century were caused by collectivisation in the Soviet Union and China.

As for the brotherhood of man, that is a Christian idea, but as my old RE teacher told me, it is only possible under the Fatherhood of God. Generally speaking, when people imagine there is no heaven and no hell, and no God, they start doing the most beastly things to each other, and creating not Utopia, but Hell on earth.

  • JabbaPapa

    I have no opinions whatsoever concerning Kindoki witchcraft.

    Sorry if the simple truth is too difficult for you to accept, notwithstanding how many shouty ALL-CAPS unsupported statements you might decide to throw at me.

  • JabbaPapa

    One is unsurprised that you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of metaphysics in public like this.

  • karlf

    What effects can be demonstrated to be caused by supernatural forces?
    Where is the evidence of a loving God?
    How can the Catholic Church rightly dismiss Jesus’ creation beliefs?
    How is man made in the image of God?

    I have not had one satisfactory answer to any of these questions, but just a lot bluster and waffle.

  • karlf

    If your metaphysical ramblings were to contain anything of substance or value, I might take an interest.

  • karlf

    I said ‘witchcraft’in the shouty caps. Do you know about that? Do you think that WITCHCRAFT is a reality or not? By your reasoning (I can’t believe I have to explain this to you), you must be indoctrinated not to believe in such a thing e.g. are you indoctrinated not to believe in Ganesh? or Kali?

  • Acleron

    I think you should read Carnap to understand Jabba.
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/carnap/ 
    ‘He rejected metaphysics as meaningless because metaphysical statements cannot be proved or disproved by experience. He asserted that many philosophical problems are indeed pseudo-problems, the outcome of a misuse of language.’

    You see, you are asking for facts, real things we can manipulate and make conclusions about.  Facts are an anathema to a metaphysician. (odd little pursuit, even the name is a mistranslation)

  • karlf

    Thanks Acleron. I try keep my questions based around clear factual subject matter, but if Jabba can’t bury his answer in his special waffle he just gives up – which is rather frustrating. I have asked him a few times to tell me what it is can be shown to have been caused by supernatural forces, but he refuses to answer.

  • JabbaPapa

    What effects can be demonstrated to be caused by supernatural forces?

    Scientifically you mean ?

    None — this is because Supernatural entities do not belong to the corpus of scientific studies in the first place.

    This is like asking a zoologist to demonstrate the harmonic structures used by Beethoven in his 5th Symphony.

    Attempts to provide more meaningful answers fail to penetrate your blatant ignorance of even general philosophy.

    Where is the evidence of a loving God?

    Everywhere and in everything.

    How can the Catholic Church rightly dismiss Jesus’ creation beliefs?

    Given that this question is meaningless, and based on an utterly false premise (Jesus said almost nothing about the origins, He certainly did not teach any creation story), I can only assume that you do not understand the subject matter in the first place.

    How is man made in the image of God?

    I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either.

  • JabbaPapa

    Oh but it’s perfectly OK if Mr Aclerannoyingtroll dishes out his own metaphysics in great abundance…

  • JabbaPapa

    Do you think that WITCHCRAFT is a reality or not?

    I don’t know. I have no opinion on the question, and have not been indoctrinated on that question either.

    You’re approaching the issue backwards BTW — which is extremely ironic, given the position you’re supposed to be “defending” here.

  • Acleron

    Such as?

  • karlf

    and Ganesh and Kali? Do yo think they are real?

  • karlf

    “Attempts to provide more meaningful answers” i.e. unknowable, unsubstantiated ponderings, that could be applied to any beliefs.

    “Everywhere and in everything” that could be applied to any beliefs.

    e.g. Have you not read that He made them male and female [quoting Genesis 1 :27]

    In what way is man made in the image of God?

  • JabbaPapa

    karlf :

    If your metaphysical ramblings were to contain anything of substance or value, I might take an interest.

    Look matey, here’s what happened :

    1) YOU ask metaphysical questions

    2) You are given, as is quite natural, metaphysics-based answers to those questions, by more than one person BTW

    3) You then respond that you don’t understand the answers

    4) I respond “well sorry, but I can’t send you a 2-year Philosophy course via these combox responses”

    5) And now you have the GALL to suggest that your lack of understanding is NOT due to your own lack of training or education, but because the answers that you did not understand have now magically become devoid of “substance or value” !!!

     
    You sir, are an obscurantist.

    Sorry, specialist discussions are not defined by the intellectual limitations of the least informed participant, and knowledge does not advance by pandering to the lowest common denominator.

    I can’t help it if you do not understand the subject matter of this conversation that you’re so annoyingly insisting should be “clear and simple” —- NO, not everything is clear and simple !!!

    Not being a professional musicologist, I therefore do not go and troll expert classical music forums and claim that anything that they may write that I wouldn’t understand must therefore be complete gibberish !!!

    You haven’t the FOGGIEST CLUE what you’re talking about, and you COMPLETELY FAIL to realise that the only source of your lack of understanding is lodged up between your own two ears.

  • JabbaPapa

    In other words : No

    So instead, you’re just coming up with numbers from the top of your head.

  • Acleron

    Oh good, you have reliable observations of angels and demons.  Where is this by the way?

  • karlf

    I don’t ask metaphysical questions. For example, I ask
    questions such as “if there is a loving God, why doesn’t he help any people
    experiencing terrible suffering?” to which come replies like “it’s all about
    free will and earthquakes, deformity and disease are necessary for the world to
    exist”

    And I ask “in what way is man made in the image of God” and
    the replies don’t get any better than “because they do good things” or
    something like that.

    And I ask how you know that the authors of the New Testament
    didn’t believe that Adam was an actual historical figure, when he is mentioned
    as such – a question which is met with angry calls of ignorance.

    None of these questions are metaphysical questions. I’m  purposely asking such questions so that you
    cannot hide behind your faux intellectual metaphysical ramblings, but clearly
    that does not suit you for obvious reasons.
     

  • karlf

    You never did explain in what way man is made in the image of God.
    Here is a nice mosaic of God creating eve: http://01varvara.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/creation-of-eve-moreale-e1268427617864.jpg

  • JabbaPapa

    Any few minutes of research will turn up the Nazi propaganda, yes.

    Well heck it’s Nazi Propaganda — must be true then !!!

    /roll-eyes/

  • JabbaPapa

    ?????????

  • JabbaPapa

    Well *I* did — and it’s not my fault that you failed to comprehend the answer.

  • JabbaPapa

    I don’t know. I don’t *think* so, but I could be wrong. I’ve never so far as I can recall read anything specific on the subject of these two characters.

    This real/unreal thing of yours really is an *extremely* blunt instrument BTW.

    You probably don’t even realise that you’re arguing against your own position in pursuing this line …

  • JabbaPapa

    You see, you are asking for facts, real things we can manipulate and
    make conclusions about.  Facts are an anathema to a metaphysician.
    : metaphysics

    The difference is that parallel universe ideas are freely admitted as
    speculative. Nobody has any evidence for them so they remain a
    mathematical construct. A creator is also highly speculative and there
    is no evidence or mathematics pointing one. But it is not so freely
    admitted that the idea could be wrong.
    : metaphysics

  • JabbaPapa

    “Attempts to provide more meaningful answers” i.e. unknowable, unsubstantiated ponderings

    No, you silly man, “more meaningful” refers to increased semantic precision, not vagueness and waffle — but it’s still not anybody else’s fault that your education is so lacking.

    “Everywhere and in everything” that could be applied to any beliefs.

    Wrong. Beliefs about the 2012-2013 seasons of the various European First Division Football teams are limited in both space and time.

    e.g. Have you not read that He made them male and female [quoting Genesis 1 :27]

    Last time I looked, the higher life forms on this planet are in fact male and female, including the human race.

    You are reading things into this text quoting Jesus that are not included therein.

    He did NOT mention Adam and Eve.

    (how many times must one repeat this FACT for it to penetrate your indoctrinated beliefs otherwise ?)

    In what way is man made in the image of God?

    sigh

    already answered :

    ———–

    There are two interconnected *theories* (unverifiable in this life) –

    1) There is a very elegant theory in mediaeval theology that Man was
    made in the image of Christ, who was Himself the Son of Man — very
    timey-wimey, and those mediaeval theologians hadn’t even seen a single
    Moffat-penned episode of Doctor Who, which just proves their foresight and brilliance. The theory itself however is philosophically robust.

    2) The other theory is even more abstract — our own incarnation as
    embodied souls is made in the image of God’s Incarnation in the Christ
    – formal accidents are therefore irrelevant to this proposal, and only
    the essential realities are of import here. This theory is even more
    robust than the first, due to its greater intellectual rigour, wider
    scope of application, and lesser strain on the basic principles of
    causality (the universe itself being potentially understood from this
    theory as the Divine made material in the first place). It’s also the
    basis of what is taught currently in the Catechism.

  • Sieben Stern

    wait… what?  that makes no sense.  Nazis were christians and the Catholic church was compliant in the final solution – and to this day prays for the conversion of the jews.

    stop lying, making stuff up, and deal with it.

  • Sieben Stern

    Facts and figures aren’t the strong point for theists… they just like to make stuff up so they can feel better.

  • Sieben Stern

    WHAT?  London Olympics closing ceremony didn’t shove your make believe sky daddy BS down the world’s throat…?? 

    don’t worry i got my phone… i’ll call you the waaaahhhhhbluance!

  • karlf

    So you don’t know if the elephant headed God is a reality or not? What about leprechauns then? – are they real? I guess you don’t know that either.

  • karlf

    This is ridiculous! What use is the Catholic Religion for spreading the word of God when an intelligent, educated, 21st century man needs (according to you) 2 years extra study in order to appreciate it’s authenticity??? Don’t you see Jabba? Don’t you see?

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    Yes I did. The possession of rationality and free will. (I’m tempted to add that, since you have neither, you can’t be blamed for not picking this up. But I won’t. It would be impolite!)

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    Karl, as I’ve said before, I’m not sure how much of this is a pose of intellectual blindness to yank our chains, or how much is genuine.

    To all your questions, there is a simple answer: trust the Church and these are indeed mysteries. So you don’t need a two year course in philosophy. 

    But, rightly, you wouldn’t be happy with such an answer. And thus you do need to pursue philosophical and theological paths. In essence, they are no easier than pursuing any other academic study. (In fact two years is by far an underestimate.)

    As Jabba has said, you have received answers on all your questions. Of course there’s more to be said on all of them: go off and read something more. (I’ve recommended already Smart and Haldane’s collaboration, Atheism and Theism. You could also try Brian Davies’ Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Both are extremely fair minded and academically rigorous.)

    Taking your specific points:

    1) Yes, those points are the building blocks of any good answer. It does depend precisely on the nature of the argument from evil which is used, but, assuming you’re talking about the logical argument from evil, you have to remember that it is for the advancer of the argument -ie the atheist- to prove that there is a logical incompatibility between the various attributes of God. I’m not aware of any philosopher who thinks this has been clearly done -although there are certainly many who think there is some looser, preponderance of evidence argument against God based on evil. But there are no short cuts to following through the developed arguments.

    2) Your description of the replies given to you here are simply deceitful. The main similarity between God and human beings is the existence of free will and intellect. Your main responses to this line have been rough claims that evolution has somehow disproved the existence of free will and reason. If you are serious about believing this, there is clearly no point in continuing the argument. (How can I convince someone without reason? How can you act on reason if you have no free will? It would be like holding a discussion with a brick.) But in any case, the main difficulties here are not specifically Catholic, but about the philosophical understanding of free will and (in particular) intentionality, and how these might or might not be compatible with materialism and evolution.

    3) On the Adam question, again, you’ve had lots of answers. But perhaps the two simplest are: a) none of the examples you’ve given demonstrate your contention that this or that figure is understood by (eg) Jesus in the simplistic way you imagine; b) even if they were, it’s again not clear why this would mean that we are bound to accept  what was (perhaps) in the mind of the speaker at the time. (Jesus is a difficult theological case because of his divine nature, but (eg) St Paul will have had lots of thoughts that are not normative for the Church.)

    (Specifically on Adam (rather than your more general point about the literal interpretation of scripture in general) Catholics are committed (by Humani Generis) to the belief in the existence of one parent. But that isn’t the same as a commitment to a belief in a simplistic garden of Eden. I think I’ve give you the link to Ed Feser’s blog on this before -which (as usual) you rejected as metaphysical or philosophy or just too many words. But anyway, here it is again: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html

  • Stephen

    Mike, after reading your post I’d have to say you’re a classic example of what KGB defector Yuri Bezemov described as an “useful idiot.”  

    Useful Idiot:  a term used by KGB agents in USSR to describe people who unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naively believe to be a force for good.  People who are held in contempt by true communists and who then cynically use them to undermine their own nation and serve as propagandists for a communist agenda whose goals they do not understand.

    It’s also quite clear that you have never been to China or the former USSR and your understanding of the Catholic Faith falls well below that of small child.  Moreover, you support your position with false causality/misuse of stats.  

  • Stephen

    Thank you Fr Alexander. This is a good illustration of the spiritual and moral morass that is the UK.  Sadly, the UK used the “most watched event in TV history” as their platform to proudly push all manner of ungodliness. Is this some attempt at national suicide…attacking God and the Church–the very foundation of their own nation?  Perhaps this will serve as a wake up call for all of the lukewarm Catholics in the UK and around the world.

      “Christendom” is collapsing on YOUR watch!

  • Stephen

    Yeah, why are some in the Church using New Age/Eastern Mysticism/pop psychology jargon to describe Heaven and Hell?  There will be mental and spiritual torment in hell but based on scripture isn’t it clear that it is a place too:

    Numbers 16:33 So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Hell, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

    Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.Revelation 19:20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.

  • JabbaPapa

    Keep on digging that hole.

    You cannot define someone’s faith or philosophy by negatives.

  • JabbaPapa

    This is ridiculous! What use is the Catholic Religion for spreading the
    word of God when an intelligent, educated, 21st century man needs
    (according to you) 2 years extra study in order to appreciate it’s
    authenticity??? Don’t you see Jabba? Don’t you see?

    ????????

    You asked some very specific and detailed questions which belong to the philosophy of religion rather than to the Catholic Faith as such.

    Both your questions and the answers to those questions are completely unnecessary to the Faith.

    The Catholic answer is that the Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

    Amen

    YOU’RE the one scrabbling around more more detailed answers, nobody is trying to force them on you — but if you want to understand those sorts of more arcane details, then yes, extra study is a necessary prerequisite.

  • JabbaPapa

    So you don’t know if the elephant headed God is a reality or not? What
    about leprechauns then? – are they real? I guess you don’t know that
    either.

    Look — the reasoin why I am unable to answer these questions is because you’re asking me things about which I honestly haven’t the foggiest clue — contrary to your frankly bizarre notion that I must be “indoctrinated” concerning whichever random names you decide to throw at me.

    Furthermore — are XXX or YYY real ? is NOT the same question as do you believe in XXX or YYY ?

    I know next to nothing about angelology nor demonology, as such I am simply NOT qualified to have any personal opinion whatsoever concerning the existence or non-existence per se of those alleged supernatural entities. Any single one of them could be either real or unreal ; but I have exactly ZERO knowledge of them, not to mention zero interest in them, nor have I been taught nor developed any doctrines concerning any of them, whilst I am simultaneously aware of a variety of opinions concerning these sorts of alleged supernatural entities.

    The reason why you’re digging your own grave is that it is self-evident that YOU personally have decided that NONE of these exist — which *IS* an indoctrinated position.

    There’s still only one God. And yes, this last statement *IS* a doctrine.

  • JabbaPapa

    I don’t ask metaphysical questions. For example, I ask
    questions such as “if there is a loving God, why doesn’t he help any people experiencing terrible suffering?”

    This is a metaphysical question.

    “in what way is man made in the image of God”

    This is a metaphysical question.

    And I ask how you know that the authors of the New Testament didn’t believe that Adam was an actual historical figure

    No you didn’t, you claimed that *Jesus* believed it — Jesus is NOT a New Testament author.

    The reason why only some radical extremists insist on the literary truthfulness of the Bible is because of their failure to realise that a story including a talking snake as the principal antagonist isn’t one that any reasonable person could possibly take as being a sober description of factual history. Such a story must obviously include at least an allegorical or metaphorical or symbolic element, or several ; so that it’s then the task of the readers to provide a sensible interpretation of such a text.

    Some radical extremist Protestants insist that the Bible is the literal Truth(tm) because of their desire to reject science as if it were “evil” or something.

    Some radical extremist atheists insist that the Bible must either be the 100% literal truth or otherwise a 100% falsehood, either because they falsely imagine religious people to be mentally handicapped, or more simply for their own selfish amusement at the expense of others.

    Needless to say, these sorts of claims about the Bible are completely irrational.

    Once again — Biblical Literalism is an invention of the 19th century !!!! — your suggestions that ANYBODY can have ascribed to this doctrine prior to its invention are completely anachronous.

    None of these questions are metaphysical questions.

    Wrong

    I’m  purposely asking such questions so that you cannot hide behind your
    faux intellectual metaphysical ramblings, but clearly that does not
    suit you for obvious reasons.

    That’s just hot air, based on your prejudice, and signifying nothing.

  • JabbaPapa

    Christendom collapsed in the Orthodox and Anglican Schisms, then permanently after Luther’s rebellion.

    Yesterday’s news … :-)

  • karlf

    Digging what hole? I have just demonstrated how you can’t answer even the most simplest of questions in a straightforward manner. Avoidance yet again.

  • karlf

    Here’s a simple, non-metaphysical question for you:
    If the authors of the Bible did not believe the creation story of Genesis, what did they believe to be the origin of man?
    .

    “That’s just hot air, based on your prejudice, and signifying nothing” – you say that after reinforcing my point with the previous comments falsely claiming “This is a metaphysical question”

  • karlf

    In my encounters with Marxists I have come across the same sort of convoluted theorising that’s used to cover up the holes in their reassuring nests of dogma. As I pointed out to Jabba, if Catholicism is God’s way of communicating to the world, it’s a pretty poor effort when it can’t answer a simple question without the questioner having to read Smart and Haldane’s Atheism and Theism, and Brian Davies’ Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. What was the medieval peasant expected to do before Smart and Haldane?
    1) Forget the nature of evil and logical incompatibilities – God doesn’t do anything to help the millions of his suffering children. That’s all there is to it, as there is no sign of God.
    2) One of my points was that, seeing as we possess all the mental characteristics of a creature that evolved to thrive in certain earthly conditions, how can we think like God, let alone be made in his image? Other apes have been shown to be self conscious creatures, so would also possess that which you see as free will, and also behave altruistically. But on the whole, I have good reason to believe that earlier Christians generally believed that God to looked like a human – lets take the book for what it says.
    3) For centuries the creation myth was widely accepted. If the authors of the Bible did not believe the creation story of Genesis, what did they believe to be the origin of man?

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    1) If you want to do philosophy, do it properly. If you don’t want to do it,  then don’t pretend you are doing it.

    2) A peasant can trust the teachings of the Church without appreciating the fullness of reasoning behind them. If you don’t want to do that, then see 1).

    3) Putting aside everything that’s been said before about non-literal interpretations of the texts, the lack of evidence for your position etc, let’s assume for the sake of argument that every human writer of the Bible believed that the world was literally created in six days in 4004 BC etc. Why would a Catholic be committed to following this understanding? (The authority resides in the text and in the teaching authority of the Church, not in the opinions of the writers of scripture apart from the text.)

    This has all been said before, by me and others. 

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    Well done for being so perfect. It must be jolly nice for you and all those who are lucky enough to benefit from your presence. 

  • karlf

    1) There is no sign of God intervening in earthly matters. If you have a satisfactory explanation of why a loving God does not intervene please tell me, but don’t hide behind a smokescreen of cobbled together theological excuses disguised as some sort of intellectual practice.
    2) Why would the peasant, or myself, trust the teachings of the Church when they don’t appear to make reasonable sense? If a fullness of reason exists, then surely it would be available to all?
    3) If the authors of the Bible did not believe the creation story of Genesis, what did they believe to be the origin of man? Surely a Catholic should be committed to the text of the apostles?

  • JabbaPapa

    Here’s a simple, non-metaphysical question for you:
    If the authors of the Bible did not believe the creation story of Genesis, what did they believe to be the origin of man?

    Sex ?

    I mean, it does get mentioned rather frequently in that work as being the origin of all people …

    “That’s just hot air, based on your prejudice, and signifying
    nothing” – you say that after reinforcing my point with the previous
    comments falsely claiming “This is a metaphysical question”

    FFS — I’m starting to think that you don’t even understand the most basic meaning of the word “metaphysics”.

    YES — both of the questions that I described as being metaphysical questions do in fact belong to metaphysics.

    This is a FACT — and it is non-debatable as such.

    If you think otherwise, well then you are quite objectively wrong.

    ————-

    cripes, just do us all a flipping favour and get yourself some books — “us all” includes yourself BTW, given your obvious interest in the subject matter …

  • JabbaPapa

    Both of you make good points — those of us needing proof, and I most certainly am one myself, can only ever receive it in the way that a beggar receives his pittance from a stranger passing by.

    But *such* a glorious stranger !!

    God loves best those who love Him from the depths of their souls openly, honestly, spontaneously.

    Dominus nobiscum.

  • JabbaPapa

    All that you’ve demonstrated is the existence of your own interpretative biases.

  • karlf

    By your refusal to answer as to whether you believe that leprechauns are a reality or not? Nice one Jabba!

  • karlf

    “If the authors of the Bible did not believe the creation story of Genesis, what did they believe to be the origin of man?
    Sex ?”
    Don’t be silly! You know exactly what I mean – or are you really backed into a corner on this one??