Learning from the mistakes of the Chick productions website, with their laughable essays on vampirism, I have put all the arguments that could possibly make me look like an idiot on this one page. Anything which might have a remote chance of making me look like a buffoon, from `left field' questions to furrydom, will be presented here, and nowhere else on the site. Here will be the arguments which are ridiculous because they are based on ideas and principles that even regular atheists and agnostics wouldn't agree on.
"I don't need words to keep my world - view."
HA-HA! That's a good one! Seriously, what am I reading here? By what means would you describe what you believe if you didn't have any? How would you formulate your atheistic notions without some kind of linguistically based mental structure? You need words, buddy! Things exist independently of words, but when we try to explain them, all we have are words.
"Church - going, Bible thumping Christians commit murder every day."
That's certainly an overgeneralization if I've ever heard one. In fact, where exactly do these `church going bible thumping christians' commit murder? "In the year 2004, 5 million God believers in the United States went crazy and slaughtered an entire neighborhood. Meanwhile, the good atheist people waved around roses and told them to stop." Yeah, right.
"You said that nobody has found the bones of Jesus. Does that mean that God doesn't have bones?"
Absolutely not. He's not a jellyfish. What you're saying is a ridiculous misreading. The point is that there are no skeletal remains of Jesus to be found. Jesus rose from the dead.
Carl Sagan: "Christianity, like any religion, shamelessly co-opts from its predecessors. Christmas and easter, for example, are pagan in origin. You have the easter eggs, and the Yule trees..."
Gee, Carl, you seemed so smart! Regardless of whether the holidays and their practices are taken from pagan ideas, the religion can stand without them, and, if anything, it is not a sign that Christianity is stealing stuff from other religions, and those holidays are not part of any core Christian doctrine. For example, we don't know what day Jesus rose from the grave. It probably wasn't the day we call Easter. Eggs were not even involved in the ressurection story. Christmas is no different. Jesus wasn't born in the winter, because the animals were out to pasture. And it definitely wasn't the 25th of December. Yule trees aren't even mentioned in the bible. That practice was added centuries afterwards. The priests were upset by the drunken orgies typical of the holiday, so they made it into a celebration of Christ's birth.
"I have never thought or even implied that God is not nice! A real God can't be!"
Can you say `typo'? I know you can.
"Jesus didn't fight back against the Romans because he knew he'd get hacked to pieces if he tried it!"
What you fail to realize is that Jesus never wanted to fight the Romans. He disappointed a lot of people because he wasn't a warrior like Barabbas. From the get-go, he wanted nothing to do with war or fighting, except in spiritual terms. Jesus could have amassed an army if he wanted. The bible says he could have even brought angels to rescue him from crucifixion. But Jesus came to die for our sins, to be a sacrificial martyr. It was nothing to do with cowardice. If he were a coward like you say, he would have skipped out on Jersusalem completely and avoid getting killed, like Mohammed avoided his persecutors instead of facing them. I don't think so. I believe Jesus is part of God, so he has the power over death, and God can deliver him from stuff like that. In fact, it's best to argue that Jesus committed suicide. He said constantly that he had to die as a sacrifice, and that he laid down his life of his own accord. So, being part of God, he used people to crucify himself. Satan doesn't have that power. It was all God's doing. Jesus had to die.
"Anti - drug PSA's take the wrong approach when they say drugs are `bad'. They are so unimaginably GOOD that NOTHING else can compete. Dangerous territory indeed."
So you're saying crack and cocaine are unimaginably good, even though they kill you?
Me: "(Hypothetically, if God doesn't exist), what if I stop believing and I experience something like (what the agnostic's aunt) experienced? Even if it's just brain activity, maybe my subconscious or something would punish me..."
Agnostic: "If you are punished for a failing brain's delusions, then God is cruel."
Hello! God doesn't figure into the above statement! It was an IF, HYPOTHETICAL, "what if there was no God," theoretical argument. I was arguing, from a purely medical standpoint, that because of my subconscious, I'd suffer a torturous "dream" like I think Aunt X had, because I'd feel that I needed to be punished for my unbelief, because of my conscience.
"The existance of the whole spiritual aparatus and inhabitants would make every place on earth and every second of life like walking thru the graveyard, fearful of what the unseen forces might do or not do next."
You feel that way walking through a graveyard? Ha ha ha! I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but I believe I am protected by God through Jesus. Anything that's with them is safe, anything against them doesn't have a chance. I have no fear about ghosts or demons anymore, because Jesus is with me.
"Adam didn't need to eat."
Heh heh heh. What planet do you live on? Next question.
This isn't `life', because this is Hell."
Then what about the problem of good?
"Maybe only people who believe in the Bible and Jesus have souls."
If so, the bible says nothing about it. Certainly I don't believe it.
"If you believe that God listens to prayers, and yet it doesn't always work, the `someone' must only notice you, or care, part of the time - and apparently you get no satisfaction from talking/singing to `someone's secretary or answering machine."
This is a totally bizarre argument. I don't know if it was me expressing my doubt, or the mere fact that the agnostic was assuming the very thing he was trying to prove, but somehow he's trying to argue that God doesn't listen to prayers, or only part of the time, for some reason, and that somehow God doesn't always answer my prayers, and some answering machine or secretary supposedly has to pick up for Him, like He's too limited to answer all the prayers Himself. Instead of making any kind of workable statement, all the agnostic does is make something up and assume what he's saying is true. Who says that God only answers prayers part of the time? I didn't.
"If souls don't have to eat, then anyone who enjoys fine grub is behaving in an ungodly manner (because God doesn't consider eating to be important or desirable)."
What religious text did you pull that extremely imaginative yarn from? You may not be making a leap of faith, but you appear to be making huge, illogical leaps in reasoning! Souls don't really need to eat. God made human beings with a desire to eat, sleep, reproduce, etc. God called such things good. If a soul can do some of those things, God probably enabled it in the first place, so it's nothing to worry about.
"`There is nothing more beautiful than heaven?' This is the argument used by those who think they won't become addicted to drugs."
So, you're arguing that heaven is so wonderful and good that it has to be hazardous to your health? How absurd! I'm not sure how drugs, which can kill you, relate to heaven, a place where you go AFTER you die.
"`If I'm going to Hell anyway, why bother?' says everyone who doesn't claim to be born - again/saved/etc...and it seems this is just fine with God."
But that's the thing! Almost nobody says that, because most people who don't claim to be saved/born - again don't think they're going to hell! How could God be fine with something that's obviously untrue? Only people like you, and a few others, get so stuck on their opinions or so heavily indoctrinated against Christianity that they know about the hell and the salvation thing. So what you're arguing doesn't even make sense.
"Jesus was just another Koresh."
It'd be better to say, "He would be another Koresh." Which isn't temporally correct anyway. He came thousands of years before Koresh.
"If the soul is in the brain, and it is what does all the above, then brain surgery or a stroke removes or damages the soul, so such a person will be incomplete in the afterlife."
This is like arguing that water can be damaged by the destruction of a sponge. The only way that it could be the way as you say is if you automatically presuppose that souls don't exist.
"`Heaven isn't annoying?' Ah! Good point! But I don't see how that works unless souls have a serious case of Alzheimers."
I think someone had alzheimers when they wrote this.
"Emotions mostly cause trouble, so I'm trying to extinguish them when they try. No one who yields to emotion can achieve peace. They are opposites. Emotion is the root of all evil."
See, that's your problem right there. You're in the church of Leonard Nimoy. As long as you are emotionally restrained, you will have no creativity, no faith, no imagination. I, on the other hand, feel like that guy on that one movie, where he had such a difficulty crying that he held out a jar when one solitary drop rolled off his cheek at long last. I'm actually trying to make myself MORE emotional. Emotions are what make us human. You're trying to be a Vulcan. Girls won't relate well to a Vulcan, either.
"God is silent. Why doesn't he say something?"
I can't believe you even said this. God has said plenty. He spoke to the people of the bible, and he speaks today. That's like saying, "Why doesn't the American government do something?"
The American government does "do something." Even if it's wasting money, it's "doing something." Likewise, I believe God does say something. The bible is his word.
Me: "Would you be offended if someone called you a deist?"
Agnostic: "No, but it wouldnt be accurate. I'm not going to worry about Revelation until the existance of God is established."
I think the dictionary isn't talking about the BOOK of revelation. I think it means `someone who believes in God on purely rational grounds without believing in any particular religion or religious doctrine.'
"Maybe imagination should really be down on the ground - and chained there!"
That would be rather like the elephant who remained at its cage because it wasn't aware that its chains were missing and the door was open. Just because you're used to being restrained doesn't mean it's not possible to be free. Imagination has many practical and fanciful uses. Sometimes it's necessary for it to be focused, sometimes it's okay to let it run wild. Einstein did.
"How to live here? How to live here in order to be rewarded after death? Probably neither, both, and more...depending on the religion - but where do they look for the knowledge of how to do that?"
Simple. In their religious text. In the Judeo-Christian faith, the bible.
"If people are remade into more perfect, glorified human bodies, they can't go to Heaven."
This is based on the assumption that only ghosts go to heaven. Why limit God this way? What if God makes a conduit between the two? What if it all becomes heaven, so that you merely have to fly down to hang out on earth?
"I do not understand this need to meet someone, so I'll have to just accept that it exists..."
"(Spock impression)This human being suggests that other human beings ACTUALLY CONVERSE without using a computer. Curious. Perhaps they believe it creates a social bond which might not otherwise be present. I believe it is completely unecessary, doctor."
You remind me of a math teacher I had one time. "...Computers are completely logical. That's why I prefer a computer to a human being. But they're hard to warm up to." Being a Christian is more than just typing religious words on a screen. Being a Christian is doing things in real life to help out other people. And this person would be singing a different tune if I lived near his house and could actually help with the heating situation or something else he needs.
"The sources of inspiration and knowledge are very different."
Right, so when you look at a petri dish, and get inspired about the answer to a scientific dilemma, the source is different. I think Einstein would disagree with you.
"You don't need to choose between God and animal instinct. There is a third choice: medical knowledge."
Regardless of the God part, think about what you just said. How can you say medical knowledge is an alternative to animal instinct? Medical knowledge is about preserving and maintaining human or animal life, with all their animal functions, sexuality included. Self preservation is also an animal instinct. So, if God is included, you still have only two choices, instinct vs. God, or, if God is omitted, one choice, instinct.
"Religion is determined by genetics."
This doesn't make a lot of sense, even in scientific terms. Frankly, religion is learned. While it is perhaps possible that credulousness would be a genetic trait, the other things we pick up from our environment. I mean, what sense does it make to say that genetics created Judaism? Were the patriarchs going completely on auto pilot? How does an atheist, who thinks that the religion was invented by clever individuals, argue that some all powerful genetic force established the major tenets of any religion? Do you really believe that some genetic force would cause a child growing up in a strict Hindu environment, completely devoid of Christian religious materials, would suddenly become a Christian, just out of the blue? That's a mighty big leap of faith for someone who doesn't have any. I mean, if you take out the word `genetics' and replace it with the word `God,' you'd see what kind of argument you're presenting, and you'd probably drop the idea completely. Unless you're thinking about joining a religion. Morality and/or faith comes from genetics? Ridiculous. It makes no sense that we should be born with a sense of moral rightness, especially if it is merely caused by genetics. I fail to see why genetics would cause a desire to have a God, invented or not. In fact, if you say that genetics alone causes the conception of moral rightness in human thought, then it would most definitely imply a creator to put that morality in human beings to begin with. Overall, I feel that you ascribe way too much influence and power to genetics. You'd probably love the Wing Commander show. It seems like every other word is genetics. "You have a lot of faith." "It's not faith. It's genetics." "Genetics is the reason why certain people like going to church, and why others avoid it," you might argue. Then you might argue, "Genetics produces personality." And then you would conveniently argue, "Because genetics produces personality and behavior, we really don't make any decisions or choices, it's all genetics. We can't help what we do. We have no willpower. Genetics is what makes us do everything." This would be a jab at religion because then you could say, "Because genetics creates personality and behavior, it causes people to murder and do other evil things," and afterwards, "If God exists, he controls genetics, and thus all our behavior. Thus, if God exists, he controls the evil things that people do, so there is no loving, benevolent God." But you don't know for a fact that genetics controls behavior. It becomes as compelling as God controlling behavior. All you have done is offered a theory of predestination where God is replaced with genetics. I don't believe in predestination. A breed of Schnauser may be genetically predisposed to obey a trainer's commands, but to say that it came up with its tricks by itself is absurd. Frankly, this type of reductionism is irrational.
"What kind of car would God drive?"
This isn't even worth a response. Why does it even matter what kind of car God drives? He created the brains that designed them in the first place.
"I don't consider (apes/primates/cromangons) mindless. They just have less mind. Ever see any paintings by elephants? They look like `modern art' to me! If some guy can get big bucks for paint flung at a bed sheet, the only real difference between that and what the elephant did, is who bought the supplies. And I might be being very unfair to the elephant! The elephant might actually be trying to do something personally meaningful!"
As meaningful as the farmer who winked at his horse so that it could tap out the answers to math problems. Enough peanuts and the right amount of training, could make the elephant appear to be doing something creative, but in actuality it's just going through the motions. If you think the trunk art is creative, wait til you see it sit on the bedsheet. Ooh. Look at the nice butterfly. It almost looks like an intelligent design.
"I don't see a purpose to my life. There are far too many humans already, so I needn't reproduce. So the only value and meaning in my lifeis what my mind gives it."
Illogical conclusion from a strange premise. "Too many humans already, so I shouldn't reproduce" is code for "I have bad luck with women."
"There is no point. Imagination is nothing but trouble anyway."
The Harfon sitting on my bed is saying otherwise.
The following are far fetched, questionable, unscriptural theories and speculations made up by science fiction writers and the like, which some agnostics and atheists latch onto like flies on a dead dog.
"The Star of Bethlehem was the result of a supernova that destroyed an entire universe of intelligent lifeforms."
This one was lifted directly out of a science fiction novel. According to what I've read, that idea isn't even that factual. According to a book I read, the "star of Bethlehem" could have been the time when Jupiter and Saturn aligned within the constellation of Pisces. None of the ancient sources say anything about a supernova or a comet being that "star." And this conjunction would have been visible in the Mediterranean area around 7 B.C.
"God watched Jesus suffer for real, while another part of Him could have been off watching billions die under the exploding sun that harolded Jesus' birth. Great moral lesson in all this. Wonderfully inspiring."
Hello? Earth to atheist, earth to atheist, come in, atheist...Why am I supposed to be upset about a magical land of imaginary aliens who supposedly were blown up in order to be the star of Bethlehem, especially since evidence points toward the idea of a comet being the `star' instead?
"There used to be millions of gods, but Yahweh got jealous and destroyed them all."
"...God has parents."
The bible contradicts these ideas. See Isaiah 44:8, Isaiah 43:10, John 5:44, John 17:3, Romans 3:29-30, Romans 16:27, 1 Corinthians 8:4-5, Galations 3:20, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Timothy 1:7, 1 Timothy 2:5, James 2:19, 1 John 5:20-21, Jude 25. God created himself. It's not a Christian idea to say that anything created God, or there's anything above Him.
Me: "`I'm gonna make it shine.' The average worshipper might get the line mixed up in such a way. Instead of God being the cause of the illumination, it becomes the believer's job, which is just as good as a flashlight with dead batteries.
Agnostic: "Said worshipper can remove the reflecter from the flashlight and use it to focus the candle flame, and it will indeed seem to shine!"
You're mixing metaphors. I do not use `flashlight' and `candle' in the same thought. I said, "as good as a flashlight," not "and a flashlight." Only because you are afraid to believe do you imagine an alternate situation where both candle and flashlight simultaneously exist.
Agnostic: "...Oh, and by the way - if the worshipper is like a dead flashlight, then God should have gotten on the ball and flown in some replacement bats, before they corroded the works!"
You're not paying attention. If you're as good as a flashlight with dead batteries, that means you have no light. If you don't believe in God, then you have no light. If you don't believe in God, then why do you imagine God bringing in a bunch of baseball equipment to the situation?
"Should I believe I am conversing with wolves and dragons when they answer me on my computer screen? They are a lot more `real' than the static words on a page, written down and multiply - translated from folk tales thousands of years old!"
And you say you `don't have any gods!' See my comments about your arrogant opinion about the bible being fiction.
"But I'm a furry! I wouldn't think any debate about my eternal future was frivolous."
When you say this, you make the assertion that you are a "furry." But the "furry" I was referring to was the mythic beast, the talking animal, not furry fans. So I see the issue of whether or not a furry would have a soul completely frivolous. The bible is about saving human souls. It has animal sacrifices in it. The fact that it doesn't mention the spirits of animals only goes to say that the issue is not of that much importance to God. Maybe they are just stage dressing. I think God can make a dog identical to Robin or Peehead(those are names of my dogs) in heaven. I mean, one Shitzu looks identical to the other. One cat looks like the other one. And God can replace them. In the bible, it's clear that God doesn't value animal lives as much as the lives of people, though He tells man to take care of his animals. Sure, animals can tell each other apart. I'm sure you'll rag me about that. But Watership Down doesn't have any place in the bible. God doesn't want human beings running around and worshipping rabbit Gods. I read a story that argued that intelligent animals with consciousnesses don't have souls. If such animals existed, I guess they'd have souls. But Peehead isn't that intelligent or she would have opened the basement door and eaten the guinea pig already. It's odd how you place so much importance on the question of whether animals have souls, yet place so little importance on the existence of God or souls. I wonder if you'd be willing to sell your soul to the Devil.
"Unless your religion addresses the issue of whether or not furries have souls, then I'm not interested in what you have to say."
Some people, like the PETA folks, love their cats and dogs more than human beings, and feel fully justified about doing so, arguing "think about it from Mittens' perspective!" The ironic thing is that they love only certain types of animals, mostly ones that are cute, not the ugly ones, fighting tooth and nail for the rights of bunny rabbits, but caring nothing for the lobster, the squid or the cockroach. And what do you think they'd do if they saw an undomesticated rat, foaming at the mouth, creeping into their kitchen? "Die!" The only verse in the bible that seems to indicate whether animals have souls or not is Psalm 104:29-30. It seems to indicate the same kind of `breath' and `spirit' that we attribute to human beings. But that's just a psalm. I wouldn't go making a serious case for the conversion of animals.
While I addressed this topic at http://www.oocities.org/gideon_bear/Souls.html, there are a few topics that still need to be addressed.
"Virtual furries have no soul in Christianity, so I have no use for it. Meow."
Man, this is very much a religion to you. You sincerely believe that the people you're talking to on a MUCK are really animals. I don't think they are at all. I think they're just geeky human beings. So I have thought about MUCKS as a place to tell people about Jesus. "Virtual furries have no soul?" The text doesn't, but the people who typed it have souls. Basically, when I think of the "furs" I e-mail on line, I always think about the human being behind the name. Now the shoe is on the other foot. In the situation of furry, I can sit there and say, "You're in denial. I prefer a solid brownie, not sponge cake. You're typing stuff to other human beings." I've been to furry conventions and seen the *gasp* humans standing around there and *holy crap* they're all 20-30 year olds! For someone so interested in "objective fact" you seem to deliberately avoid anything associated with the real human people behind furry. Just a warning. Don't go to pounced.org. Maybe animals do have souls, but it doesn't matter much to me. Why does it matter so much to you if animals have souls or not? Is it because you believe that we're all descended from animals by evolution? If so, then, certainly, all animals have souls. But if God made us specially, instead of growing us out of evolution like all the other creations, it would make us more like God, and it wouldn't matter if animals had souls or not. But why is the question so important? Are you an animal? No. Certainly not a talking werewolf if one at all.
"What does God (and the Bible authorities) say about plants and animals? Are they just stage dressing, here for our pleasure? If so, the environmentalists and the government care more about them than God does!"
"I have no interest in a religion that places so much value on human life!"
And what are you, exactly? How can you be so audacious as to say you reject a religion that puts your species in the center of attention? If you think we're going to believe you're a talking rabbit, you've got another thing coming! We believe that human life is to be valued over all other forms of life. That isn't to say that other lifeforms aren't to be taken care of or protected, such as nearly extinct animals, or whatever, or that you shouldn't take care of pets, but Korean people eat dogs. It's culturally acceptable over there. What may be a cute, cuddly animal here is dinner somewhere else. If my airplane crashes in the mountains somewhere, man, I don't want to be on the plane with you. You'd probably turn cannibal to spare the cuddly animals. Situation ethics, right? Do what you have to to survive? Me, I'd try hunting. Maybe I'm assuming too much by the comment about religion placing "too much value on human life." Frankly, I'm sick of these wealthy types who spend millions of dollars on their animals, but let homeless people starve on the streets. We have homeless, starving people because snobs like this continue to place more value on animal life than human. Princess has to have her fish eggs and her silken pillow to sleep on, and her diamond encrusted litter box.
"Being furry violates God's plan."
No. I don't see that at all. Nobody says you can really violate God's plan anyway. It's His plan. If God controls all of reality, a human can do very little to destroy God's plan. Furry is just play and pretend. If you don't take it seriously, it doesn't violate God's plan. I just have a different "style" of being furry. It's the same thing as saying, "You can't be both a painter and a Cubist." You might not like the Cubist style, but Cubists are painters, just like the "realists" are painters. They apply paint to a canvas.
1. You are not a "furry." You are a "furry fan." You are human. Human beings have souls. One of my online personaes is a Christian bear, but I am not a bear. I am a human. And proud of it.
2. Furry characters can metaphorically or symbolically represent a human being, i.e. "Crazy like a fox."
3. I believe God might have made lifeforms on other planets that might be furry, and in my opinion, if God made them, if they're concerned about their spiritual welfare, they certainly must have souls.
4. I believe God may have made talking bipedal animals in heaven because there are Christian furry fans.
5. I don't think genetically engineered bipedal talking animals aren't practical. I certainly don't like the control issues involved. Another thing, you can't make a half human/animal "thing" without extracting something from a human. So maybe they'd get a soul that way anyways.
"If combining human and animal genetic code is an abomination and affront to God, then Christians shouldn't be furries."
"Christianity isn't furry."
I dunno. It has a lot of animals in it. Balaam's mule talked, there is the Lion of Judah, and Psalm 104 is very furry.
"To me, furry is incompatible with Christianity, and the lack of lightning proves something!"
Yeah, right. Like God's going to strike you down for saying that a Christian can't be a Trekkie, a furry or any other type of fanboy. That's ridiculous. The Chronicles of Narnia are a series of furry stories written by one of the greatest Christian authors of the twentieth century, C.S. Lewis.
"The most disgusting of all parts of the bible: how to decide on the occasion, type, number of animal sacrifice, and how to butcher them, what parts are used, and in what order they are burned on the altar, after the blood has been sprayed when and around upon what - all to supposedly impress and secure the favor of The Lord who created supernovas! I will not accept a religion that once had practiced, or currently practices, ritual animal sacrifice."
It's a substitution, not something to impress God. You're dead meat, so you have to substitute someone or something in place of yourself. Jesus is the substitute human being, so sacrifices are now unneccessary. Besides:
Don't waste my time with this nonsense. You're a human, or you wouldn't be reading this. Stop denying your own humanity. Which point are you arguing for here? Zoophilia? "Hamburgers are our friends?" "Meat is murder?" Even if souls didn't exist, we'd be superior to the animals because of our superior intellects. Using technology, we can harness and use animals in any way we see fit.
"If souls don't exist, a vast difference in intelligences remains, but feeling superior by God's grant is gone."
One could still argue that God granted us intelligence, even if the soul argument is gone. According to one pamphlet I read, the existence of the soul wouldn't matter that much if God simply resurrected us after death. Our bodies would be made alive, which would be about as good as having a soul.
"I had adequate control of my `I want to be something else' fantasy before discovering Furry 1.5 years ago, but it has been on my mind more and more since then. It seems like being true to `myself' is a bad idea because how I think of myself is not what I see in the mirror. I doubt there is any good way to come to terms with that, so the only effective thing I can think of is to kill it."
Hopefully you'll come to terms with your humanity and won't kill what you see in the mirror!
"There are zoologists who say there are some advantages for poly(whicheverway)istic species, and some of those probably apply to humans as well, but humans are already in excessive supply - in fact, that very overabundance is far more of a threat to survival (for us and other species), than the opposite. For that reason alone, `fooling around' is a bad idea."
So you've taken a vow of chastity? It seems your arguments lead to that sort of thing. "I'd hate to add another digit to the current population count. I'd better just pass on the whole `sex' thing." Right. Like you've never seen a woman on TV or in real life that didn't at least momentarily catch your eye.
"I'm not a vegetarian (or pacifist), but the idea of plunging a knife into one of my screaming cats, then waving the bleeding, dying body high in front of the cheering faithful, is downright repellant."
Are you willing to suffer death and hell for the sake of cuddly animals that died thousands of years ago? Are animals really worth that much to you? You've got to choose between PETA and God, and I guess you've chosen PETA. I guess you'd prefer human sacrifice, to cut down the population, so the cuddly kittens can rule the earth. Perhaps even the sacrifice of your own life and soul, so that the Colonel won't choke chickens at the factory. Think about it this way:
"Blood sacrifice is sinful and murder for the sake of some spook is criminal and evil...and that is that."
I guess, according to your paradoxical definition of evil, God and his commandments are "evil." As "evil" as an earthquake that does nothing more than rattle the dishes. Or "evil" as voluntary poverty. Or a flood that washes away topsoil. Unlike you, I don't, in my idolatrousness, consider animal sacrifices murder. Other than that, I agree that it's not good to murder people in the name of God.