Is the Bible Blogtastic?
Slate.com editor David Plotz on PETA-friendly sacrifice, why Judaism produces great lawyers, and whether God mellows with age. With audio.
This is a Mother Jones podcast. To download or subscribe to our free weekly podcasts, visit our podcasts page or the Mother Jones iTunes store.
Slate.com editor David Plotz was flipping through the Torah at a cousin's bat mitzvah when he found a tale of murder, rape, and betrayal that he'd never heard of before. Intrigued, he began reading the Old Testament, word for word, and blogging about it on Slate. Jen Phillips spoke with Plotz about his new book, called Good Book, which explores some of the least-known passages from the world's most-read book.
Mother Jones: David Plotz, thanks so much for talking with Mother Jones.
David Plotz: Thank you.
MJ: So we're going to be talking about your book, Good Book, and it's basically—tell me if this is right—it's a collection of your Slate.com series Blogging the Bible?
DP: It's based on my Slate series Blogging the Bible. Blogging the Bible was a series I did for Slate a couple of years ago where I, as the title suggests, blogged the Bible, the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, as Christians would call it, and wrote daily responses to what I was reading. I'd started in the beginning, with Genesis, and just kept going and wrote daily responses, and responded to my readers, and it had a kind of immediacy and quickness that blogs do. But for the book, it had to have a different kind of tone and had to do something different than what I was doing with the blog. So the blog, in order to make a really good book out of it, I rewrote the whole thing and cut out a lot of, there was a lot of extraneous stuff in the blog that didn't really fit in a more considered book.
And I think that one of the most interesting things as a writer and journalist is that so much of first-draft writing these days is in blog form. And the blog-to-book migration is a very interesting migration; it's a new kind of book writing.
MJ: Yeah, I was wondering about that, because the Bible has been so widely interpreted. And in the intro, you're very clear that you're not a scholar. So when you're turning the blog posts into the book, did you do any study of the historical or religious aspects of the Bible?
DP: Very, very little. I did a teeny bit because there were occasional questions that came up and I thought it would be really nice to have a good historical answer here or to know what the scholarship was. But for the most part I tried really, really hard to avoid it because I think the best part about the book is that it's written by somebody who's coming to this book fresh and unspoiled by having this beaten into him by his rabbi or minister or professor. I'm virgin territory. And that kind of independent and naive, curious enthusiasm is the voice of the book and I found myself actually, when I did talk with a couple of scholars as I was finishing things up, that I had this instinct after I talked to them to go and modify things and make them a little more somber and I didn't want that. The book needs to be, the whole point of doing it this way, the whole point of having an "average Job" reading the Bible like this and write about it, is to avoid the heaviness that comes with the Bible and give it this kind of irreverence and lightness and fun that will make people enjoy the book and hopefully enjoy the Bible itself.
MJ: I found it interesting that, as you know, there's this kind of similar book by A.J. Jacobs called The Year of Living Biblically. And I found it interesting that both you and he identify as Jewish, but you're not Orthodox, and both these books came out not too far apart from one another. Do you have any theories as to why you two, with somewhat similar backgrounds, wrote these books around the same time?
DP: It's funny because I was blogging as A.J. was getting his book ready, so we ended, learning about each other's projects, we ended up becoming friendly. His is a really great book, which I hope people buy after they buy my book. I think there's something in Judaism which invites this kind of irreverence. We're at a time when people are very conscious about faith. You have a lot of religion talk in the world, and you have lots of people like me who are culturally quite Jewish but not educated in a way, and don't have the time or energy or will to throw ourselves into serious religious study. I don't want to become a really Orthodox, kosher Jew; that has no great appeal to me.
But there is this tradition in Judaism, and you see it actually running through the Bible, of just irreverent doubt. And the great examples of it, some serious, some less serious, but at the most serious level, Abraham, when God is about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham tells God why he shouldn't do it and makes God promise not to destroy it if there are any just people who are living there. And you have Moses, who's always arguing with God, or you have Job who litigates against God, and there is this very strong Jewish tradition of getting into a fight about God, and about scripture…
MJ: Well, and with God, they're actually fighting…
DP: Right, and one reason I think Jews are the way we are, why Judaism produces so many great lawyers and maybe even writers and arguers, is that the Bible itself and Judaism itself, it's founded on…God is always talking about how merciful and compassionate he is, but actually the God of the Hebrew Bible is unmerciful and uncompassionate and a very difficult God to love or even like. And the book does not have any kind of clear moral lesson or any moral to it. So what do you have to do when faced with this? You argue with it, and that's what the years of Talmudic commentary are and that's what the religion is founded on, this notion that scripture is confusing and difficult so let's argue our way out of it. And so I realized as I went along with this that I was part of this very strong Jewish tradition, a kind of fundamental tradition. I think it's much less strong in Christianity, because the New Testament is a loving and redemptive book in a way the Old Testament isn't.
MJ: Right, and I found it interesting that in the Old Testament, God seems to favor these prophets who bicker and bargain with him, and he really values intelligence and not so much devotion. In fact, I think in a couple places he actually kills his faithful. Is that right?
DP: Yeah. There's the famous example of Jephtha's daughter. Jephtha's a great warrior; he's actually a mobster who turns into a warrior who leads the Israelites to victory. And to honor God he vows to kill the first thing at his door when he gets home. I don't know why he makes this vow. So he gets home and his daughter, his only child, is waiting for him. So he kills her. And she's this complete innocent, she's faithful, and she willingly submits to it. And it's utterly baffling that God doesn't step in to intervene or doesn't seem to care. The faithful are not…God is much less interested in faith than he is interested in…he talks about how he's interested in obedience, but he's really not that interested in obedience. He's interested in a good tussle. He loves to tussle.
Page 1 of 2 
Does God punish Jews for inventing lawyers??
Jew invented lawyers sometimes about 800-BC. Our modern judicial system so closely resembles the ancient Hebrew system--as for this parallel to occupy several pages of “Jews, God and History” by Max Dimont. But in modern times, we are NOT such great lawyers as is being suggested. This is illusionary. Jews are hyper achievers in most every field—across the board. With 2% of the numerical (USA) population, we are closer to 10% of the corporate executives, doctors, teachers and entertainers. The entertainment factor (I believe) relates to oppression. In the world of comedy, we find an abundance of Blacks, Irish and Jews. All three groups share an excess of emotional anxiety--relating to minority-status acceptance in the larger sphere. In the academic and scientific fields, there is an abnormal abundance of Chinese, East Indians and Jews. This relates to the fact that reading and writing was part of these cultures for thousands of years. Over time, people within those groups selected their mates based on intellectual proficiency. This does not mean that all people from those three groups are smarter then everyone else. What it does seem to suggest is that the top rung from within these groups appears to surpass the corresponding top rung of the remaining population.
Regarding monotheism:
Most people lack adequate understanding as would be required to appreciate the various teachings. Being “well read” does NOT necessarily provide greater understanding—which is the real ‘wrench in the gears’. Because excessive reading can quickly become enhanced indoctrination—if it is too myopic—which it typically is.
When the Jews first found their one and only true God, the theory was simple: If we obey Gods laws, God will reward us. Not in the next life, but here and now, with regards to favorable weather, adequate rainfall and general protection from any and all enemies.
This concept worked adequately well until about 600-BCE, when Mesopotamia conquered the Hebrews and took 40,000 of its leading citizens, royalty and high priests into captivity in Babylon. How could this happen to Gods children? Hence began the concept of angels and demons—which Jews also invented. This also gave rise to the notion of a God anointed King (or messiah), who’s job it was to restore the Kingdom of God on Earth. Enter a long procession of alleged messiahs—including Jesus—who was neither the first nor the last.
This next becomes a LONG, LONG story and the leader of the Troll kingdom has also concluded that Humans are not adequately worthy of the full briefing. So here is the synopsis:
What exists today as the Christian Church is a FAR CRY from the Hebrew prophecy on the same subject. Some very significant part of modern Christianity (including vital historical elements) were merely inserted (post-facto) for political reasons—mainly by the Romans or at least, on their behalf. The Christian followers of Jesus should well realize that a noteworthy portion of their religion is really the religion of Paul, not Jesus. Thus, if Jesus was God, Christianity is not following God and if he was not God, then the entire premise is defective.
Everything in the world is in the ongoing process of evolution, down to the smallest grain of sand. Everything—that is to say EXCEPT religion, which not only rejects evolution but actively seeks to inhibit it. But evolution can and will not be restricted. Eventually, any religion which seeks to incarcerate evolution will loose this struggle. In the interim, hopefully, not too many people will suffer or die trying to keep evolution imprisoned. Judging from the past however, this may be a high-hope
Respectfully submitted~
Hold on there Trollstein. I
Hold on there Trollstein. I think you need to be cautious regarding what Judaism invented and what it absorbed from its cultural surroundings. How do you define an angel and a demon exactly? Some of Judaism came from the other religions practiced in the area. And some of the stories came from Mesopotamian sources (like the flood story). And part of me wants to say that the concepts of angels and demons may have started with some other religions of the time but I may be getting the times mixed up.
But I will tell you something that is completely anti-evolutionary: society. If not, then how come we let people born missing limbs and kids with down syndrome live? Now the Spartans were evolutionary. If you couldn't hold your own in the phalanx, you were dead. Religion is evolutionary in the sense of variation over time. I mean, look at all the different denominations of the worlds religions. We collect them together under umbrella modifiers for ease of discussion and because there is some core material they all share.
I agree with one thing though: that is their tradition of learning. If you're a jewish kid you start reading extracirricular stuff at an early age. And you're trained to be at least bilingual depending on where you grew up, whether or not your family moved between countries, etc.
Jay: I am very cautious.
Jay:
I am very cautious. However, this forum is not intended to be a submission to a scientific journal. It’s a discussion, at times scholarly and at times less then so. I like to rate my information towards the top of the accuracy spectrum. At least, few people challenge me on-point.
The context in which I was earlier speaking was “invented” within the framework of monotheism. Few things in life are 100% authentically original. Monotheism means ONE and ONLY ONE God. The local tribes had grown accustomed to numerous Gods. They had no need for Angels or Devils. Such became necessary in order to retain the one God concept while providing for supernatural powers--that naturally were being blamed for the abject failure of the Hebrews to thrive (as they feel God had promised them).
You wrote:
“. . . . how come we let people born missing limbs and kids with down syndrome live?”
Sir, that is not only off the point (by hemispheres) but is a patently ridiculous analogy. Evolution is first and foremost, change. What you are referring to is whether a society is evolutionary (or lacks that quality) through its conscious actions. What I am speaking of is natures mandate that everything evolve, with or without anyone’s permission. You probably do not realize this but you have reinforced my point. Since society is so often driven by religion, and since religion (as I stated) is typically anti-evolutionary, so too is society often anti-evolutionary. Yes, over time religions can and have changed. But they generally come kicking-and-screaming to the table or reality. For hundreds of years it was heresy (punishable by summary death) to suggest that the world was not flat, or that Earth was not the center of the universe--with the Sun revolving around us. Equally, for a very long time it was contrary to Jewish law to cut the human body, thus there was no surgery. These rules fell when they were viewed as too absurd to keep a strait-face while supporting. Such examples do NOT render established religions as evolutionary. It simply indicates that their anti-evolutionary instincts do have limits.
Respectfully submitted~
While the bible is a
While the bible is a historical document filled with confusing traditions of the time, it's also a God-breathed love letter intended for His grateful followers with a proper and humble heart-condition. I think the problem here is that you're reading someone else's mail.
veg-friendly theology
According to the Bible, God intended the entire human race to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Paradise is vegetarian. Rashi (Rabbi Solomon von Isaac, 1030-1105), the famous Jewish Bible commentator, taught that "God did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its flesh. Only every green herb shall they all eat together." Ibn Ezra and other Jewish biblical commentators agree.
According to the Talmud, "Adam and many generations that followed him were strict flesh-abstainers; flesh-foods were rejected as repulsive for human consumption." Although man was made in God's image and given dominion over all creation (Genesis 1:26-28), these verses do not justify humans killing animals and devouring them, because God immediately proclaims He created the plants for human consumption. (Genesis 1:29)
In a letter to Pope John Paul II, challenging him on the issue of animal experimentation, Dr. Michael Fox of the Humane Society argued that the word "dominion" is derived from the original Hebrew word "rahe" which refers to compassionate stewardship, instead of power and control. Parents have dominion over their children; they do not have a license to kill, torment or abuse them. The Talmud (Shabbat 119; Sanhedrin 7) interprets "dominion" to mean animals may be used for labor.
Man was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) and told to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29). "And God saw all that He had made and saw that it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) Complete and perfect harmony. Everything in the beginning was the way God wanted it. Vegetarianism was part of God's initial plan for the world.
"It appears that the first intention of the Maker was to have men live on a strictly vegetarian diet," writes Rabbi Simon Glazer, in his 1971 Guide to Judaism. "The very earliest periods of Jewish history are marked with humanitarian conduct towards the lower animal kingdom...It is clearly established that the ancient Hebrews knew, and perhaps were the first among men to know, that animals feel and suffer pain."
After the Flood, God revised His commandment against flesh-eating. Human beings, since eating of the forbidden fruit, seemed incapable of obedience on this issue. One Jewish writer comments, "Only after man had proven unfit for the high moral standard given at the beginning, was meat made a part of the humans' diet."
A Jewish legend says Moses was found to be righteous by God through his shepherding. While Moses was tending his sheep of Jethro in the Midian wilderness, a young kid ran away from the flock. Moses ran after it until he found the kid drinking by a pool of water. Moses approached the kid and said, "I did not know that you ran away because you were thirsty; now, you must be tired." So Moses placed the animal on his shoulders and carried him back to the flock. God said, "Because thou has shown mercy in leading the flock, thou will surely tend My flock, Israel."
In his essay, "The Dietary Prohibitions of the Hebrews," Jean Soler finds in the Bible at least two times when an attempt was made to try the Israelites out on a vegetarian diet. During the period of exodus from Egypt, the Hebrews lived entirely on manna. They had large flocks which they brought with them, but never touched.
The Israelites were told that manna "is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat." (Exodus 16:5) For forty years in the desert, the Israelites lived on manna (Nehemiah 9:15,21). The apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon (16:20) calls manna the food of the angels. Manna is described as a vegetable food, like "coriander seed" (Numbers 11:7), tasting like wafers and honey (Exodus 16:31).
On two separate occasions, however, the men rebelled against Moses because they wanted meat. The meat-hungry Hebrews lamented, "Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots." God ended this first "experiment in vegetarianism" through the miracle of the quails.
A second "experiment in vegetarianism" is suggested in the Book of Numbers, when the Hebrews lament once again, "O that we had meat to eat." (Numbers 11:4) God repeated the miracle of the quails, but this time with a vengeance: "And while the flesh was between their teeth, before it was even chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and He struck them down with a great plague." (Numbers 11:33)
The site where the deaths took place was named "The Graves of Lust." (Numbers 11:34; Deuteronomy 12:20) The quail meat was called "basar ta’avah," or "meat of lust." The Talmud (Chulin 84a) comments that: "The Torah teaches a lesson in moral conduct, that man shall not eat meat unless he has a special craving for it, and shall eat it only occasionally and sparingly." Here, according to Soler, as in the story of the Flood, "meat is given a negative connotation. It is a concession God makes to man’s imperfection."
In their book, The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, Dennis Prager and Rabbi Telushkin explain: "Keeping kosher is Judaism's compromise with its ideal vegetarianism. Ideally, according to Judaism, man would confine his eating to fruits and vegetables and not kill animals for food."
In his excellent A Guide to the Misled, Rabbi Shmuel Golding explains the orthodox Jewish position concerning animal sacrifices: "When G-d gave our ancestors permission to make sacrifices to Him, it was a concession, just as when He allowed us to have a king (I Samuel 8), but He gave us a whole set of rules and regulations concerning sacrifice that, when followed, would be superior to and distinct from the sacrificial system of the heathens."
Some biblical passages denounce animal sacrifice (Isaiah 1:11,15; Amos 5:21-25). Other passages state that animal sacrifices, not necessarily incurring God's wrath, are unnecessary (I Kings 15:22; Jeremiah 7:21-22; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 8:13; Micah 6:6-8; Psalm 50:1-14; Psalm 40:6; Proverbs 21:3; Ecclesiastes 5:1).
Sometimes Christians cite Isaiah 1:11, where God says, "I am full of the burnt offerings..." They say the word "full" implies God accepted the sacrifices. However, in Isaiah 43:23-24, God says: "You have not honored Me with your sacrifices...rather you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities." This suggests, as Moses Maimonides taught and Rabbi Shmuel Golding confirms above, that "the sacrifices were a concession to barbarism."
Jesus taught his disciples to pray for the coming of God's kingdom (Matthew 6:9-10), the kingdom of peace, in which the entire world is restored to a vegetarian paradise (Genesis 1:29; Isaiah 11:6-9). Recalling Psalm 37:11, he blessed the meek, saying they would inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5) The kingdom of God belongs to the gentle and kind (Matthew 5:7-9) Christians are to "Be merciful, just as your Father is also merciful." (Luke 6:36) Those who take up the sword must perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)
Jesus repeatedly spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28). Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (which Paul, and not Jesus, regarded as "so much garbage"), but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)
Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals.
When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)
On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)
Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock.
"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?
"And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'
"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)
Jesus insisted upon the moral standards given by God in the beginning (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and this did not go unnoticed by early church fathers such as St. Jerome.
From history, too, we learn that the earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as pacifists. For example, Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and points to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding.
Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity have been vegetarian. A partial list includes: St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Benedict, Aegidius, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Columba, St. Filipo Neri, John Wray, Thomas Tryon, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore.
Reverend Marc Wessels of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) writes:
"The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.
"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."
According to contemporary Benedictine monk, Brother David Steindl-Rast:
"...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging---to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets, to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."
In a sermon preached in York Minster, September 28, 1986, John Austin Baker, the Bishop of Salisbury, England, attacked the overcrowded confinement methods of raising and killing animals for food ("factory farming"), choosing as his example, the treatment of chickens:
"Is there any credit balance for the battery hen, denied almost all natural functioning, all normal environment, lapsing steadily into deformity and disease, for the whole of her existence?" he asked. "It is in the battery shed and the broiler house, not in the wild, that we find the true parallel to Auschwitz. Auschwitz is a purely human invention."
Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church says:
"The Bible-believing Christian, should, of all people, be on the frontline in the struggle for animal welfare and rights. We who are Christians should be treating the animal creation now as it will be treated then, at Christ's second coming. It will not now be perfect, but it must be substantial, otherwise we have missed our calling, and we grieve the One we call 'Lord,' who was born in a stable surrounded by animals simply because He chose it that way."
Rose Evans, editor and publisher of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious Left, says there are more Christian vegetarians than Jewish vegetarians. Yet some people still react to the idea of Christian vegetarianism as though it were an oxymoron.
"Every year," says Reverend Andrew Linzey, author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so...The time is long overdue to take the issue of animal rights to the churches...
"I derive hope from the Gospel preaching that the same God who draws us to such affinity and intimacy with suffering creatures declared that reality on a Cross in Calvary. Unless all Christian preaching has been utterly mistaken, the God who becomes incarnate and crucified is the one who has taken the side of the oppressed and the suffering of the world--however the churches may actually behave."
Now it would be great if a
Now it would be great if a Muslim had the courage to do the same thing with the Koran (but Islam does not allow the same latitude of freedom of speech as does, thankfully, Judaism, unfortunately and the Muslim author would have to spend the rest of their life in hiding probably), which is based on and influenced by the Jewish Bible ("Old Testament"). The Koran is another book that gives me the willies when I read in it, just as the OT does too (and much of the "New Testament" too, outside of the teachings of Jesus himself). These fire-breathing, angry, vengeful gods they both portray are hard to take, and it is even harder to take that so many modern-day people actually claim to believe in them and worship them! No wonder this world is in such a mess!
I like the comment about how the god of the Bible is always trying to convince people that "he" is a god of compassion and mercy while constantly threatening people with hell and destruction for the silliest of reasons. The god of the Koran has even the OT god beat with the constant proclaiming of how merciful, kind, compassionate and forgiving he is at the end to the huge number of surahs (verses) about what horrendous torments, tortures and eternal punishments this god can't wait to inflict on "unbelievers" and others. He (and he's definitely a HE) delights in telling the reader how he condemns some people to hell even before they're born, just because he can! It gets to be quite comical at times.
What a great day it will be for the world - for peace, freedom, democracy, human rights of all kinds (especially women's and gays'), tolerance and the reducing of the overpopulation of this tiny planet - when all these "Holy" books and the fear-based, ignorant, bigoted and intolerant religions they inspire have all gone extinct. (It is extimated that there are between 10,000 and 11,000 religions, sects and cults in the world and they almost all claim to be the "only true one" which gives them some mighty scarey "authority" to force their beliefs on others.)
I wonder if this book answers a question I've had for a while - if monotheism is such a big deal and the god of the Jewish Bible (and by adoption, the Christians too, in general) and the god of the Koran make a point of their being the only "real" gods, why do they so often refer to themselves as "we", not "I"? Just curious.
the PETA version
This article makes a passing reference to the "PETA version" of animal sacrifice and "PETA-friendly sacrifice."
I would like to see organized religion take up the struggle for animal rights. Religion has been wrong before. It has often been said that on issues such as women's rights and human slavery, religion has impeded social and moral progress. It was a Spanish Catholic priest, Bartolome de las Casas, who first proposed enslaving black Africans in place of the Native Americans who were dying off in great numbers.
The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states here in the U.S. actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.
Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right." The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."
New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Some of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.
The Quakers were one of the earliest religious denominations to condemn human slavery. "Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word of God," says contemporary Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik. "Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold slaves.
"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-Biblical sources to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle Paul. Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his efforts to free the slaves. 'You shall not surrender to his master a slave who has taken refuge with you.' (Deuteronomy 23:15) What a pittance of material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of God."
In 1852, Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867: "the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast...the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently, he has no soul to be saved."
The status of animals in contemporary human society is not unlike that of human slaves in centuries past. Quoting Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28 or any other biblical passages in favor of liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the same kind of response animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.
Some of the worst crimes in history were also committed in the name of religion. There's a great song along these lines from the early 1990s by Rage Against the Machine, entitled "Killing in the Name Of".
Someone once pointed out that while Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian, he imprisoned Christian clergy who opposed the Nazi regime, and even Christian churches were subject to the terror of the Nazis. Thinking along these lines, I realize that while I would like to see organized religion support animal liberation (e.g., as was the case with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the American civil rights movement) rather than simply remain an obstacle to social and moral progress (e.g., 19th century southern churches in the U.S. upheld human slavery on biblical grounds), this support must come freely and voluntarily (e.g., "The Liberation of All Life" resolution issued by the World Council of Churches in 1988).
Religious institutions can't be coerced into rewriting their holy books or teaching a convoluted doctrine to suit the whims or the secular political ideology of a particular demagogue. American liberals argue that principle of the separation of church and state (upon which the United States was founded) gives us freedom FROM religious tyranny and theocracy. Conservatives argue (the other side of the coin!) that one of the reasons America's founding fathers established the separation of church and state was to prevent government intrusion into religious affairs.
I agree with Reverend Marc Wessels, Executive Director of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA), who said on Earth Day 1990:
"It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country (the United States) without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women's suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."
Vasumurti: You get the prize
Vasumurti:
You get the prize for most prolific blogger, soundly snatching that title from yours Troll-y.
Finally on this:
It is quite unclear from the historical record if Jesus himself was a vegetarian. However, his ministry was an outcropping (or branch) of the 'Essene' monastery, which undoubtedly was. John the Baptizer was directly recruited from the Essenes and the notion of his eating locusts is mistaken--as the Greek words for 'locusts' and 'wheat cakes' is confusingly similar. This is all part of the very long story which I earlier refrained from detailing. But it is important to understand that the role of "Messiah" as prophesized in Old Testament is different then the Gospel version. Under Jewish tradition, the messiah was to be another Moses type, who would neither write (or modify) religious law but rather enforce it, with the staff [read: power] of God as his 'side-arm'. (How else could a pishicah nation such as as Judea hope to overcome the might of the Roman empire?) Thus, Jesus' proclaimed role was (foremost) as a God-anointed king, not a high-priest. He therefore may have given himself leave to sneak a fish dinner, outside the (more religious and less political) eyes of the Essene priesthood. As I said, this historical point remains unclear but in my opinion, Jesus was probably not a strict vegetarian.
Respectfully submitted~
Absolute leader of the Troll Kingdom (for life)
I love a good fairy tail.
I love a good fairy tail.
PETA
"And God saw all that He had made and saw that it was very good." (Genesis 1:31). And one of those very good things is a beautiful medium-rare porterhouse steak. Mmmmm. BTW, I'm proud to be a member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals).
ALL religion is based on myths and superstition.
All the nice pontificating here about Jesus and the old testament god are mute points. The author makes the point that he does not believe in the god part but …” that I love the idea of these ritualized family gatherings. It's just meaningful to me.”
Fine, I find family gatherings wonderful also, but continuing to have religion as the basis of these gatherings is a high cost for society to pay. This country is now paying dearly because the followers of religion are so easily led like sheep in the wrong direction. Shrub and company taped into this vein to promote their agenda. It is not necessary to have meaningful family gatherings with religion at its core.
There is no historical evidence for Jesus . Period. Lao-Tzu the supposed 5th century BC contemporary to Confusious cannot be physically confirmed but may have been a collection of folk stories from dissaffected peasants in reaction to Confusious. Yahweh or Allah were the retelling of stories from Babylon and Summaria. Krishna was an ancient fiction that gained reality only through the lens of time. Buddah, though a real person, Sakiamuni Gauhtama, never exulted himself and never told the stories that became the foundation of the religion. These are all hero stories to reassure the oppressed that some sort of saviour will appear to right the wrongs done to them and send their oppressors packing. Maybe the only sensible religious figure was the native Americans belief in the Great Spirit that moves all things without giving that Great Spirit a characterization.
So until this country gets released from the shackles for religious dogma, it will continue its downward conservative spiral. NO progress was EVER made under religious auspices.
Religion's like Santa Claus; it was nice while it lasted but it's time to grow up.
Shrub The War
Shrub The War Criminal:
There is some historical evidence to confirm that a Jewish candidate for “Messiah-ship” had lived in the Qumran area during the era we now refer to as year “0”. The very sparse record simply does not agree (in many places) with the Gospel account.
In the worlds of the Rev. Billy Graham, “ . . . if we remove the resurrection from the equation, there would be nothing left of Christianity.” Indeed, that point may turn out to be a profound truism, but not necessarily in the sense which Mr. Graham intended it.
During that era, three major religious/social sects existed in Judea: Sadducees (majority), Pharisees and the minority was the Essenes. These groups, while all Jewish, did not necessarily agree on all major points. Each had their own interpretation of Old Testament law and prophecy and the Essenes were quite fixated on the points made above by vasumurti. They were strict pacifists and vegetarians. But even this group was divided into two sub-sets: The priests (and monks) who were also celibate were one population and the general population of normal families--who associated themselves with this teaching were another core-community. Jesus, who’s true name was likely Joshua was one of the very rare people who was biblically qualified to claim the messiah-ship. See: Matthew-1:. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201
The Essenes had maintained their own prophecy about a messiah who would be murdered for his beliefs and resurrect exactly, precisely, three days thereafter. Where the two stories separate (never to reconcile) is that in the Essene prophecy, this Messiah was going to return and stay returned, not simply wave hello and disappear for some future re-return.
Jesus’ brother (James) was the leader of the Essene monastery. Originally, it was supposed to be John the Baptiser, until he had his head removed by King Herod. (Eventually, James also had his head removed). When John was killed, this came as a great blow to Jesus, as John was to be his high-priest. At that point, Jesus began to take on a more comprehensive role of both Hebrew King and High priest, perhaps, wishing to protect his younger brother James. John was exactly qualified to be the high priest because he came from a bloodline of high-priests. James was only qualified through his mother’s (Mary’s) family, who at the time in Jewish tradition, really did not count. Maternal lineage was not considered official. But it was the best they could do--under the circumstances. There were extremely few men living who were of the priestly lineage because Herod had had as many of them killed (in pre-emptive anticipation) as he could. Which also helps explain two other issues: 1. Why John lived in the wilderness, even apart from the central Essene monastery. He had a price on his head since birth. 2. Many of these Essenes (including John) had been pledged by their parents from the womb. This helps explain the “virgin birth” myth. It was a grand embellishment of what likely really occurred. Namely, Joseph and Mary had offered their first-born to the Essene priesthood while she was pregnant. At that time, everyone involved was well aware that the child (should it be a boy) was qualified to assume the role of biblical “messiah”. Additionally, there was an astrological component, namely the “Star of Bethlehem” which was probably a very bright Venus, that appears stunningly bright only one pre-dawn morning--each 480 year cycle.
Here is another interesting web link on the general subject matter:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
Respectfully submitted~
Absolute leader of the Troll Kingdom (for life)
Your "EVIDENCE" Troll,....
...is biblical...there is not ONE piece of anthropological or archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus. There were hundreds of people named Jesus during this time, and many who claimed to be prophets or messiahs, just as there have been since that time.
And there is DEFINITELY not any of that type of evidence for the miracle producing Jesus. Doncha think that if there was someone who actually made people come back from the dead, changed water into wine, made fishes and bread out of nothing, carried a cross no human could carry while being beaten, came back from the dead, etc., that there would have been SOME anthropological, archaeological, traditional historical evidence for His existence? The same kind of evidence that we require for ALL historical characters should apply.
The Babble is NOT a history lesson. It is the most genocidal story book ever written. The last thing it should ever be called is the oxymoronic "Good Book."
The early Christians were Gnostics. The Early Historians of that time do Not Mention any Jesus or Apostles or any miracles. The Name Esus/Hesus/Jesus turns up in the 10th-11th century in Northern Europe.
By the way, where would you place the Babble in the library, under fiction or nonfiction?
My point again is that you can't discuss the Babble's merit toward everyday living as a basis of truth...Telling a story personifying the characters does not mean the characters really exist.
The Bible/NT/Quran are full of Personified stories and Metaphores. People have been taken for a ride and have been to lazy to question, research and ponder what they believe. Such need for faith is a survival brain mechanism from our past (Read "The God Part of the Brain" by Mathew Alper)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there never was a dead Jew who died for your sins, turned into a god after 3 days. It just never happened.
Mankind has been taken for a ride by the wicked for 1700 years. What kind of delusional future do you give you children by imposing this nonsense of bondage and slavery?
Even Pope Leo X is on record: "This Myth of Christ has served us well." Note he doesn't use the name Jesus.
Christianity is a glorified horror story that never took place. Behind its rituals it is cannibalism in disguise. Lets be practical: What sort of human sits in front of a tortured dead body on a stick and calls that god? You got to have mediocre brains.
When you are Faith Based it thwarts your thinking.
Shrub The War
Shrub The War Criminal:
First off, you are mainly arguing points which I have never made and do not support.
The Gnostic scriptures DO refer to a “savior” person who, like the leader of the Essenes [referenced in "the Dead Sea Scrolls"] is named only by his title. And for very good reason. If you were to read about the American Communist movement of the 1950s and 60s, the authors not only use pen names themselves but generally use first names (which are nicknames) for all the other commies they reference. Same basic reason. To protect the first persons.
I specifically refer to the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the “secret Gospel”. But there are others.
“The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasonry, and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus” by Knight and Lomas contains an extensive historical chronicle (re-cap) from the perspective of non-Christians. http://www.amazon.com/Hiram-Key-Pharaohs-Freemasonry-Discovery/dp/1931412758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240781368&sr=8-1
Knight and Lomas’ other book, “The Book of Hyram” also covers this topic and draws correlations from the ancient Egyptian kingship rights.
You wrote:
“And there is DEFINITELY not any of that type of evidence for the miracle producing Jesus . . . “
And where do you find me asserting that there is ???
You either did not read my posts carefully or else, read what you wanted to argue with, not what I said.
My position: There WAS a Jesus who was probably named Joshua.
He was biblically qualified to claim Messiah-ship--due to his direct descendantcy from King David.
He was far more Jewish then Christian (by today’s definitions).
He did not produce supernatural miracles nor was he the son of God.
He did NOT resurrect after 3 days and that is basically when the Essenes gave up on his authenticity. But the less schooled, less religious and especially the pagans of the region did not give up and Paul Hollywooded the entire story to sell to the locals. It was such a great re-write that it caught on and became a world-wide major religion.
But part of the modern religion still stems from the ancient Essene (‘Dead Sea’) sect, at least in theory.
When people see the grace in Christianity, perhaps what they are seeing is the earlier messianic religion. Jesus DID NOT invent his own religion. He merely administered it. Paul bastardized it and so it is thus twice removed from Jesus’ own personal design.
People take to it so easily because it is so giving (promising life everlasting) while requiring so little actual effort (Jesus did all the hard work for us). Like a flying car that required no fuel. What could be bad?
Please stop insulting me and especially so for zero reason:
You:
“The Babble is NOT a history lesson . . .”
My babble is NOT babble and certainly IS a history lesson. Go argue with someone who actually disagrees with you. You have made the Troll very annoyed.
This subject is WAY to
This subject is WAY to voluminous to address with any semblance of justice in this forum. At best, I can only provide cliff-notes on small segments of the complete picture.
It is similar to a jigsaw puzzle in that the more pieces which are correctly pieced together, the clearer the entire scene becomes. Conversely, the more wrong pieces are stuck makeshift into the wrong places, the less likely that the full picture will ever be discernable.
Also, the context of time and place that we now live in must be significantly wiped down to permit the more accurate context to manifest.
I submit that the modern accepted Gospels are inaccurate with regard to the supernatural events being purported. I further submit that many of the alleged historical facts have been embellished or flat-out manufactured.
However, that does NOT mean that the entire story is fabricated or that all the facts are bogus, as you seem to be submitting. The underlying religious practices of non-violence, non-materialism and even vegetarianism (from the Dead Sea documents) are very ancient, predating the Roman Empire and perhaps as old as Moses or slightly before then.
Whereas Moses’ role was to deliver the Jews out of bondage, the long prophesized messiah’s role was to remove the bondage from the Hebrew nation. Many claimed this title, both before Jesus and after. To date, none have been accepted by the Jewish community as the true biblical messiah. Oddly, the person who may have come closest to universal acceptance was Cyrus, king of Persia (today Iran). When his armies overran Babylon and the captive Jews were freed, this non-Semitic was widely referred to as Messiah.
Fast-forward 540 years. The Hebrews are enduring horrible subjugation and occupation by the Romans. The times required that the people retain their hopes that a super-natural (God-king) would “break the yoke of bondage”.
The Gnostic gospels were not authored 2-400 years after the events that were said to have occurred. To the contrary, parts of these scripts are narrations of questions and answers of the disciples and the “savior”. These are therefore purported quotations from Jesus’ mouth, although the passages are not labeled with his name, for reasons already mentioned. They may not be proof positive that he existed, but certainly they are more then nothing. They constitute an historical record. The Catholic church disowned (and banned) these writings for obvious reasons. They undoubtedly predated the Roman Gospels and this is noticeable because bits and pieces within the Roman Gospels actually reference people from the (earlier) Gnostic texts and even, in a few spots, clips from the Gnostic scripts.
Please understand one important thing.
If you did not read (and retain) BOTH the Roman and the Gnostic text materials, you would not notice the parts of one embedded within the other. Apparently few people have done this exercise.
Have a nice evening
Respectfully submitted~
Just SOME of the Babble in the Bible...
The Church tells us that the books of the Old and New Testament are divine revelation, and without this revelation we could not have true ideas of God.
The Bible says (Jeremiah xx, 7) that God is a deceiver. "O Lord (says Jeremiah) thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed."
Jeremiah not only upbraids God with deceiving him, but, in iv, 10, he upbraids God with deceiving the people of Jerusalem. "Ah! Lord God (says he), surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ye shall have peace, whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul."
In xv, 18, the Bible becomes more impudent, and calls God in plain language, a liar. "Wilt thou (says Jeremiah to God) be altogether unto me as a liar and as waters that fail?"
Ezekiel xiv, 9, makes God to say - "If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet." All this is downright blasphemy.
The prophet Micaiah, as he is called, II Chron. xviii, 18-21, tells another blasphemous story of God. "I saw," says he, "the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the hosts of Heaven standing on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, who shall entice Ahab, King of Israel, to go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? And one spoke after this manner, and another after that manner.
"Then there came out a spirit [Micaiah does not tell us where he came from] and stood before the Lord [what an impudent fellow this spirit was] and said, I will entice him. And the Lord said unto him, wherewith? And he said, I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail; go out, and do even so."
When we read in the news of a gang of thieves plotting to rob and murder a man, we always feel shocked at the wickedness of such people; but what must we think of a book that describes the Almighty acting in the same manner, and laying plans in heaven to entrap and ruin mankind?
Nice God!
I will leave you with these quotes:
"Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-- Thomas Paine.
~~~~
"By this time the whole world should know that the REAL Bible has not yet been written, but is being written, and that it will never be finished until the race begins its downward march, or ceases to exist.
"The REAL Bible is not the work of inspired men, nor prophets nor apostles, nor evangelists, nor of Christs. Every man who finds a fact adds, as it were, a word to this great book. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles or signs. It makes no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man in the name of demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and understood. It does not pretend to be holy or sacred; it simply claims to be true. It challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader to verify every line for himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed. This book appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists testifies to its perfection. The earth, with its heart of fire and crowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with its every wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower, confirms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite abysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth."
-- Robert G. Ingersoll.
```````````
Peace
God thus speaks to everyone.
God thus speaks to everyone. Few are either willing or able to pay attention.
Modern religion is a cocktail, including some divinely inspired ideas, shaken (not stirred) together with gross tribalism, politics and wishful thinking.
~Trollstein, King of all Trolls.
When "god" actually speaks to me...
...I will listen. Until then, anyone that hears imaginary friends talking to them is usually seeking professional help.
I am a realist and a rationalist. When there is proof of something then and only then will I accept it. I only take medicine that has some semblance of testing to work. I only drive over a bridge made by engineers. I would never believe anything from one of gods self made prophets.
To spend ones life "listening" to ghosts is insane to say the least. And why does this god play games? If he is so powerful, why does he not come down and settle this once and for all and level with us? Oh, I know, the usual..."He works is mysterious ways."
By the way I am paying attention and listening and I am hearing nothing. Have not heard a thing for more years than I would like to admit. Does that mean He does not like me? Really God? Why is it you only talk to the faithful? Wouldn't it be to your advantage to speak to the non faithful?
Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours. Does that mean that the people that listen to a god are not willing ir able to pay attention to reality?
While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in ANY other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in Amerikkkan society. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about. It is telling that this aura of nobility extends only to those faiths that still have many subscribers. Anyone caught worshipping Poseidon, even at sea, would be thought insane.
If you think you have heard
If you think you have heard nothing . . . Then that is probably true. But because you have heard nothing does not mean that God has not been speaking the whole while. And since you asked (even rhetorically) here is the proposed solution to your conundrum: The future has not been written but it is sometimes known. Those who know the future can often effect it. Which is probably why Nostradamus foretold in riddles. He concluded that there is a very fine line between predicting and modifying the future. Now, please pay close attention: Such a person predicts future events that they wish to avoid. This is a very great distinction from someone who (oppositely) predicts futures which they desire to occur.
God provides the glimpse into the probable future, well aware that the most attentive will in turn be seen as the most insane. Because--they will simultaneously cry wolf while scaring the wolf away.
To the most truthful, the most truth is revealed.
This has nothing to do with religious affiliation.
But someone who treats others in a way that they would not appreciate being treated is inherently lacking in truthfulness.
People mistakenly believe that our political leaders monopolize control of our collective destiny. But these people are lieutenants or at best, captains.
Nature has set forth a balance system whereby our future is protected by a unknowable number of people--who through their discipline, attentiveness and truthful natures, gently direct the course of events yet to occur.
Its an incredibly beautiful and poetic process but once and a while, for reasons which even the head Troll can’t disassemble, the “Empire strikes back”.
Such is when the seers predictions of negative events to come, actually occur. Then they are not held as insane. Then they are held as “prophets”.
Hey, I have an idea. Let's
-
tagged as:
- result
Hey, I have an idea. Let's let Jews be Jews, Christians be Christians, athiests be athiests, PETA members be PETA members, and everyone can mind their own friggin' business. Whether you think there is a God, or you don't, we don't need the negative naysayers attempting to convince all humankind that your beliefs and persuasions with regard to religion are correct; specifically, since you don't HAVE one. To each his own.
Regards.
Everyone is (in the USA)
Everyone is (in the USA) free to believe anything they please.
Everyone is also free to comment on their own beliefs and those of others.
Hair replacement surgury michigan
Hi. Well done is better than well said.
I am from Papua and now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Grenades recounts the national childhood cancer foundation and st."
With love :D, Hackett.
ahj
well said.
I am from Papua and now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Grenades recounts the national childhood cancer foundation and st."
With love :D, Hackett.
http://www.bestshopstyle.co.uk
