Comment: Not at all

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: So, when you said... (see in situ)

Not at all

I didn't "make it up". True, I should have chosen a different word. "convinced" was not the right term - but after all it has been a couple decades since I thought about that passage. I suppose "lead" or "caused" would have been a better choice. (I love how Fundies claim they have the true 'interpretation' of ancient writings but change words in the Bible every 20 years - only to later become experts in etymology whenever someone challenges the Bible).

I wasn't pointing to Krishna as an argument of existence. I was pointing out that you cannot base law on one particular deity when multiple deities are believed in with equal zeal and honesty and faith. The same people that fear Sharia Law and are fine with killing Muslims, wish to do the same in the US, just with a different deity.

If your god exists and is angry with me because I don't acknowledge them, despite the fact that they have provided no evidence for their existence and despite the idea of that is the behavior of an eight-year old boy, then I am morally superior to them and have nothing to fear. If you were actually bound by Yahweh's laws, you would be going around burning down shrimp boats and stoning gay people and cutting off limbs of criminals - you obviously aren't.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain