If I Was God...#3

 If I was God, I would not tempt my children to do evil.  The biblical book of Genesis talks about a god or gods setting up a tempting tree called The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and instructing his/their newly-made human couple to not eat from it, else they'd face execution.

Of course, the story is nonsense in so many ways, and I've already laid that out in depth in the following posts:

A Liar and Murderer From the Beginning

The Tree Story is Impossible

The Tree Story is Impossible: Part 2

Knowledge of Good and Evil: Good or Evil?

But let's pretend the story is real.  Let's pretend an advanced being created all living things on this planet and set up that tempting tree.  Why did he set up a tree with that name?  Why would he create a tree whose fruit would help you know right from wrong and then threaten to kill you if you ate from it?

But then let's go further and ask why any god would tempt any human or other animal to do something that he would exact punishment for if said human or animal gave into temptation.  That is the big question here. 

Many years ago, when my firstborn was an infant, I read a sample few pages online of a book entitled To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl.  I was quickly horrified by the contents.  In the years since I've read other excerpts posted all over the Internet by others who have read the entire book and were also appalled.  The book is basically a child abuse manual, but it uses the bible to justify the abuse.  It's pretty crazy that some of us read the bible and came away with a stronger-than-ever desire to treat our children with gentleness and respect and to strive to guide our children the way Jesus would do so, and yet other people apparently have read the bible and think they need to act as fierce dictators, tyrannically and cruelly oppressing their children.

Since I've read the Genesis story just as it is, though, as well as all the other horrible stories like God mind-fucking the Egyptian pharaoh, I understand.  I see how these people get these ideas and justify them.  Of course, I do believe that people who naturally want to teach lovingly and lead by example, like Jesus, are prone to grab ahold of those teachings for confirmation, whereas people who are naturally tyrannical are drawn to the twisted parts of the bible in order to confirm their desired methods.

In the aforementioned book, the authors spoke of deliberately enticing infants with pretty objects and then hitting them after the infant grabbed the items.  It also discusses horrors unrelated to temptations, like pushing a child in a pond to teach them not to play near it, making a child touch a hot surface to teach them they can be burned, and pulling a little four-month-old infant's hair when he or she bites during nursing when their teething gums hurt!

If I don't want my children doing something, I try to get them not to do it.  I sure as hell do not deliberately entice them to do something I truly do not want them to do!  What in the world?!  Who has ever heard of such an insane concept?!

When I tempt, I want the person to do something.  That is what tempting is all about.  If a parent is tempting a child in a case in which the end goal is to punish that child, the parent is a sick individual and not fit to parent.

If I was God, I would not tempt my creation to do what I deemed as evil and worthy of death.

This has been #3 in the "If I Was God..." series at TruthSearching.com.

Ridiculous Statements From Trump Supporters

The top thing I am sick of hearing about Donald Trump is that he "tells it like it is" or "tells the truth."  These are very common statements from his supporters.  Of course, what it really means is that he is not afraid to say what's on his hateful mind and that he speaks even lies like he believes them as truth.

There's something else I'm really fed up hearing from Trump supporters, though.  I keep hearing, "He can't be bought."  "Trump is the only one who can't be bought."

Wow!  Ok people, let's think about this.  First of all, in case you didn't realize, Donald Trump is a billionaire.  A billionaire.  With a 'b.' (If he really is.)  In his own words, he's so very rich.  Does he not keep reminding us that he's filthy rich?!  So when people say something like, "People can't buy off Trump," I can't help but think, "Are you stupid?"  Bribes appeal much more to those who don't have billions of dollars.  Trump doesn't need more money, so he probably couldn't care less.  However, he gets away with all the hateful shit he spews out of his mouth because he's rich and because there are plenty of hateful-minded people to loyally support him.

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders isn't being bought off by anyone.  He's only receiving small donations from individuals.  He can speak loudly against the wealthy and corrupt corporations who are pretty much buying our government because he's not being paid by them.  Not a penny!

Then there are people who share how much they admire Trump for being so successful.  Oh yes, well it does make it a lot easier when one's father leaves him with a large inheritance to invest.  Any of us can do that.  He hasn't done any better than any of the rest of us would have if we'd have inherited the same and invested it.  I like how this guy explains it.  He's got people with intelligence to run his companies for him.  That's a big help as well.

Once again, if we look at Bernie Sanders, we see that his level of success, in comparison, is worthy of admiration and appreciation.  He's far from being a billionaire, but he had immigrant parents and lived in poverty growing up, and he's become a U.S. senator and is running for president.  He's come a long a way.  To see him talk about that during the Democratic Town Hall was very moving for me.

Enough with the ridiculous statements about the hateful billionaire buffoon!

Terminating Life and Donating "Baby Parts"

Shortly after the huge scandal carried out by deceitful fraudsters David Daleiden and Sandra Merrit who obtained fake ids, recorded employees from Planned Parenthood, then deceptively edited the videos to make it appear that Planned Parenthood profited from selling fetal body parts, something dawned on me.  Of course, I initially was shocked and hoped that it wasn't true.  I watched some clips myself and then looked into the matter and found that it was only referring to the fees paid for storage, handling and shipping the human organs to the researchers. Everything was done legally. 

However, I have many very right-winged individuals on my Facebook list, and varying persons were posting hateful things toward Planned Parenthood and one of the women—medical services director Deborah Nucatola—in a video Daleiden produced.  This is exactly what the two fraudsters hoped would happen.  I suspected something was up very early on, though, because the prices discussed in the video I watched were quite low—$100 at the very most—for human body part sales.  That is what prompted me to look further into the matter.

The reality is that some of the women getting abortions in the second trimester (sometimes to save her own life or show mercy on her child; sometimes not) choose to donate the organs to science.  It's legal, and Planned Parenthood does not profit.  They only charge the storage, handling and shipping fee.

Even after these facts came to life, a lot of the extreme anti-abortion people still believe Planned Parenthood is in the wrong.  They keep saying, even now, that Planned Parenthood is murdering babies and selling baby parts. 

Then I experienced my stunning revelation.  In those people's eyes I must be a monster.  In 2005, I chose to terminate life support for my precious second-born infant son who was in a persistent vegetative state, quite nearly completely brain dead, as he could not even draw more than one breath on his own.  In addition, my husband and I were asked whether we wanted to donate his organs, if they were eligible.  We both agreed that we wanted to donate his organs.  It turned out that he was ineligible.  This is probably because the cause of his state was unknown, and an autopsy was required by law.  It may also have been due to the fact that he went so long without ample oxygen that his organs were not as good as someone who was injured in a car accident and more quickly was put on life support.  Regardless, we had wanted to donate his organs for a greater good.  In that case, his organs would have been donated to other people who needed organs for long-term life.  In the case of aborted fetal tissue, researchers have worked with those stem cells to try to find cures for diseases in order to enhance afflicted persons' quality of life.  They've also been used in the production of some vaccines.

If we'd have been able to donate Asher's organs, the hospital would have received fees for the work of the transplant team's harvesting the organs, storing them, and shipping them to where they were needed.  The people needing the organs would have paid the fees.  Would that have made Children's Mercy Hospital an evil entity who ends infants' lives and sells their "baby parts?"  Get real.

It's really true, though, that some of those same extremist people demonize those of us who have had to deal with tough issues surrounding life support of a loved one.  These are people who either don't have all the facts or ignore them, or these are people who simply love to stick to their "pro-life" law in its letter while ignoring the greater spirit of the law of life. They look over mercy, compassion, and life quality in order to keep the letter.  They'd rather see a fetus or an infant suffer out their hours or days or weeks or months in an extremely sick and/or disabled condition just to say they supported life (in the letter) or "left it to God" (a monster?) than to show mercy and compassion by cutting the child's misery short.  They do the same thing for elderly people or people of any age who are on life support but have no quality of life, who do not even know what's going on around them or who are suffering unimaginable pain that the strongest drugs no longer ease.  I saw such people speak their minds concerning the young woman Brittany Maynard, who suffered with a deadly brain tumor and chose to end her life with legally assisted-suicide drugs when the pain became too great.  This horrified me.  How was it Godly to condemn Brittany to more suffering with the same end result?  How is that following the law Jesus spoke of that was so important, the one of loving your neighbor and showing mercy and compassion?

Jesus pointed out that some people basically say, "Fuck mercy.  This violates the pro-life law."  But Jesus said they violate the weightier matters of the law, such as mercy, justice, and faithfulness (Matt. 23:23).  The spirit of the law is more important than the letter.  Those who are always stuck on some letter are not being guided by mercy and compassion inside themselves.  Their hearts aren't bleeding with empathy and crying out with compassion.

People who cling to a law in its letter often breed all sorts of ugliness.  They fail to recognize gray areas in life.  They lack the capacity to weigh moral and ethical decisions, which leads to their acting out in evil ways and believing they did what was good. 

And as for the women who chose to abort several weeks into the second trimester for other than saving one's own life or to prevent the baby from future suffering due to defects, it's none of our business.  I do not like what some women abort for that late in the game.  I would not abort that late unless it was for an extreme reason.  A lot of others would not do so, either.  I didn't write this to debate the "right" and "wrong" reasons women abort at that stage, but I did so because some people think that any reason is wrong and that it's absolutely wrong to donate the organs and other fetal tissue to science. 

Now these people want to defund Planned Parenthood, declaring they are guilty of that of which they have officially been declared innocent.  This is a total outrage, not only because PP is innocent of the charges of selling baby parts, but the Hyde Amendment was signed into federal law in 1976, which already prohibits the federal funds given to the nonprofit Planned Parenthood for being used for abortion.  There are strict exceptions to this; Medicaid will cover abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life or health of the mother.  In the vast majority of cases, if a person has Medicaid, he or she must pay out-of-pocket for an abortion just like everyone else.  They do try to help a woman get some financial assistance for an abortion, if your income is low, but if the person applies and qualifies, those funds come from private donations.  Only 3% of PP's services are abortion services, while most of the services consist of STD testing, cancer screenings, and contraceptives.  They also provide other services, like PAP smears for women, vasectomies for men, and sonograms for pregnant women.  So defunding Planned Parenthood would not affect the number of abortions women get.  The only thing it would do is make it difficult for women (and men) of low and moderate incomes to obtain the low-cost healthcare services that this nonprofit organization provides to millions of people each year. 

Please stop lying about Planned Parenthood, and stop condemning people for the serious decisions they make regarding life and death and for donating organs. 

America's Right Wing is Antichrist

I've pretty well always hated extreme right-wing ideas. I hated them as a Christian, and I hate them presently as an atheist. 

There were two articles I wrote several years ago, as a Christian, that I want to briefly mention.  One pointed out the error of a person being too extreme either to the right or to the left. The other discussed the fact that there are not always moral absolutes, as many self-proclaimed Christians like to insist.  I've grown and learned quite a bit in those six-plus years, so there would definitely be some improvements to those articles if I was to revise them.  Overall, though, I understood the dangers and evils of being an extremist and knew that those who claim that there are always moral absolutes do not follow a loving-heart-led moral code, but rather they stick to a rigid "letter of the law" mentality, therefore keeping the applicable written or oral law while breaking the higher law of mercy, justice, and faithfulness, just as the Jesus of the bible is purported to have said (Matt. 23:23-24).

In the United States we are gearing up for a presidential election, and as always, my husband and I have been watching the debates of both parties before the primary election.  I always find myself getting so angry and disgusted when watching the Republican debates.  I loathe the fact that they even name their party "Republican," for it totally takes away from my ability to proudly say that I am a republican—with a little 'r'—who supports the idea of a democratic republic as a form of government.  I enjoyed watching Ron Paul eight years ago, as he was the only person running on the Republican ticket who was worth voting for.  I was so happy to hear him that I went against my then-religious beliefs of voting and voted for him in the primary!  I didn't vote again after that, though my husband did vote for Obama in the general election.  I didn't love Obama at the time, but I will say that I was relieved that he did beat war-loving John McCain.

Unlike the Republican debates this go-around, the democratic debates are worth watching.  They tend to talk more about issues that matter a lot more, as they are able.  It seems they are not allowed to say much about climate change issues (the most important issue of all, in my strong opinion), because the questions they get do not include that topic.  But when they do manage to fit it in, it's pleasing to hear that some really want to do something about it, unlike the Republicans who will mock the fact we have a serious emergency and simply do not give a shit about doing anything about it.

We've been watching the debates over the last few months, and the Republicans only want to talk about how they want us to murder and destroy, to bulk up our military, to be the strongest warriors in the world, as if we are dominating dictators planning to force our will upon everyone else.  When they're not talking about that, they are literally bickering at each other like immature children.  It's extremely embarrassing, and I find myself wondering each time what citizens of other nations must be thinking if they watch it.

In contrast, there is no childish bickering in the democratic debates.  There may be some disagreements, since it is a debate, but they're respectful of each other and do not bicker back and forth, back and forth.  They debate the issues and point out their differences in opinion without disgraceful name-calling.

I thought the far right-wingers were evil-minded when I was a Christian, and nothing has changed.  It's despicable how they claim to be the "Christian" party, and yet they are nothing but anti-Christ.  They do not even know the Jesus of the bible, the most well-known believed-to-be Jewish "christ" or "messiah."  They certainly do not have his words written on their hearts; if they're programmed into their minds, it's only in a thoughtless memorization sort of way, not in any serious processing of what the words mean and accepting them as good and wise.

I disliked Marco Rubio from the very beginning.  In the very first debate we watched last year, he made it clear that he did not think abortion should even be allowed to save the life of a woman.  The act of imagining that as a reality for even a second gripped me with a feeling of fear and strong defense for my right to life.  Yet I'd be willing to bet he considers himself "pro-life."  Those people do not even know what pro-life means.  One thing is certain; he's very anti-abortion, even when abortion is the only way anyone is going to continue living.  I've known at least two women of whom I'm aware had their pregnancies terminated when their embryos were growing in one of their Fallopian tubes.  I've read numerous real-life stories of women who made the very difficult choice to terminate their second-trimester pregnancies, even those just a mere two weeks from viability, in order to not lose their own lives (and naturally also those of the fetuses).  The stories are very sad.  There are several reasons why a woman would need to abort to save her own life, including hemorrhage, pre-eclampsia that threatens a fatal stroke, or severe hyperemesis gravidarum for just a few examples.  I think most people are at least in support of abortion in life or death cases.  I once considered myself fairly anti-abortion, but I always held that a pro-life decision should be made if a woman's life was in danger—save her life by terminating the pregnancy. Ending one life to save another is better than knowingly letting two lives end.

Marco Rubio looked as if he was possessed by a demon, if such were really a thing, during President Obama's last State of the Union address.  I'd thought if there was really a wicked being called Satan, maybe he was sitting there, going by the name of Marco.  The only thing his eyes and facial features manifested was pure hate.  How a person could sit there with a hateful expression and evil-flashing eyes when Obama said all the good things he did is beyond my comprehension.

I won't even bother talking in depth about Rick Santorum, as I was disgusted that he even ran again; I hated listening to the man the last time he ran.  Why anyone would even consider desiring such a person to preside over our nation boggles my mind.  I'm glad we didn't have to watch him, nor Mike Huckabee, for very long this time.  I could go on and on about Santorum alone.

Ted Cruz isn't a lot better than Santorum.

Then there's the woman who doesn't hide her personality as a bitch, Carly Fiorina.  I'm not sure whether she ever smiles sincerely about anything good.  It's been beyond annoying to listen to her repeat endlessly that we need to "take back our country," whatever that means, while she bobbles her head constantly.

Ben Carson seems like he'd be a real likable individual, to me, just to be able to talk to and get along with, and I love his calm, gentle voice, but he's definitely not president material.  I dislike some of his policy ideas, for sure.  (Update:  I no longer care for Ben Carson much. He ruined his reputation by joining Trump's Cabinet.)

Jeb Bush actually has had a few worthy ideas, like pointing out to the rest of the foolish Republicans that it's asinine to think we can just deport eleven million Mexicans back to Mexico and proposing a fair way for those adults who came over to pay back coming here without going through the legal process.  I don't want to see Jeb as the president either, but if I had to vote for one of the running Republicans, he would be my choice over the others.

Rand Paul is a disappointment. I like his father, but Rand falls severely short.  It disgusted me to hear him discount climate change, and I've heard him talk about other things that caused me to shake his head.  He's better than most of them, in my opinion, but he's infected with a lot of the "conservative" ideals.  (The party is not conservative with going to war, not conservative of the environment, and not conservative with government spending, as war is at the top of government spending.)  I will at least say for Rand that he has seemed to adopt his father's foreign policy ideals, more or less, which earns him my respect as far as that is concerned.

Chris Christie I mostly dislike.  He actually said a few sensible things, but I don't even remember what they were.  However, I do remember one very idiotic thing he said.  He figured we should shoot down Russian aircraft if they fly in a U.S.-demanded "no-fly-zone" in Syria. Well, who are we to impose a no-fly zone in another nation?  Who appointed us as world king dictator?  I don't remember which one, two, or three candidates followed him up in that particular debate and slammed Christie on his stupidity, but I'm glad for it.  We certainly do not need anyone presiding over our nation who would exercise such poor judgment as that.

John Kasich, I thought at first, was ok.  I got to thinking that he was quite a bit different than the others.  He seemed to be independent in his thinking.  But then as more debates occurred, and he said more, I started to really dislike a lot of what he was saying.  Then there's the fact that he has habitually rambled on and on, even when he's been told his time was up.

Then there's Donald Trump.  Trump has really brought out in the open those who are haters in their hearts.  If they hated secretly before, they are not afraid to express that hate in the open now.  I shake my head sadly at the state of the "Bible Belt," which is, ironically, the most antichrist section of the nation.  I will soon write in detail with plenty of factual evidence to elaborate on this statement, in another post.  Donald Trump started out as ridiculous entertainment, but he quickly entered the realm of seriously dangerous behavior.  This billionaire who incites hatred has numerous very loyal followers, which eerily reminds me of Hitler's uprising and others like it.  I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a Muslim right now.  He wants to ban all Muslims—even U.S. citizens who are away visiting or serving in the military—from the U.S. until things are supposedly sorted out with Islam, and he wants every member of Islam to be identified and tracked.

What does it take to get these nutcases to understand that most Muslims are not violent terrorists, just as most Christians are not violent terrorists, despite the fact that some are?  Why do the Republicans only focus on "radical Islamic terrorists" but do not even so much as mention "radical Christian terrorists?"  Why was Dylan Roof's shooting up African Americans in their peaceful church service not discussed, nor Robert Dear's massacre of innocent individuals in a Planned Parenthood clinic?  A quick Google search will reveal that radical Christian terrorists have killed more people, and have carried out more attacks, in the U.S. since 9/11 than Islamic terrorists.   There have also been so many mass gun shootings, but the Republicans lie and will have you believe the government wants to ban all guns, when the truth is that we can simply make it more difficult for violent or mentally ill people to gain access to guns, which would reduce violence and deaths.  It seems it's not terrorism or deaths that these candidates and their followers are against, but rather people who are Muslim instead of Christian.  If all Muslims are automatically evil and dangerous because a small minority are violent terrorists, then all Christians must be automatically the same because of their violent terrorizing minority.  These people lack logic!  They also lack compassion and fair judgment.  Besides all this, most of the victims in the world who are injured, murdered, or otherwise victimized by Islamic terrorists are Muslims!  Chew on that.  Muslims also hate Islamic terrorists more than anyone else, which ought to make fine logical sense.  Christians don't want to be misrepresented by Christian terrorists, and atheists don't want a bad reputation when an atheist carries out an act of terrorism. 

If Jesus was alive and present in the world, he would not be impressed one bit by any of what is going on in the right-wing circus these clowns are running.  He would reject his name being used by these bearers of bad fruit.  He would say things like, "You don't even know me" (Matt. 7:23) and "You people give me lip service while dealing wickedly in your hearts and actions" (Matt. 15:8).

There is no talk of trying to care for the environmental disaster that is going to lead to more and more death and destruction to various species, including us, and ecosystems.  These people are not discussing how they can help people out of poverty and provide them a better education which leads to better parenting and reduced crime.  They're not talking about how they can put a stop to corporate bribes (since they're the ones taking the bribes) to government officials to protect evil corporate interests.  They're not considering how they can pass a law to make the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.  They're not deliberating on how they can ban cruel horrors like factory-farming.  They clearly do not give any care to encourage growth in clean technology.  They're not demanding the end of private prisons that encourage more arrests of people who don't need to be locked up so that these people can get richer.  They're not putting an end to the insane "war on drugs" and making moves to decriminalize cannabis and get drug-addicted people help instead of locking them up.  They are not demanding that pharmaceutical companies make their lifesaving drugs affordable to those who need them.  They're not fighting for parents to get a fair family leave package after the birth of a child.  They are not bothered that our healthcare system is embarrassing when compared to those of other developed nations, with citizens spending outrageous amounts of money for much worse results.  They certainly are not making any moves to be the number-one peacemaking country on the planet.

In other words, they don't care about the same things Jesus cared about—helping the poor, the care of the planet, the healing of the sick, generosity, grace, compassion, kind treatment of animals, and peacemaking, among others.

The better portion of America's right-wing, in other words, is anti-Christ.

A Year as an Atheist: The Fruit Thereof

Note: I had written most of this in August of this year, but then I became so busy that I had to put off finishing it until now, so I've technically been an atheist now for nearly a year and a half.

Last year, on July 19, I published a post on my old "Growing in Grace and Knowledge" blog where I came out publicly as an apostate from my Christian religion.  I reposted it here on this blog.  It's not written as chronologically well as it could have been, but I wrote it the way it came out.  I may edit it for its inclusion in my book that will detail my journey from childhood to my current state.

When I came out to say that I no longer believed the bible to be the word of god, I initially still believed in a god.  That lasted maybe two weeks before I realized that it didn't make much sense for a god to create all this and not care.  I realized I believed there really wasn't likely a god at all.  I had barely even looked into evolution before my apostasy.  It bore absolutely no weight on why I stopped believing the bible to be true. I soon started studying biological evolution thoroughly, and my beliefs were confirmed substantially more.  Based on what I know now, if there is a god that created everything here, he did a very shoddy job, and he also enjoys bloodbaths and other horrors in having set up the whole predator-prey/parasite-host/disease-host system. Just the way the vas deferens is hooked up in the human male and the way the laryngeal nerve is hooked up in the giraffe, when compared to animals all the way down to a fish, is enough for me to call bullshit on the whole idea of a creator.  I'd never known those things.

I want to lay out in this post how my first year as an atheist has gone.  What fruit has it borne?  Has it been bad fruit or good?  What is my stance a year after leaving religion behind?

Since the good fruit far outweighs any bad, I'll start with the bad and then move on to the good.

Being Shunned (Bad)

Source: Clip Art Panda

There were only two negative effects that came of my apostasy, and both have faded into near oblivion.  The first bad experience was the loss of some friends due to their cultic and unbiblical practice of shunning.  Not all of my friends did this. Some of them followed the biblical approach of no longer partaking in Christian fellowship with me but still conversing with me and carrying on friendships.  This spoke volumes of each of the individuals, depending upon which category into which they fell.

It was very traumatic to be treated in such a way.  I figured one of my best friends would likely react that way at first, due to her volatile personality, but would then get her act together, but so far that has not happened. Maybe some day it will.  My other best friend shocked me and hurt me more than any other.  She's the only one I've cried over multiple times in the past year.  I love her, and I am so disappointed in the way she cut me off; I think about her and her family often.  She said to me that she loved me and my family, but then she saw my post.  It is so hurtful that her love turned out not only to be conditional on my belief in the bible as the word of god, but that my family also lost her love and care.  How can love just be dropped in an instant like that, especially toward children that don't have anything to do with their mother's choice?  I count it as a bad thing.  I really thought we'd be lifelong friends.  Then there was a friend for whom I gradually lost more and more respect over the years, and after my apostasy all respect was lost.  He acted in a most shameful way, totally ignoring biblical teaching and common decency, which drove me to great anger.  I entered battle mode.  You pull that kind of shit, you're asking for it.  He even said he had no choice but to "hand [me] over to Satan."  In those people's minds, Satan is a horrible individual that will cause your life to be living hell.  So, in other words, he was wanting evil to befall me.  But indeed, looking at his history and how he believed in dealing with people he believed to be enemies, he is just a man of revenge, far from how Jesus would have acted.

If it wasn't so depressing, angering, and shameful on their part, it would be humorous that I, as an atheist for a year, am far more Christian (the meaning here being a follower of Jesus' good teachings) than those who shunned me.  Their hypocrisy in failing to act Jesus-like toward me would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.  Not only did they shut off their moral conscience—the wisdom voice inside that makes life easier for those who listen to it—but they clearly flunked out on the passages in the Christian testament that teach how to treat someone who has either strayed and sinned or become an unbeliever.

My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins (James 5:19-20, ESV)

This verse set was the one of two that kept reverberating through my mind as I was assaulted by those I once called friends.  Was I the only one among the bunch who had this verse written on my heart?   I was waiting for one of them to act the proper way, but none of them did.  That is how I tallied their love value for me.  I came away feeling very unloved.  I must not have meant very much to any of them.  There was another friend my two good aforementioned friends (and others) and I shared on a forums community of mine who walked away from the bible and all religion a few years ago (she disappeared at some point from the Internet, and she lives in another state), and to my knowledge I'm the only one who continued to talk to her.  I would give updates to the rest of the group.  She and I would share email conversations.  We stayed on friendly terms until she disappeared.  We had some conversation where I tried helping her sort through things, where I tried bringing her back to belief.  But when she said she simply could not (and she shared with me reasons why), I was compassionate about it and told her I understood and that I didn't fear for her salvation.  I believed that if she was truly confused and tried to do good in her life, then our Father God would have mercy on her and show her the truth at her resurrection.  She had told me that she hoped I was right.  I chose to remain on friendly terms with her and did so until I never heard from her again.

I lived it.  I brought all the love within me to that religion.  I saw love in the bible.  I clung to the loving verses therein.  I did it all the right way and couldn't imagine having done it any other way.  I could not have imagined treating that very sweet-spirited person like crap and shunning her.  When you've got true love in your heart, and you believe that you have a father god who is full of love, then you want nothing more than to share that with the other person and for him or her to not miss out on all the blessings.  If I'd have shunned her, what hope would there have been of her coming back and even wanting to come back, unless another loving person would have kept a relationship with her?

Source: Gospel Clip Art

The other main verses that my mind kept hearing were:

“If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:32-36, ESV, also see Matt. 5:46...).

See, I had all these good sayings "written on my heart" (file-saved into my mind), so my brain kept accessing them like an alarm was going off.  I knew what those persons were doing was evil and hypocritical, and so it was very traumatic to me.  All the time wasted...

Some other verses:

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted (Gal. 6:1).

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thess. 3:14-15).  

The one in Thessalonians applied to the instructions in that particular letter, and it simply says take note of the person, cut out their church association, but continue to admonish him as a brother, not an enemy.  There is no admonishing going on when you shun someone. Disfellowshipping a person from church and shunning them to where you don't talk to them at all, anymore, are two very different things. 

1 Corinthians 5 also deals with a man who was engaging in sex with his dad's wife.  It doesn't say he wasn't a believer.  He was doing something most of us would think of as very bad.  He was supposed to be expelled from church association, too.  However, it says nothing of conversing or continuing a friendship with that person, if you had it, outside of the church association.  How else would a person expect there to be hope for the person to return? 

2 John 1:10 deals with an individual Christian household that held church.  Instruction was given not to allow a false teacher into the association to teach, nor to give them the Christian greeting common at that time.  It has nothing to do with not talking at all, outside of church gatherings, with a person who differs in teaching, nor giving a common greeting.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Matt. 18:15-17).

We all know that Jesus was compassionate and friendly toward those of other nations and that he engaged in friendly conversations with tax collectors.  He cared about them and hoped to turn them to a good way of life.  He obviously would not have associated with them in the synagogue.  There would have been no Godly fellowship.  But there would be normal conversation about other things in everyday life.

Logic and kindness were totally absent from the way I was treated.  It did add a scar to my life's mental wounds.  And even if I had not gone on to totally disbelieve in a god (which isn't the same as emphatically saying there isn't one, because no one knows, and that's the only honest stance), what possibly would have caused me to want to return to a walk in Christian traditions?  Certainly not those individuals!  Such behavior leaves a bad taste in the mouth, a sick feeling in the stomach. 

Fear of Death (Bad)

It wasn't long after I ceased believing in a god that we woke up in the middle of the night to discover it was badly storming. My husband rushed to see whether our router and modem would work so that he could check the weather.  I remember shooting straight up in the bed and whisper-shouting, "Father!  Please protect us."  It was out of habit.  The memory of there not being a god immediately flooded to me, and I was filled with sheer terror.  It was awful.  I felt so terribly helpless.  I got up to pee, and I was just hoping so badly that we didn't get a tornado or that a tree didn't fall on the house.  I had always been relaxed before, fully believing that my Loving Father above would protect us from any evil (but perhaps not others who would be killed by a tornado, and all the while millions of children were starving or being beaten or dying from a malicious disease).  I'm not sure why I always felt protected before.  In truth I'd also suffered from anxiety and fear for years, ever since I'd lost my second-born son.  I'd begged for him to live, but he did not.  But for some reason, I thought my god wouldn't bring such evil upon me again, so I was faithful that we'd be protected.

My Love gently reminded me, when I expressed my fear, that it had always been that way, in reality.  We had never had a god protecting us.  I knew he was right, but it was hard to get used to at first.  Just the false belief gave a certain sense of trust that we'd be ok during storms and vehicle rides.

In time this fear faded to such a point that I'm overall less fearful of bad things happening now than I was when I believed in a god, because there were often fears that I'd be punished whenever I did something I felt was wrong.  It's really opened my eyes to how much the god I'd served was a tyrant whom I fooled myself into believing was a god of love, grace, and longsuffering.

Gratitude (Good)

I had always been a very grateful person.  I always tried to focus on the positive side of things and spent most of my "prayer" time throughout the day thanking my god for how wonderful my life was and grateful for when good befell others.  I found myself grateful for the smallest things.  But since my leaving religion and ceasing to have a belief in god, my gratitude has increased exponentially.  I'm alive, I've made it this far, I'm doing well, I've got wonderful people in my life.  I'm surrounded by beauty and knowledge.  I'm very aware that this life is likely all there is, and I'm grateful that I've had a really good one so far.  I've suffered immensely painful experiences during my life's journey, but overall it's been really good.

I mourn more for those who don't have it so well than I did back when I believed they'd get another life, but I'm more appreciative for what I have got.  I want to make sure I make the most of this life by finding joy and bringing joy to others.  I've always lived with that goal in mind, but my drive is stronger now.  I'm no longer holding out in faith for false promises of a better life to come.  I'm no longer wasting my time preparing myself and others for what will never come.  I'm making the best of what I do.

I am just as sad as I was before my apostasy at the thought of losing loved ones or other bad things happening, but for the most part, I do deal with this better now than before.  I believe it's because I try all the more to live in the present and enjoy everything to the fullest.  I let time slow down as I'm cherishing moments with my children, with my husband, with friends, in nature, eating food I enjoy, etc.

Finally, I'm grateful for the fact that I figured this out when I did in my early 30s.  Sure, some people get it figured out in their teens or twenties, but I'm grateful that I didn't waste away my 30s, 40s, or yet more decades before discovering that I've been living by myths.  That way, if I live that long, I can better enjoy more time, knowing this is the only life I'm guaranteed.

Better Marriage and Mother-Child Relationships (Good)

My marriage relationship was already the best that I knew, and so many had marveled at how well we got along and loved each other, even during the years when we didn't share the same beliefs.  My husband had always been so respectful of my beliefs after he stopped believing them.  He more or less kept the Sabbath and holidays with us.  He didn't insist we keep holidays I didn't want to keep.  He didn't eat biblically "unclean" foods.  I also respected him, though, in not wanting to engage in bible reading and such.  We stayed up late every night talking, making love, or watching documentaries or comedy, or whatever.  We were always best friends.  But now it's even better, because we are even more on the same page, once again.

I was almost a perfect mother for my first six years of parenting, and then for a variety of reasons, I went downhill in some ways.  The ideas of rewards and punishments that I derived from the bible poisoned my good parenting.  I adopted some of those ways in parenting my children, though it didn't take long for me to see the error.  However, it was hard to get away from.  I'm now doing so much better again.  I know my kids don't have to be perfect.  They don't need to earn my love.  I was being like god to them, as I understood he was to me. I thought I had understood God so well by reading all about his losing his temper at disobedient people and then repenting later, because I had experienced it.  It bothered me, deep inside, though, that I was supposedly in need of salvation because of my failure to be perfect and lose my temper, and yet God could do the same thing and also feel guilty, and yet he wasn't in need of salvation.  That was something that had been bothering me more and more as time went on.

I don't believe I'm going to reunite with my children in another life, so this is all I've got.  I want, all the more, to make the best of it.  As I mentioned before, I really focus on certain moments, just letting myself enjoy them to the fullest, living in the moment.

Friends (Good)

I still have good Christian friends, and I also have atheist friends.  It's great!  One of my Christian friends from before, who believed as I did, is now an atheist.  That's the best part. 

More Learning and Growth (Good)

 I'd always valued learning and growth before, but this aspect is another in my life that has seen an increase.  I question things even more and dig even deeper.  I have researched and read about more varied topics and have really enjoyed what I've learned.

More Empathy Toward Others and Less Judgemental (Good)

 I couldn't understand how all the Christians couldn't obviously see that they were walking in false religion.  Why weren't they real Christians who rejected pagan holidays, the trinity, and an ever-burning hell, among other doctrines?  (Or why would God truly blind them from seeing the truth?)  Now I can better put myself in their shoes.  I was at least partly guilty, too.  I'm sure I was viewed just as duped by atheists as I viewed mainstream Christians, because I did not study deeply enough or think deeply enough.

I feel even more compassion on those in the world suffering, too.  It's the realization that if there was really a god, then it/he/she is deeply wicked for letting millions of children starve or suffer from cancer or child abuse, yet blessing some with the trivial things for which they prayed.  It has gone on for thousands and thousands of years.  If any of us had the power to end all the suffering, we would do so and think it would be evil not to do so, so why is it that any of us would justify God's not doing anything?

Source: Pinterest-Kerry Souza

More Proactive in Helping Others (Good)

My husband and I have always helped others in whatever way we could.  We've always been popular ones for others to come to for advice.  We've given thousands of dollars each year to people who need financial help.  We've given to charities and to individuals and families.  Nathan has stopped to help numerous people on the side of the road.  I've taken time out to help people figure things out or to offer encouragement.  I've recycled what I can for over twelve years and do other things to help our environment. Most of the Christians I knew before didn't even tithe, but most Christians who do tithe, tithe to their churches, anyway, and give considerably less money to those in need.  We tithed nearly all our money directly to those in need.  Not only do we still help people financially and give advice and help people in other ways, I spend much more time now than before in signing petitions and answering people's questions on question and answer sites, to make a real difference in people's lives.  I sign a few petitions every day.  They range anywhere from helping endangered animals, education for children, to punish abuse, to gain human rights, and so much more.


And More...

There is so much good that has come about in my life since leaving religion behind.  There is one more bad aspect that I didn't talk about, and that is the fact that atheists are looked upon as the most untrustworthy and evil individuals, but there is no evidence whatsoever that atheists deserve this stigma.  There are good people and evil people in every religious group and non-religious group.  There is evidence, though, that religion has caused much more harm to the world than atheism, as a whole.  In upcoming posts, this will be illustrated.

Overall, my life and the lives of others have drastically improved since I've become an atheist.

Cornerstones and Human Sacrifice

Last year I wrote about human sacrifice in the bible and how the Israelite's war god Yahweh (one of many Canaanite gods in the pantheon underneath El) was portrayed as being appeased by said sacrifices. 

Among other examples, I wrote about something called foundation sacrifice, which was practiced in many ancient cultures, including ancient Israel.  Joshua spoke an oath in Yahweh's name that if anyone rebuilt Jericho again, that man must do it at the cost of his firstborn for the foundation and his last born to be laid at the gates. 
 

Joshua laid an oath on them at that time, saying, “Cursed before the Lord be the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho.

“At the cost of his firstborn shall he
lay its foundation,
and at the cost of his youngest son
shall he set up its gates" (Josh. 6:26-27).

 The first book of Kings later records that Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho in Jewish King Ahab's day:

In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho. He laid its foundation at the cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun (1 Kings 16:34)

You can Google "foundation sacrifice" and visit Google Images to see what it is and read Wikipedia.  Ancient tribes and nations would kill a person for a sacrifice to their god and place the person at the foundation of a wall or building.  It was believed that they would receive that god's protection over that building or city beyond the gates and walls and that the sacrifice would ward off enemy spirits. 

clipartpanda.com

Today I was revisiting this topic and came to realize that the "cornerstone" so often mentioned in the bible texts, such as Jesus being the cornerstone, is where sacrificed human bodies would be laid.  That makes Jesus' death as the way Paul portrayed it (a human sacrifice) all the more sickening, because he is the supposed cornerstone of a figurative building of which Christians are supposed to be a part.  At least being a "living sacrifice," as is mentioned in the Christian texts is better than being slaughtered and lain down as part of a building. 

I started searching "cornerstone" as it pertains to human sacrifice and found this article about a child's body archaeologists found in Mexico back in 2005.

Archaeologists digging through an Aztec temple say they’ve found a rare child sacrifice to the war god, a deity normally honored with the hearts or skulls of adult warriors.

The child found at Mexico City’s Templo Mayor ruins was apparently killed sometime around 1450, in a sort of grim cornerstone ceremony intended to dedicate a new layer of building, according to archaeologist Ximena Chavez (Source: Child Sacrifice, bold added).

The article goes on to say that it's the first child archaeologists have found that was sacrificed to Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec war god.  Normally captive warriors from opposing tribes were the ones sacrificed to the war god.

We know from the books of the bible, though, that there's at least one more example (at least written as such) of possible child sacrifice to a war god.  We don't know how old Hiel's children were; they could have been adults.  Perhaps the case of the child in Mexico was similar to the case recorded in the book of Joshua.  Perhaps that city had been defeated and was put under a similar curse so that a new builder in the future was expected to offer up their child as the cornerstone to the war god Huitzilopochtli that they believed helped them win their victory of that city.

There were also heave offerings, remember, to Yahweh, that came from war spoils.  Animals and persons were burned in sacrifice to Yahweh.  Yahweh liked burned virgins (young women).  There are ones recorded as having been required for sacrifice to him in Num. 31:25-41.  Could these virgins include those of ages we'd consider as "children?"

It's truly sad when we look back on human history.  We still have a lot of improvement to do, if we do not soon become extinct from doing what we've done to our planet, but we have also come a long way.  We've not rid ourselves of war, yet.  However, I'm glad to see that there aren't huge sacrifices of hundreds of animals and people being burned up in honor of a god.

I'm also happy that the only ceremonial cornerstones we use today are stones with engravings of dates of construction and the architect, builder, and/or other important persons (Source: Wikipedia, s.v. "cornerstone"). 

Does the Christian Testament Teach Breeding Quiverfull?

It has exasperated me for many years that the "Quiverfull"-minded folks claim that Christians are either expected to actively breed and produce as many children as they can before the woman hits menopause or that they should more passively allow themselves to produce as many children with which the women find themselves pregnant, with absolutely no prevention or contraception at all, ever.

Clip art licensed from the Clip Art Gallery on DiscoverySchool.com

Not only is this irresponsible ideal not in the books of the Christian testament, the truth is very much the opposite.  The writers of the books and letters that came to be known as the Christian testament highly discouraged marrying, if you weren't already married, much less encouraging a large or super large family.  In addition, a Christian who didn't provide for his family was considered more worthless than an unbeliever (as if someone who refuses to believe in something he's told without evidence is worthless).  

Unlike the command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply and repopulate the earth, Jesus, who is recorded as saying all authority in heaven was given to him, commanded Christians to teach all nations and baptize them in order to conceive the god spirit/seed/sperm into them.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  (Matt. 28:19-20 ESV)

A Christian was supposed to reproduce spiritual children.  It wasn't supposed to matter whether each Christian baptized others, just so long as they did their part so that people who were taught by them were eventually baptized and were conceived as a new creature with the god sperm that came out of the baptizer's fingertips and infused into the skin of the baptizee.  (See I Cor. 3:6-9)

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it (Matt. 19:10-12 ESV).

The Mosaic law has an un-Christian ordinance of prohibiting a eunuch or any male who had a genital injury to enter into God's assembly (though eunuchs were accepted later by Isaiah with the evolution of morality--Isa. 56:3).

“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD" (Deut. 23:1 ESV).

Jesus didn't really dig the command in Deuteronomy. Jesus explained the different ways a man could be a eunuch, whether by being born a hermaphrodite or otherwise deformed or effeminate from birth or having one's testicles cut off or by simply making oneself not desire sex.  Those who chose castration (or otherwise masturbation) so that they could focus on building God's kingdom rather than a marital relationship were seen as a doing a worthy thing by Jesus.

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (I Cor. 7:1-5 ESV)

Paul referred to our natural biological urges to engage in sex as "temptation to sexual immorality," and so he preferred for a man or woman to marry if they desired sex.  Periodic abstinence was encouraged so that time could be used for working toward God's kingdom (which, if timed well, could also prevent conceiving children who would take more time away from work on building God's kingdom), but it was warned that the couple should not abstain too long, or the biological urges (or Satan's temptations, in Paul's eyes) would be so much that they might find themselves giving into casual sex with others.   In verse 6, Paul stated that he wished all would be like he was in not marrying, but:

...if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion (vs. 9).

It should be clear by now that the preferred state of a Christian that is serious about building God's kingdom, by spending their time they would otherwise be investing in marital and child-rearing duties, is not to marry and to not reproduce more human beings who will also have to be given the kingdom message in hopes that they will accept it and join as adults.  It takes many years, though, and a lot of time, to bring children up to adults, and there's a very good chance those grown children won't jump on the bandwagon.

All these verses speak of marriage for reasons of engaging in sex to sate the natural sexual desire in a Christian-approved manner.  None of the verses have absolutely anything to do with reproduction.  Many early Christians did adopt orphaned children, but there is nothing in the Christian testament to encourage reproducing new persons.  The only reproduction of new persons that was promoted was to recruit persons who were already in existence to believe Paul's message and to receive conception from the sperm of God, transferred via the fingers of an already-begotten son of god into the bodies of the recruited persons.

There are absolutely no instructions to compete in a Breed-a-Thon in the Christian testament!  Sex for pleasure to sate sexual desire is the only reason Christian marriage was promoted.  Period.

Now, if there were already children born to the couples when they converted to Paul's religion, or if the couple decided they wanted children (because the desire to produce children is another natural desire), there were instructions to follow in order to best bring up their children.  Parents were instructed to gently teach their children and not provoke them to anger and were expected to teach their children how to conduct themselves as decent citizens.  Just as there was no prohibition to marry, there was no prohibition to produce children.

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (I Tim. 5:8 ESV).

Though the context was that of taking care of widows, one's children are a Christian's relatives and usually members of his or her household.  With the exception of famous or otherwise somewhat well-known Quiverfull families, most children in Quiverfull/Patriarchal households suffer from poverty.  They often do not eat well, are often undereducated, and often fail to receive needed medical care.  They also are usually not provided with adequate personal attention and affection.

This is where Quiverfull enthusiasts and fanatics will point to verses in the Jewish bible ("old testament") to back up their case.  Let's have a look, starting with the verses they base their whole movement name upon.

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate (Psalm 127:3-5 ESV).

Blessed or happy is the man, according to this psalm, who stocks up on kids like a warrior does arrows (or ammunition in this day and age).  What else do the psalms say about what makes a man happy or blessed?

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock (Psalm 137:9 ESV)!

The context is that of the Jews in Babylonian captivity, and the infants or little children who shall make a man blessed (or "happy," if you use the KJV) if he bashes them against rocks until they die are the little Babylonian children.  Does anyone imagine that the Jews wanted to take German babies and bust their heads open on stones after the second world war?  Are we to think that Christians today want to take Muslim babies and hurl them with great force upon rocks, causing their deaths due to blunt trauma?

If we are to be consistent with the biblical psalms and agree that all the words are God-inspired, holy, just, and good, then how come I don't hear any of the Christians today making every effort to kill infants and young children of their enemies (real or imagined) by dashing them upon stones?  Do they feel that maybe the 137th psalm is a lie, that they wouldn't truly feel happy or blessed to carry that out?  What makes them so intent on believing the 127th psalm?  Based on many months of carefully researching and reading stories from numerous Quiverfull escapees (both women and grown children), reading psychological literature, hearing firsthand from an escapee whose mother I knew and clearly suffered from several problems, the Quiverfull families' "blessings" and "happiness" isn't what it's all cracked up to be.

With that being said, I'm sure it's closer to a blessing than beating children upon rocks until they die.  The point is that one should never, ever base a whole belief system upon one verse or set of verses.

Another verse is Genesis 1:28, the command for Adam and Eve (who are fictional characters, in truth) to "be fruitful and multiply and repopulate the earth."  I'd say we're more than re-populated now.  We meet all the conditions of overpopulation of a species.  To apply a command meant for two people on an empty earth to today's overpopulated conditions is folly to the hundredth power.

Then there's the supposed opposition of God against contraception, since he struck down Onan (Gen. 38:8-10) for pulling out and spilling his seed on the ground.  Even though the account in the book of Jasher records God killing Er before his brother Onan for the same deed, it clearly states in Genesis that Onan's motivation for not impregnating Tamar was that he knew the child would not be considered his, but Er's, because they believed in that day that a man should take his dead brother's wife to raise children up for him. It had nothing to do with the choice not to have children at all.  There is no statute in the Torah that states one must agree to produce children.  It was seen as a blessing that a man have at least one son to carry on his name.  Clearly, though, there were infertile couples.  What is the difference in infertile couples who wish they could have children and fertile couples who wish not to have children?  If God is in charge, what kind of game is that?  Why not make infertile the ones who don't want any children?

It is a choice for people to reproduce children, but that choice carries with it responsibility.  There is no command for Christians to breed without limit.  Christians, if they are to be good representatives of what they supposedly represent, ought to practice responsibility, love, compassion, and fairness.  These things are sadly absent from most who identify with "quiverfull."

There are very few women in the bible who had numerous children.  Mary, the mother of Jesus, either had seven or so or just one (if the other children were the elderly Joseph's from a previous marriage).  Job's wife had either ten or twenty, supposing Job gained his second set of ten children with the same wife.  There were maybe a couple more mentioned that had more than seven.  Leah had seven.  The bible doesn't state how many Eve birthed.  Most of the women mentioned in the bible did not have more than five to seven children, many having fewer or none.  Men typically had more children than women did, because they took more than one wife, if they could afford it.  We now live in a society where birthing numerous children doesn't make good sense. One to five seems to be plenty.

I was looked down upon by certain fellow Christians because I didn't subscribe to the Quiverfull mindset.  But who is the one following principles more in-line with the Christian testament, allowing parents to spend quality time with each child, financially support each child well, and be able to work toward the Christian goal of God's Kingdom? (Note: The last point is something I no longer do.)

The whole basis of their movement is with the mindset of out-breeding their enemies.  Maybe it won't be long before they take the next step in killing the children of their enemies by breaking their bodies on boulders.  Will that make them doubly happy and blessed?