News

King James Bible trumps the Canadian law, claims Canadian Christian crackpot

DOTTY minister Catherine Flamond, of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, was none to pleased when she received three traffic tickets last year for driving without a licence plate or insurance, and failing to produce a driver’s licence.

What she calls her “ecclesiastical pursuit chariot” – a 1994 Mercury Sable – was ticketed in February, 2011, but Flamond, in a June 13 letter to Edmonton Police Chief Rod Knecht, claimed she had her own plate — made of paper and bearing the biblical verse Rom. 11:29:

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

She then mounted a constitutional challenge against the tickets, arguing in a written Charter notice that the provincial civil laws do not apply to her because she is a Christian minister bound only by God, the Queen of England and the Constitution Act of 1982.

But this week Provincial Court Judge John Henderson tossed out her challenge, ruling that:

The Alberta Traffic Safety Act applies to “every single person” who operates a motor vehicle in the province.

Henderson also dismissed several other motions seeking to have the tickets quashed, including ones alleging wrongful prosecution and bias by the Crown and judge, who was also accused of coming close to treason.

The matter was then adjourned for trial on October 23.

In her Charter notice, Flamond included several letters she had written to people in authority.

She also called the car “church property” and accused the officer of stealing it and taking it to the “city pound.”

The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International is a Christian denomination that does not believe in the authority of the Canadian government and wishes to use the King James Bible as the rule of law.

Flamond is by to means the only unhinged member of the church.  According to this report, in 2006 one of the congregation – Karen Ponto – had to be dragged kicking and screaming from Saskatoon provincial courtroom. She yelled at the judge that her arrest for contempt of court was a violation of her rights as a Christian.

Hat tip: Dog Gone

 

84 Responses to “King James Bible trumps the Canadian law, claims Canadian Christian crackpot”

  1. Matt Westwood says:

    @Jim Boomba: Jesus was fairly clear in whichever gospel (not sure which now) that a slavish adherence to the OT rulebook was a Bad Thing. In particular, he condemned the practice of public stoning, and he himself broke certain Sabbath rules.

    Look at yourself, you come across as a bigot.

  2. Angela_K says:

    I agree with Matt Westwood’s reply to Ken, it is spot on.

    I’m expect the reason the religious troll these sites is because they believe they can convert us; quote to us bits of the babble and somehow we atheists will grovel on our knees and start talking to our hands.

    I sincerely hope the content of this site and the debate will make some the religious who come to this site, question their absurd beliefs.

  3. It appears some are not familiar with the history of law in the commonwealth..We have a Christian monarch as the Bible is the foundation of law. In the Bible God cautions his people that they are not to respect “persons” as they are sinners and transgressors to the law.James 2:9 The governments we have today used the bible to get folks trust so they could add to his law in violation of his command Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32…They ignored that command to make the action of bringing folks before judges profitable and a business.They manufactured laws where their was no victim but still needed to promote their business laws…So they invented courts that deal with laws for profit where no victim was apparent and it was all commercial law or admiralty law as was the law of the ocean while transporting goods for hire as in business…God’s law of not adding to his law or walking the the ordinance of the heathen still stands but most got scammed by the commercially driven system today called the courts and are not aware they are engaged in an extortion racket usurping folks ability to practice the laws of God and intimidating them to submit to their false god system…minister Flamond is aware of these things that the average spectator is not..She is being ridiculed as of her sincere faith to not submit to a provable fraud….If you discriminate against her for that your the perpetrator not her..Search “bogus oath “in google…They are trading the value of your flesh on the stock exchange..Do you consent to that??

  4. Ken says:

    Minister Robin – interesting you are in agreement with atheists in one aspect. Deut 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you”. The ‘you’ here refers to the OT Jews, not NT believers. Unless you are following Judaism, this old covenant has been superceded by the new, which is better.

    That said, we are not to ‘subtract the commands of God’ given in the New Testament, which includes submission to government as a divine institution – and when the apostles wrote this, this meant the pagan Roman Empire. So why do you make the word of God of none effect by your tradition?

    Yes, I did a little googling and found this jem:

    “Minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger and Minister Don: Friske incarcerated.
    The de facto government and the fraudulent court system have kidnapped our Proctor and one of our ministers.
    Our Proctor and our minister were charged with Driving without a license, Insurance and Registration and they had God’s gift (Genesis: 1:29; Romans 11:29) on them which is known today as marijuana. We know that to travel we don’t need a license, registration or insurance”.

    The govt has a perfectly legitimate right – granted under the King James Bible – to enforce laws of this type.

    And what’s this about being “a minister in the Church of Ecumenical Redemption International, the Assembly of the Universe and the Edmonton Grove of the Church of Reformed Druids”. Druidism? Isn’t that pagan?

    If atheists say ‘look what religion can do to a man’s brain’, being an excuse for lawlessness and drug-taking whilst claiming persecution, I would, on this occasion, have to agree with them. Which is unusual.

  5. Matt Westwood says:

    @Ken: Well said.

  6. Ian says:

    Minister Robin, you are quite correct when you state the modern laws, including maritime laws, are derived from the Jewish scriptures. That also includes the powers of judges. You could also have gone on to say that fractional reserve banking is the biggest con ever perpetrated on the inhabitants of this planet, along with the perpetrators of the said con, the system of central banks the first of which was the Bank of England in 1698.

    But that has little to do, in my honest opinion, with the claim to authority by those who who wave their holy books in the air claiming to have a direct line to their god, and that Her word is sacrosanct and cannot be changed. Those of us who live in the real world deny that authority.

    If you want to know where homo sapiens got it’s morality check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le-74R9C6Bc&feature=player_embedded it certainly was not from any non-existent deity.

    Please remember this:

    Religion is like a penis.
    It’s fine to have one, and it’s even OK to be proud of the one that you might have.
    But, it’s not all right to whip it out and wave it around in public.
    Neither is it OK to ram down the throats of children,

  7. Daz says:

    Re: Ken and EJR

    I love watching the religious argue the precise meaning of St Egbert’s Letter to the Custard Makers chapter three verse five, and Fifi’s Sermon on the Hight Street 7:19 etc. All that hot air expounded while they fail to consider one basic question: “Does any of it represent the wishes of an actual god?” Makes I chuckle, it do.

    Theology: Arguing about whether Russell’s Teapot is Wedgwood or Delft.

  8. Broga says:

    @Daz: We could remove all the ambiguity about god’s existence if one single, unequivocal act took place. We hear that christians pray to god and god answers their prayers. And, happily for him, god answered the prayers of footballer Muamba’s devout and praying family while, apparently, ignoring millions of others of suffering humanity. The problem with the Muamba example is that it allows for coincidence. Did the answered prayers coincide with fast and expert medical help?

    How might we remove any ambiguity about the efficacy of prayer and, by extension, the existence of god. I read that there are 50,000 plus new amputees as a result of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elswhere. I am refering to “our side” backed by the christian god. These amputees are overwhelmingly young and we may confidently assume many of them are praying christians. They also have military chaplains, provided at great cost to tax payers including atheists, to encourage them in their faith and their prayers.

    The restoring of a limb would return these young adults to fitness and the active lives they had before. In response to all the prayers why does an omniscient and loving god not restore at least some of their limbs? The restoration of just one limb, perhaps an arm, should be a piece of cake for god and a wonderful boost for the faithful.

    The question for christians is: if so much prayer is being answered by your god what has he got against amputees? Why no restored limbs?

    I await an explanation?

  9. Matt Westwood says:

    One of Arthur C. Clarke’s later works suggests a pan-global exercise where a statistical analysis is done designed to correlate “things prayed for” against “things happening” (can’t begin to remember the details of how the obvious problems with this approach were overcome) but the upshot was zero correlation between the two. Thus it was accepted worldwide that prayer was futile, and so any discussion of the existence of god completely irrelevant.

    Man, he could write some beautiful utopias.

  10. Broga says:

    @Matt: Much obliged. Thanks.

    The usual christian response I have heard is that god is not going to “Perform miracles just to satisfy you.” And, “God will do what he wants to do when he is ready.” And, finally, my favourite from a visit to the USA a few years ago (rich source of memories of weird beliefs) when I met some christians of a fundamentalist stripe, “If god did that the need for faith would be removed and it is faith that is the true test of a christian.”

  11. Daz says:

    “If god did that the need for faith would be removed and it is faith that is the true test of a christian.”

    To which the obvious reply is “Wanna buy a bridge…?”

  12. remigius says:

    Daz,“Wanna buy a bridge…?”

    Tis but an urban legend that Robert McCulloch accidently bought London Bridge thinking it was Tower Bridge…

    http://www.webcitation.org/65maWrJ0h

    I know loads of stuff about bridges over the Thames in London. I even found one once!

  13. Graham Martin-Royle says:

    Theology: Arguing about whether Russell’s Teapot is Wedgwood or Delft.

    It’s obvious innit, Wedgwood cos god’s an englishman inne?

  14. Daz says:

    Matt

    Thus it was accepted worldwide that prayer was futile, and so any discussion of the existence of god completely irrelevant.

    If ’twere only that easy! That’s one of my few gripes with Clarke’s writing. A tendency to portray people as much more reasonable than they turn out to be in reality. On the other hand, his Big History themes are second only to Olaf Stapledon.

    Remigius, Yeah, it’s still good shorthand for a stereotypical scam of a really gullible mark, though. I’m intrigued. I assume you mean an archaeological find, not just walking over Putney bridge or summat…?

    GMR, He seems to be claiming U.S. citizenship these days.

  15. Jim Boomba says:

    Matt.
    “not a jot or a tittle” comes to mind, however the whole book is contradictory.
    I fail to see how my post could be seen as bigotry.

  16. Matt Westwood says:

    @Jim Boomba: Okay, I may have jumped down your throat a bit – allow me to take the time to express my philosophical standpoint on this.

    Yes, the book is a bit of a mess when it comes to logical coherence and consistency.

    But I argue again and I argue still: blame the book and not the readers. The danger is to tar all the readers with the same brush, which (while imparting a considerable amount of pleasantly righteous blood-lust into the circulation) is unfair.

    I suspect there are very few civilised Christians (and don’t you dare, save in jest, try to claim the concept is a contradiction in terms) who would actually advocate the practices you accuse them of, which are, I’ll remind you, using your precise words: “So you advocate the stoning to death of unruly children and non virgin brides? Do I have to watch my back when I work on the sabbath? If I feel God wants me to gut my son, should I go ahead and do it and take the consequences?” Adopting such a disingenuous pose: “Aha! You’re a Christian! Therefore you follow this book! Therefore you sanction genocide!” is verging on attributing a negative trait on a category of people so as to stir up, or excuse, animosity towards that entire group. That is bigotry.

    Not all people calling themselves Christians believe the whole thing unequivocally: most of them read it “in context”. Which leaves the Christian belief in a bit of a cleft stick: believe it all, and follow it all: dangerous fundamentalist who advocates genocide etc. Believe some of it, and use the relevant bits as a basis for a moral and spiritual guidance system: silly and wishy-washy and lukewarm and inconsistent. Either way round you have a stick to beat them all with and feel a sense of righteous delight while so doing – when all so often they are just people like you and me, with little more than an eccentric hobby they practice on a Sunday.

    All I’m saying is: a little more tolerance, okay?

  17. Daz says:

    Matt

    I believe Jim’s point is that if a person cherry picks some bits out of the Bible and claims that they follow those precepts because they’re Biblical, then they’re being at least mildly hypocritical by not following all the other stuff too. If, as they claim, the Bible is their sole guide to morals, then they should not, in good conscience, use—or even admit the existence of—an extra-Biblical measure of what’s moral or immoral to guide them in which bits to follow.

    We all know that they do use an extra-Biblical moral guide to cherry pick the bits they want to follow, but that’s beside the point. It’s their claim of Biblical justification for their actions and ideas that’s under discussion.

    You can’t say X is wrong merely because the Bible says so, but then claim that Y is okay even though the Bible says it isn’t, unless you’re applying a standard other than ‘It’s in the Bible’ to judge it. And if you apply that other standard to Y, then your reason for accepting X just got blown out of the water.

  18. Matt Westwood says:

    The whole point is: your contemprary liberal Christian is already using a standard other than “it’s in the bible” to judge whether an action is right or wrong. It’s people (“us”) outside of their particular belief-space who are telling them how they ought and ought not to behave, and what they ought and ought not to believe. It’s almost like saying: “Here! You’re a computer programmer! How can you justify the existence of VB?!”

    As for me, I believe it is perfectly reasonable for a person to use some bits of the bible for moral/spiritual guidance and not others. There’s some good moral and philosophical points in the bible. “Love one another” for example (does it say that in there? Probably) – the fact that it’s in the bible does not mean that it is wrong. Although, of course, I will concede that just because it’s in the bible doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right.

    But refusing to accept that because the source of a moral code of conduct is flawed, then that moral code may not be, is weak.

  19. Daz says:

    Matt

    I agree, re liberal Christians. And yes, there is a tendency by some parties to tar with a very wide brush. Thing is, Ken was explaining that whether to obey a civil law or not depended on how one interprets scripture, not on an extra-biblical code; so, on this point at least, he wasn’t being liberal or non-literal. He was presenting the Bible as the only source of moral guidance. I don’t say that makes his ultimate moral choices wrong, just that the cherry-picking method of arriving at them is slightly hypocritical, whether consciously so or not.

    And, I note, he still hasn’t returned to explain how mere obedience to a higher power can be defined as ‘moral’.

  20. remigius says:

    Daz, ‘I’m intrigued. I assume you mean an archaeological find, not just walking over Putney bridge…’

    Er, actually both. Though not the extant Putney Bridge (Bazalgette 1886, widened 1937-1940) but it’s predecessor, a wooden structure build in 1729.

    So grab some cocoa, put your feet up and I shall tell a sorry tale about the age old conflict between authority and science.

    The year was 2008. The HLF had awarded funding (nearly half a million quid) for an archaeological project. UCL, Museum of London, English Heritage and a host others were on board, and it was being run from our office at the London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre. Whey-hey.

    I signed up immediately, the chance of some fieldwork is always welcome. Don’t get me wrong, accessioning roman cack finds in a dank, dark, dusty, very dusty museum depository is really exciting stuff, but working in mud is miles better.

    The Project Director was Gustav Milne, senior lecturer in archaeology at UCL, a recognised authority on archaeology in tidal environments (he’s always on Time Team when they’re digging somewhere wet), and, as it turns out, a bit of a cunt.

    It’s now the summer of 2009. The Thames foreshore at Putney. This was my first visit to the site, the others having worked there before in their various guises as professional archaeologists or local historians etc. I was the newbie.

    Gustav Minge gave us all a quick tour of the site, ending at a large brick feature some 15m long, he explained that this was the foundations of the Toll House of the old bridge, pointing to it on an old OS map. I said it wasn’t. Just from where we were standing it was bloody obvious that he was talking bollocks. It was the wrong size, the wrong shape, and in the wrong place. This , I maintained, was actually the abutment of the old bridge, but nobody took any notice. Authority had spoken.

    It had crossed my mind that it was a wind up at first, a let’s fool the newbie type jape. But it wasn’t. I has some crude surveying equipment with me – a compass, protractor etc and set about triangulating the positions. It was defo the abutment, not the Toll House. Still nobody listed.

    I spent that afternoon in Fulham Archive researching the bridge. Identifying the abutment, I photocopied its measurements.

    Next day we measured. The length and angles were an exact match. Still nobody would accept my abutment theory. It was the Toll House. Authority had spoken. We even had a debate right there on the Thames river bed. Nobody took my side. I then knew exactly how Galileo must have felt.

    I still have the emails between myself and the team leader where I call for those who clung to the Toll House fallacy (that was all of them) to be put against a wall and shot!

    Later the Geomatics team came down from MoLAS and surveyed the entire site with their lasers and satellite jobbies. They would prove what the structure was, though we wouldn’t get the results back for months.

    It soon became clear that the so-called professional archaeologists were using a technique that was totally alien to my way of thinking. My background is in criminal law (I read law at uni rather than archaeology or history) so I treat an archaeological site as a crime scene; features and artefacts being the evidence, then using that evidence to build theory. They did it the other way around. They started with any half-baked theory, then looked for, or manipulated, evidence to support that theory. Anything that didn’t was ignored.

    When I was researching the bridge I had wondered how they could have originally mistook what was obviously the abutment for the Toll House. All I could suppose was that one corner of the Toll House looked a bit like one corner of the abutment, but I soon dismissed this as silly because it was obviously a different size, shape, material etc. And in the wrong place.

    Guess what the only evidence they later offered for the Toll House was. Yep.

    Over that summer I had numerous differences with the Pro’s, on each and every occasion I was proved right. By the evidence.

    In the autumn we got the geomatics results back. It was the bridge abutment, no doubt about it. Minge and the rest of his muppets had worked on that site in abject ignorance for decades , not even attempting to find out what it was beyond some ill-informed guess. Then someone with a brain comes along shows them what it actuallyis, and they don’t wanna know cos authority says otherwise. That, folks, is how religion works. It shouldn’t be happening in archaeology.

    A few weeks later we carried out a survey on the opposite bank of the Thames across from Putney, in the area where the old bridge, long since demolished, had stood. The area was now a wetland nature reserve.

    This survey, though sanctioned, was not part of the project remit. It was my responsibility. I liaised with the nature reserve management, who agreed to drain it and give us a weeks access. In that week we discovered the northern (Fulham) end of the old bridge. It was previously believed to be lost forever. Oh joy.

    Not only had I positively identified the southern end of the old bridge, I had found the other half as well. It was the first time that both ends of an historic London bridge has been discovered (this bridge was only the second to be built after London Bridge itself!)

    Gustav Minge was not happy. He really, really wanted to find fault with my survey but he couldn’t as both my planning and execution were meticulous. In the end he resorted to having to invent criticisms (such as saying I should have chosen to do the survey in a neap tide week, even though he knew damn well it simply could not have been done in a neap tide week!). None of his criticisms, like much of his work, stands up to scrutiny – but that doesn’t matter because he’s the authority.

    Anyway I quit the project. Though I had been asked to deliver a paper at the next IFA conference, and with a documentary in the offing, I just could not work with someone as inept, incompetent and unethical as Gustav Minge. What should have been a public funded project for the benefit of the community became a Gustav Minge vanity circle jerk!

    My parting shot was to hack into the project website and change Minge’s profile to give a more fitting description. I seem to remember using the word wanker.

  21. Daz says:

    Remigius

    I seem to remember a quote (Might’ve been Arthur C Clarke) to the effect that new ideas in science don’t generally win out; they just outlive the old authorities. But said funnier. Ho-hum.

    My experience of archaeology is all via TV and a few books, but thinkin’ of TV archaeologists, I get to feeling something like your reaction every time that bloody Francis Prior trots out his ‘It’s ritual…’ after uncovering two stones and a three-foot length of ditch.

    Good story. Thanks mate.

  22. remigius says:

    Please don’t get me started on Francis fucking Prior. Oh the number of times I’ve wanted to shove a burin up his arse whilst screaming “How’s that for a votive offering.”

    The best thing we could do for archaeology is to bury the bastard at Flag Fen and leave it to future generations to try to work out what the twat was playing at.

  23. Equality Jack says:

    @Remigius – I liked that very much, thank you.
    I was even having cocoa-laden coffee at the time! OMG! I can feel some sort of confirmation bias increasing my blood pressure!
    (head explodes)

  24. Ken says:

    Daz “Thing is, Ken was explaining that whether to obey a civil law or not depended on how one interprets scripture, not on an extra-biblical code; … And, I note, he still hasn’t returned to explain how mere obedience to a higher power can be defined as ‘moral’”.

    The point is to obey the civil law unless this means an explicit biblical command is being disobeyed. In practice, this is still rarely necessary, and such issues of conscience would be very important moral considerations – euthanasia, refusal to fight in a blatantly unjust war type issues. Not something done lightly or without thought, but still obtaining its morality from the bible rather than the surrounding culture. It certainly doesn’t mean taking a specific OT passage and using it to justify behaviour in the here and now, not taking into account to whom such instructions were addressed.

    Obedience to a ‘higher power’ presupposes the higher power has the intellectual ability to distinguish right from wrong, justice from injustice, and therefore an accurate guide to morality. If you mean the higher power is the biblical God, and assert he doesn’t exist, this means the biblical commands and injunctions are a human product (obviously), but it still leaves the problem of what basis the secularist can use to criticise them. Who in this case gets to say what is right of wrong, assuming such things actually exist? There may be some consensus on some issues, but otherwise it all comes down to personal opinion.

  25. Equality Jack says:

    @Ken – Opinion? Yet most moral values are simply conformance with cultural values and usually require the use of our primitive social instincts along with our cultural upbringing to form the primitive “social contract” depending on what sort of society one is born into.
    If you had been born in a witch-doctor’s hut, you’d be an animist or something. Your moral values would come from your upbringing along with your social-primate instincts just like they did wherever it was you were born.
    You grew in a household, I assume, where you were indoctrinated with the erratic and haphazard personal interpretations of the people around you concerning their religious beliefs and their interpretations of their cultural matrix as well, and you did it without knowing, without understanding, and without self-analysis, on the whole, because you had no choice.
    You were born this way as we all were.
    If you had been raised by wolves, you’d be wolf-value oriented and unable to speak. There are documented cases of just this sort of thing happening. Your morals are determined by your brain and your culture and any indoctrination you get brainwashed with.

  26. Daz says:

    The point is to obey the civil law unless this means an explicit biblical command is being disobeyed.

    You see, Ken, that’s where you fall down flat. You provide no evidence in support of a god at all, let alone the Biblical god who gives these commands. You provide no rationale for following the commands of, if you read your Bible, a vain, genocidal bully.

    And you fail to take into account the fact that if you espouse the placing of this fictional divine bastard’s commands above civil law, based on personal interpretation, you cannot, in all good conscience, blame others for doing the same, using interpretations different to your own.

    In short, you’re espousing anarchy with a religious justification.

    Obedience to a ‘higher power’ presupposes the higher power has the intellectual ability to distinguish right from wrong,

    Bullshit. It merely presupposes a being more powerful than we are. It says nothing about the morals of that being. See above for my opinion of the morals of the Biblical god.

    Children do what they are told to do by parents who decide what’s right. Adults do what is right by their own lights and take the responsibility if they make a bad choice. Some of us grew up; some merely looked for a bigger parent.

  27. Matt Westwood says:

    A moral code is a consensus thing, born (directly or indirectly, and greatly simplifying the process) of the influence of those with greater social influence than others. In these days, majority decision. Or tabloids. Or whatever. But, like it or lump it, morality is more-or-less relative, evolving and impermanent.

    Sometimes it gets codified into a list of rules, e.g. a charter, or a collection of stone tablets with instructions carved on them, or are buried in a great long book of anecdotes and historical narrative (in various states of completion and accuracy) and political/social polemic. When this happens, the fluidity of the moral code is more limited.

    But ultimately it all boils down to: a moral/ethical code is what it is because that’s how humans manage to live in such concentrated numbers without killing each other. It does not always work: when the rules are confused and imperfectly formed, mayhem happens.

    At the moment, the moral rules are being shaken down a bit so as to render less important the ones written down in the Bible. As for the Koran, that’s a somewhat tougher nut to crack.

  28. Ken says:

    Daz – “See above for my opinion of the morals of the Biblical god”.

    But you can only give an opinion – which might turn out to be wrong. In any event, ‘the biblical God is a bully’ etc etc statement is essentially self-refuting.

  29. remigius says:

    ‘In any event, ‘the biblical God is a bully’ etc etc statement is essentially self-refuting.’

    Ken, you appear to have confused self-refuting with self-evident!

  30. Ken says:

    remigius – you must be aware of Dawkins’ famous quote “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak ….”

    If this desciption is accurate, why are Dawkins and his followers still around to say such things? Why aren’t they smitten?

    Either such a God really is ficticious i.e. not there, or the biblical God does exist and isn’t like that, is not a control freak, let alone unjust or unforgiving.

  31. remigius says:

    Ken, The Spider Man in Marvel comics can climb walls. True or false?

    Dawkins was referring to a nasty fictional character in a book which too many people take too seriously.

  32. Graham Martin-Royle says:

    Either such a God really is ficticious i.e. not there,

    You’re getting there, just a few more steps.

  33. remigius says:

    And Ken If this desciption is accurate, why are Dawkins and his followers still around to say such things? Why aren’t they smitten?

    Yeah, and if Noah didn’t actually build an ark then how come there are still animals?

    Twat!

  34. Broga says:

    @remigius: Somebody, it might have been Ingersoll,truly said that the bible read with care is the greatest argument for atheism. Of course, christians read selectively, interpret to fit their opinions, ignore what is inconvenient and decide that their version of the bible (usually the KJ) is, from the many versions, the word of god and calculate that the world is 6000 years old.

    They don’t want to say whom Cain and Able bred with, how the snake managed to talk and how Noah got hold of koala bears, polar bears, panthers etc or all the different birds and insects. Of course you and other, have heard all this before. However, it seems not to penetrate the brains of the believers who visit this parish from time to time. However, I live in hope – albeit forlorn.