Pharmacists and prescriptions

You can not force an individual Pharmacist to fill any prescription he doesn't want to fill.
You need to go to a pharmacy that does fill that prescription.
If the Pharmacist works for a company that does normally fill that prescription, then that is between the two of them!
Shop with your feet in a case of this nature.
Doctor's orders don't mean that they are military orders, it means if he does fill the prescription it must be exactly as written.
Doctors can't be ordered to perform abortions, either. Nor anything else he isn't qualified to do.
This again is trying to force religion into government which DOES NOT work!

Nitpickers's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by lion on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:48pm.

If a pharmacist has moral problems filling some prescriptions, he or she should find a different career. It is simply religious arrogance for them to make other people--including their employer--participants in their personal moral dilemmas.

I take my car to a repair shop for servicing and it is a secular experience. I take my clothes to a dry cleaner and it is a secular experience. And when I take a prescription to a pharmacy I expect and deserve a secular experience.

Prayer in school: Parents could always pray with their children before they left for school and when they returned home from school and the children could always pray silently in school whenever they wished. My guess is that this rarely took place so the parents wanted the public schools to do this for them. Sorry, this is not the role of our public schools.

And all the quotes from the Founding Fathers about religion are irrelevant. The law of our land is the U.S. Constitution and its amendments and not the Declaration of Independence or any other writings of those men.

Sniffles's picture
Submitted by Sniffles on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 3:51pm.

The key issue in the original blog post as I see it is the "reasonable expectation" that your prescription would be filled.

You'd never walk into a McDonalds and hear the counter help refuse to sell you a Big Mac because in their opinion you're too fat.

On the other hand, you wouldn't go to a Catholic hospital for an abortion, either. There is no reasonable expectation that they perform those procedures there, even though they are legal.

Pharmacies need to step up.

As I see it, they can do one of two things: they can set up a chain of Christian Pharmacies (not unlike Christian bookstores), where there would be a "reasonable expectation" that you would not be able to fill a prescription for things like the "morning after" pill or birth control.

Alternatively, pharmacies could list (in big bold letters) exactly which medications they choose not to fill prescriptions for, on their front door. That way people could know ahead of time that the pharmacist inside considers his/her religious beliefs to be superior to your health and well-being and you could take your business elsewhere if you so chose. That way there would be no hard feelings for either party.

gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 6:43pm.

Why not worship in the way that Jesus did? By that I mean follow all the LAWS sent down from on high the way that he did. You know, Passover Seder (the last supper), keeping Kosher etc. I mean, all of the over 600 commandments that we're all supposed to adhere to. Oh, you missed that part, huh. There is one christian group (among the bazillions) that try to do this, the Messianic "Jews/Christ-ians". Instead of living a nice christian/western life and believing that all you do, good or bad is ok or forgiven b/c you've been supposedly "saved" by someone over 2000 years ago. "Can't we all just get along".....and please DON'T TREAD ON ME.....I'll pray for myself, thanks.

Submitted by lion on Mon, 10/29/2007 - 4:15pm.

Pharmacists are licensed by the state to use their professional skills to fill legal prescriptions from doctors. They are not licensed to practice their moral conflicts on me or my family.

Doctors should also be required to use their licensed skills to perform legal medical procedures on patients. And abortions are legal under most circumstances. As a practical matter I would not want a doctor so conflicted to attend any woman. Sounds pretty dangerous to me.

nuk's picture
Submitted by nuk on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 3:43pm.

There are plenty of cases(having nothing to do with birth control) where pharmacists refuse to fill legal prescriptions. Many an addict has been busted by pharmacists who refused to fill legal prescriptions after the addict had been to several different doctors for the same prescription.

I think the issue is between the employer and the employee(the pharmacist). Government needs to stay out of it entirely and let the consumer decide, like the original poster stated. What you are talking about government enslavement of doctors and pharmacists where they are required by law to perform skills they may or may not as adept as another is. The other side is arguing for giving pharmacists "rights"(job protection despite disobedience) that presently don't exist and shouldn't.


Submitted by lilly on Mon, 10/29/2007 - 3:50pm.

Belief in God is not religion. It's called being a Christian. Wasn't our Nation founded under God.----- One Nation Under God. You take God out of it we are in a heap of trouble.

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 3:14pm.

The United States was founded as a political state with one of the express purposes being the separation of church and state.

The "under God" phrase was added in 1954.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 5:36am.

Just to help Lilly out Smiling

Where in the Constitution are the words "separation of church and state"?

Which writings of the founding fathers are you relying on to support your statement? Please quote them (and sources). Smiling

"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

"with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"

"in the Year of our Lord"

When was prayer “introduced” into schools?

Exactly what "'trouble' started AFTER prayer was introduced into school"?

Do you believe that "this country stumbled along for 178 years without ... God"?


Exactly which statement by Loony Leftist Ted Turner (who says that he's an atheist and claims Gorbachev and Castro as his close friends) are you referring to? He's made so many that I'm curious which one or ones that you find valid.

Turner told Blitzer how "absolutely sincere" North Korean Kim Jong Il is, insisting that “he didn’t look too much different than most other people” Puzzled [WHAT LOGICAL ANALYSIS!].

Turner claims that we can trust "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il with nuclear weapons. "We do not have to worry about them attacking us.” "The threat is non-existent to the United States."

(Kim Jong Il, surrounded by luxury and privilege and affectionately called the Korean Hugh Hefner, has kidnapped young women to be in his "Joy Brigade." While his famine-starved people eat tree bark to ease their hunger, he dines on steak, lobster, and cognac in the company of the "Pleasure Squad" -- a variety pack of imported blondes and Asian beauties. He is suspected of being the man behind the 1983 bomb attack in Rangoon that killed several members of the South Korean Cabinet, as well as the bombing of a 1987 South Korean airliner, killing 135 passengers, to scare away tourists from the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Former U.S. Sec. of State Madeleine Albright assures us that he's "not delusional.")

Turner denies that Kim Jong Il is a despot who treats N. Koreans brutally since Turner saw that the people were "thin" -- "being thin is healthier than being fat" [i.e., they're not at all starving] -- but “they were riding bicycles instead of driving in cars.” [Turner logic: being thin (emaciated?) and riding a bike means that you're healthy. Puzzled ]

Starvation and brutality in N. Korea? “I didn't see any. I didn’t see any." Hear no evil; see no evil; speak no evil -- Well, Ted doesn't qualify for the last one.

I guess N. Koreans do "use as little nonrenewable resources as possible" (#5 of Turner's "Ten Voluntary Initiatives" -- his humanist version of the Ten Commandments).


Ted Turner's Ten Voluntary Initiatives

1. I promise to have love and respect for the planet earth and living things thereon, especially my fellow species – humankind. [Christians don't qualify for “love and respect.” What about his relatives the chimps?]

2. I promise to treat all persons [Christians and pre-born children don't qualify] everywhere with dignity, respect, and friendliness.

3. I promise to have no more than two children, or no more than my nation suggests. [Communist China does a lot more than "suggest" the number of children. There are severe penalties, including forced abortion and infanticide. Desiring to have their one "allowed" child to be male, couples abort, abandon, or even kill female children. Since there’s a population explosion in Africa, ban pesticides to enforce the natural of Darwinian evolution: survival of the fittest, or “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life” – See #6.]

4. I promise to use my best efforts to save what is left of our natural world in its untouched state and to restore damaged or destroyed areas where practical. [Are CNN buildings, restaurants, and buffalo ranches exempt from this promise?]

5. I pledge to use as little nonrenewable resources as possible. [Are CNN buildings, restaurants, and buffalo ranches exempt from this promise? “Rearing Cattle Produces More Greenhouse Gases Than Driving Cars, UN Report Warns” ]

6. I pledge to use as little toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other poisons as possible and to work for their reduction by others.

[ DDT, which is remarkably non-toxic to humans, was responsible for eradicating malaria from Europe and North America and bringing India’s malaria death rate down from 800,000 per year to almost zero. Thanks to the influence of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring more than a half-a-billion episodes of malaria occur every year with about one million fatalities. 2.7 million people – mostly African children: one child under the age of 5 every 30 seconds – died of malaria each year before a new form of treatment began to be used in 2005. Save the mosquitoes but kill the children.]

7. I promise to contribute to those less fortunate than myself, to help them become self-sufficient and enjoy the benefits of a decent life, including clean air and water, adequate food [even though it’s "unfit for human consumption"] and health care, housing, education, and individual rights. [Is that what the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food Programme accomplished? Puzzled ]

8. I reject the use of force, in particular military force, [but promote government’s use of force] and back United Nations arbitration of international disputes. [The U.N. was so successful with Saddam.]

9. I support the total elimination of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction [unless they are in the hands of a dictator].

10. I support the United Nations [to the tune of $1 billion] and its efforts to collectively [no individual responsibility] improve the conditions of the planet.


Ted called the war in Iraq "one of the dumbest moves that was ever made by anybody." Shocked

Ted also defends the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons and the effectiveness of the United Nations, although the U.N. has been corrupt for years. More than half of Americans believe that the UN is anti-American (the rest are uninformed or loons like Turner).

"I am absolutely certain we would not have made it through the Cold War without the U.N.”

Turner, who was honored as "Humanist of the Year" by the American Humanist Association in 1990, said, “Christianity is a religion for losers.”

(Rep. Pete Stark who called soldiers’ deaths the “amusement” of President Bush is the 2008 Humanist of the Year.)

Those who support the "unalienable Rights" of pre-born children are “Bozos.”

“Jesus freaks” are "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

"Men should be barred from public office for 100 years in every part of the world. ... It would be a much kinder, gentler, more intelligently run world. The men have had millions of years where we've been running things. We've screwed it up hopelessly. Let's give it to the women.”

“Basically we are chimpanzees with about two percent more intelligence and a little less hair.”

Yep, that Ted Turner! Puzzled


Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?

Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?

I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.

I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service. ~ Benjamin Franklin, Speech to the Constitutional Convention of 1787

Locke's picture
Submitted by Locke on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 5:42pm.

these might help answer you question to bad_ptc:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." (Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists)

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (James Madison, 1819).

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (James Madison, Veto, 1811)

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, 1787)

"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." (Millard Fillmore)

"Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, or both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separated." (Ulysses S. Grant)

"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community." (James A. Garfield)

"I believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." (John F. Kennedy)

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 6:10pm.

Good evening ladies. I hope yesterday's elections were to your likings. I cheerfully cast votes for republicans and my guys faired well. Do you ever see yourselves voting for democrats in any scenario? anywayssss

Case 1: The governor of Kentucky, Ernie Fletcher, was embattled in a tough election with democrat Steve Beshear. Republican Fletcher had a large cloud of unethical hiring practices looming over his term as governor. So what did he do the day before the election? He hung the 10 Commandments in the State Capitol. Voters didn't become distracted by this and they voted him out based on his job performance; not his proclamation of faith in God and His Commandments.

Case 2: Ultra-religious Pat Robertson endorses pro choice, three-times married Rudy Giuliani overlooking the very honorable christian witness of Mike Huckabee or John Edwards. Does this serve as witness to God's word? Did Pat Robertson stand on religious principle or did he cheapen his witness for political expediency? I find both cases very curious, and I feel in my gut that one's personal walk with God does not belong on a professional resume'. And the resume' is what matters in politics.

Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by lilly on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 2:11pm.

Thanks finally someone with some morals and values and beliefs- Thanks again!

Submitted by d.smith700 on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 2:50pm.

Well you have finally convinced me. I suggest we elect a committee to run the USA"
One of Pope rank; one Emir; one Grand Ayatollah; one Mormon Saint; one Priest (Buddhist); one Confucian Leader; a relative of Gandhi; Franklin Graham; a Rabbi; and Bill Clinton to represent the rest of us.
The committee would decide, in all cases, whether to use the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or whatever to decide all things.
Beating women, three God-Heads, Ancestors, many wives, and fishing poles would all be legal!

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:35pm.

I believe they use Monks not priests.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Submitted by lilly on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 5:03pm.

I don't care when it was added the point is it was added. So. What would you say one nation under nothing??????

With all the problems in this world and schools you wonder what is wrong, a nation that turns it's back on God is in trouble. God is in charge if you believe in HIM or not.

So, does this statement how you get bad_ptc as your name.

This does anger me when we had KIDS saying and doing things in our schools that should never be there.

By, the way it all started when they said they took prayer out of school, and by the way they didn't. There is not anyone that can stop you from praying. You see we can talk to God and not say a thing out loud and He hears us.

So, what are we one nation under WHAT? I assume you don't salute the flag.

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 6:08pm.

Hi Lilly.

Just how do you profess to know how I feel? Did God him/herself tell you? Did you see it in some animal entrails or was it the current planet alignment?

To start off, this country stumbled along for 178 years without "under God". It seems to me that most of the "trouble" started AFTER prayer was introduced into school, not before

"What would you say one nation under nothing??????"
No Lilly, it's under the rule of law.

"With all the problems in this world and schools you wonder what is wrong, a nation that turns it's back on God is in trouble. God is in charge if you believe in HIM or not."
No Lilly, God maybe in charge of you but not me, I'm in charge of me. I take full responsibility for my thoughts and deeds.

I hold no malice towards anyone because of by the way they choose or choose not to embrace a religion. I strongly believe that there is plenty of room for those that wish to shave their heads and ask for offerings at airports and for those that attend some form of organized service every Sunday.

As long as no one attempts to impose their religious beliefs on me I'm ok with it. But be advised; the moment someone attempts to force their beliefs on me there will be trouble.

"By, the way it all started when they said they took prayer out of school, and by the way they didn't."
I'm not sure how to respond to that one but I'll try it this way.
Lilly please tell me when was prayer taken out of school? Was it just before the war of independence, the civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam? Should I consult my Ouija board or Tara cards for an answer? Perhaps the God of tea leaves can assist.

Lilly, a question for you; do you have any idea how many have been killed in the name of God or for how long that's been happening?

When I here people like you I tend believe Ted Turner was right.

Please, quit trying to blame the actions of others on someone’s God.

Submitted by lilly on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 1:50pm.

So, we say One Nation Under The Law? I haven't heard that one YET.

Even if you don't think God is in control- He is.

Please tell me that my son's school has morning prayer like they use to? No, they don't and they won't. Only when he attended a Christian School was this done.

Why all the anger- I'm not angry, just saying what I believe. I'm not forcing you to believe anything.

Do you believe in God? Because if you don't you don't have a clue about what I am talking about.

You know all would like to live life anyway they would like to, but there is a God that I and everyone else will have to answer to, it does not matter if you believe me or not.

My belief system is just so different than yours.

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 3:22pm.

Do any of these look or sound familiar?

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
October 11, 1892

I pledge allegiance to (“my”, removed) the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1923

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1924

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1954

The 10 commandments haven't been fairing all that well in Federal buildings as of late and according to you and others school prayer is more or less out the door. Like anything else, it wouldn't surprise me if the "under God" was eventually removed as well.

If it is removed, will you move to another country or will the United States still be the United States?

Submitted by lilly on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 3:59pm.

You do have a problem with "God" don't you? Do you have a Ted Turner story why you hate God? This is not about me, it's about God. That is sad.,

BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:06pm.

I have been reading all of this, and I think they all do. Don't expect many to agree with you, Jesus is never a in thing to talk about.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 6:28pm.

I honestly get the feeling we are having a very heavy discussion with a very young person. Or very, very old one. I get the sense alot of what Lilly writes is as much for self affirmation as it is to convince us. So please take her comments with a grain of salt; and then throw that grain of salt over your left shoulder so as not to have bad luck. Smiling


Kevin "Hack" King

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 5:59pm.

What's up sky guy? Big game this Friday, my Tigers are coming for ya'll. It's the year of the Tiger.


I yam what I yam...Popeye

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 6:14pm.

I've been dying to shout out to you and Git, but the wife ain't diggin my posting time consumption. You guys are steam rolling folks. My son's 9th grade team kicked butt with only one loss to whitewater. I've felt like a school kid at the games. My son said he could here me from the stands. All the best to you gents and your families.

Kevin "Hack" King

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 3:23pm.


Very true.

But then one might wonder how the language of "inalienable rights" in those original American documents is justified outside of a decidedly religious and theistic context. That language is not referring to the "civil rights" that are granted by the resulting Constitution. Rather, the appeal is to a notion of moral rights that form the basis of such civil rights.

Daniel Dennett, atheistic author of Darwin's Dangerous Ideatrue. And it is "on stilts" in that we make so much of it. To say, "But this violates my right" is supposed to be a "conversation stopper." But, he argues, natural selection would assure that there be such conversation stoppers just to assure that the job gets done.

Bottom line: You cannot make sense of the notion of rights outside of such a religious context.

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 10:14pm.

”But then one might wonder how the language of "inalienable rights" in those original American documents is justified outside of a decidedly religious and theistic context.”

There’s no wonder to it at all.

Its justification lies in the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness some also include property.

For centuries “the common man” was the property of his king or monarch and had no rights whatsoever. Only the ruling authority of the time was considered to have “rights”.

Although I’m sure you’re knowledgeable of “social contract” theory, "inalienable rights" were said to be those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign.

As per the “Theory of Culture” inalienable rights do not exist in any positive sense. At least in the real world, rights exist only to the degree that a culture grants said rights.

While I think a valid argument could easily be made that the right to worship is an inalienable right, attempting to exclusively bond the meaning of "inalienable rights" to a religious or theistic context would be inappropriate.

The early America was not without its problems when addressing the idea of inalienable rights. I particularly like a quote from Charles A. Wills, Destination America, that reads, “Many of those who came to the colonies seeking the freedom to practice their particular faith were quick to deny that freedom to those whose beliefs were different—most notably the New England Puritans, who banished, punished, and sometimes executed Quakers and other non-Puritans.”

It gives me a warm fuzzy to think how far we've advanced in a little over 200 years.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 5:15am.

I intend this primarily as a philosophical point rather than an historical one: the notion of a moral right is problematic on naturalism. If, as Bertrand Russell put it so elegantly nearly a century ago, "Man is a product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving" and even his most significant and salient features are "but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms," it is difficult to see where would find the resources to speak of the notion of human dignity or the inherent worth of persons.

Jeremy Bentham first said that the notion of rights is "nonsense on stilts" because a theory of rights clashed with his theory of utility. If there are rights, then some interests are "sacred" such that it is immoral even to calculate and ask what advantage might be gained by sacrificing them. (Should we kill the miserly rich lady down the street, take her money and give it to the orphanage?) But if utilitarianism is true, then it is always appropriate to calculate and ask, "Which action available to me now would maximize utility?"

Dan Dennett--my favorite atheist--borrowed the "nonsense on stilts" line and used it in his discussion of "Darwin's dangerous idea." If the human "moral sense"--including the widespread belief in rights--is ultimately a product of natural selection, then rights are nonsense of stilts. They are nonsense because they are not, as we might have thought, grounded in the very nature of things. They are "on stilts" in the sense that we place so much importance on them. But, Dennett adds, they are "good nonsense," and good precisely because they are on stilts. That is, a workable societal behavior results from our reverence for this illusory notion of rights.

Edward Wilson and Michael Ruse have famously (or infamously) argued that "ethics is an illusion foisted off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate." Ruse explains, "The Darwinian argues that morality simply does not work (from a biological perspective), unless we believe that it is objective. Darwinian theory shows that, in fact, morality is a function of (subjective) feelings; but it shows also that we have (and must have) the illusion of objectivity." (My emphasis)

With some fine-tuning, I believe that they are essentially correct. If we begin with "evolutionary naturalism" (no God plus Darwinian human origins), then any and all moral beliefs are unwarranted.

If, on the other hand, the most ultimate reality is a Person, and we are created as persons in his image, then I believe we have the ground to speak of the inherent worth of the individual and the natural moral rights that are implied by that sort of worth.

But back to history for a moment. You wrote "attempting to exclusively bond the meaning of "inalienable rights" to a religious or theistic context would be inappropriate."

But aren't the concepts already bound together in those American documents? Aren't these rights "endowed by the Creator"?

Submitted by d.smith700 on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 8:40am.

This is your worst yet!
Talking about unorganized, random philosophy---this has to be it.
Everything you said could have been said in two short paragraphs and it still wouldn't have said anything proven or useful!

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 8:50am.

Coming from you, that's a pretty serious critique.

You don't understand? I'll do better than "two short paragraphs." How about "four short propositions"?

(1) If evolutionary naturalism is true then human morality is a product of natural selection.

(2) If human morality is a product of natural selection, then our moral beliefs are without warrant.

(3) If our moral beliefs are without warrant, then there is no moral knowledge.

(4) Therefore, if evolutionary naturalism is true, there is no moral knowledge.

Insofar as we think we know things like Stomping on babies just to hear them squeak is wrong, then we have reason for rejecting evolutionary naturalism.

eodnnaenaj1's picture
Submitted by eodnnaenaj1 on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 8:44am.

if my memory serves me correctly, muddle has been published, whatever happened to your research and book?

Submitted by danc57 on Mon, 11/05/2007 - 2:42pm.

Many groups other than Christians believe in God or Gods. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans etc. all different religions, all equally valid.

If we can’t find ways to live together and appreciate our rich diversity…then we will be in “in a heap of trouble.”

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 2:29pm.

First, does the "57" in your screen name refer to a birth year? That's mine.

Here, I do not challenge the claim that all religious beliefs are "equally valid."

But I should very much like to know what that means?

Are all scientific theories "equally valid"?

What about political beliefs?

Opinions on how best to get to Peoria?

How is it that all of these competing religious beliefs are equally valid? Is it possible for a religious belief to be true or false? If not, why not? If so, then why should we think that a false religious belief has a validity equal to that of a true one? Or are they all false? If so, how do we know?

gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 4:02pm.

Lily....the "TRUE" G-d is just that....G-d. Not some Jewish guy who years later people interpreted what he was saying as to mean that he was the son of G-d. All people are created in the image of the Almighty and are therefore sons and/or daughters of Him. All our "warts and all". Until the Messiah comes (1st time many minds) the world wil not be saved and until we can all agree on that and that there is only one G-d, who many religions pray to and believe in, just called by many different names, we are, as Danc says "in a heap of trouble". Refer to the Bible.....the real one, handed down as the 5 Books of Moses and you will see that unless ALL the criteria are met (which they haven't been as of yet) and probably not by a mere man, that he has not been here yet........not for the over 3500 years prior nor after the Common Era (BCE).

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 5:58am.

This is often asserted, but it is quite impossible.

The varieties of monotheism maintain that God is not identical to any feature of the world, that the world is God's creation, and that God is a personal being.

Christianity maintains that God is three persons in one substance--the doctrine of the trinity. Judaism and Islam reject this.

Islam has a different conception of God's moral character and our moral responsibility to him.

Buddhism and Jainism are essentially atheistic religions.

Those varieties of "Hinduism" that stand in the tradition of the Vedas (Advaita Vedanta, for instance) are radically monistic, asserting that the only existing thing is Nirguna (propertyless) Brahman. The world is an illusion.

Taoism asserts that the ultimate reality--the Tao--is ineffable and admits of no distinctions (including the distinction between good and evil). It is by no means a person.

Then, of course, there have been vastly many religions with varying concepts of the divine. The Brits finally succeeded in stamping out the thugee cult in India, which worshiped Kali, who delighted in human blood.

One may say that all of these are fundamentally the same thing only if one does not take seriously what actual practitioners of actual religions say and believe. For example, an increqasingly influential theory of religion known as Religious Pluralism maintains that no doctrine of any religion says anything true. But the importance of the various doctrines is that, in believing them, the believer undergoes a kind of "moral transformation." Religions are allegedly in the business of making nice people out of nasty people. (Like all of those nice terrorists?) Pluralism is supposed to be all-inclusive when, in fact, it excludes each and every religion by denying the significance of their doctrines.

gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 8:55am.

Just when you had me believing that you were making sense.........3 persons in one being,huh? Sounds a little schizo. to me. G-d is everything and is in everything (at least most of us) and is the beginning and end.....but 3 people in one? Come on, a little too convenient, so that it all fits in with the Christianity theory, interpreted and written many years post Jesus, for me. That's akin, for me, to someone at a frat party in say 1980 trying to recall the events in 2007.......too much of the old telephone game effect for me to really trust in it. In Judaism G-d refers to him/herself as Adonai, Hashem etc. depending on the "role" G-d is playing (much like being called Dad or Mom, Mr. or Mrs., 1st name etc.); in Islam it is Allah and so on in the 3 monotheistic traditions. That's all I was saying when referring to the different names.....different languages, different customs, same ONE BEING. And, what's so "wrong" with the Buddhist and Hindu traditions......not enough people dying in the name of who's right and who's wrong for most Westerners to grasp. Interesting how the 3 major world religions sprang from the same place, Judaism and there's this trinity in Christianity.....the one that took hold latest (and tried to beat it in to the rest of the world as the only right way). If people would allow Judaism to just be (you don't see Jews starting the crusades, the terror etc., just defending themselves from the attacks when able) it would be a much more peaceful world.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 9:42am.

Yeah, I know. Christian theologians have wrestled with the idea for centuries.

As G.K. Chesterton said of the creeds of orthodoxy, "I did not make it, it made me." So, it isn't exactly as though I just cooked this idea up for the purpose of these blogs.

If this--or any other doctrine, for that matter--is shown to be a contradiction, then it is shown to be false, and necessarily so. It is certainly weird. It poses the being of God as something very different from what we are accustomed to.

I mean, typically, the people you encounter in the mall demonstrate a one-to-one correspondence of person and being. If you meet a person, chances are you've met only one being, and vice versa. Thnis doctrine suggests that, in God, things run a little differently.

If the doctrine had it that God is three substances but also only one substance, at the same time and in the same respect, or that he is three persons, but also only one person (again, same time and respect) then we would have a formal contradiction. But the claim is that God is three with respect to personhood and one with respect to substance.

As for your claims about the origins of such doctrines, well, here I can only refer you to some good literature. Consider, for example, N.T. Wright's massive The Resurrection of the Son of God. He argues that Christian resurrection faith was at the core of the first glimmerings of Christian belief--not a late accretion. Against all cultural and historical background and preparation, these monotheistic Jews believed that (a)Jesus is the Messiah (b) that he is God's Son in a unique way and (c) that God raised him from the dead. Wright argues that the best explanation for the rise of this early belief is that these original disciples experienced something extraordinary, namely, the risen Christ.

Perhaps after careful scholarship one may dismiss such claims. But certainly not before.

gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 10:16am.

Thanks, muddle. I'll look that one up and try to dig through some stuff to offer up to you too.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 6:05am.

Like in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Good point about the inclusiveness of pluralism -- very tolerant, too.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 6:18am.

Not sure about the beating heart pulled from the chest and spontaneously combusting, though. Eye-wink

Thanks for the good wishes regarding Mrs. Muddle.

Submitted by lilly on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 5:30pm.

The Messiah is already here. HIS NAME IS JESUS!!!!! I do refer to the real bible. No, we don't pray to the same God, I pray to the ONE TRUE GOD, that sent his SON JESUS so I could be forgiven and live with HIM FOREVER. Since, you don't think the Messiah has come that is the difference in what we believe. But, I can tell you MY GOD IS REAL! How about seeing The Passion OF The Christ, but it still would not matter to you because you don't believe JESUS IS THE MESSIAH, HE IS.
I will pray that you see this.

gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 9:10am.

Why my this and my that.....can't you believe that every peaceful, sensible person who believes in G-D (and G-D alone)is "correct", and stop being so flippin' militant about things, it's just better for your overall well being darlin'. Ok lil', I'll get my info. from a fictional account written by a nut job/psuedo nazi/holocaust denier. Years ago i threw away all my gibson movies........shame too b/c they were fun and action"ey". He's no better than farrakhan btw. That's like watching Charlton Heston in the Ten Commandments. It is a shame what those crazy Romans did, though.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 6:17pm.

"How about seeing The Passion OF The Christ, but it still would not matter to you because you don't believe JESUS IS THE MESSIAH, HE IS."

Lilly, do you not see the irony in this statement? Just like "under God" on coins, this is a product of man (the film). Saying or printing "under God" or watching a film "The Passion" does not a representative government make. Think about it Lilly. The Passion is a movie produced and directed by a man that went on a drunken tiraid, drove under the influence, verbally assaulted a female police officer, and ended up in jail.
Let's analyze that particular situation as such: Mel Gibson is the God fearing christian you wish all Americans to be. The female police officer who was verbally abused by him represents the religion-neutral governmental body. She acted within the guidance of laws. She did not use the bible, church procedure, religious ritual.

Lilly, like it or not, we are not a nation of baptists or methodists or catholics. We are a nation of Americans as different from one another as one snow flake is from the next. I won't make you baptize by sprinkling. I won't suggest we make tithing law. I don't think we want to mandate that male teens go on missions after high school as many mormon young men do. I believe the majority of people in our country want religious faith to be a personal journey that is not forced on anyone else.
With respect to the pharmacy issue. Can you imagine applying the faith principle to all jobs. Heaven forbid a man in the sporting goods section of Walmart feeling that his faith no longer allows him to sell anyone guns. Or the faith of catholic cashiers not allowing them to ring up condom purchases. Do you realize how similar we would look to Iran and Saudi Arabia? Do you really want religious law here in the USA? Really?

Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by lilly on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 7:09pm.

Mel Gibson is mere man who loves God but messes up just like all of us. Not because he wants to but because we are not perfect- only one is perfect- JESUS. Oh, by the way how many times do you want him to say he is sorry. Don't go on how I think he looks great. Not me- my friend does, ha.

How about seeing The Passion Of The Christ but it still would not matter, no it wouldn't with this person I responded to- he does not believe that the Messiah has come.

And I come in peace.

Show me a perfect person, you can't. Sorry, we need Jesus.

About jobs I should never be denied a job because I am a Christian.

My husband has more than his share hired non-christians mostly in the type of work he use to do- and the countless people he hired there were only about 3 that were Christians.

It's your choice, one I would hope everyone could see- and do, everyone makes it harder than it is.
Christians are not perfect, but we are forgiven because we want to be.
We ask forgiveness. IT's not a ticket to get to do what you want, we strive to be like Jesus, that's our goal- we fail, we are not God's Son, or God.

Do I believe Mel Gibson is a Christian-yes I do. Believe what you like.

Are you are a Christian, because if you are not you don't have a clue what I am talking about.

Rent The Passion Of The Christ maybe you will see.

gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 8:38pm.

One last thing before off to bed. The Messiah, WHEN it comes is to bring in an era of unprecedented peace on Earth.....this clearly has not been the case yet. When all of the criteria that have been set forth are met, this will happen. Peace and love to you all......good night.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 7:55pm.

I also didn't like the way people ate popcorn and drank sodas while the Lord was being crucified. It seemed out of place. Anyway, you should be mad at yourself. Your other post mad a democrat smile real big! Smiling Good night!

Kevin "Hack" King

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 10:24pm.

to take it easy on Lilly.

Are the "D's" offering advice that they themselves don't follow?

Have a great night and say hello to your dad from all of us.

P.S. Get your dad on here, them maybe we'll get some honest advice.

Submitted by lilly on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 7:59pm.

I am glad you saw The Passion.

I was 18 when I voted for Carter, he said he was a Christian. Since then he has been such a disgrace, 18 yr olds should not be allowed to vote, it was stupid on my part because of being 18.

SMile????? Take a vote back for a million dollars is alot. It says alot to a democrat. Good Night.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 9:01pm.

Please enlighten me as to how Pres. Carter has acted in some un-Christian way if that was your implication. Or correct me if I drew the wrong conclusion.

Granted that you may have been stupid at 18, and I will not dispute that, please also give me the fruits of your recently gained wisdom and name one Christian act preformed by Bush who you like so much.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 9:39pm.

And found the GOP obligatory shot at your dad. Jeff, skim through Lilly's past comments real quickly. Then after doing so, for reasons I believe you will ascertain, I beseech you not to throw your major league fastball in a rec league game. Comprendes?

Lilly has stated her fondness for 43 and of the job he's done. need I say more? She is one of the remaining 28%.

Kevin "Hack" King

ps: I'll answer the Bush + Christian answer for Lilly:

1. Good catholic anti abortion Judges
2. No dead stem cells
3. Culture of life talk (with a straight face; while authorizing torture; while discretionarily sending soldiers to war; while being a proponent of the death penalty). Hey. Sometimes words are more important than deeds.

Submitted by lilly on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 2:09pm.

President Bush is not Catholic- he is Methodist. Which if you want to know I am not either. We are both Christians first and that is what matters.

What would you know about being a Christian?

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:06pm.

I'm trying to help out here and I'm asking you in the nicest way possible from one Christian to another. Please stop. You're witness in this particular case is doing more harm than good. Right now you are about as effective a witness as Cashflo Dollar is. Please back away from the keyboard and take a look at how appealing or appalling your brand of witnessing is to those who might not know Him.

Heck, after listening to you badgering some of the folks with your style of witnessing I'd have to say this: If being a Christian is following Lilly and Creflo then I want no part of it. I'll take my chances in hell.


Brother Git


"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:34pm.

When I was at UW-Madison, these campus preachers would show up, uninvited, and start preaching to the students in the mall area on State Street.

One pair in particular, from a local fundamentalist church, called themselves "Sister Pat" and "Preacher Dan" (or was it Brother Dan?).

They would climb up on the wall so that they were above everyone, and preach damnation. Sister Pat was particularly good at calling the women "whores" because they were perhaps wearing jeans or shorts.

Preacher Dan would get hecklers. His way of dealing with them was to hold his massive Bible as though it were a gun, and "shoot" it at the hecklers. He would draw it up to his lips, blow on it (as it there was smoke), and say, "I just shot you with my Bible gun."

I was a teaching assistant at the time, working with courses in philosophy of religion. Since we were already talking about religion in the classes, students would often bring these characters up. It was very clear that they made an absolute laughingstock of Christianity.

Imagine: You are an impressionable freshman. You've just attended a brilliant and funny lecture given by Elliot Sober, a philosopher who is an atheist (or agnostic, anyway) and who is a leading expert on the philosophical implications of Darwinism. Elliot is simply a great guy--the kind of guy you would enjoy sitting down and having a conversation with over a beer. He is impressive and formidable and charming.

So here you are, you've just come from this great class by this atheist philosopher, and now you encounter perhaps the only representatives of Christ on campus--at least the only ones that you'll cross paths with: Sister Pat and Brother Dan.

Their message is hateful and negative. They are inarticulate--maybe stupid. There is nothing either charming or witty or attractive about them.

You are, again, an impressionable freshman, just beginning to form your adult opinions about life. What are you tempted to conclude?


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 5:13pm.

I'm in church every Sunday morning and evening. I work with young people on Wednesday nights and I spend a fair amount of time serving people, etc. etc.... I hate mentioning all of that because it is not about me at all. What I'm trying to say is that as active as I may be now or have been in the past, it's embarrassing as to how we appear to those who might be seeking. I'm not telling you anything you don't fully understand.

The message of Christ is powerful and life changing. There is no doubt in my mind that It is the only effective weapon there is against the evils of this world. Like any other weapon man can get his hands on, if it is not used properly then it can become a destructive force against unintended targets along with some unintended consequences. Thus, merely 'shooting off' Christian cliché's amongst the crowds is about as useless as shooting at a terrorist in the middle of a crowd. I've learned that the saying "just shoot amongst them, we're bound to hit something", just isn't a practical approach.

So unlike Sister Pat and Brother Dan I'll not pound someone over the head with the Bible. I've learned that if you smack someone hard enough with it they'll not come around you again questioning your beliefs. Somehow, I don't think that's how Christ wants us to do it.


"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:45pm.

Who were you referring to about Sister Pat and Brother Dan?

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:54pm.

I was referring to Sister Pat and Brother Dan. Eye-wink

I was seconding a general point that git was making: how we can drive people away.

I did not intend it as a direct comparison with any actual blogger, if that's what you mean.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:18pm.

There's something to be said about those simple avatars. Eye-wink

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:22pm.

Eye-wink I guess I'll wear it until Tug gits onto me.


"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:28pm.

putting the fat man back on display. But Jane1 might call the police. Then, everyone will see my picture in the paper.
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:24pm.

Are you glad I am back, by the way how did you know I love cats?

BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:10pm.

I have not seen anything that Lilly has said that is not God's truth. Not unless you believe in another God, as a matter of fact I have seen you agree with these people. So, what is a Christian to you, someone who can't say what they believe but the other can stomp them down, I think not. I'm not ashamed, are you??????

BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:12pm.

Sorry, I forgot they do ask her questions. She is not allowed to say her view, she is not harsh like they are. Come on, Bro. Git.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:23pm.

Just Holier Than Thou! Good Day!


"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:26pm.

God's Word is God's Word- it was not a holier than thou, they just don't believe the same way- both have their right to say what they believe. If your a Christian why don't you talk about something about God?

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:44pm.

God's Word is God's Word- it was not a holier than thou,

I didn't say God's Word was 'holier than though'. I said Lilly's use of God's Word was 'holier than though'.

If your a Christian why don't you talk about something about God?

I have, I do, and I will again. Just pay attention. Perhaps you and I can continue this discussion over our Wednesday Night Dinner at church. I'll be there and while we're at it I'd love to discuss how we 'play church' rather than 'be the church'. These people don't need to hear our hollow words and condemnations. They've seen enough Benny Hinn's, Creflo Dollars, and Southern Baptist Youth Leader/Child molesters to last them a life time. They're not going to respond to your Christian chastisements..... In fact they don't want to hear from you at all. They'd love to see Jesus though.

Later... I'll be at the table in the back. See ya there.


"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 4:49pm.

I'll be there, where do you go to church. By the way I still disagree she just stated statements of what she believed God says. Either you stand up for what is right or you go along with THEM. Let me know where your church is and we will discuss it more. Thanks

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 10:31pm.

I was hoping to have her explain the Christian aspects of torture by the guy she admires so much but you are right, you are right...

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 8:17pm.

Was because you said I wasn't such a bad guy. But you had me at "hello." Smiling What did you not like about President Carter? I'm asking just to get my bearings. So far you've just called him bad and horrible and embarrasing but you haven't given the "why." Here is my last question tonight. You admire President Bush. I understand that. What causes do you think he will champion after the White House and do you see him winning any international awards or recognition for his future works?

Kevin "Hack" King

gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 6:02pm.

Say a little prayer for yourself too lilly.......TO G-D.....the ONE that I believe in (not a man), you really could use the/some help. it's real nice that you believe that all your sins can be just wiped clean by a man who's depiction you pray to in your buildings (kinda idolatrous) instead of to the ONE. I pray and ask for forgivness to G-D on the Sabbath (the 7th day)......not on the first day of the week btw. Bless your Lil' ol' heart though. I forgive're just misguided/misled that's all.

Submitted by lilly on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 6:52pm.

I pray for forgiveness daily, that's what Jesus is all about. My sins are gone forever because of what Jesus did for all of us on the cross. I have accepted Him into my heart. You just believe different. I"m not misguided or misled. I don't pray just on certain days or worship God on certain days, it's daily. Don't feel sorry for me. Jesus brings joy.

gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 7:19pm.

That's just great... I, too pray daily....for myself, my family, the country, the earth among other things and then formally on the day that G-d has asked us to pray as well as special occasions etc. This brings me, personally much joy as do many other things. May g-d bless you and yours.

Submitted by lilly on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 1:59pm.

The problem is they don't believe in the true God, God's Son Jesus. Bascially, they don't believe in anything because their God is not real.

I am not making mean remarks, I pray for them. I am glad that we live in a Country that we are free to worship they way that we choose, if we didn't I couldn't do it.

I respect them, I just don't believe like they do. My hope is that one day they could know the TRUE GOD, sure some say they believe in Jesus but if you notice He is way down on the list of what they believe.

The difference is I believe Jesus is God's Son, lived, died for our sin, rose again, and if I ask for forgiveness and believe, then I am a Christian.

I can live with them, I do it everyday. They will know I am a Christian by my love- it's in the Bible. I continue to pray for them.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.