Thursday, March 15, 2012

"Keep the government out of my uterus, keep the government out of my woOoOmb,..."

The Contraceptive Song at "Women Occupy-Rally for Women's Rights".



Ironically, they are demanding government funding for their sexual peccadilloes. Wouldn't government non-intervention in the bedroom preclude the contraceptive mandate?

We conservatives are the ones who want a safe distance between government mandates and reproductive systems, although contraception is probably moot for these ladies.

More important for the contraceptive divas is that Obamacare will cover free pessaries. 

33 comments:

  1. Wonderful post, Dr. Egnor.

    I have been thinking quite the same thing since this whole contraception mandate brouhaha began.

    Am I mistaken, or don't liberals usually tell us that they want the state and the church out of their bedrooms? That's what they say, but not what they actually believe.

    Here's what we've learned. Liberals most certainly do want the state in their bedroom, and they want the HHS secreatry to drag the church in there against its will. Then they want the state to force the church to open up its checkbook, under penalty of law, and to pay for things it finds sinful.

    The latest Obama "compromise" basically adds one actor. The state drags the church's insurance company into the bedroom to write the check "at no charge". Then the insurance company bills the church at a later date.

    I don't really want the church or state in anyone's bedroom. And guess what? They AREN'T! Or at least they weren't until Obamacare.

    Liberals want both church and state in everyone's bedroom. They simply want both parties to act in an AFFIRMING role and to subsidize their sexual proclivities. So, as usual, dishonesty is their best policy.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. Egnor,

    Did you see this? Very bloggable.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-times-refuses-to-run-anti-islam-ad-after-running-anti-catholic-ad/

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical hypocrisy and cowardice on the part of the MSM.
      Personally I think they should have refused to print the first ad regarding the RCC.
      Surely they must have thought about what would happen if a parallel or mirror ad aimed at another faith group would be unprintable?
      Do they think they have scored points with the Islamic world by playing possum? Surely even the NYT is not THAT lame.

      Delete
    2. @TRISH:

      Thanks. I've seen it, and hope to blog on it soon.

      Interesting question: why are liberals so easy on Islam, when Islam is much more "intolerant" than even the most conservative Christian?

      Delete
    3. This question has long nagged at me, Trish.
      During my service I was directly exposed to unfiltered, traditional Islam. I am not going to infer there is no good within that faith, or no advantages to that system over some of the alternatives. Nor would I ever make the case that Muslims are all bad folks. I have met and worked with many decent folks who call themselves 'Muslim'.
      But, I cannot deny the Bronze Age morality and tribal type of thinking that permeates throughout that world. It is a problem that can only be fixed from within via a kind of reformation along with a serious reconsideration of the role of their currently central prophet, as well as increased tolerance of non-Muslim peoples.
      I think that will only happen if there is pressure from without. Where is this pressure? The only real pressure I have seen is military and economic. What we need to make those efforts effective is CULTURAL pressure. Reciprocity on a cultural level.
      No more tax exemptions, building of mosques, or extensions of privilege until the same rights are granted in Muslim lands to non-Muslims.
      A Cathedral and Synagogue in Medina for a Mosque in Rome etc. Would such a tactic work? I cannot be sure, but it would at least limit the influence of that kind of mindset on our culture to a healthy level and halt the seemingly endless appeasements and apologies to the potentates of that world order.
      As it currently stands it is ILLEGAL to bring in or to even possess a cross or Bible into Saudi Arabia (and several other power broker Muslim nations) without special permission. Even in fairly moderate Muslim lands non Muslims are constantly attacked and their meeting and holy places defiled.
      Confessed atheism, animism, apostasy, or paganism in many such lands justifies a death sentence usually carried out by a mob of locals. Homosexuality? Women's rights? Forget it.

      Delete
    4. CNTD

      So, to the question: Because the 'liberals' in question are not really liberal at all. They are rather 'progressives' who abhor religion and tradition in all it's myriad forms. They seek a new order devoid of these inheritances. A 'Brave New World' based on their own faith(s) in progress. A sort of neo-collectivist Utopia.
      There is no 'good enough' for them, revolution must be the constant state.
      Therefore, they see great merit in removing the relatively innocuous faiths at hand FIRST. It is a matter of choosing their battles. Islam's turn will come too, but only after they have cleaned their own house first. Once well conditioned the proles or plebs will gladly fight a war against who ever is declared the 'savage' or 'barbarian' enemy. In fact such wars would become staple and necessary. The Islamic world must seem made to order for such a perennial conflict.
      They assume that because of the relatively pacifistic nature of Christ's teachings and the various splits/denominations within that faith that they can easily divide, rule, then eliminate it from the political spectrum. There is also a notion within these groups that they can use 'reason' to relate to the comparatively educated western Christian or Jew out of his faith.
      They are wrong, of course. But being wrong never stops an ideology from marching on, historically speaking.
      It is a matter of opportunism.
      Fortunately - even though it is a vexing display of crass opportunism and obviously cowardly - this idea is an Achilles heal for the faux 'liberal' (ie progressive) stance.
      More and more normal apolitical / non partisan people see through the PC smokescreen.
      For this, at least in part, we can thank the Jihadists bloody efforts.
      They have provided an excellent contrast to our own beliefs and traditions and the 'liberals' are seen to ignore that contrast by the masses.
      This kind of obvious disconnect is exactly why alternative cable news like FOX have become so popular with the working classes; and why movements like the Tea Party and UKIP are becoming increasingly popular in the West.
      My two penny's worth.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Repost: First one was garbled.

      It seems, at least according to multiple headlines and bylines I read this morning, that the estimated cost of this 'Obamacare' has just doubled overnight. $$$$$

      Re the 'protest': Again I see this as some sort of exercise in reverse logic. If you do NOT want the government involved, don't demand government funding or intervention. If the issue is NOT about 'reproductive freedoms' (ie the doublethink term meaning the 'right' to engage in the reproductive act and not reproduce - think: 'have my cake and eat it'), but rather it is about (older) women who need hormones, why frame the debate in such a manner?
      There is an agenda at work here, but I am afraid these women are either too lazy or conditioned to see they are being used as tools. Perhaps both.
      Frankly speaking, these women come of as bored and boring.
      It is almost as if they thought this up after reading half an article they lost interesting in; that they are simply doing this due to the lack of any other more interesting activism being available.
      Would they not be better of fighting for their 'sisters' rights who are living in polygamous relations under strict Islamic law? Maybe for the rights of enslaved sex workers? Child brides? Or women in the compounds of some throwback of the LDS? Could they not be fighting for the advancement of ethnic minority women in 'traditionally' abusive homes? Drug abuse, alcoholism, or smoking among young women?
      How about promiscuity and the various grave consequences (disease, teen pregnancy, the trauma of abortion etc) in young women?
      Maybe they don't realize these things are about them? Are they utterly oblivious to the REAL issues facing women?
      It all seems akin diabetics protesting the cost of chocolate bars and demanding the government enforce subsidy of said snacks with the intent of removing government controls on confectionery.
      In a word: Loopy.

      Delete
  4. “Ironically, they are demanding government funding for their sexual peccadilloes.”

    No their not. They just want to ensure Republicans don’t pass laws allowing employers to influence their reproductive health and contraception choices by manipulating health insurance coverage, force women to undergo humiliating and unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds as a condition to get an abortion, or potentially outlaw hormonal birth control altogether as a consequence of various state “personhood” amendments.

    Pennsylvania’s vaginal ultrasound bill (House Bill 1077) requires that the image produced by the ultrasound be placed in the woman’s line of sight. Republican state rep Todd Rock promises that the women forced to undergo this procedure “can turn your head or close your eye’s”. Yeah, you don’t have to look at the image, but the government insists you get your vagina probed anyway. I guess the women of Pennsylvania should be thankful the government isn’t propping their eyes open like in A Clockwork Orange.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forcing other people to pay for your contraception isn't reproductive freedom. If you want freedom, pay for it yourself.

      Regarding to ultrasound bill, there are many surgical procedures in which various imaginging tests are necessary prior to the procedure. This is to ensure that the diagnosis is correct, to plan the procedure, and to ensure that the patient is able to give informed consent.

      Seeing the baby on the untrasound informs the mother about what she is doing, and such information is routinely required for legal consent for a host of medical procedures.

      Of course if abortion is just killing and not really a medical procedure, than such formalities may not be necessary...

      Delete
    2. In Canada, we are currently mulling a bill making said ultrasounds unavailable for purposes of sexing until later in term (already part of procedure here) due to the problems with sex selection. The patient would still be able to see the image and hear the heartbeat, but they would not be allowed to know the sex if the technician or OB is able to determine it.
      Apparently our OB's are finding that many people are using this very attempt to make them understand what they are doing and what the 'choice' entails is instead being used by groups (usually of certain ethnic and cultural bg's) of people who want to select the sex of their child and abort only female pregnancies.
      The argument goes that people who are intent on killing the foetus inside them will do it anyway, and those who seek only to kill a female foetus would not be able to use the tech to do so, if the child was allowed to pass beyond the 3rd trimester BEFORE being 'sexed'.
      Having just gone through this whole process with our little guy, I find the entire notion utterly horrifying. How anyone could see that little person forming and decide to destroy everything they could ever be for selfish reasons... it just staggers the mind. Infanticide is an insidious evil.
      I was very happy to find I had a son on the way, but I would have been just as happy if it had been a little girl. In fact, I am HOPING for a little girl, should the wife decide she's up for another go.
      Life is life and your child's should be among the most precious in value.

      Delete
    3. "They just want to ensure Republicans don’t pass laws allowing employers to influence their reproductive health and contraception choices by manipulating health insurance coverage,"
      If you do not want interference - don't ASK for it. Asking the government to force the issue is giving them control over the issue.

      "...force women to undergo humiliating and unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds as a condition to get an abortion..."
      The pregnancy ultrasound is a non invasive procedure. My wife and countless other pregnant women have to go through them, and I have had them myself for other complaints.
      You don't even need to shave any more. It is a bit of gel and a device moved over your abdomen.
      The exam you're thinking of is a pap test and physical which is REQUIRED regularly for women's own personal health. Pregnancy or no, contraceptive or no - all adult women are recommended to have it. It is analogous to a prostate exam, which you will no doubt experience as you grow older. A recurrent and unpleasant invasive exam, but NOT an ultrasound (I WISH!).


      "Pennsylvania’s vaginal ultrasound bill (House Bill 1077) requires that the image produced by the ultrasound be placed in the woman’s line of sight. "
      Aha! Is it the IMAGE you think would deter them? GOOD! If so, then I positively agree with this policy. Much harder to kill who/what you see and understand.
      I know that VERY well as a soldier and officer who trains them.

      "...or potentially outlaw hormonal birth control altogether as a consequence of various state “personhood” amendments."
      Eh? Contraceptive PREVENT (contra=counter ception= abbreviation of conception) the person from forming. You must mean the 'morning after pill', or as it is known locally as 'the abortion pill'. That is regulated like abortion already, no? It certainly is here.

      Delete
    4. Anon,
      "Yeah, you don’t have to look at the image, but the government insists you get your vagina probed anyway."
      No vagina probes involved.
      Look:
      http://www.nunukphotos.com/images/pregnancy-ultrasound-pv.jpg

      "I guess the women of Pennsylvania should be thankful the government isn’t propping their eyes open like in A Clockwork Orange."
      Why is it you lefty-hipster types always want to make references to films and books critical of YOUR OWN ideology in some weird attempt to promote it?
      You folks try to do this with Orwell too!
      Consider: The main character in Burgess's book is a product of a socialist welfare state with passive parenting and schooling. He is convicted of a brutal murder and sent to prison after a wave of violence, after being betrayed by his 'droogs' - drugged up and emotionally crippled gang members.
      It is the quacks of a self proclaimed 'progressive' nature (ie NOT the pastor or prison officials) who think they can 'make him a new man incapable of violence' through conditioning him. After a roller coaster ride of horrors and revenge (by his victims), Alex (the main character) is back to his old ways by way of a concussion that somehow breaks his conditioning. The same progressive politicians KNOW (hence the gift of the stereo with the 'Ludwig Van' playing) this and release him anyway to avoid public embarrassment as the press is portraying Alex as the 'victim' of their 'cruel schemes'.
      As the reader, you know Alex is NOT the victim in the book, the women he rapes and kills are, the society he brutalizes is. He is the anti-hero.
      He is freed by soft minded idiots who think there is no more to good and evil than perception and feedback. This is not an interpretation of the book, it is the whole bloody theme. It is stated OVER AND OVER again.
      You might want to read the book or watch the film again, Anon.

      Delete
    5. The objection to the vaginal probe is basically a smoke screen.

      We know this because there are ultrasounds that involve a vaginal probe and those that are abdominal. Planned Parenthood and the abortion cheerleaders have made it very clear that they oppose ultrasound bills that would require the non-invasive abdominal ultrasound.

      So, just to be clear: the ultrasound is the issue. Vaginal probe or not, they're against it. Keep in mind that an ultrasound is performed before most abortions. "Eyes on the target", you know. The ultrasound is for the benefit of the "doctor" who is going to kill the baby. The mother who's consenting to having her baby killed doesn't usually see it.

      So it's not really about vaginal probes, it's about ultrasounds. And it isn't really about whether an ultrasound will be performed, it's about whether the mother will see it.

      The abortion industry is scared witless of women seeing their children. It's bad for business because they can see with their own eyes that Planned Parenthood is lying to them that it's not a human being. If it's not a human being, why does it have a head, and arms, genitals, a unique DNA code?

      TRISH

      Delete
    6. "Regarding to ultrasound bill, there are many surgical procedures in which various imaginging tests are necessary prior to the procedure."

      And there is no medical reason for the ultrasounds that are being mandated by the bills in question, a fact that you as much as admit when you say:

      "Seeing the baby on the untrasound informs the mother about what she is doing"

      Because that's not a medical reason. That's a political reason.

      Delete
    7. If it's not a human being, why does it have a head, and arms, genitals, a unique DNA code?

      If it requires a transvaginal ultrasound to see it, then it won't have a head, arms, or genitals. Whether it has a unique DNA code at that point is questionable. On the other hand, cancerous growths have their own unique DNA code, and I don't see you running out to secure their rights.

      Delete
    8. Did you just compare a human embryo or foetus to a cancer, Anon?
      You did indeed!
      What incredible length you reach for to justify the killing of innocents.
      Shame on you.

      Delete
  5. Oh, and another thing. The ultrasound bill is a totally separate thing from the contraceptive mandate contained in Obamacare.

    And in the case of Obamacare, it is in fact a true statement “Ironically, they are demanding government funding for their sexual peccadilloes."

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can hardly imagine a woman who wouldn't want a vaginal probe in her you-know-where, but wouldn't mind scalpels and various instruments of medieval weaponry shoved up there.

    But again, weren't we talking about the contraceptive mandate? The implication of the mandate is very clear--the state will get involved in your bedroom, and it will drag the church into it as well, kicking and screaming.

    If you liberals stand for anything, isn't it the idea that church and state have no business in your bedroom?

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you liberals stand for anything, isn't it the idea that church and state have no business in your bedroom?"

      ha! ha! ha!

      Well, sort of. Trish, you have to understand the mindset of the liberal. They definitely don't want the church or state in their bedroom if either one of them is going to limit their sexual freedom in any way.

      In fact, they think that the church is "in their bedroom" if the church even holds moral beliefs about what is correct and incorrect in God's eyes. The fact that the church has zero power to enforce these beliefs, even among its own flock, isn't supposed to matter. They're still "forcing" their beliefs on others.

      But if the church and state are going to be footing the bill, that's different. They want Kathleen Sebelius in their bedrooms while they're making whoopee. And the bishop with his pointy hat too! He should be there, as you said, with his checkbook open. If he doesn't feel like showing up, well, he'll just have to be forced to under governmental threat.

      Don't you love the separation of church and state?

      Joey

      Delete
  7. All the ultrasound bills being proposed in various states mandate transvaginal ultrasounds that require the woman to put her legs in stirrups and have a lubricated condom covered probe inserted in the vagina to the base of the uterus. Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with it.

    I don’t know a single woman that was so dumb that she didn’t know what the hell she was doing when she got an abortion. I’ll grant that some women may change their mind by going thru the experience, but for the vast majority of women, it’s just a difficult, potentially humiliating, medically unnecessary, government mandated penetration of their vagina designed to make what is already a difficult situation even more unbearable.

    The personhood amendments state that life begins at the moment of conception. Quarterly Depo-Provera injections, Lunelle injections, daily oral contraceptive (estrogen/progestin), and the Ortho-Evra patch, all work by a combination of preventing ovaries from releasing an egg, thickening cervical mucus which acts as a sperm barrier, and changing the lining of the uterus preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) kill sperm and prevent implantation of a fertilized egg should fertilization occur.

    The morning after pill is no more an abortion than the ~50% of all fertalized eggs that fail to implant naturally or the implantations prevented by all the methods listed above. All of these methods could be challenged under the proposed personhood amendments.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The morning after pill is no more an abortion than the ~50% of all fertalized eggs that fail to implant naturally or the implantations prevented by all the methods listed above."
      Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The 'morning after pill' is AFTER and with deliberate purpose: To terminate a pregnancy. Naturally is natural, not chemically induced. You materialist types have a real problem with cause and effect, don't you?

      "All of these methods could be challenged under the proposed personhood amendments."
      And? If they do as you say, then why shouldn't they be challenged and examined, especially if we are talking about the difference between destroying potential human life and preventing it.
      Perhaps there is a better way to prevent pregnancy than taking hormones or having fallopian tubes blocked and pumped with chemicals? Condoms for example?

      Delete
  8. I know this has nothing to do with this post.

    But I would like the following sentence to be known worldwide:

    Being an atheist is to refuse to think!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pepe,

      Actually, you meant:

      Being a theist is to refuse to think!

      Just a slight typographic error on your part.

      Delete
    2. You’re so pathetic!

      If you could think you would be able to read and understand Aquinas. But you cannot elevate yourself above the sewer thinking of Darwin and Dawkins.

      You’re so pathetic!

      Delete
    3. Pepe,

      Nope, you're pathetic. Apologists (such as Aquinas) don't provide any cogent reasons for believing. They just provide the appearance that it is reasonable to believe, so that believers can just stop thinking and take everything on trust.

      I've hardly read anything by Darwin. I don't believe everything Richard Dawkins says or writes. Whereas, you take everything on faith, including your erroneous assertion that the last paragraph of 'On the Origin of Species' included a reference to 'the Creator' in the first edition, subsequently removed from all future editions at the insistence of atheists, whereas I new that the reverse was true. And you insisted that your account was true until you bothered to actually check.

      Delete
    4. ...you're pathetic...

      Oh! There's an echo in this blog!

      bachfiend, you can blabber all you want but you're in for a BIG surprise! If I were you I would seriously consider Pascal's wager...

      I hope you realise I am trying to help you, but none so deaf as those who will not hear!

      Sic transit gloria mundi.

      (I knew a Gloria but her family name was not Mundi)

      BTW, bach, you're still PATHETIC, despite your 3 million.

      Delete
    5. Pepe,

      I'm not worried. Pascal's wager is a nonsense.

      Delete
  9. Bach,
    Aquinas built on Aristotle.
    Aristotle framed the basis of all metaphysical inquiry. That thinking leads us to the natural philosophy: science.
    The T-A physics and proto-science (antiquated) are not the issue, any more than Galileo's theory of tides or Newton's theology is. The METAPHYSICS are the issue.
    The METAPHYSICS of A-T are inescapable reality. No better position has ever been forwarded. Full stop.
    Nor have they have never been refuted successfully, simply ignored or buried under obvious fallacies.
    The best we could hope to do is build on the metaphysical models of Aristotle.
    Bemoan final causation, function, and purpose all you want, but it does nothing but invalidate EVERY SINGLE point you make.
    Accept it and you are logically bound to accept the concepts of form and essence. Call them what you will, rename those principles all you like but even then, the very language you use to do so will betray you.
    Your argument itself is a refutation of the idea you intend to posit. You exist and have purpose whether you care to admit it or not. Even if your purpose (here) is to argue against purposefulness, you have - you guessed it - a purpose.
    No escape, old bean.
    Teleology 101.

    ReplyDelete
  10. CrusadeRex,

    Well, Aristotle is nonsense too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bach,
    Before you make such a sweeping statement about the roots of reason and logic being nonsense, perhaps you should READ Aristotle. If you did so in your college/Uni days, maybe you should revisit his work with mature eyes.
    His logic is inescapable. Causation and function are a reality, he noted and categorized it more efficiently than any mind since.
    You're mode of inquiry (the method) is a direct result of his metaphysical precepts. You PRESUME Aristotelian metaphysics with every argument you make for mechanistic and materialist efficient causes.
    You can bury that fallacy very deeply with Kant or Hume, you can attempt to avoid it with Cartesian shell games, but it is still a fallacy. Cause and effect are unavoidable. Purpose is unavoidable.
    How can we discuss the function of an organ, the 'programming' in DNA, the intentionality of matter, or even the very argument you make without considering the purpose of these things. We cannot. Every step modern philosophy and science take to refute these obvious realities lends more weight to his logic.
    If Aristotle is nonsense, so is your entire position. So is ANY position, for that matter. Your point seems to be that there is that there is no point.
    Self refutation at it's finest.
    This is why both Darwinism and Paleyism fall short of their grasp at truth.
    I sum it up with a quote from a Chinese master, made recently popular by a brilliant A-T philosopher:

    “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” ― Confucius

    ReplyDelete
  12. CrusadeRex,

    Categorization is a human tool. It's not real. It's a construct. Aristotle doesn't provide a way of looking at reality besides adding unnecessary verbiage. Function and purpose are fine, but you don't need to add intelligent design to explain them, unless you're trying to justify your god ('God' if you like). If so, why your god and not some other god invented by humans?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Categorization is a human tool. It's not real. It's a construct."
    A category, idea, word, number or numeric set IS real. It is not MATERIAL, but such abstractions obviously exist. We use them every day to make REAL objects, advance REAL programs, and do REAL science. You cannot collect a cup of two number 2's for example (no poopy pun intended).
    But 2 and 2 does equal 4, just the same.
    If we follow your argument they are not 'real' things but simply 'tools' (which are incidentally not only real, but essential to create or construct anything) to it's end we soon see that your argument ITSELF is a construct and not real, nor your can your opinion be real (based on these constructs), nor is there any point to your 'pointlessness' point.
    The entire effort you undertake to eliminate the immaterial from 'reality' thereby instantly refutes itself.
    It is a paradox.
    So why waste my or your (illusory) time with it? Why study and categorize nature if categories are non existent and the words used to define those categories are not 'real'?
    Why species, phylum?
    Why galaxies and stellar systems?
    Why RNA or DNA?
    Why bother with language or numbers or any of that stuff that is 'not real'when a bit of violence and a howl or grunt here and there will suffice? What's the point, and how on earth can it be done?
    Well. The answer to these rhetorical questions is as above. The categories, sets, languages, mathematics DO exist, just not in the material sense of existence. They are helpful and REAL.
    The fact they are very handy at helping us discover the universe about us just lends more even more weight an argument for purpose and the connection between the immaterial and material worlds.
    The DUALISM of reality.

    "Function and purpose are fine, but you don't need to add intelligent design to explain them.."
    Stop arguing against your own straw man, Bach.
    I am NOT a Paleyist. Darwinism vs Paleyism is akin the deaf arguing with the blind about the 'colour of sound'. Both systems are woefully inept to tackle the issues. They approach the problem with the wrong 'tool', as you put it seeking to
    If find some of ID's science fascinating and more open to inquiry, but then I also find some Darwinian insights interesting too despite the dogmatism associated with that thinking.
    This is not an argument about mechanistic thinking, but an observation founded in solid logic with the aid sound reason about about BEING.

    "unless you're trying to justify your god ('God' if you like)."
    A Creator is just the logical conclusion of working back and 'refining' reality.
    Oh, and I do like, thanks. God with a upper case 'G' is the title / singular. It is simply good manners when referring to Him, especially when chatting with a member of my faith. My Jewish pals alway drop the 'o' (G-d), but you needn't bother with that as far I am concerned. Either way, I now know you mean no offence.

    "If so, why your god and not some other god invented by humans?"
    That is an entirely different question. A good one, and deserving of a proper response.
    I will blog you an answer over the next couple of days and let you know when I do.
    Sufficed to say, for now, that there can ONLY be one God by way of the logic I have presented. The Alpha and Omega of things.
    Faith and the religion(s) that spring from it are a matter of interpretation and revelation of His will and his presence.
    As to why I think my faith's interpretation of the Divine is the MOST exceptional (at least to date), I will leave that for the proper answer.

    ReplyDelete