Why did God create atheists?

IN a modern-day parable, a disciple asks a rabbi: “Do you believe that God
created everything for a purpose?”
“I do,” replied the rabbi.
“Well,” asked the disciple, “why did God create atheists?”
The rabbi answered: “Sometimes we who believe, believe too much. We see the
cruelty, the suffering, the injustice in the world and we say: ‘This is the
will of God.’ We accept what we should not accept. That is when God sends us
atheists to remind us that what passes for religion is not always religion.
“Sometimes what we accept in the name of God is what we should be fighting
against in the name of God.”


66 thoughts on “Why did God create atheists?

  1. Bugger!
    So I’m working for god even though he doesn’t exist??
    Is there any such thing as jewish jesuits?

    (Not a word, Alexie!)


  2. “Why did God create atheists?”
    Probably because he has a twisted sense of humour:-

    “Dieter Graumann, chairman of the Central Council of Jews, said in a statement it was “in outrageously bad taste that a brutal Nazi sadist should be buried in a Jewish Cemetery”.
    “It’s an insult to the memory of the victims,” he said.
    But since Jewish religious law forbids exhumations and it would be difficult to identify one body among the thousands buried there, an air of mystery may linger over Mueller.

    ….I’m warming to him! 🙂


  3. Whilst I love the message of the parable, it makes me very uncomfortable because I can’t help feeling that like the disciple in the parable, there are Christians who believe that God deliberately creates vessels for destruction, citing this Scripture verse in particular as their justification. Actually, HUP comes to mind as he quoted this often:

    For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “ For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “ Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “ Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:17-24, ESV)

    I thank God for the atheists I have encountered on this blog because they see things very differently to me and encourage me to think outside the box of my religious upbringing, but I would never say that God created them to be that way, just as I would never say that God creates pedophiles, murderers, liars and cheats, gluttons and homosexuals.


    • It’s always good to be exposed to different opinions and viewpoints.

      I would never say God created atheists either, as he doesn’t exist it would be hard for him to create anything 🙂


      • Life can be unimportant without being a joke, Mon. In fact ~ it occurs to me ~ that if it WERE a joke that alone would confer some importance to it:- spreading laughter.


    • …”I would never say that God created them to be that way, just as I would never say that God creates pedophiles, murderers, liars and cheats, gluttons and homosexuals.”

      ….or godbotherers, of course! 😉

      Talk about left-handed compliments!


      • Oops, you’re right Dabs,

        Didn’t mean for it to be an insult.

        I’m saying God created all of us, right? But that atheism is a choice. God didn’t create you to be an atheist.


      • ’twas just a jest, Mon.
        But I do disagree; I think it’s obvious we’re all born atheist (as distinct from anti-god). Getting god is a deliberate choice ~ one often engendered by early conditioning, trauma, ‘god-of-the-gaps’ thinking or whatever.
        We HAVE to be taught religion ~ even if only as a philosophical concept ~ and I can think of plenty of biblical references to support the view.

        The common term ‘finding god’ says it all as far as I can see.
        ….and BillyBob agrees ~ so that settles it! 🙂


      • Nah Dabs,

        I think we humans have the capacity to instinctively know that God exists without having to be taught that He does. I think that some just know that in Him we live and move and have our being.


      • From whence does the ‘instinct’ originate, d’you reckon, Mon?

        That’s to ask:- how do you define ‘instinct’?


      • Oh, thanks Dabs,

        My mistake. I mean ‘intuition’.

        I always confuse ‘instinct’ with ‘intuition’, but they have very different meanings, don’t they? Sorry.


      • Hubby’s coming back from his two-week business trip tonight Dabs—-YAAY!

        That’ll settle me down I think, stop me from being too feisty. I can take it out on him instead of the blog. 😆


      • Yeah…I noticed you were a bit volitile.
        Nothing in this life is all THAT important, though, Mon
        Chill out as the teeny-boppers say.

        As for the ‘intuitive’ thing, my take would be that that it MUST nonetheless be based on physical ‘experience’ ~ if not yours the your ancestors.

        ALL newborn mammals have an ‘intuitive’ ‘instinct’ (tautologically-speaking) to head for the milk-bar ~ establishing THAT ‘urge’ as having been inherited, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that our species alone can claim to have and inbuilt ‘knowledge’ that no other species has.

        I can’t remember being born, but I’d lay long odds that I didn’t pop out singing ‘Jesus Loves Me This I Know’


      • “It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists, and if religion were not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so.”
        — Ernestine Rose —


      • Hi arche.
        I’d never heard of Earnestine Rose, but looked her up on the strength of your quote.
        Stunning woman by all accounts!
        And not a bit like the modern idealogues. (with whom I had some interactions years ago.)
        I’d give a lot to have known her.


      • Well, your curiosity sparked mine, so I had to read more about her too, and you’re right, she seemed like a cool person, and was easily a hundred years ahead of her time.


    • Hello Monica, I also find that very troubling that you (apparently) liken atheists to murders and pedophiles. Many atheists are good and honest people who (from their own background) concluded that God’s existence is very unlikely.
      Please refrain from such comparisons in the future because it is horribly insulting for them.

      I think that Calvinism is a real blasphemy and explain my view on salvation here:
      and hope this might be helpful for your own journey.

      By the way I am also blessed by nice and respectful atheists on blog who help me think outside of my box 🙂

      Hopefully we will have opportunities to interact in the future!

      Lovely greetings from Europe.


      • I wouldn’t get too serious about it all lotharson; English is a strange and wonderful thing that can express things no other language can ~ and also generate some false impressions even when grammatically correct.
        For example, the suggestion that you can be “blessed..by atheists” 😆

        ….and the point was made: we’re all ~ atheists, murderers, paedophiles and godbotherers ~ in the same lifeboat together. And I think what we’re doing about it is a bloody-sight more important than who built the obviously unseaworthy ship that sank.

        (Try saying THAT in any other language!)


      • Hello Lotharson,

        Thank you for your thoughts and welcome.

        Again, apologies, I in no way think or believe that atheists are evil and certainly no more evil than Christians are capable of being. The comparison I tried to make was to show that I believe that God does not create atheists, no more than he creates murderers, liars, godbotherers, etc. These are all the result of the choices we make.

        I think this way because I believe that God does not make mistakes, hence to believe that God does not exist is a mistake. To murder, cheat, lie, etc., is a mistake and yes, I believe that to have sexual relations with your own sex, is also a mistake.


      • Hello Mon, thanks for your warm welcome!

        Concluding that God does not exist even if He does might stem from:

        1) lack of information
        2) cognitive mistakes
        3) willful distortion of the facts

        On what empirical grounds do you believe that only 3) is the case, so that it might be likened to other moral mistakes?

        I could mention an article where I dealt with objections to commited and loving gay relationships, but I don’t want to flood you with too much materials :=)

        Cheers from Europe.


      • Hi lotharson,

        If God creates atheists, then according to biblical Christianity, God has in effect created atheists for Hell, hasn’t He? This is what I objected to—the disciple in the parable above saying that God creates atheists. It just reminded me of Calvinism which I strongly object to, that’s all. I was being pedantic, that’s all. And now I have nothing further to say on the subject. But I would like to know your views on loving, committed gay marriage.



      • I can tel you’re a ‘Believer’ lotharson; you ‘duck and weave as only an apologist can.’ (Not related to Bryan, are you? 🙂 )

        But translating three words doesn’t do it. The challenge is to CONVEY the meaning of the whole paragraph.
        By the way, I was born in Mannheim, spoke German almost exclusively until about age 8, and passed it at matric. level. (long ago, admittedly)

        …..and grew up with migrants from a dozen or more nationalities/cultures, from all of whom I picked up smatterings of language and ‘meaning’: the ‘sense’ of things.

        …and I reckon the English language might be the greatest invention of modern homo sapiens.

        I’m sure Shakespeare couldn’t have achieved what he did in any other lingo.

        Try conveying the sense and psychology of Marc Antony’s address to a hostile crowd

        (Although the ‘experts’ have it that Julius Caesar is nearly the most basic and simple of all his works.)

        “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears”
        …loses something in the translation:
        “Mitbürger, Freunde, Römer hört mich an:”


      • I think I’m going to be infinitely more irrated because of your English-tongue imperialism than because of your anti-theism :=)
        Are you an ethnic German or just born in Mannheim?

        I come from Lorraine/Lothringen, my father spoke almost exlusively just Franconian (Fränkisch) until he was 6 years old.
        I have just published on my blog a post in English and Franconian:
        Does that sound familiar to your ears?

        P.S: there are many beautiful German expressions which cannot be translated into English in a worthy manner. The same is true for French.


      • But of course, Monica. —> “If God creates atheists, then according to biblical Christianity, God has in effect created atheists for Hell, hasn’t He? ”

        All this was determined, a done-deal before the ‘Creation’, wasn’t it?
        Biblically, pre-destination is unavoidable.
        How else could god be ‘omniscient’?


      • “Biblically, pre-destination is unavoidable.”

        But doesn’t that mean, dabbles, that the Bible’s god is powerless to answer prayers, as that would interfere with already established predestination? It would appear as though a paradox exists – if he’s omniscient, he can’t be omnipotent, and if omnipotent, i.e., able to answer prayers, and thus change the course of events, then clearly he couldn’t be omniscient, as without predestination, he would have no idea whether or not little Susy was going to ask for a pony, until she actually did.


      • No Dabs,

        I just cannot accept a God like that—deliberately creating some for Hell with no chance of redemption and others for eternal bliss with Him. Honestly, if that is who God truly is, then to hell with Him, I want no part of Him.


      • Last word….. phew!

        “You are free to choose. Don’t think that you are a helpless victim of God’s predestination or predetermining you to go to hell or to heaven. God never sends anyone to hell. People choose to send themselves there by rejecting Christ. God never forces anyone to hell just as He doesn’t twist anyone’s arm or force anyone into heaven.

        God told Israel long ago…and He tells us today to choose this day whether you will live or whether you will die eternally. Let God tell you Himself as He did in Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.”

        The choice is yours. God has not made you to choose or to reject Him. You are free to repent, confess, and trust in Christ or you are free to choose to send yourself to everlasting judgment and eternal separation from God. We are not helpless pawns in God’s game of chess.”

        By Jack Wellman of ‘What Christians Want To Know’ com.


      • Well lotharson, I think I’m only half-ethnic ~on my mother’s side.
        My father was a Serb. (But we’re not allowed to call them ‘ethnic’ because they’re actually wogs. 🙂

        ….and it’s strange how things work out. Neither germans nor serbs have much time for jews, and yet my mother’s extended family (a 400-year history) SOUNDED sort-of jewish (I think they invented yiddish), and my father’s clan (2300 year history) BEHAVED like jews (attitudes set in stone and tight-fisted.).
        I don’t know how I turned out so perfectly!

        Will get to your website when time permits, In the meantime: a honing-stone (oldie but goodie) for your adventures into English:-

        English spelling is a peace of caique:-

        I take it you already know
        Of tough and bough and cough and dough?
        Others may stumble but not you
        On hiccough, thorough, lough, and through
        Well done! And now you wish perhaps,
        To learn of less familiar traps.
        Beware of heard, a dreadful word
        That looks like beard and sounds like bird,
        And dead; it’s said like bed, not bead,
        For goodness sake don’t call it deed!
        Watch out for meat and great and threat
        (They rhyme with suite and straight and debt).
        A moth is not a moth in mother,
        Nor both in bother, broth in brother.
        And there is not a match for here,
        Nor dear and fear for bear and pear,
        And then there’s dose and rose and lose
        Just look them up – and goose and choose
        And cork and work and card and ward
        And font and front and word and sword
        And do and go and thwart and cart.
        Come, come, I’ve hardly made a start.
        A dreadful language? Man alive
        I’d mastered it when I was five.

        ………..lotsa luck!


      • Alles klar, ich werde fortan deinen imperialistischen Tendenzen widerstehen und dir (von Zeit zur Zeit) ganz unverschämt auf Deutsch antworten :=)

        Aber fühle dich bitte frei, mich auf meinem Blog herauszufordern 😉


      • dabbles, I haven’t dropped by here long enough to know you, but it doesn’t take that long to see that you have a great sense of humor. I loved your poem on the English language so much, that I forwarded it to a friend in Australia and another in Kenya (no, not Mrs. Obama!).


      • You are welcome archaeopteryx1,

        And I see that you are very sure of yourself on your blog. Ah well, we are all deluded to some extent. 😉


      • It’s actually just archaeopteryx, the “1” is a complicated story with which I won’t bore you, but even that is painstaking to type, so many just call me arch. As far as being sure of myself is concerned, why bother to write, if you don’t really believe what you’re saying? Truth is, I’m simply waiting for someone to come along and offer me evidence to the contrary.


      • Hi arch,

        Pleased to meet you and welcome.

        “Why bother to write if you don’t really believe what you’re saying?”

        Hmmm, if I am being honest with myself, then I think that maybe sometimes I say things from a biblical viewpoint that I doubt. I am not always so sure of myself. I am still searching.



      • Well, you’re certainly welcome, Monica, to drop by and visit my place , I have some insights into the OT that possibly you hadn’t noticed before, as well as a great deal of history as to how the Bible came to be – that’s a fascinating story in itself.


  4. — Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism

    Shelley made a number of claims in Necessity, including that one’s beliefs are involuntary, and, therefore, that atheists do not choose to be so and should not be persecuted. Towards the end of the pamphlet he writes: “the mind cannot believe in the existence of a God.”[2] Shelley signed the pamphlet, Thro’ deficiency of proof, AN ATHEIST,[2] which gives an idea of the empiricist nature of Shelley’s beliefs. According to Berman, Shelley also believed himself to have “refuted all the possible types of arguments for God’s existence,”[3] but Shelley himself encouraged readers to offer proofs if they possess them.

    Opinion is divided upon the characterisation of Shelley’s beliefs, as presented in Necessity. Shelley scholar Carlos Baker states that “the title of his college pamphlet should have been The Necessity of Agnosticism rather than The Necessity of Atheism,”[4] while historian David Berman argues that Shelley was an atheist, both because he characterised himself as such, and because “he denies the existence of God in both published works and private letters”[3] during the same period. At the very beginning of his essay, Shelley qualifies his definition of atheism:

    “There Is No God. This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken.”

    — Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism

    Taken together with his quotation of the Dutch pantheist Benedict Spinoza later in the essay, this suggests that at the very least Shelley considered some form of pantheism to remain within the realm of intellectual respectability[clarification needed]. The essay does not, however, provide any further indication of whether Shelley himself shared such views.


    • Dutch pantheist Benedict Spinoza mentioned was a Jew. The Amsterdam Jews expelled him because he could not accept the Pentateuch either as the words of God nor of Moses.

      He was called a Pantheist, though he did not say Nature and God were the same thing. “As to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken”. Instead he said God had two particular attributes (amongst others) – thought and extension, which seems to me to be spirit and matter. So God IS Nature, but a lot more too.

      “In Him we live and move and have our being.”


    • oops! …. “….one’s beliefs are involuntary, and, therefore, that atheists do not choose to be so…”
      …..is incorrect, as anyone who pushes the ‘atheism is a belief system’ accusation knows.
      ‘Belief’ is entirely voluntary: you cannot form a belief in a vacuum, without reference-points.
      ‘Non-belief’ (eg ‘atheism’) is neither voluntary nor involuntary. It CAN exist in a vacuum, without reference-points.

      Primary-school arithmetic 101: 0 times X = 0


  5. Ex-president Jimmy Carter tells the tea party…

    “If you don’t want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying you want a country based on Christian values, because you don’t”

    Who are these strange people among us who declare they’re Christians, but don’t follow Jesus’ teachings? Atheists?

    Not really… probably hypocrites.

    And you wonder why people get confused?


    • Good to see you back Jimbo. I did wonder.
      But I don’t wonder why people get confused: they’re obviously NOT made in the image of an ‘Intelligent Designer’.

      Why….they’ve even been known to spin out by hearing a rooster crowing three times…
      ……which also turned them chicken. 😉

      Forgive them Jimbo, for they haven’t got a clue.


  6. Reblogged this on Sacred Struggler and commented:
    We all need a reality a check. People have done terrible in the name of religion. We need someone to remind us that that is not what it should be. Not to mention that God created our minds and made us capable of logic and reason, why not use it whatever conclusion you end up at.


  7. This sounds truly wonderful!

    Actually I believe that atheists can often be quite right about the profound immorality of certain doctrines, such as God having ordered a genocide, and I had such an interesting exchange:

    The problem is that we really don’t need ANTI-theists who are willing to destroy all religions, even progressive ones. Their justified anger against fundamentalists gives them absolutely no right to insult and ridicule peaceful and kind believers.


    • There’s a fine line there lad.
      It depends not on what ” peaceful and kind believers” ARE, but what they DO.
      eg. If they insist on debauching the minds of defenceless little children then they deserve every insult and ridicule that comes their way. I have in the past asserted that perverting a child’s mind is probably more damaging in a real sense than corrupting its body: child-abuse in its worst form.

      But I also think that if one takes something seriously, then the only legitimate way to do so is fundamentally, bullshit-free and wholeheartedly. In the case of ‘religion’ that (unfortunately for more ‘genteel’ ~ ‘gentile’?? ~ ‘believers’) would mean taking the text-book (the WOG) literally….which undermines the christian ‘ethic’.

      Jews and moslems have no problems with fundamentalism: it’s the way of their god(s). Only the christians waffle around with ‘interpretations’, explanations and ever more warped concepts with which they try to calk up the gaps in the hull of the religious Ark. The so-called ‘Trinity’ is a….er, ‘fundamental’ example of that.
      Among ‘Christians’, fundamentalists alone come across as out of ‘context’, absurd, arrogant, ignorant and brutish….in the best traditions of Moses and Mohammed! ….and their gods! (feel free to rebut….), but undermine the Jesus message.

      For myself, cerebrally-speaking, I can admire Moses and Mohammed, but I can LIKE Jesus, and could see myself defending him in a shitfight…..or the Garden of Gethsemane.

      I’ve said before:- the greatest disservice the theologists and apologists have ever done ( and continue to do) to christianity is to insist upon linking it to judaism.

      The general admonition applies: Do NOT judge someone by what they ARE but by what they DO.

      It’s a message any of the gods would do well to adopt.


      • Hello there is a lot of good stuff here.

        As Jesus himself taught, I completely agree one should never judge people by what they profess to be but by their fruits.

        “eg. If they insist on debauching the minds of defenceless little children then they deserve every insult and ridicule that comes their way. I have in the past asserted that perverting a child’s mind is probably more damaging in a real sense than corrupting its body: child-abuse in its worst form.”

        I am not sure we have the same conception of child abuse. I had such a discussion with a New Atheist several months ago:

        If you found the time, I would be very glad to learn your thoughts on that, for I enjoy interacting with people from other perspectives.
        This is truly the best way to avoid dogmatism and I am sure there would be very few anti-theists out there if all religious believers had the same attitude.


      • PS,……And you ‘believers’, too.
        It’d be good to see the religious institution take on our increasingly Orwellian, fascist governments in defense of the ‘outlaw’ bikie gangs.

        The mongrels running this country are following in the nazi footsteps in targeting these people on the basis of ‘what they ARE en masse’ (supposedly), rather than what they (individuals) DO.

        Either organise and stop them in their tracks NOW, or start building gas chambers and crematoria.
        ….and don’t forget an annexes for catholics, christians, and freckled people.

        “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
        Because I was not a Socialist.

        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
        Because I was not a Jew.

        Then they came for me–and nobody spoke for me. “


      • Indeed Dabbles, both Judaism and Islam have various branches, some more fundamentalist than others. Liberal Jews are quite liberal, and Bahais follow the early (pre-conquest) writings of Mohammed, where he said the greatest attribute of all was mercy.


  8. The choice is simple when talking about morals and ethics today … atheist or not.

    If you tax the rich … no-one dies. If you take away welfare, food stamps, etc, … people die.

    Even the Holy Father now understands this.

    And obviously the right wing governments of today simply don’t care anymore.

    My cynical analysis of the federal election:

    “Oh … hello Mr. Abbott … I’m glad you got in… I voted for you, but I don’t agree with you…”

    And refugees have always been fair game… governments are reluctant to accept them….

    It’s almost as if they have set a moral precedence to be punished.

    Refugees have been named: boat people, illegal immigrants, people smuggling clients, terrorists, asylum seekers, and last but not least … ” illegal detainees ”

    Re-defining refugees is exactly what Hitler did.

    All grist for the mill.


    • ‘….er…yes…and no’ (to quote Sir Humphrey Appleby).

      But in either case, the fault lies entirely with any of you who flock to a polling-booth and pays taxes (that is:- ‘Plays the game’ as required).
      Not unlike god deliberately creating “evil” and then lashing out at ”evildoers”.
      If you help build a sewer y’can’t complain if some turds float to the surface and some don’t.

      Thank god I’m an atheistic anarchist! ~ thus blameless. 😉


      • She’s not ‘on the money’ at all, Jimbo; all she’s doing is justifying the imposition of the Nanny State on the basis that she knows better than you do what’s good for you and what you need.:- institutionalised theft, (‘armed robbery’ in reality) with the robber wearing a benevolently-smiling latex mask called ‘government’.

        The whole system operates on violent coercion:- at gunpoint they steal land that doesn’t belong to them, build an oversized, overpriced road that nobody needs or ~usually ~ wants (for their own aggrandisement: remember Joh?) and make YOU pay for it under threat of confiscating the fruits of YOUR labour (or sometimes your life), and then extorts your income into perpetuity for making the road necessary to your wealth-creation endeavours because they pass laws that insist you may ONLY use the roads they’ve made available.

        They make it more convenient to do so because they assume ~ and enforce ~ the ‘right’ to print the ONLY ‘legal tender’ permissible~ with SEVERE punishments for those who’d be inclined to find some other way of doing things. …..And in fact make you liable to pay tax , at value THEY dictate, for goods, expertise, time or labour you exchange on a bartering basis ~ at a rate dictated by them. (eg If your mother babysits your kids while you’re off mowing her lawn for her, she’s liable to pay tax on the going rate for baby-sitters and you’re supposed to put a ‘market-rate’ on the lawnmowing and pay tax on that..)

        I won’t even go into the iniquity of having to pay taxes for living in the house you have worked and paid for and own, or for “the availability” of passing water and sewer-pipes whether you choose to use them or not.

        And then these very parasites who produce absolutely NOTHING (least of all in strictly ‘economic’ terms) themselves, legislate themselves pay and perks worth BILLIONS of YOUR dollars for the privilege of being stood over by them. —> “It was Moses’ share of the ram for appointing the priests.”

        ,,,,and that includes an enforcement system that employs many times more ‘enforcers’ (none of which are any more ‘productive’ in economic terms, than intestinal worms .) than there are personnel in the armed forces.
        These creatures are more invasive, pervasive, greedy and cold-bloodedly brutal than any Bikie Gang or Mafia Organisation.

        And they’ve conned the Idiot-In-The-Street that he’s lucky to be so well-looked-after
        ……….all for his own good of course.

        Taxation as we know it ~ like so many of our other institutions ~ stems directly from the Old Testament. eg:-

        Exodus 32….(“25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had LET THEM GET OUT OF CONTROL…”
        (So much for the Free Will nonsense!)

        And Exodus 33 (7-11) describes the very first exclusive House of Representatives (with Moses CLAIMING to represent god, in the same way the sleazes we call ‘politicians’ CLAIM to represent the god called Electorate.)

        Leviticus 8:29 .. 29 Moses took the breast and lifted it to show he had presented it to the Lord. It was Moses’ share of the ram for appointing the priests. This was just as the Lord had commanded him. (Sez Moses! – talk about corruption and conflict of interest!,,,,,,not to mention a sycophantic Press!)

        And Leviticus 10 (particularly verse 15. —> ” The people must bring the gifts of fat from their animals as part of the sacrifice. They must also bring the thigh of the fellowship offering and the breast that is lifted up to show it is offered in front of the Lord. Then it will be your share of the offering. It will belong to you and your children. That part of the sacrifices will be your share forever, just as the Lord said.”

        ….Sez Moses Rudd/Abbott/etcetcetc…..


      • well actually considering the basis of land ownership we have is from English law, historically all land is owned by the Crown.

        My mother in law babysits regularly, I can’t recall ever paying a cent of tax for that “service” nor even being asked about it.

        You realise that to get this rant of your onscreen you’re using telecommunications infrastructure. How was that initially built again ?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s