To torture little children just for the fun of it: The Hitchens-Richards ID debate

I wish I could have seen yesterday's Intelligent Design debate between Christopher Hitchens and Jay Richards at Stanford University. (If anyone can find a transcript or a webcast, please let me know.) But from the report in the Stanford Daily, it was another bad day for ID.

The first bit of evidence that Richards presented in favor of ID was the fact that we all feel "simple moral truths." As an example, he pointed to the fact that "we all know that it’s wrong to torture little children just for the fun of it."

And I agree, we pretty much all know that. Which is why we also know that life wasn't designed by a kind and loving God. Because the designer, if there is one, purposefully designed creatures that "torture little children" and he did so "just for the fun of it." Or so says Revelation 4:11, anyway.

Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Here's what Sir David Attenborough said when asked about ID.

When people talk about God and creation, they always think of beautiful things, like roses and hummingbirds. But I also think of a little African boy sitting on a river bank in West Africa with a worm eating its way through his eyeball, which will make him blind in the next few years. Now if you are telling me that God created the rose and the hummingbird, presumably he also created this thing in his eye. And it didn't evolve the way that I believe that it did, but it was created by God. Some way or another, God said, "I will make a worm that can only live by boring through peoples' eyes." Now I don't find that compatible with the Christian idea of a God who cares for the well being of each of us.

Here is the interview with David Attenborough.

And here is a Wikipedia article on River Blindness.

Chuck Norris' favorite Bible verse

Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, "Every man of you put his sword upon his thigh, and go back and forth from gate to gate in the camp, and kill every man his brother, and every man his friend, and every man his neighbor." Exodus 32:27

Okay, it may not be his favorite. But it is one of his favorites. He really likes the idea that God would tell people to kill their family, friends, and neighbors (all for a good cause, of course). He quotes this verse along with those shown below in his WorldNetDaily article, Would Jesus support war?.

… let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one. Luke 22:36

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34
(This is also one of one of Ann Coulter's favorite verses. Great minds think alike.)

Chuck's point is that Jesus (like his good buddy Mike Huckabee) approves of gun ownership, the Iraq war (or pretty much any kind of war, but especially holy wars), and all of the laws and carnage in the Old Testament. "The baby born in a manger 2,000 years ago was not only a Savior, but a God of war."

(Someone should ask the Huckster if he likes Exodus 32:27 as much as Chuck does.)

Still, I think Chuck Norris was holding out on us. I bet his favorite Bible verse is actually Numbers 31:17-18. He's the type.

Professor Brothers - Bible History #1

Genesis 19: The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah

"Lot and his kids couldn't even turn around to look at her or else they too might be turned into pillars of who knows what spice."

In case you missed it, the answer to Huckabee's question is yes

(But don't say anything about it to anyone or think about it yourself. It's unconstitutional!)

Back in February, when Mitt Romney announced his intention to run for president, I suggested that someone should ask him about the Mormon Jesus. And,as we all know, someone did.

I doubt if Mike Huckabee was taking my suggestion, though. He probably doesn't read my blog or visit the SAB.

But it was a good question, nonetheless; and although neither Romney nor the LDS church would answer it, the answer is yes. Mormons believe that Jesus is Satan's older brother.

The question is answered in the Pearl of Great Price, which (along with the Bible and the Book of Mormon) is a part of LDS scripture. So I've decided to include it at the SAB. I've just got started on it (I'm on the first chapter of the Book of Abraham). I'll have more to say about it as I go along.

Until then, here's a good summary of what Mormons believe (but refuse to say) about Jesus.

Oh, and here's a picture of the two brothers. (Jesus is on the right.)

Don't ask Mitt about his beliefs: It's unconstitutional

Don't ...

... about his Mormon beliefs.
(It's Unconstitutional!)

So now we know why Mitt Romney won't talk about his Mormon beliefs. It's prohibited by the constitution.

Here's what he said in his long-awaited "I'm no Jack Kennedy" speech.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.

So if Mitt's interpretation of the no religious test clause is correct, then reporters can't ask and Mitt can't tell us about his Mormon beliefs.

And voters can't consider a candidate's religious views (no matter how dangerous or bizarre) as a factor in selecting a president. It is unconstitutional for any voter to even think about the fact that Romney wears holy underwear.

I'm sure Mitt wishes it were otherwise. He'd love to share his Mormon faith with us. To explain the details of celestial marriage, the whereabouts of the planet Kolob, baptism of the dead, blood atonement, Jesus' little brother Satan, etc.

But he can't. It would be unconstitutional. He can't talk about it and we can't think about it.

I guess that means he won't have to lie about it anymore.