Like it or not, God is immoral.
- Greatest I amposted 12 years ago
0Like it or not, God is immoral.
This clip shows how man has defined morality. I generally agree with it as it closely resembles the morality shown in all the holy books. I see them as closely resembling the golden rule.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/
This clip show how what I see as a good representation of moral men judging God’s morality. I agree with their verdict and judge God to be immoral.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI
From the above and from all that we know of God as depicted in the Bible, one can only conclude that God is immoral.
All those with intelligence who can discern moral actions from immoral actions will agree.
Moral actions for this exercise will be those issues where God interacts with humans.
If you do not agree that God is immoral from what you have heard above, then give your reason and I will show that God chose the immoral path in whatever action you choose to use as your example of his moral action. That or I will show that any of his altruistic acts are self-serving.
Regards
DLDid you understand nothing from that TED presentation you linked to? You contradict the whole point of it: step outside being "for" or "against" and understand that opposing beliefs and views are interdependent. Like yin-yang, contrary positions are interconnected and give rise to each other. Your pronouncement that the Bible-god is immoral (implying that your personal god is better) is exactly the lack of moral humility the speaker was talking about. You are a hypocrite of the highest order.
Sure some issues are interconnected and some forgiveness should be given to move issues more towards the middle of them but that does not mean that we cannot place the issues somewhere on the scale of good and evil or moral and immoral.
I say God is more to the immoral side and look for someone to say he is more on the moral side.
No one has had the guts to even stick up for God as yet so why should I move the yardstick if no one objects.
I win by default.
Not that I want to. I prefer to argue to a win.
Don't just bitch.
Argue for your God if you happen to be a theist.
Regards
DLI'm not a Christian, but I know Christianity will assimilate any argument you care to throw at it. It's been doing so for two thousand years because it has the ultimate premise. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal being. You are not the first to argue god depicted in the Bible doesn't live up to that premise, but trust me it's a dead end. Five words: "god works in mysterious ways". That's checkmate for that line of reasoning. Why? Because given the basic premise of Christianity, questioning the morality of god depicted in the Bible is the equivalent of suggesting you know more than an omniscient being. Can you see the flaw? The entire premise of Christianity means that the perceived morality/immorality of events in the Bible are irrelevant for those who believe god is omnimax. In other words, there's no point suggesting the Bible shows god is immoral. God is perfectly moral, you just can't see it from the information available to your finite little mind (that's me imitating a Christian by the way). This line of reasoning is a logical cul-de-sac but you'll discover that soon enough.
Yes and you are right. Christians keep their head in the sand and think they win. That is why their sheep are leaving in droves.
Regards
DLThen I wonder, if you know this line of reasoning is a dead end, why do you pursue it? Sport?
It is good for those at a dead end to know or be shown that they are at a dead end.
So called believers do too much harm to allow them their delusions.
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClU … playnext=1
They also do much harm to their own.
African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXr … re=related
Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBv8tv62yGM
Promoting death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_B … re=related
For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.
Regards
DL
Not a chance, because "god works in mysterious ways" will not make it to any line of reasoning because it is part and parcel to and endless parade of logical fallacies.
Only to anyone who does not believe that the Christian omnimax deity exists. To those who do, the argument makes sense. In other words if you assume the Christian god exists, then the rest follows. It's subjective which is the nature of religious belief. No bones about it, the Christian god is one of the best concepts ever in terms of assimilating objections. The ability to assimilate objections is built into the very premise.
But, it doesn't follow, that's why there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations who argue and disagree on just about everything Christianity. We read their tirades at each other here every day.
Wood chippers don't really care what goes in them, it's gets chopped up into tiny little pieces as they "assimilate". Christianity is the same way, it doesn't care what goes in, whether it be fact or fiction, the results are still tiny chopped up pieces.
Imorality is a concept created my mankind of which is exclusive to mankind.
Should/can any other species measure up to our expectations of morality ??
Heck ; ... we as a whole can't even do it.We know what it is and should be. I agree that the whole world is not there but there is a lot more good than evil around and in that sense, we are a moral people and do walk our talk.
But you are correct that morals develop within a species and perhaps, since God is not part of one, that is why his are so poor.
Regards
DL
How can something that doesn't exist be immoral? I would agree that the bible is immoral, but the big head in space that does not exist can't be moral or immoral.
you cannot show immoral action by an individual unless the individual is immoral.
I choose to be a moral person therefore, my God is moral.
books depict the situation of history, not the actinos of me today.
you assumption that someone who reads the Bible is immoral is illogically based on your bias, not reality.
Of course the God of the Christian bible is immoral. The bible was written in times when women and children were lower class people, little better than animals, and were often used in the same way - creatures to be used for whatever tasks their "owners" wanted done. Murder (outside your own social group) was common and accepted, as was slavery. People were extremely cruel compared to today, and the thought of helping outsiders in their struggle to live unheard of.
Mankind has grown and changed it's idea of what is moral or immoral, and many of the actions condoned in the bible and performed by God are no longer accepted. God is thus quite immoral by standards used today, but only because the bible cannot grow as man has done. Organized religion has grown along with society in general (though generally at a pace some decades behind), but the tenets they base their ideas of God has not. The obvious and easy solution is to ignore Gods immoral actions or to "interpret" them into something they weren't, and that is exactly what is done. God becomes "moral" again; you just have to forget about the things He did that seriously violate morality standards today and pretend they didn't happen. Or conclude that God's ways are not meant for man to understand and man cannot judge them.Is God really immoral... or just misunderstood?
Aren't we just shoving our own human morals into Gods face, rubbing it in, showing off and just being plain arrogant about it all?
Who the heck do we puny mortals think we are deciding we should all have equal rights, free speech and the freedom to live our lives as we choose?
Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.- Emile Rposted 12 years ago0
So, like it or not, God is immoral? Are we all supposed to feel enlightened? I hope not, because I'm not feeling anything other than an impending eye roll on this one. I suppose, if I were to assume that your interpretation of all religious texts was the definitive, end all statement; you might have a point. But just with me. You'd still have to impress another 7 billion with your mystic wisdom....minus the two in this thread who appear to agree.
Yet no one has accepted my little challenge.
Care to try or are you just peeing in the wind?
All you have shown so far is hot air.
Regards
DLIt's a bogus challenge, rigged by your dogma. I'm not certain you are capable of thinking outside of your rigid box.
Try me. Don't just throw stones and run away.
Regards
DLI need to know the starting point for the discussion. Are we assuming the Old Testament is an historical document? If so, are we assuming it was written first by Moses and then all during the history of Israel; or are we assuming it was written during the Babylonian captivity? Does it go back as far as David or Solomon's reign?
Is God real, for purposes of this discussion? I just want to know because I don't want us to be approaching the question from two different angles."From the above and from all that we know of God as depicted in the Bible, one can only conclude that God is immoral."
If as stated in the O P,---as depicted in the bible, then my beliefs and when and by whom the bible was written is irrelevant.
But just for you, I agree with most Jews that the O T is fiction and I do not believe that God to be real. It is said that the O T although attributed to Moses has three authors and it would be quite difficult for Moses to have written of his own death.
Regards
DLI'm not sure I see how it can be irrelevant. Simply because everyone has a different take on the Bible and what any of it ultimately means would be determined by that take.
But, here is the way I see it. If we assume there is a consciousness and that consciousness we recogonize was identified as 'God' by the Israelites; I look to find the attributes that have been assigned to that I AM that I believe would be correct. I would think the primary attribute is that God is unchanging. An entity that doesn't exist within our parameters of time would, in my opinion, most probably fit this attribute.
Taking that attribute, I am left to assume that the consciousness I believe exists was as it is. How is it in our world? However it interacts with our world is the way that it always has interacted. If it is unchanging.
A lot of people say a lot of things about 'God' that are obviously false. They claim 'God' has done myriad things on their behalf that are not only unprovable; but absurd. A lot of preachers make claims of what 'God' has told them. Usually ignorant and biased statements that no caring person could accept without being first convinced that 'God' is ignorant and biased. But, anyone that glances about and accepts reality for what it is knows these are lies. I am left to assume that this is as it has always been. If 'God' is unchanging.
So, even if the Bible were an historical document, it doesn't prove that God is immoral. Since, it doesn't document anything other than how a group of people viewed the events of their lives. Just as people do today. The events they attributed to 'God' are more fantastical than they are today, since that was the way of the world they existed in .
Even if this consciousness did interact on their behalf we don't have any more of an explanation of how, or why, than the words of an ancient people as to what they understood it to mean. And their understanding was mired in a world that, by our standards, was immoral. Their explanations made perfect sense to them, I'm sure; because in that world even catching a fish was the will of one god or another. To an evolved society it is naturally ignorant.
Their understanding and their explanations of what they think this consciousness did for them doesn't imply, to me, that this consciousness approved of what they wrote, agreed with any of it or rubber stamped their existence in any manner. Because the words of the religious don't appear to be rubber stamped by a god today. Any more than any other religious text is the word of this consciousness. It doesn't happen today, so it couldn't have happened then. If this consciousness is unchanging.
My point is, that 'God' is not immoral simply because you don't like what you've read. It means that the society that wrote this text was immoral by your standards. To claim that a universal consciousness is immoral on those grounds is an injustice and you are assuming guilt by assumed association.Thanks for the laugh.
Is God as depicted in the bible moral in your view or not?
Regards
DLI would be glad you find humor in things you can't fathom; but I doubt you laugh from merriment. To answer your question more simply (since you obviously didn't follow my previous post)....no.
I think people who rationalize the accounts of the Bible and attempt to pass off the OT beliefs as moral are misguided. And I think people who use the accounts of the OT to belittle believers are immoral. God, not having put in his two cents worth on the subject, is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not going to be swayed by childish parlor games and gossip. If anyone ever presents an intelligent, well informed, and grown up argument for consideration (void of emotion and not driven by ego) I'll listen with rapt attention. In the interim.....thanks for the laughs.Are you saying that that God On Trial movie and clip are immoral?
And since you said that the God depicted is not moral, should they not let us know about it?
Is it wrong to call a spade a spade?
As to the conditions you set for for your attention, are you sure you are qualified to judge them?
I would say not as you do not seem to want to allow the correction of poor thinking and say it is immoral for us to do so which goes against your own scriptures and is anti-love.
Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
Regards
DLThey aren't my scriptures. I don't have anything I qualify as scripture. And I didn't watch your clips. If you have a point, make it in the forums. Don't wimp out and expect others to make it for you.
As I already told you, you can't make judgement calls of what a deity might be by the word of someone else. I see no evidence of an immoral deity in my life, so I am left to assume one doesn't exist. To rail against it, with no facts to back it up, is as insane as attempting to defend it.
If scientists are immoral/unethical towards their lab rats, then it follows that God is indeed immoral/unethical towards us humans.
You say "if".
Are scientists immoral or unethical towards their lab rats?
No fence sitting friend as your comment can go either way.
Regards
DLI talked to the rats. They said the conduct is indeed unethical.
I talked to God. He said the conduct is ethical.
I believe the rats.
For those who consider God the source of morality, what he does is by definition moral. For those who don't, what he does is irrelevant.
Sure but what is your position?
Regards
DLMy position is what I said. Thus for me god is irrelevant.
To consider God immoral you would have to both believe in him (he exists and is God) and not think he is actual God (i.e. infallible). I am not quite sure how that could be done.
"For those who consider God the source of morality, what he does is by definition moral. For those who don't, what he does is irrelevant."
You were so right there.
I got the impression from the lecture that morality is defined by a series of definitions made by human beings and contracts made between human beings, which shift one way or another to some extent depending on social, religious and political factors.
The clips shows human beings trying to judge whether deity is moral or immoral on the basis of stories found in text written by other human beings.
As far as I understand, deity is defined, among other things, as a state of being that cannot be fully comprehended by the human mind.
In view of all the above, I consider that the only appropriate answer to the OP's question is "amoral" in the sense of being outside the state of morality, neither moral nor immoral, not with the concept of morality.And since we know that humans are moral creatures, does it make sense for us to follow the dictates of an amoral God?
From what you say, would such a God have the capability of writing the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Would one not need morals to evaluate the various issues and decide if they belong on the good side of the tree or the evil side of the tree?
Regards
DLHumanity chooses to follow or not follow the dictates of what it defines as deity. The definition and the resulting codes of conduct differ massively between different paths.
The Sephirotic Tree is a tree of balance. The white and black pillars each have aspects that limited human vision would label as good or evil. Nevertheless, each Sephirah, regardless of its placement, left, right or centre, is allocated a divine name, an archangel and an angelic host, even in the strictly Jewish version.How can an amoral God decide which color is which if he is color blind.
DL1. What do colours have to do with morals?
2. Colours are a human construct anyway, They are an agreement between humans to call a certain ranges of wavelengths within the spectrum perceived by human visual organs by certain names. What does such a construct have to do with how deity perceives wavelengths?You changed the tee of knowledge to two colored pillars, black and white so I was going with your colored yin yang scenario.
I guess that is what happens when you change the focus or symbology of the discussion dear.
Care to start over or are you going to let me know which forms I am to speak to? Yours is not in the bible.
I prefer to stay away from all the symboligy and just stick to words.
Is God moral or not as depicted in scriptures?
Regards
DLThe Sephirotic Tree. aka Tree of Life, is commonly depicted, by humans for humans, as 10 sephiroth (also an 11th in some interpretations) placed on three pillars, of which the one on the right is commonly depicted as white and the one on the left as black. The central pillar is not assigned a colour.
What are words if not a system of symbology used to depict objects or concepts?
Bhagavad Gita, Vedas, Upanishads, Koran, Avesta, Dhammapada , Adi Granth, Sutras, Tao Te Ching, Pert Em Hru, Writings of Baha'u'llah and other scriptures of various ancient and newer traditions, including the Judaistic Tanakh and Torah and Christian Old and New Testaments (sometimes with the addition of the Apocrypha) contain vastly different and sometimes contradictory descriptions of deity as perceived through the human mind in different times, places and cultures.
And I am not your "dear" so kindly desist from being patronising.
Greatest I am
We know what it is and should be. I agree that the whole world is not there but there is a lot more good than evil around and in that sense, we are a moral people and do walk our talk.
============
ME
We are NOT a moral species according to most other species' of life here on earth.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Greatest I am
But you are correct that morals develop within a species and perhaps, since God is not part of one, that is why his are so poor.
Regards
------------------------------------
ME
The morals of any species/entity which seem to be dertimental to another species will be judged with bias by that other species.
For us to judge a "God" for his morals makes about as much sense as a chicken judging us for ours..Do we tell chicken what their morals should be and threaten then with hell if they do not do as told?
To not judge God says you are more of a chicken than a thinking man.
Regards
DLYour answer is a copout. This is what Christians say when they are confronted with how immoral their God is "We are but mere human, how can we judge God". You say this because that is what you were taught to say. Our morals should be and are judged by our young and by our pets. From time to time my dog doesn't like someone. He has judged his character and made a decision regarding to trust that person. Most of the time my dog and I are on the same page. We humans certainly judge the morals of other animals and other nations. That is simply what we do. Now to say a God is perfect without judging his or her character is dishonest and deceitful.
And when your dog judges you when you eat all of the chocholote icecream in your bowl and he didn't get any?
Yes he may judge you ... but it will be bias ... and uninformed as to why you were so stingy.It matters not why I was stingy. It matters that I didn't share or didn't get him something he could eat or let my kids hurt him.
You are right .. it matters not why you do a thing which a lower life form may judge you by. And it matters not that you are being judged.
You have your reasons ... and you are going to keep doing it.
( by the way .. I used chocholote as an example because it can be like poison for some dogs; but the dog doesn't know it)Yes, I'm aware why my dog can't have chocolate. What is it you think God is keeping from us? We would clearly understand because because we have an understanding of language and given enough time I'm sure God could find the right words.
Humanity as a whole doesn't seem to understand ten simple commandments; Until we can master understanding of these .... I see little reason to advance to more complicated things
Lol. We can't master 10. I owned a dog once who could follow about 50 different commands. I wonder what that means in the grand scheme of things.
of course we can understand the commandments, they are just not followed because most people deep down know there is no God. That's way jails are full of Christians and not Atheists.
Jails are filled with Christians because people convert to Christianity while behind bars. In hopes that it will look good to the parole board.
But, you already knew that. I wonder why atheists insist on misrepresenting facts.Would you like to bet they were raised as Christians, but decided tell others about it in prison. Plus what are the percentage of repeat offenders. They all find Christ, but commit crimes as soon as they get out. Can't argue with stats.
I can certainly argue a lot of things. But, I usually refrain from arguing with people who desperately want to believe something. They tend to fudge facts. It's rather irritating.
I certainly don't desperately want to believe something and I'm not fudging facts. I do look for proof that God exist, but find nothing. Are believers actually more moral. No. Does prayer work? No. So we have to deal with the reality of having no proof that God exists. It exists to thous who will except any evidence as valid. I don't, I look critically at all information given to me. I've been lied to many times and do my best to find the truth.
I have no idea what that has to do with the present discussion. I don't care whether or not God exists. It wouldn't change facts. I simply get frustrated when people throw silly comments out when simple reasoning, void of preconceived notions, would easily lead you in a different direction.
I was listening to a psychologist talk about a study done on inmates. She said one of the unifying traits was an overly developed sense of self worth. Most didn't understand the concept of working for things. They felt entitled. Religion doesn't cause criminal behavior. Atheism doesn't cause criminal behavior. Blaming behavior on foolish things makes no sense.It makes sense when Christians tell Atheist that they are more moral. Are Atheist less more? Lets look at the facts and stats.
You are using shallow information to attempt to claim hard statistics. It's ridiculous.
I've got a brother that thinks Christianity is an ethnic group. He was born of Christian parents, therefore he says he is a Christian. Forget the fact that he hasn't set foot in a church since he was a kid, he wouldn't know Genesis from Job and he has the sexual leanings of a dog in perpetual heat. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but he is what he is.
So, do we lump people like that into the Christian statistics? If so, then most atheists have to go there too. Most come from some Christian heritage. If not, do we use the Mississippi method to label a Christian? If you are of 1/32 Christian heritage you have to be labeled a Christian?
Ignorant? Maybe. My point is, people have many different reasons for labeling themselves. One definition varies from another as much as night and day. I label myself agnostic, but I have liberal Christian friends who, philosophically, are closer to my way of thinking than they are to other Christians.
If you want to brand, so you can condemn, please proceed. But, the only purpose it serves is to stroke your ego. It doesn't help society one iota. And if you aren't helping, you are a hindrance.We are not so different. I was raised a Catholic and few know I've changed my ways. My children are being raised Catholic because of the promise I made with my wife and I'm good with that.
Mississippi method, I'm not familiar with that. Do they also say if you are 1/32 white you are white?
And yet, when the paperwork is filled out on prisoners in which their religious preferences are shown, it is done BEFORE they enter the prison.
It exists to thous who will except any evidence as valid. I don't, I look critically at all information given to me.
========================
me
And if we look critically enough we won't believe anything unless it is said to be hot and simultaniously raises blisters our butts. And that isn't always found to be true.There are many things that can be said as to what a Christian IS.
Does one have to fulfill every characteristic which a Christian is said to have, in order to be one?
If they do? Then there aren't any .... OR there are very few.
If I say that I am a Christian, I am not saying that I believe everything all other self proclaiming Christian say they believe. Cause I don't.
Some Atheist in these forums seem to forget that.My God is not immoral because I am not immoral.
Your God may be immoral because You are immoral......
the only way God is immoral is if the human is immoral
because God made man and woman in his own image.
Atheists glorify the human by respecting the natural human body and its restrictions.
God is everywhere because humans are everywhere.
Therefore, like it or not, some people who claim to be of God are immoral.That is a logical fallacy.
Even though the very same God is in question.....
Or, if God never taught morals.
That is a false statement. Atheists don't glorify anything when it comes to religions.
Yet, you can't show that in any way hence it is an irrelevant statement.
Many who claim to have no gods are moral and often more so than believers.
God made man in his own image.
Therefore, God is me.
Therefore, I am of God.
I am moral.
Therefore, God is moral.
Hence - My God is not immoral.
God made man in his own image.
Therefore, God is you.
Therefore, You are God.
If you are immoral, God is immoral.
Hence - immoral is based on the individual.
If the individual believes God to be immoral, it is because they themselves are immoral.You do realize those are logical fallacies?
only in the minds of those who do not believe that God is man and man is God.
Evil is evil - and - Good is good
man is either good or evil
therefore, immoral is an evil manBeliefs like that are sure to spring forth logical fallacies.
That makes no sense.a fallacy is usually an error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption.
I neither presume or misconstrue my God nor myself.
I am what I am because I choose to be what I am - not what others want me to be.
Individuals are what they are because they choose to be what they are.
If they choose to be immoral, they are immoral.
If they choose to be moral, they are moral.
I am moral and my God is moral.Yes, you do.
The morality of your God is highly questionable, many verses in the Bible will show that.sorry.... you are totally wrong
my God does not live within a book, He lives within me.
no book is going to make me immoral, just like no person is going to make me immoral.
you should understand that your illogical thinking is one based on written words, not an individuals actions.
my God is not immoral because I do not allow my God to be immoral.That's merely an irrational belief not founded in reality. Sorry.
LOL! YOU don't allow your God to be immoral?It is very obvious to me that you cannot grasp reality because you live in a fantasy world of words rather than the real world of actions.
My God is not of a book, but of me and my control.
I cannot control what you think, so that is your loss.
But if I do not control what I think, then it is my loss.
I choose to control myself.
It is obvious that you wish to either be controlled or control someone else.
in either case, you do not live in the real world, because the only one you can really control is yourself.
My God is me and I am my God becasue I choose to be.
If I read a book, I do not become the character of the book but may be influenced by the book.
Since I choose only the moral parts to be part of my life, My God and I are moral.
If you cannot recognize that, then that is your loss - and you will be destined to repeat the immoral ways of the past.
Those who truly find themselves, find the real God.
Luckily, I have done just that.
Maybe someday you will reach this level of peace, harmony, and temperance with all mankind and your chosen God.And yet, I'm not the one invoking childish, invisible super friends.
neither am I for I have insight, (the proper understanding of cause and effect in a specific context)
whereas yours appears to be only out-of-sight out-of-mind (meaning that something is easily forgotten or dismissed as unimportant if it is not in our direct view.)
you cannot prove me wrong,
so you revert to immature antics
just like all others that lack insight.Yes, it's us who lack special insight into invisible beings.
Related Discussions
- 135
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?
by taburkett 8 years ago
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?As a young executive, I counseled individuals in the past and promoted them into moral society by consistently stating the truth about the mental affliction. Emotional outbursts continue to support the education of LGBT as a...
- 29
Is morality undervalued? Are ethics replacing morality?
by savvydating 8 years ago
Is morality undervalued? Are ethics replacing morality?Though similar, there are distinctions between morality and ethics. Which school of thought do you live by? Are you moral or ethical?
- 28
Does or Can Morality Exist?
by SpanStar 12 years ago
Having declared ourselves as free thinking righteous believers (meaning we understand the concept of a right and wrong).* Would curtailing shock jock radio announcer's verbal expressions over the airway be immoral?* There are those who say the death penalty is immoral, is it?* Some say not allowing...
- 212
How do you prove something is morally right or wrong without using the Bible or
by Joseph O Polanco 12 months ago
How do you prove something is morally right or wrong without using the Bible or appealing to God?
- 9
Curious . . . what are possible meanings for, "It is immoral to have a particula
by Tim Mitchell 7 years ago
Curious . . . what are possible meanings for, "It is immoral to have a particular belief"?Are there implications and consequence?
- 29
Is it Moral To Reproduce?
by Sooner28 11 years ago
This is solely for an intellectual exercise, and to get people thinking. I'm not making any judgments one way or the other. I also think I am going to write a hub about this eventually.The first claim I'm going to defend is that almost every parent is directly responsible for the death...