Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 11840
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:27 am
Ansiktsburk wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:13 pm The bottom line is - are there a lot of cases where people who have done this that really regrets it afterwards?
Yes.

"...several studies have estimated that 60 to 90 per cent of children who identify as transgender no longer want to transition by the time they’re adults..." National Post, Dec. 14:2020.

But if they're already on puberty blockers, then it's already too late by the time they realize what's going on. They've already been damaged.
As I said before: if adults wanna mutilate themselves they ought to slice & dice as they like (never expectin', of course, to be taken as anything but what they are: guys pretendin' to be gals; gals pretendin' to guys [cuz it's absolutely friggin' impossible for a guy to become a gal or a gal to become a guy]).

Kids, that there is an entirely different thing. No kid ought be allowed to self-mutilate. Any parent who sanctions such nonsense ought to be horsewhipped in the public square.
mickthinks
Posts: 1185
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

Question: are there a lot of cases where people who have done that really regret it afterwards?
False answer: several studies have estimated that 60 to 90 per cent of children who identify as transgender no longer want to transition by the time they’re adults

Firstly, "no longer wanting to transition" isn't the same thing as "transitioned and regretting it", not even close. Secondly, none of those studies is considered reliable, so the 60% (and 90% lol) figure is fake.

But if they're already on puberty blockers, [...] They've already been damaged.
What damage do puberty blockers cause? What evidence have you for that claim because I believe it's also completely false.

Apart from that, you're right, Manny!

(lol at henry "disinformation" quirk)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 11840
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by henry quirk »

lol at henry "disinformation" quirk

It was better when it was lol at henry "it's just a cold" quirk.

The original was pointed; the edit is too diffuse.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 13166
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Immanuel Can »

mickthinks wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 10:44 am Firstly, "no longer wanting to transition" isn't the same thing as "transitioned and regretting it",
Actually, it's exactly the same.

Because once you start taking puberty blockers, you're blocking your natural development in ways that cannot be reversed. So you're already "transitioning," and are going to pay for it.

If you want to go back to who you were, you cannot. You've missed normal puberty. You'll live the rest of your life as a sexual cripple.
But if they're already on puberty blockers, [...] They've already been damaged.
What damage do puberty blockers cause?
You really want to know?

Here you go: https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Dam ... 1684510317

And the audiobook is free.
mickthinks
Posts: 1185
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

Mick: Firstly, "no longer wanting to transition" isn't the same thing as "transitioned and regretting it"
Manny: Actually, it's exactly the same.

Now you're just being silly.
mickthinks wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:44 amYep, that's Manny—fucking smart and thoroughly dishonest!
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 361
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Ansiktsburk »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:27 am
Ansiktsburk wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:13 pm The bottom line is - are there a lot of cases where people who have done this that really regrets it afterwards?
Yes.

"...several studies have estimated that 60 to 90 per cent of children who identify as transgender no longer want to transition by the time they’re adults..." National Post, Dec. 14:2020.

But if they're already on puberty blockers, then it's already too late by the time they realize what's going on. They've already been damaged.
As I said before: if adults wanna mutilate themselves they ought to slice & dice as they like (never expectin', of course, to be taken as anything but what they are: guys pretendin' to be gals; gals pretendin' to guys [cuz it's absolutely friggin' impossible for a guy to become a gal or a gal to become a guy]).

Kids, that there is an entirely different thing. No kid ought be allowed to self-mutilate. Any parent who sanctions such nonsense ought to be horsewhipped in the public square.
Only if its true that people regret when growing up. If the figures IC is correct, that might be the case.

But go back to yourself at 12 yo. Were you an idiot with no sense of self?
I was not. I was pretty much the same person back then as now. With problems, not related to Gender. What I would have wished was to get a name, a diagnosis for what my traits were. My Parents had absolutely no clue, and they forced me to stuff that was extremely painful for me. When I later, as an adult, found the names for the problems - Trait, not "attitude" - my parents deeply regretted their own analysis.

What I want to say is - Parents aint psychologists. If a young person finds - not with a whim in a turbulence, but steady, something that is out of the normal, it's not for parents to say what the problem is, parents should seach professional help for the child. If the problem is on gender bender level.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 11840
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by henry quirk »

Ansiktsburk,

Parents aint psychologists.

True. They should be advised by professionals. They ought never defer to them, though, especially when it comes to matters of the psyche.

Question: while it's certainly possible for a man to pretend he's a woman, for a man to actually believe he's a woman, is it possible for a man to become a woman?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 13166
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ansiktsburk wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:54 pm But go back to yourself at 12 yo. Were you an idiot with no sense of self?
By 12, you were starting to discover your developing, adult characteristics.

If you were like most people, you felt awkward and alienated from you body. You worried much more than you should have about how your peers were seeing you. You maybe had phases where you got a tatoo or dyed your hair blue or always wore a Steelers' jersey, because you were trying out identities, and didn't know what you'd land on. In short, you were a mess, a work in progress, and quite insecure about the results.

It's what we call "being an adolescent". And it goes away.
I was not. I was pretty much the same person back then as now. With problems, not related to Gender. What I would have wished was to get a name, a diagnosis for what my traits were. My Parents had absolutely no clue, and they forced me to stuff that was extremely painful for me. When I later, as an adult, found the names for the problems - Trait, not "attitude" - my parents deeply regretted their own analysis.
"Trait" can be a blessing or a curse, if you substitute it for "attitude." For attitude can be changed, but traits are intrinsic. Once you dub something a "trait" you condemn the labelled person to be, or be seen as, permanently possessed of that feature, rather than capable of improving on it.

There are some things that deserve to be called "trait." Gender would be one of them. But personality "traits" can change. So can behaviours, dispositions, beliefs and even attitudes. So those should not be locked into the category of "trait," unless one is darn sure they can't be changed at all.
...parents should seach professional help for the child. If the problem is on gender bender level.
On that, we agree.

There are various possibilities. Their child could be fantasizing, experimenting, being dramatic, or seriously mentally ill. Whichever one it is, a professional diagnosis might help...either a physiological or a psychological one. But it will only be a help so long as the doctor or psychologist involved is not himself/herself addicted to the ridiculous, gender-fluid ideology of our day. In that case, a "professional" opinion is only likely to make the suffering worse.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3640
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:56 pm ... once you start taking puberty blockers, you're blocking your natural development in ways that cannot be reversed ...
Not true. As a matter of fact, "puberty blocking," even happens naturally, especially among female gymnasts, whose own bodies block their sexual development, which reverses itself when they stop their extreme exercise.

However, it is not really possible to change an individual's sex. Only cosmetic, "physiological," changes are possible. The genetics remain unchanged. Making a female or male, "look," like it's opposite is a kind of "chemical/plastic surgery," creation of a chimera or a freak.

However, the only persons who have a stake in this issue are children's parents. If they are don't do anything about it, it's no one else's business.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 13166
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:56 pm ... once you start taking puberty blockers, you're blocking your natural development in ways that cannot be reversed ...
Not true. As a matter of fact, "puberty blocking," even happens naturally, especially among female gymnasts, whose own bodies block their sexual development, which reverses itself when they stop their extreme exercise.
Gymnasts are a hard case...but only because they manipulate their physiologies so many ways, both natural and unnatural, that it's very hard to say medically which particular damaging effects that they experience were produced by one or the other. But we know that some of what they do to themselves can result in misformation of bones, sterility, and early-onset cancers, among other things.

What we need is long-term study of normal populations, not of pill-popping, over-excercising, steroid-using, radical-dieting dwarves...which is what we mean when we say, "gymnast."
However, it is not really possible to change an individual's sex.

Of course. Every cell in the "trans-person's" body rebels against the change and pronounces them what they are, regardless of the appearance.
However, the only persons who have a stake in this issue are children's parents.

Well, THAT's clearly untrue.

The most obvious stakeholder is the child herself. She's the one on whom all the lifelong misery of "transing" is going to be visited, so that her parents can virtue-signal their open-mindedness.

It's child abuse, plain and simple.

Then there are those who have to relate to the individual...friends, family, extended others. They all have a stake in a well-adjusted, healthy and normal individual. To tax them with the absurd role of pretending that a woman is a man or a man is a woman, merely to satisfy the vanity of his/her parents is not just an imposition: it's an absurdity.

Moreover, society itself has an interest in functional and realistic roles for its male and female participants. No society that does not know what a "man" is, and does not know what a "woman" is, is likely to endure long. And those societies in which key roles are not being occupied by those best suited for them are inevitably less functional than those that are. Everybody pays the price for that.

Finally, there is the debt one owes to one's Creator -- namely, to learn to be what one has been born to be, and to actualize the role for which one has been brought into existence. And ultimately, the happiness of the individual consists in learning to embrace this role and to experience gratitude for it; not in the impossible manipulation and mutilation of the form one has been given, or in the cherished delusion that one can be other than one can actually ever possibly be.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3640
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:56 pm ... once you start taking puberty blockers, you're blocking your natural development in ways that cannot be reversed ...
Not true. As a matter of fact, "puberty blocking," even happens naturally, especially among female gymnasts, whose own bodies block their sexual development, which reverses itself when they stop their extreme exercise.
Gymnasts are a hard case...but only because they manipulate their physiologies so many ways, both natural and unnatural, that it's very hard to say medically which particular damaging effects that they experience were produced by one or the other. But we know that some of what they do to themselves can result in misformation of bones, sterility, and early-onset cancers, among other things.

What we need is long-term study of normal populations, not of pill-popping, over-excercising, steroid-using, radical-dieting dwarves...which is what we mean when we say, "gymnast."
I first became aware of the phenomenon when Kathy Rigby explained that she did not have her first period until around eighteen or nineteen, I believe. It had nothing to do with the misuse of drugs, diets, or abuse. See:

"Short stature in active gymnasts is partly due to selection of individuals with reduced leg length. Reduced sitting height is likely to be acquired but is reversible with cessation of gymnastics. A history of gymnastic training does not appear to result in reduced stature or menstrual dysfunction in adulthood.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm
However, the only persons who have a stake in this issue are children's parents.

Well, THAT's clearly untrue.

The most obvious stakeholder is the child herself. She's the one on whom all the lifelong misery of "transing" is going to be visited, so that her parents can virtue-signal their open-mindedness.
Then you think the child should be the one that makes the decision, since "she's" the primary, "stakeholder?" I'm sorry, I disagree. It is the child's parents who ought to be making the decision so long as the parents are supporting that child. (And why only, 'she?" ... or are you just being PC.)
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm It's child abuse, plain and simple.
What's child abuse? Allowing the child to make the choice or not allowing the child to make the choice? Parents allow children to make all sorts of choices that ultimate lead to those children's long term detriment, just as bad as or worse then the consequences of puberty blockers. I'm sorry IC, but other people's children are not yours, (or mine), and it is none of our business how others choose to raise their children, no matter how bad we think they are. (And most of them are very bad.)
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm Then there are those who have to relate to the individual...friends, family, extended others. They all have a stake in a well-adjusted, healthy and normal individual.
Unless they are feeding, clothing, and housing those children, they have no stake in those children at all. If thet5 attempt to interfere in any way in how others raise their children they are just meddlers and trouble makers. One's sentiments do not justify intefering in other's lives.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm To tax them with the absurd role of pretending that a woman is a man or a man is a woman, merely to satisfy the vanity of his/her parents is not just an imposition: it's an absurdity.
Nobody has to agree with the trans-gend psychos. You will never end absurdities by passing laws against them.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm Moreover, society itself has an interest in functional and realistic roles for its male and female participants. No society that does not know what a "man" is, and does not know what a "woman" is, is likely to endure long. And those societies in which key roles are not being occupied by those best suited for them are inevitably less functional than those that are. Everybody pays the price for that.
Society? What's that? It's today's, "society," that believes and promotes all these "sexuality," absurdities. Society is just individuals considered collectively. Societies don't have beliefs, only individuals do. Aren't you society?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm Finally, there is the debt one owes to one's Creator --
No one is born with any unearned obligation or debt to anything or anyone else. It takes a lot of chutzpah to use one's own superstitious beliefs to justify forcing others to conform to your views. I doubt you'd let a Hindu or Muslim get away with that.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 13166
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 11:24 am A history of gymnastic training does not appear to result in reduced stature or menstrual dysfunction in adulthood.
But a history of radical dieting, inducing vomiting, taking steroids, training on injuries and chronic mental abuse does.
Then you think the child should be the one that makes the decision, since "she's" the primary, "stakeholder?"
No. Being a "stakehold" does not mean that you automatically get to make all the decisions. But what it does mean is that whatever bad choices the parents make, their primary effects will be visited on their offspring. So acting as if the parents are the only ones we need to take into consideration (which is the real implication of "stakeholding": it means "to have a stake in," not "to be the lone decision maker"), is just plain wrong...and obviously so.
(And why only, 'she?" ... or are you just being PC.)
I was being statistical. Because while body dysmorphia used to be more prevalent among males (though it was always an extremely rare condition) has, in our day, been transfered into the experience of four times as many females as males. :shock:

Now, that, in itself, ought to give us pause. Why is it that a mental illness that only used to infect the odd male, and very few of those, suddenly become a comparative plague among adolescent females instead? (Hint: social media seems to have a lot to do with it: it's clearly not "natural".)
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm It's child abuse, plain and simple.
What's child abuse?
Convincing impressionable children to take drugs that prevent them from developing normally, and refusing to give the young and naive proper parental guidance, protecting them from delusions and being misled by others. Failing to help them become capable of normal sexual relations and of achieving healthy socialization. That's abuse.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm Then there are those who have to relate to the individual...friends, family, extended others. They all have a stake in a well-adjusted, healthy and normal individual.
...they have no stake in those children at all.
Yeah, they do.

Keep in mind what a "stakeholder" means: it's not "decision-maker." It's merely saying that we're speaking of a constituency that wins when the child adjusts normally, and is effectively penalized when she does not. That describes quite a range of "stakeholders."
You will never end absurdities by passing laws against them.

Sometimes that's exactly what you need to do.

If parents become pedophiles, we have laws to deal with them: and so we should. If parents become abusive of their children by way of "transing" them, then that, too should be recognized for what it is: sexual exploitation of children by adults. And yes, it should be illegal.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:33 pm Finally, there is the debt one owes to one's Creator --
No one is born with any unearned obligation or debt to anything or anyone else.
It's not unearned. Your Creator made you and gave you life. That is an incalculable favour, no matter what Dontaskme thinks. And it also means you are not "your own," whatever you may wish you could believe. You owe your life to God in a far more profound way than any child owes his or her parents. You owe Him for every breath you take, for the fact that the molecules in your body hold together, and for every good thing you've ever known in your life.

And it's a debt you will pay, by giving account for what you did with all you were given. Be ready for that, would be my advice.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2743
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:36 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:51 am Well, I think it's very fair game to believe that there is something indeed very special about human consciousness. It's hard to believe that something like this arose out of nothingness through purely chance accident.
I agree. Your intuition is actually telling you something there, Gary. And I think that's a good starting point: that you have a right to feel that way.

But think of how impossible that is, if "the ascent of man" story is how things actually are. If you and I are nothing but "late apes," then we're also nothing more that cosmic detritus...accidental happenings in an indifferent universe. And we aren't really "special" in any way at all. We're not enlightened, or of higher value...and we're of no more value than the dogs, the fish and the paramecia, which also have no particular value or specialness of their own. Everything in the universe is just a chance happening. And all creatures are mere accidents.

Why then is the human race justifiably expected to behave in particular ways, as opposed to others? Monkeys get to do whatever it is monkeys do. So do fish and paramecia. And they're never, never "wrong" for doing anything they do; nor are they ever "right" for doing anything.

If we're no more than part of that, then why are human beings expected to be rational, moral, logical, virtuos, or anything else like that?

But we don't feel like that's how it is, do we Gary? We KNOW, in our heart of hearts, that we are here on a different "story." Human beings ARE responsible for their actions, for the environment, and to each other. And we are better than dogs and monkeys...and far better than mosquitoes or pine trees. In fact, we are responsible for what we do. They are not.

And, Gary, I'll go with you a further step: this world is not going well.

There's no reason we should know that, of course, if the "ascent of man" story is true. LIke all other byproducts of the indifferent universe, we should be blithely unaware of the collapse of the environment, the decline of civilizations or the injustices of personal life. Any intuition to the contrary is utterly inexplicable, on those terms.

But we know things are not as they should be.

How do we know that? :shock:
I believe in God. And I believe God is good. I'm just not 100% sure of too much else. I'm sure there is divine inspiration in the Bible and other religious texts like the Upanishads. I'm just not 100% sure which is better or more accurate in reflecting God's will. In the end, I think the word of God is the most important thing and not necessarily how we (persons) may interpret it at a given point in time or whatnot. In that sense, I figure the 10 Commandments are probably a good starting point for following the word of God. And I think through Jesus Christ we learn the word and will of God as well. But when the word of God/Christ goes through interpreters and second-hand witnesses, then I believe some care may be needed. Not that the interpreters and witnesses lie or intentionally mislead but I think God speaks differently or perhaps sounds different to different folks based on who we are, what we do, and stuff like that. And, again, it's not to give free license to any and all behavior. I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong but not all people are exactly in the same place in life. So I believe there's some variation to whatever degree. I don't think life has cookie-cutter instructions for all--other than the 10 Commandments. And I don't think anyone in the Bible is someone for all to emulate, other than Christ himself. But of course, I don't know for sure. Maybe just my prejudice I suppose.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 13166
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:58 am I believe in God. And I believe God is good. I'm just not 100% sure of too much else.
Well, that's an awfully good start, Gary. Deciding that we matter to God, and that there CAN be some meaning, purpose or answer behind reality is really the start of wisdom...certainly Biblically speaking, that's so.
the Upanishads
Have you read them, Gary?

I read the Gita, which is probably Hinduism's most sacred book. And to tell you the truth, I found the poetry in it quite elegant. It's ethics, however, were rather the opposite of anything one reads in the Bible. And that means that one has to make a choice, really: for when two views are in direct contradiction to one another, no more than one can actually be right.
I figure the 10 Commandments are probably a good starting point for following the word of God. And I think through Jesus Christ we learn the word and will of God as well.
A realization of the authority of the Law of God, and of the specialness of Christ...those are great steps in the right direction too, Gary.
But when the word of God/Christ goes through interpreters and second-hand witnesses, then I believe some care may be needed.
Yes. Care is always a good thing.
Not that the interpreters and witnesses lie or intentionally mislead but I think God speaks differently or perhaps sounds different to different folks based on who we are, what we do, and stuff like that.
And interesting idea...but it seems to me not quite fully formed yet. I'm not quite sure what it means to say "differently." I think it's certainly true that the Creator, if as I believe He desires relationship with his creatures, wants our relationship to be as individuals. Were it not so, why would He have made us so unique, so different from one another? Why wouldn't He instead have made a kind of creature that was more the same, like a zebra in a herd of zebras looks the same as all the others. So it seems obvious that God desires to relate to Gary as Gary, not as merely a specimen of the human variety.

And that's pretty encouraging: because it means that God intended that there should be a Gary. He wants there to be a Gary.
And, again, it's not to give free license to any and all behavior. I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong but not all people are exactly in the same place in life.
Well, some things are surely "right" and "wrong" all the time, right? Like, it's always right to be merciful or charitable, and always wrong to, say, harm children or conspire against one's neighbours. But I think it's certainly true that not all people face the same challenges, and we all do have to work out the implications of moral rights and wrongs in the circumstances of our individual challenges.

So there's an inescapable individuality to that side of moral reflection. We may know the larger principles, such as "Do not steal," say; but what it means to "steal" in the practical situation of one's own life is something one has to consider carefully. Moral universals and moral particulars aren't necessarily at odds; but coordinating them certainly takes some individual discernment.

I actually think you're thinking about these things in a very reasonable way, Gary. You might not feel you have all your conclusions fully formed yet, and I can see a measure of second-guessing of yourself in the way you word things; but I think the above are pretty good leads in the right direction, and perhaps you can trust that a little more than perhaps you've tended to think.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2743
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:32 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:58 am the Upanishads
Have you read them, Gary?

I read the Gita, which is probably Hinduism's most sacred book. And to tell you the truth, I found the poetry in it quite elegant. It's ethics, however, were rather the opposite of anything one reads in the Bible. And that means that one has to make a choice, really: for when two views are in direct contradiction to one another, no more than one can actually be right
I've read a few snippets and have forgotten what they said, so pretty much the answer is "no," I haven't. And even if I had read the texts in their entirety, I don't have the wherewithal concerning God to say that they are not equally inspired by God (so long as they don't preach evil). As far as being the "opposite" of anything one reads in the Bible, what do you mean by that? Do they tell a person to be evil where the Bible tells us to be good? I mean, the opposite of good is evil, so when you say it's the "opposite" of the Bible, I'm not sure what you mean. Surely the text doesn't preach evil. Or does it?
Post Reply