I had to save this for posterity
“
The recent decisions of the Supreme Court cheat Moloch of his accustomed cheap comestibles. He’ll have to make do with less. But, as with all natural systems under the orbit of the moon, this is a case of pushing the envelope in one way only to see it bulge out in another. Moloch will be served, adequately, or there’ll be hell to pay, and no pitch hot.
There will be deaths. Not of children in the womb, but of others. Moloch must be fed, by his slaves. Now that he’ll be denied the food of babies from so many “trigger” states, he’ll need to be fed in some other way. His vassals will try to figure out how to immolate some high profile victims, to sate his hunger and avert his wrath. I suspect they’ll offer up some from among their own company.
It can’t work. It can’t suffice. His wrath shall inevitably consume all his worshippers. There are not victims enough to sate his lust. His servants then are doomed.
Reject him! Serve the Lord of Life! Only thereby might you prevent your own ingestion, and dissolution, in the insatiable maw of Moloch.” – a Christian called Kristor
No Moloch, dears, and no Christian god. I do love the lies of Christians, who have no problem with their god killing children at all. The hypocrisy is wonderful. And it’s always good to see an impotent imaginary god that can’t get rid of another imaginary god.
Literally, the only people left who are happy with human sacrifice are Christians. We see this in their myths (a babe born in a manger and Jephtha’s daughter for starters), in unfortunately common actions where Christians think their god will heal a child and let the child die, and now in their need to sacrifice women.
Something I’ve found out recently is that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow baptism for the still-born, nor can a mass be said (more information down in the comments). Why? Because they haven’t taken their first breath and therefore aren’t alive. Now, funny how this isn’t what they claim about abortion at all. Now, Christians other than Catholics might be insisting that they don’t believe in this, but funny how they all read from the same bible, and it also says life begins with the first breath too. As always, the bible and its god is no more than a Rorschach test, showing what the human wants to pretend is true, nothing more.
Club Schadenfreude 
Love that last paragraph! Too bad it can’t be circulated among “the religious.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have been posting such things on christian youtube videos. they do get in snit when their lies are exposed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
When I first read the “Kristor” comment, I thought it was a joke. I did not take it literally. Sarcastically, more then a little. 🙂
This Moloch sounds like a fun dude.
I see your point regarding perceived hypocrisy. However, all Catholic sacraments are for the living. Baptizing any dead person would be pointless. As for the Mass, one may be said for anyone. Doing that is a formality of intent, but a Mass is not a sacrament. They are said for dead people every day and almost everywhere. But it doesn’t mean a damn thing except that the Parish collects for few bucks.
I wouldn’t be holding my breath until the Catholic Church approves abortions. They are much stricter then most Protestant denominations. Artificial birth control is sinful and the life of the mother (at least was) secondary to the life of the child.
LikeLike
My point about baptism is that if a fertilized egg, zygote, fetus is considered “alive”, then the RCC should be baptizing them as soon as the woman has a positive pregnancy test. If they do not consider a child alive until it is outside of the vagina, then they are hypocrites.
I have found some interesting things.
“Baptis
m signifies the entrance of a person into the faith community of Christians, with the intention of putting that faith into action. A priest would never think of trying to give the eucharistic host to someone who had died nor could the baptism of a stillborn indicate the start of a lifelong effort to live out the Gospel.”
this seems to contradict this “Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.”
and then:
“7. Is the celebration of Mass for these deceased children appropriate?
The Church offers the celebration of a Funeral Mass for baptized children but also for children who have died before baptism. In the case of unbaptized children certain ritual elements celebrating baptism, e.g. sprinkling with holy water, the use of the pall and incense are omitted. Special prayers are found in the ritual.
Where the Funeral Liturgy in the presence of the body is not possible, a Funeral Mass for deceased children is appropriate after burial.
Note that this no longer called “Mass of the Angels”: but a “Funeral Liturgy” in the liturgical books.”
So, it seems to be an official “mass”? Not sure if the terminology is that important or not. But it does seem that they aren’t quite the same. Of course with St. Augustine’s inconvenient claims of infants in hell, the RCC is stuck between a imaginary rock and imaginary hard place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Technically, yes.
But how it works is a person walks into a parish office and asks that a Mass be said for someone. It will be said every day, for someone or not. The church secretary makes a note of the name, collects the fee, and life goes on.
The sticky wickets with rules of the church are always open to interpretation and varied levels of enforcement.
Hypocrisy has never stopped anyone from doing anything, damn sure not the RCC Mafia.
Many people, including non-believers, look on activity (kicking, moving, heartbeats) of fetuses as signs of life in the womb. Humans are never 100% consistent.
Your research is commendable. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bill, your comment about the “activity” of the fetus most definitely plays a role in why many are anti-abortion. The thing is, none of this takes place in the early stages when -most- women realize they are pregnant … and who, for whatever reason, choose to abort. But it makes for good talking points for the anti’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Nan.
True. When life begins has always been the cornerstone of the pro-birth/anti-abortion argument. I try to be truthful. Let’s face it…
Pregnancy is wonderful in a vast majority of the cases (Planned Parenthood). The exceptions are when the topic of abortion surfaces, “for whatever reason,”
The context of my comment is that when the political/religious arguments are not in play, people do eventually consider the fetus a life in a positive, if worrisome, way. If they are pro-choice, that does not make them hypocrites (ad hominem).
I doubt if anyone will be hiring me to draft political or religious talking points. I gave that up when I retired. 🙂
(I am still reading 🙂 )
LikeLiked by 1 person
well, that doesn’t surprise me at all.
more information about how the RCC changes its “truth”
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/roman-catholic-church-quickening#:~:text=Although%20the%20concept%20of%20quickening,a%20pivotal%20moment%20in%20pregnancy.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-church-teaching-on-abortion-dates-from-1869-1.1449517
https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-thomas-aquinas-believe-ensoulment-occurred-40-or-80-days-after-conception-making-abortion
I love that last where science is appealed to when convenient, and shows that the RCC is a religion of convenience and false claims. The same holds for how they ignore their supposed “saints” when convenient too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At what point should I remind people there are nearly half a million children in America in foster care?
LikeLiked by 2 people
yep, all of the TrueChristians(tm), ever so worried about embryos, but not giving a fuck about actual children.
LikeLiked by 2 people