Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on April 27, 2019

Bookmark and Share

The “Population Bomb” Bombed


In 1968, the “year’s most important book,” what Greg Garrard[1] called a neo-Malthusian classic, The Population Bomb, by Stanford University Professor Paul Ehrlich, “made dire predictions and triggered a wave of repression around the world.”[2] Authored by an evolutionary biologist known for his “groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies,” it became a best seller, and turned the author into a celebrity.[3] The book “would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century.”[4]

Ehrlich’s conclusion was announced in the first sentence:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.[5]

In the end, the book and the movement it birthed “fueled an anti-population-growth crusade that led to human rights abuses around the world.[6]

Marketplace in Fiji (DFC)

Although Malthusian ideas, such as those presented by Ehrlich, continue to influence scholars today, for several reasons his theory failed in the 1960s and 1970s and has continued to fail up to the present. Ehrlich, inspired by Thomas Malthus and a disciple of Malthus named William Vogt who penned several books in the late 1960s, predicted massive famines as a result of population increases.[7] Vogt, in his best-selling book titled The Road to Survival, argued in no uncertain terms that current population increase trends would result in future wars, hunger, disease and civilization collapses. Likewise, Ehrlich also argued that hundreds of millions of persons would die from the overpopulation crisis that he and other leading biologists expected to occur in the 1970s unless birth control and abortion were widely applied to the population, or if necessary forced on the population.[8]

Ehrlich envisioned that, by 1995, a horrific future awaited humans including the starvation of millions, or even billions, of people. His many best-selling books in which he endeavored to document this dire future, besides The Population Bomb (1968), included Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology (1970, with Anne Ehrlich); The End of Affluence (1974, with Anne Ehrlich) and The Population Explosion (1990, with Anne Ehrlich).

Ehrlich’s Ideas Proliferate

Paul R. Ehrlich in 1974 at the height of his celebrity

Ehrlich also was able to reach millions on several television appearances, such as the NBC Tonight Show with Johnny Carson in February of 1970 and numerous times afterward.[9] In response to Vogt’s and Ehrlich’s ideas, the first Director-General of UNESCO, Julian Huxley, in his Evolutionary Humanism, called for a radical government-enforced world population control policy.[10] Huxley and Ehrlich openly criticized both the communist and the Roman Catholic positions on birth control, and especially on abortion, as well as on their skepticism for a need for strict governmental enforced population control to avoid disaster.

All of his predictions have now failed and his work “has been proven spectacularly wrong.” The problem now is the decline of the population in many countries!

Another example of applied Malthusianism is the 1972 book The Limits to Growth published by the Club of Rome, and the Global 2000 report completed for the then President of the United States, Jimmy Carter. Science-fiction author Isaac Asimov, reflecting the works of Charles Darwin, Robert Malthus and Professor Paul Ehrlich, also got on board and issued many appeals for government-mandated population control programs.

Dr Bergman shows how Darwinism has corrupted everything it touches.

The negative results from overpopulation propaganda included policies that required forced or coerced sterilization of millions living “in unsafe conditions, in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.”[11] In the end, over “eight million men and women were sterilized in 1975 alone . . . . China adopted a ‘one child’ policy that lead to huge numbers—possibly 100 million—of coerced abortions, often in poor conditions contributing to infections and even death.[12]

Ehrlich Proved Wrong

In spite of his predictions, there was no net increase in the death rate around the world due to famine as a result of the conditions Ehrlich predicted. Actually, accordingly to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, famine has become rarer around the world, from 1 out of 4 suffering from hunger to 1 out of 10 today. These statistics are more impressive in view of the fact that the world’s population has more than doubled since Ehrlich’s prediction was made. Although starvation claimed 4 to 5 million lives during the 1970s, most of the deaths were due to warfare, rather than from “environmental exhaustion from over-population” as Ehrlich warned.[13]

All of his predictions have now failed and his work “has been proven spectacularly wrong.[14] The problem now is the decline of the population in many countries! In the United States, the replacement level was 2.1 lifetime children per woman, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of the year ending in September 2017, shows the total fertility rate is now 1.77 lifetime births per woman. This is unsustainable; if not reversed, it will lead to population loss.

Why Malthus Proved Wrong

Before Malthus, commentators regarded high fertility as an economic advantage because it increased the number of workers. Malthus, however, convinced most economists that, even though high fertility might increase the gross economic output, it tended to reduce the per capita output, because food production increases linearly, but population increases exponentially (5 June 2007). Even during Malthus’ lifetime, the many major problems with his fake-math theory soon became obvious. Malthus had correctly diagnosed

what economists now call the “Malthusian Trap”­­–– that as population rose, personal income levels decreased. This was true in England, but only until about 1800. When Malthus wrote his Essay on Population in 1798, real wages had been stagnant or declining for generations . . . . But after 1800 the facts told a different story. By the . . . early 1830s . . . personal income was increasing even as the population grew.[15]

The reasons why geometric population growth in the 20th century did not result in a Malthusian catastrophe as Malthus expected include greater labor specialization and major capital investment that resulted in large agricultural production improvements. Other improvements included the use of fertilizers and petrochemical pesticides to control crop pests, mechanization (tractors and combines), and the introduction of high-yield farm crop varieties. Humans have also learned how to exploit past solar income — fossil fuels — to greatly increase agricultural production by producing electricity to pump water for irrigation.

One of the most critical innovations was the 1840s discovery by the German Justus von Liebig that nitrogen was a central factor in causing plant growth. Liebig then learned how to synthesize the bio-available form of nitrogen, nitrate, and is thus called the “father” of the fertilizer revolution.[16]

The second critical development was in the early 1900s when Chemist Fritz Haber developed a process to synthesize fertilizer by using high temperatures to combine hydrogen derived from methane with atmospheric nitrogen.[17] The energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process is now used throughout the world to fixate atmospheric nitrogen to produce low-cost artificial fertilizers. All of these developments have now largely negated Malthus’ major thesis.

Corel Pro Photos

As a result, though seemingly logical, the Malthusian premise has been falsified. Zubin, in a chapter titled “The Data That Proves Malthus Wrong,” reviews world population growth data plotted against GDP per capita growth, documenting how crop production has historically outstripped population growth. The data also show that

with the right political and social conditions, men’s inventiveness, creativity, collaboration, and innovation actually accelerate the production of food and other resources as population increases, rather than deplete them . . . . Food production in the past few decades has grown exponentially, and . . . new technologies have replaced the need for scarce or outdated resources.[18]

An increased supply of labor produced a situation like this story used by Malthus critics, while both the hawk and man eat chickens, the more hawks, the fewer the chickens, but more men usually means more chickens.[19] Even the late editor of the leading science magazine, Nature, John Maddox, regarded Malthus as a failed prophet.[20]

Ehrlich in 2008. He received many awards from leftist organizations. He has never repudiated his views.

The situation today is that food has actually improved.[21] Despite the world population doubling between 1960 and 2000, calories produced per day, per capita, has globally increased by 23 percent during this same period. Furthermore, as any restaurant worker knows, about half of all food grown today is wasted for various reasons due to high crop yields destroyed by waste, government programs for price control, and other reasons. If the waste were reduced, the Earth could easily support a much larger population than exists today.

Another factor is that, in many areas, including Europe, Japan, Canada, and the United States, the birth rate is now below replacement level, which is about 2.1 children per family. Some nations now actually use financial incentives to encourage larger families to help maintain their population level. These programs have had very limited success, and immigration now appears to be the only way many countries can maintain their current population level.

Ehrlich’s  Aggressive Opposition to Creationism

Ehrlich critic Benjamin Shapiro entered UCLA at sixteen, graduated summa cum laude in June 2004 and went on to graduate from Harvard University Law School cum laude in 2007. In response to Ehrlich’s opinion that  “American neoconservatives promote creationism because, as their own statements reveal, they apparently fear an educated population and see the theory of evolution as a threat,” Shapiro wondered if it ever occurred to

Ehrlich that perhaps many neoconservatives believe in the word of God? Probably not, since Ehrlich believes conservatives are out to lynch blacks and enslave the poor. Teaching creation science is foolish, professors believe. “They could just as well talk about Kumulipo,” the Hawaiian creation chant, scoffs Professor Pauline Chinn of the University of Hawaii. “Creationism isn’t science, it’s faith,” nods Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology Professor Gerald Fryer. “The big lie is that there’s something to (creationism),” sneers Professor Victor Stenger, also of the University of Hawaii.[22]

Ehrlich’s Persecution of Grad Student Erville Clark

This indicates the attitude of Ehrlich toward evolution critics. One good example of how negative Ehrlich is toward creationists includes the case of Erville Clark, a former student of Ehrlich when he was teaching at Stanford. Professor Erville Clark, in spite of his above-average qualifications that earned him an excellent academic record, was denied his Ph.D. in biology at Stanford University. He was finally able to complete his doctorate at Oregon State University. The department chair there, in evaluating Clark’s admission papers, contacted Stanford and learned that Mr. Clark was denied the Ph.D. because he was a creationist. Professor Ronald Numbers comments that this case involved the dirty tricks common in academia against creationists. In recounting the bitter incident, Clark expressed the conclusion that much of the reason was Ehrlich’s disdain for Clark’s anti-evolution views, writing that, early in his doctoral program, Clark

had taken a course on evolution with Paul R. Ehrlich (b. 1932), from whom he received a B [grade]. Later, when Clark attempted to defend his dissertation on the ecology of a single county in northern California, Ehrlich zeroed in, quizzing him on ecology around the world, about which the young biologist admittedly knew relatively little. From what he later learned, four of the five committee members voted to pass him, but the department required a unanimous decision. The next year he retook the examination with the same results, which led to automatic termination.[23]

Numbers continued, adding

Determined to earn the doctorate his father never possessed, Clark later enrolled in a general science program at Oregon State University, from which he received a Ph.D. in 1971 for a dissertation on radiation biology.[24]

It is clear that one member of his Ph.D. committee—namely, the man whose scientific prediction was “spectacularly wrong”—made sure that Clark would fail his oral exams. Letters from Stanford about this case in my file expressed open intolerance against creationists, and Clark specifically. In an interview with Dr. Ehrlich about this case, Wirth reported Ehrlich claimed the Ph.D. was not denied due to Clark’s beliefs, then later Ehrlich exclaimed, well “would you grant a Ph.D. to a creationist?”[25]

Dr Bergman has published 3 books of true stories of careers ruined by Darwin bigots.

Now 86 years old, Dr. Ehrlich is the Bing Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University and president of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology. He still writes books on evolution.


The modern “population bomb” ideology movement began in 1968, largely because of a book by Paul Ehrlich. He relied heavily on the ideas of Thomas Malthus, on which Darwin also based his evolution theory of competition for resources and survival of the fittest (see “Malthus misled Darwin who misled the world,” 30 April 2014). Both Ehrlich and Malthus have proved to be “spectacularly wrong,” especially in the last century (13 May 2016). The doomsday predictions Ehrlich made have, fortunately, largely failed to come to pass. But they also proved to be socially disastrous, resulting in large-scale negation of human rights that Ehrlich’s ideas promulgated. These programs caused a great deal of harm to society, leading to millions of abortions, particularly of female babies in China, and violations of human rights. Abortions and sterilizations also increased in the United States, India, China, and many other nations. The full story of the harm of Ehrlich’s ideas has yet to be told, and this paper is a start.

26 Comments on "The “Population Bomb” Bombed"

  1. Darrell Cloud on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 8:21 am 

    The reason that the Malthus prediction was not immediately realized is because England colonized the world. This allowed them to extract resources from a global empire. Coal was replaced by oil and the modern age was born.

  2. US War Crime Syndicate on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 8:28 am 

    Similarly in the 1960s, the Green Revolution, using fossil fuel derived fertilizer and pesticides, boosted crop production. Of course now we have even more mouths to feed, growing dead zones in the oceans, and dead, rapidly disappearing top soils but, hey, we sure showed that Erlich guy eh?

  3. Sissyfuss on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 8:29 am 

    What a load of horse crap. Saying the problem now is the decline of population in many countries as we add 80 plus million to the almost 8 billion every year. When the author started defending creationism you knew you were dealing with unprovable faith over science. Erlich hasn’t been proven wrong in theory, only timing. And the faithful will continue to go forth and multiple because their unevolved minds are capable of little else. When the collapse accelerates they will blame it on those with different perspectives because their impenetrable iron clad faith cannot be breached.

  4. Cloggie on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 8:53 am 

    Technology is proving everybody wrong: Ehrlich as well as peak oil doomers.

    One month ago I visited the Arnhem Open Air Museum, during the first beautiful day of the year:

    It shows the history of the Netherlands between roughly 1750-1920, mostly concentrating on the way ordinary people lived, mostly in farmhouses. Only 150 years ago, people in the province of Drenthe, a sort of Dutch Ozarks-Missouri, people slept with cows in one open living space, as such saving on fuel wood. Nothing beats a damping cow as a radiator, warm fumes included at no surcharge.

    I was watching the scene while a co-visitor remarked to me: “glad I don’t have to live in this mess”. “Long live technology!”, I solemny added and she agreed.

  5. doug nicodemus on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 8:55 am 

    why does this board keep putting up stupid shit like this…what global warming which is dependent on population growth won’t kill us all the same…and then ends with a creationism little dance…like so there…geez…lame and failed…

  6. Harquebus on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 4:38 pm 

    Darrell Cloud is right. Until now there has always been room to move and to grow.

    “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
    Dr Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy

    “Without voluntary population reduction and control, make no mistake, the natural world will do it for us . . . and it will not be pretty.”

    I appreciate the stupid shit like this article that are sometimes posted on this board. It helps to keep me informed as to others who are not thinking. Many thanks.

  7. Pete Bauer on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 6:13 pm 

    Based on the food supply at that time, the economist said that it may not be enough to feed the fast growing population.
    Based on his findings, countries invested more in agricultural research.
    The agricultural scientists came up with better crop yields and thus the world population could be fed.

    So credit should be given to both Thomas Ehrlich (Economist) and Normal Borlaug (Scientist) for saving billions by addressing the issue at the right time.

    At the same time since 1973 OPEC oil crisis, many families (irrespective of their countries choice) voluntarily restricted to just 2 children. Where food failed to restrict population, oil restricted. If the families did not restrict to 2 children and instead had many, then we could have faced a much higher oil shortage today.

    Today only in sub saharan africa and west asia, the population is growing at rapid speed and this is because of illeteracy and religious beliefs.

    What is the role for creationists here. Since the soviets launched sputnik to space, all their outmoded beliefs were thrown out.

    Recently in China, they created a mice with 2 female parents. If they succeed the same in pigs, cows, horses; then they may just eliminate the male gender and produce female alone since females give milk, meat and also breed while the function of males is just to give semen.

    Day is not far when the scientists could convert an ape to human or human to ape and prove that creationists are wrong once and for all.

    And by the way, the satellites in space are sending only the pictures of Planet Earth and not of heaven / hell.

  8. Theedrich on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 6:27 pm 

    Congress wants to import sex slaves.  The number of children (average age:  13) annually sold into sex slavery in America is somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000.  (“It is estimated that at least 100,000 children — girls and boys — are bought and sold for sex in the U.S. every year, with as many as 300,000 children in danger of being trafficked each year.”)  See  This horror is growing like wildfire, and yet little is done about it by Congress, whose members need the laundered money stealthily slipped to them.  The psychological preparation for this slave trade is the porn industry in general, which “brings in more money than Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Yahoo.”  Naturally, the First Amendment is used as cover for this psywar.  But the results are devastating.  Hard core porn on the internet desensitizes the men who view it, so that they need ever coarser and more violent ways to satisfy their urges.  And the children and women victimized by the business are wounded for life — if they manage to survive at all.

    International crime organizations bring in huge numbers of these slaves to fill every niche market, not only the migrant farm workers.  The “client” buying their services “could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse.”  Together with the exploding narcotics plague, it is part of the general — and terminal — American disintegration into madness.

    The American experiment has failed.

  9. Pete Bauer on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 6:38 pm 

    In the olden days when the disease, hurricanes, floods killed many people, the theories related to creationism helped in increasing population and ensuring that the whole village, towns are not wiped out.

    Today with our population exceeding 7.7 billion and annual population increasing by 80 million, there is no need to archaic belief to increase population. What is more important is to ensure that every family has 2 children so that when a man and woman retires, their 2 children takes over their job and their nations economy is not hurt. But those countries with lot of young population dont need to worry about this and these countries should find a way to give employment to their population. So its a question of balancing mechanism.

    The population growth is declining in countries like Japan, Korea, China because of their 72 hours / week work culture known as 996 which means work from 9 am to 9 pm at 6 days/week.
    In western world its decreasing because of rising education costs and also the children dont take care of parents in old age.

    With the right policies and right work culture we can ensure that the human population is at least maintained.

  10. Shortend on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 7:34 pm 

    What!? There’s plenty of ROOM!!
    Let THEM ALL IN….Build the BRIDGE and TUNNEL,
    Forget about the wall.
    God loves us and will provide!

  11. DerHundistLos on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 9:04 pm 

    Good grief. is now espousing creationism?

  12. makati1 on Sat, 27th Apr 2019 9:59 pm 

    People, you have to understand that PO has to cater to ALL of the US dumbed down serfs who believe that man did not evolve but was created on the 6th day by some sky god.

    “In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins” (2014)

    Indoctrination/brainwashing begins at birth. It is very difficult to overcome by education. Most never succeed. Americans are constantly brainwashed 24/7/365. The mental prison is for life, in most cases. Only a few escape. I’m one of them. ^_^

  13. James Eberle on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 1:44 am 

    Why did this website publish this? What’s wrong with you? Most informed people know why the predictions of Malthus and Erhlick were incorrect. And to criticize Darwin? Are you kidding?

  14. Sunspot on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 4:42 am 

    Theedrich is clearly mentally ill. Sad.

  15. JuanP sock on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 5:30 am 

    JuanP posted this

    Sunspot on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 4:42 am

  16. Cloggie on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 5:31 am 

    Theedrich is clearly mentally ill. Sad.

    Why is that?

    Any arguments?

    Of course not, just mud slinging.

  17. Davy on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 5:36 am 

    “Based on his findings, countries invested more in agricultural research. The agricultural scientists came up with better crop yields and thus the world population could be fed.”
    It is more like water and soil exploitation combined with fossil fuels and globalism came to the rescue not better AG techniques. Ag technology has basically stalled and currently the rate of growth with AG productivity is declining. If we consider the long term damage being done then we are in fact in decline long ago. Aquifers are being drained, ocean being mined of fish stocks, and productive land being degraded by profit motive.

  18. Sunspot on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 5:58 am 

    I’M “slinging mud”?? Do you read the posts?? Maybe Thee is a Russian troll, seems likely around here, but sure, call me the “bad guy”. Amazing that this site permits that sort of garbage, but this whole article is nothing but Creationist propaganda. What’s next, a full-throated defense of Flat Earth theology here at the Peak Oil message board?

  19. Davy on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 6:10 am 

    Sunspot on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 5:58 am

    JuanPee, you friggin lunatic quit your hiding behind multiple socks. You are a blight to this forum. You stalk, and ad hom with sock puppets and identity theft. FUCK JUANP the illegal alien and GED dumbass.

  20. Real Davy on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 6:41 am 

    Davy, you friggin lunatic, quit your hiding behind multiple socks. You are a blight to this forum. You, stalk, and ad hom with sock puppets and identity theft. FUCK DAVY the delusional GED dumbass.

  21. DMyers on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 5:56 pm 

    Some of the comments are a little harsh on Creationists IMO. Those who believe in the Creation cover a wide gamut. I offer the following quote from Wikipedia.

    Einstein believed the problem of God was the “most difficult in the world”—a question that could not be answered “simply with yes or no.” He conceded that, “the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.”

    Einstein makes the point perfectly, and I defer to his expression. That a man of such intelligence remained non-committal on the subject should cause those of lesser standing to question their own dogma.

    I personally wear the scarlet letter “A” for Atheist. But the existence of God cannot be disproved any more than it can be proved. I tolerate opposing views and try to learn from them, when possible. This has been the liberal ethos for many years.

    But all of that serves to avoid the gist of the article, which explicitly concerns the failure of doomsters to predict doom accurately. The response to this proposition must be thoughtful rather than knee jerk, because it is clear the criticism is correct.

    It is interesting, as Pete points out above, the these predictions were instrumental in preventing themselves.

    It may be there was intentional exaggeration in the predictions for the purpose of gaining attention. I don’t concede that the conceptual bases for the predictions were wrong, per se, based on their untimely fulfillment. But there is something to learn here about a stubborn human capacity to solve problems in the short term and with various unintended consequences. Events and inventions drive history away from the course it would otherwise follow. Predictions cannot take these unknowns into account.

    I’m not saying “have faith in humanity”, but if you do, there are facts to support your position.

  22. makati1 on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 7:11 pm 

    DMyers, Einstein lived 60+ years ago. Has there been any advances in science since then? You also have to realize he was raised in a religious family, but did NOT believe in god. “When asked if he believed in an afterlife, Einstein replied, “No. And one life is enough for me.”

    His specialty was mathematics not evolution. Like asking a carpenter about your plumbing problem.

    There are over 4,000 religions in the world, all claiming that their god is the real one. That their version of heaven and hell is the real one. How can that be? And, how many Christians know that they share the same god as Muslims? You know, the one in the Bible? That is not widely advertised. At least not in my readings.

    As for a “god”. Prehistoric humans created “gods” to control the masses just like they created tribal chiefs, pharaohs, kings, etc. Education pushes such brainwashing out of soft minds.

    Sitting the fence is only proving that you are weak and need a crutch. This life is all you get. Make the best of it, or do you need a sky daddy? LOL

  23. DMyers on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 7:59 pm 

    Good rebuttal Mak. I’m not really sitting on the fence here. But God has a history going way back, and perhaps it is presumptuous to simply dismiss the huge weight of that history as entirely unsubstantiated.

    I don’t believe that Einstein professed a disbelief in God. I’ve insinuated that he refrained from taking a position. The matter of God is beyond proof. You cannot prove no God, so how can you say? I believe that was Einstein’s rationale. Some refer to this as a Catch 22.

    I agree with your point about all the religions and gods. But rather than note the variations and differences, there is at the same time a profound commonality.

    I am weak and need a crutch, but it’s beer, not religion.

  24. makati1 on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 8:56 pm 

    DMyers, how many millenia did people believe that the world was flat? That the universe revolved around the earth? Times change. Education changes it.

    The “god people” found a perfect way to keep the question open. “Prove there is not a god”. Your “Catch 22”.

    Can you prove there are not many thousands of planets in the universe that have intelligent life? Can you prove that there are? No, but, if humanity survives the coming bottleneck, maybe we will meet one someday.

    Logic says there is no god. There has not even been proof that that wandering Jew called ‘Jesus’, ever existed. Or that what is in the Bible is truth. Granted some of the old testament is history, but what about the new testament? No proof. He said. She said. Stories written long after the person was dead, from “memories of stories”. Santa and the Easter Bunny have as much credibility.

    BTW: I am a realist and expect death to be nothing. No crutch. I am responsible for my life and expect no ‘help’ (or something to blame my mistakes on). Anyway, I prefer a good wine to ease the bumps of life. ^_^

  25. DMyers on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 9:36 pm 

    “There has not even been proof that that wandering Jew called ‘Jesus’, ever existed.”

    As far as I’m concerned you’re on safe ground, but if it turns out there really is a Hell, you’re going to burn there for saying that. You might want to say a little prayer, just in case. I’ll make a small plea on your behalf as well.

  26. makati1 on Sun, 28th Apr 2019 10:24 pm 

    DMyers, I feel totally safe from any “hell”. That is only to scare stupid people into kissing the priest’s/precher’s ass and putting money into the offering plate. Amazing how free you really are when you put that nonsense behind you I’m not a fence sitter. I’m a free person. My rule of living is: Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Simple, effective and does not cost a cent of tithe or support some lazy ass preacher. You will never be free if you always hedge your bets.

    BTW: I hold the Melchizedek Priesthood in the Mormon Church, but it means nothing. I’ve seen behind the curtain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *