Pope Francis says trans people destroy creation and compares them to nuclear weapons

Feb 19, 2015

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

By Dan Arel

In case you forgot, Pope Francis is a massive bigot.

According to Gay Star News,

The head of the Catholic Church has claimed people who ‘manipulate’ their bodies are similar to ‘Herods’ that ‘destroy, that plot designs of death, that disfigure the face of man and woman, destroying creation.’

His comments are found in a new book published in Italy called, Pope Francis: This Economy Kills, calling on Christians to safeguard God’s order of creation.

“Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings,” the Pope says.

It seems the Pope does not actually understand what transgender actually is and sees it as a threat to the future of mankind,

“Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.”


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

57 comments on “Pope Francis says trans people destroy creation and compares them to nuclear weapons

  • This as about as goofy as saying people born with one leg longer than the other should just live with it because correcting it will disturb the motions of the stars. Francis is a fruitcake. What is the matter with Catholics they do not notice they are lead by a nutter.

    Anything to do with the genitals seems to anaesthetise the Catholic brain. It is just another body part with diseases and problems like any other.



    Report abuse

  • Where are all those pope boosters when you need them?

    This guy did not fool me from the beginning. There is just too much nuttery in religion, which means sooner or later ( soon enough in this case ) the head nut is going to say something disgusting, ignorant or stupid.



    Report abuse

  • 5
    Cairsley says:

    For his first year on the See of Peter Pope Francis (né Jorge Mario Bergoglio) hid the fact quite well that he is an intellectual lightweight, with his emphasis on pastoral concerns and care for the poor. Now it is pretty obvious that he is not merely an intellectual lightweight but ill-informed and so smug as to have no sense of his need for further information, his confidence in divine revelation and the guidance of the Holy Spirit no doubt having played some part in shielding him from the hazards of curiosity. His misrepresentation of transgender and transsexual people in this case particularly irritates me, because they, along with transvestites, have always borne the brunt of society’s intolerance of what was once as a matter of course called sexual deviancy. This smiling, crowd-cajoling clown has learnt nothing about all this in the meantime.

    Mr Bergoglio, nature is much more variable (and interesting) than you think. But thank you, Mr Bergoglio, for making it clear in print how incompetent and ill-informed you are on these and related matters. People are what they are, Mr Bergoglio. Practise what you preach and love them as the people they are!



    Report abuse

  • Yeah, I felt the same if he has the power to change things really they would have happened, the church would be opening up its child abuse records to the public, they would extradite paedophiles under their protection in Rome, he would declare that homosexuality is not a sin and they can accept communion, they would stop preaching nonsense about condoms in Africa, etc. The man has never done more than placate the masses with a few fuzzy words and no action at all. You have to give it to the church they know how avoid having to move on any issues at all. Frankly I preferred the last Pope, I couldn’t stand him either mind but at least he was honest enough to say what he thought.



    Report abuse

  • Francis is a fruitcake. (Roedy), a silly sausage (Stafford Gordon). Hahahaha,… I like it.

    Delusion is an illness, a characteristic of a psychopaths, so why someone does not notice mental hospitals about this idiot! He already has a white jacket, only is missing a nice quite soft paneled room but I do not think it would be hard thing to find in loony bin.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – “Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.”

    Well! No surprises there! The geneticists and sex chromosomes don’t recognise the Catholic discontinuous mind’s “black and white” – pseudo-science gender “theory”.

    What next? Science will be rejecting “theistic evolution” and calling it pseudo-science crap?

    Who would have thunk it?! (Why was it called a “god-delusion” again!)

    that does not recognize the order of creation.”

    “Order of creation”?? Genesis V the Big-Bang – No contest!

    Someone needs to tell this dummy, that horizontal exchange of genetic material existed for millions of years, and that sexuality was a late-comer to the scene!
    Perhaps they should also educate him in the anatomy of hermaphrodite organisms, along with protandry and protgyny in those relatives of ours – the vertebrates.

    http://www.coralscience.org/main/articles/development-5/fish-sex-change

    Did you know that many marine fish species can change sex when needed? Scientists found that the species P. flavivertex, P. aldabraensis and P. cyanotaenia can change sex in a single sex environment.

    This basically means that when 2 females are placed together, one becomes male (or the other way around). When an individual changes from male to female, we call this protandry. When it changes from female to male, it is called protogyny.



    Report abuse

  • Ah Pope Fonzie, I had such hope for you, but as of late you only open your mouth to change feet.

    How can you even pretend to take the moral high ground and keep a straight face, when you are pimp in chief for the world’s largest paedophile club?



    Report abuse

  • I’m glad to see over the last few months the pope has started behaving like a proper pope. For a moment it was looking like the vatican had accidentally put a human in charge but as ever they played a blinder. new happy pope, say nice things, deflect a bit of flak then down to proper vatican business of reminding us all who god doesn’t like once the dust settles

    keep it up, good fellow



    Report abuse

  • Olgun Feb 20, 2015 at 5:32 am

    Isn’t ‘Gods order of creation’ to ‘Go forth and multiply?”

    When it comes to dogmas, minor additions and subtractions are a struggle taking centuries (Galileo/evolution?). Mathematical multiplication and distribution curves are probably off the theistic time-scale!

    Then celibacy is an equal threat isn’t it?

    Nothing that cognitive dissonance, circular fallacies, and faith-blinkers can’t deal with!



    Report abuse

  • Papa Frank was, indeed, the most humanoid yet, however, its operating system, Magisterium 3.0, contained all the old flaws. After a few smiley exchanges, the smoke, the whirring and the “does not compute” looping heralded the falling away of that friendly, avuncular mask.

    We must take care against such mild mannered subterfuges. Any who have a belief in a universal purpose are at the gravest risk of comitting crimes against the rest of us who possess personal purpose only.



    Report abuse

  • …their bodies are similar to ‘Herods’ that ‘destroy, that plot
    designs of death, that disfigure the face of man and woman, destroying
    creation.’

    I wonder if he has deliberately forgotten to mention Herod genocide of children. It would show how cunning he is, because king Herod in reality never ordered mass murdering of children. It is so only in bible. From authentic historical records about him, he never ordered such a thing. It is “history” only in bible. So, who knows, did he deliberately avoid to mention children in this context.



    Report abuse

  • he seems to be saying its wrong because it removes the potential for reproduction that the body would otherwise have . How does he square that with the interruption that occours by asking priests to be celibate?



    Report abuse

  • Miserablegit Feb 22, 2015 at 1:07 am

    We were told when this guy was installed that he was going to be very different from his predecessors, but his willingness to say stupid and insensitive things shows us it is as expected same shit different arsehole.

    Slightly slicker salesman, – same rubbish product!



    Report abuse

  • I had hoped for much better from Pope Frank. He had no need to even wade in on this subject and in doing so, committed a major strategic error, in my opinion, by alienating of a huge number of people, many of them Catholic, and many of other religious and non religious groups, as well. An asinine undertaking on his part, which may come to bite him in the ass. At the very least he should be severely chastised, although I suspect this could only come from a superior, namely God, I suppose and thus unlikely to happen any time soon. I quite agree that Catholicism seems majorly obsessed regarding how individuals deal with their own genitalia and uses all manner and means to attempt control, such as guilt, threats of excommunication, and so on. From my perspective, it’s all about control, power and money, for a few, at the expense of the many. An oligarchical set up, if you will, just as it is for all forms of organized religious institutions, which demand that in order to belong, one must first and foremost disengage their cerebral cortex in order to accept, without question, the respective doctrine being presented. Belief in the unknowable and governing one’s life accordingly and unquestioningly seems a wasteful and dangerous use of a life, in my opinion.



    Report abuse

  • 29
    mahmoud says:

    i think the pope is right here. God bless the Pope.

    let me be clear. i am AGAINST all violence.
    however, transgenderism is a sickness, and the Pope is right to challenge it.



    Report abuse

  • The Pope claims to be “against violence” too. However, being that Pope Francis just insulted some people, he should justifiably “expect a punch” per his own instructions, but alas, others won’t retrogress as much in their humanity.

    “It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch.” – Pope Francis, 2015-1-15.

    Francis also believes in exorcism. Perhaps such violent streaks could be exorcised from him?



    Report abuse

  • mahmoud Feb 22, 2015 at 6:21 pm

    i think the pope is right here. God bless the Pope.

    however, transgenderism is a sickness, and the Pope is right to challenge it.

    Transgenderism is indeed a medical condition, but the pope is a medical illiterate, babbling nonsense about a subject he clearly knows nothing about.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2107085/Caroline-Kinsey-lived-man-41-years-parents-didnt-tell-shes-hermaphrodite.html
    .Woman lived as a man for 41 years because parents didn’t tell her she was born a hermaphrodite.

    Caroline Kinsey, 42, was born with both male and female sex organs but was raised as a boy
    She didn’t find out she had Disorder of Sex Development until she was 19.
    She began dressing as a woman two years ago and now plans gender surgery.



    Report abuse

  • 32
    GeodesicGnome says:

    I’m disappointed that the Richard Dawkins Foundation would post an article like this on it’s site. The original article is nothing but name calling in an attempt to enforce political correctness. It also ignores behavior by Pope Francis that seems to contradict the words quoted. As an atheist, I’m not in favor of venerating anyone to the point of letting them do my thinking for me, but I prefer a reasoned response to just calling someone a “closed-minded bigot”. In the context in which Francis uses the term “creation”, he would seem to mean “the world as created by God” which I would have to interpret as “the world as we find it”. If trans gender operations are an attack on the order of creation, so would fixing cleft palates in children or wiping out smallpox be such attacks. I don’t think he’s thought through his position carefully enough.



    Report abuse

  • “God has placed man and woman at the summit of creation and has entrusted them with the earth,” Francis says. “The design of the Creator is written in nature.”
    So yeah, he doesn’t accept actual evolution, just a version that allows him to be a closed-minded bigot.
    Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/02/pope-francis-says-trans-people-destroy-creation-and-compares-them-to-nuclear-weapons/#ixzz3SWzs1i7Y

    Ironically Thomas Jefferson would probably agree with the substance of the Pope’s revulsion to transgender people as an abomination not in the sight of God but certainly in the sight of “Nature.” Jefferson was not a “New” atheist in the Richard Dawkins mold steeped in the science of evolution. Jefferson knew nothing of evolution beyond desultory musings. Current theories of gender fluidity, homosexuality, LGBT studies, feminism and intersectionality expounding on oppression through an array of “isms” – racism (Jefferson owned slaves), sexism, classism, ageism, ableism- would have shocked Jefferson’s cherished “faith” in contemporary decency, civility and order. Jefferson was a Deist who believed in Natural Law. Newtonian physics proved beyond a doubt that the universe was a mechanism finally tuned by an intelligent force with manifestations of purpose on which humans could build rational, moral and “democratic” civilization. Like all of us Thomas Jefferson was a man of his times and incorporated his manners, morals and sensibilities into what he believed were timeless virtues.

    Pope Francis, I believe, is a hybrid, a pious Catholic of the past tinged with the forward-looking trends unfolding in the decades since WWII and especially since the mid-sixties. It’s simplistic to reduce men born in the 1920s and 1930s, still largely conditioned by the socially and religiously conservative (and intolerant) mindset of their parents generation, to “bigots.” “We” appear enlightened on issues of tolerance, diversity and “radical” visions of social progress because we’ve had the good luck to be born during recent decades or socialized by an emerging progressive consensus during the same period. We can be critical of the viewpoints of others without regurgitating dead-end insults.



    Report abuse

  • It’s simplistic to reduce men born in the 1920s and 1930s, still largely conditioned by the socially and religiously conservative (and intolerant) mindset of their parents generation, to “bigots.” “We” appear enlightened on issues of tolerance, diversity and “radical” visions of social progress because we’ve had the good luck to be born during recent decades or socialized by an emerging progressive consensus during the same period.

    If you’re god’s representative on earth, what does it matter when you were born? Nice try.



    Report abuse

  • GeodesicGnome Feb 22, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    I prefer a reasoned response to just calling someone a “closed-minded bigot”.

    It’s good to see you have added the reasoning explaining the bigotry!

    In the context in which Francis uses the term “creation”, he would seem to mean “the world as created by God” which I would have to interpret as “the world as we find it”.

    His black and white view, is more like “How a bronze-age, discontinuous mentality, thinks we SHOULD find it”.

    If trans gender operations are an attack on the order of creation, so would fixing cleft palates in children or wiping out smallpox be such attacks.
    I don’t think he’s thought through his position carefully enough.

    Bigotry does not require thought!
    It just produces knee-jerk reactions without much brain activity!



    Report abuse

  • 40
    Miranda says:

    Well said! People around me kept saying there was finally a Pope with an ounce of humanity but I disagreed. I was just waiting for his true colours to show… and now they have.



    Report abuse

  • Melvin Feb 22, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    It’s simplistic to reduce men born in the 1920s and 1930s, still largely conditioned by the socially and religiously conservative (and intolerant) mindset of their parents generation, to “bigots.”

    To include the whole generation, would be too wide a grouping.
    However, those brought up as Catholics and trained for the priesthood were absolutely steeped in bigotry – as many still are today!



    Report abuse

  • A bit of a shock coming from a Jesuit (who are tasked with pursuing the truth wherever it takes them, including if it contradicts canon law). This guy was also a psychology professor. Proves that intelligence is no guarantee against personal bias. It also shows the power of one’s foundational belief system over reason and, ironically, the immutable aspects of the psychological principles involved in persuading anyone to abandon their earliest and most sacred beliefs given that all learning since the introduction of this belief will have to have been reconciled and reaffirmed throughout their lifetime ie. the open antagonism and indignation of the kind you will see at debates between creationists and scientists probably serves no purpose. Am really shocked at times by some very learned people screaming and flapping their arms at literalists and also appalled that they, on the whole, seem unable to come up with any other approach.



    Report abuse

  • 44
    Lorenzo says:

    He is the pope, what did you expect him to say?
    I’m always surprised to speechlessness when he comes out with something that isn’t bigot mumble jumble, rather than the contrary…

    So, business as usual, really. Because the locution “conglomerate of erotophobic, passive-aggressive, frustrated, self repressed, self castrated, bigot and bitter men who couldn’t get a partner, ever” is lengthy and somewhat unpleasant to say, we have a collective adjective-and-name to use in its place: “the Catholic clergy”.



    Report abuse

  • however, transgenderism is a sickness, and the Pope is right to
    challenge it.

    What does it mean to justify ‘challenging’ as sickness to you exactly? This coming from the same church that calls homosexuality ‘diseased’.

    When I think of challenging a sickness, I think of people donating to cure a cancer or doctors attempting to create a vaccine for one of god’s oh so pleasant viruses. That is how you challenge an illness or ailment, by working on finding effective and humane ways of dealing with it.

    Using disturbing bible quotes and broadly generalizing the trans gender population is in no way helpful and is in no true way challenging anything except how ridiculous one can sound saying something while clearly making no effort to learn anything about the condition in question.

    Anyone has a right to challenge anything, that doesn’t make the action itself either intelligent or correct.



    Report abuse

  • Melvin, I’m deeply dissappointed by this shallow apologia of yours. (“He’s a bit of an old fogey and we old fogey’s feel icky about anything but straight sex”.)

    Papa Frank has been spectacular in his backsliding. Its not just transgenderism-

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pope-francis-suggests-gay-marriage-threatens-traditional-families
    “The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life,” Francis said at a Mass in Manila. “These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces, which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation.”

    He also praised strongly Pope Paul VI’s controversial 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, or On Human Life. “He had the strength to defend openness to life at a time when many people were worried about population growth,” Francis said of the former pope.

    Population growth? He is your number one enemy.

    Hebdo? An inciter of further violence saying he would use it himself…

    The nicely, nicely start, just makes him the more dangerous.



    Report abuse

  • What did you expect? This man is the pope. If ever there was an archaic concept, “Pope” certainly must be it.
    The whole reason why he exists is to determine what the dogma is for a bunch of religious people. Religion is the counter-argument to reason. QED.



    Report abuse

  • I hold no brief for Pope Francis or the Roman Catholic Church, a medieval institution exerting regressive harm on modern societies. Along with Christopher Hitchens, I especially renounce the Church’s prohibition on artificial birth control, abortion and denial of women’s reproductive rights within the larger frame of modern women’s liberation.

    On topic, Dan Arel distorts the cumulative impact Pope Francis intended his book to have on that part of the public inclined or obligated to read it. Taking his cues from “Gay Star News,” Arel characterizes the work as a screed focusing exclusively on a diatribe against transgender people. The actual title implies no such narrow intention: This Economy Kills, calling on Christians to safeguard God’s order of creation. The book is a homily, a kind of sermon in print, which sets forth a series of platitudes on a moral/theological theme. We all know the long standing condemnation of homosexuality and transgenderism incorporated into Catholic doctrine. Pope Francis, for reasons both doctrinal and personal, finds transgenderism egregious apparently because it sometimes involves intrusive, extreme sex-change surgery widely perceived as self-mutilation. He grounds his objections to transgender people within the larger theme of “defacing God’s creation” through nuclear war and genetic manipulation which would include every scientific enterprise from genetically modified foods to stem cell research. To say that he compares a sex change operation to an exchange of nuclear weapons between sovereign nations is absurd. More likely he is saying that both acts come under the broad theme of “defacing the divine order of nature,” both “sins” but not commensurate sins.

    I’ve not read the book but I know that Pope Francis, more emphatically than his predecessors, plays the champion of the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed. He has spoken frequently in favor of leftist policies, condemning capitalist greed (and environmental degradation); advocating the equitable distribution of income and resources, the obligation of governments to provide for the poor at home and abroad, comprehensively meeting humanitarian needs for food, housing, education, meaningful employment, and medical care. Though I grant him sincerity on personal grounds, a monstrous hypocrisy and subversion operates through the institution behind the speeches.

    Contending with more than one billion Catholics in the world, the term “bigot” coming out of the mouth of anti-Catholics along with the unmitigated scorn and antipathy we atheists feel for the religion and its ecclesiastical hierarchy can only go so far when preaching to the choir. Pope Francis (and his predecessors) mean many different things to many different people from fascist patriarch to socialist savior.



    Report abuse

  • 52
    Light Wave says:

    Where’s my avatar image gone and how do I get it back….Hope I don’t get asked me to pay for it in blood or you can keep it…..



    Report abuse

  • His comments are found in a new book published in Italy called, Pope Francis: This Economy Kills, calling on Christians to safeguard God’s order of creation.

    The RCC has been calling on Xtians to safeguard and defend their delusional fantasy mental creations against the hard facts of biology, physics , and astronomy, for centuries – long before Galileo.



    Report abuse

  • The RCC has been calling on Xtians to safeguard and defend their delusional fantasy mental creations against the hard facts of biology, physics , and astronomy, for centuries – long before Galileo.

    Pope Francis, Commander in Chief of the RCC, promotes harmful fantasies about the “sins” that homosexuals and transsexuals deliberately “choose” to practice in order to destroy the divine and natural order of creation. He also proscribes the “sins” of using contraception, elective abortion, end-of-life assisted dying (“euthanasia”) and stem cell research under the shibboleth of defending the “sanctity of life.”

    It is important to understand that these deeply rooted taboos have emerged from traditional societies throughout history. Although the Catholic Church represents a prominent institution for teaching and enforcing retrograde currently dysfunctional doctrines, the Church did not invent them. The vast majority of the world’s people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, gave and ubiquitously still give support for sanctions against such “sins.” Progressive forces informed by science began to expose and erode the toxic moral regime between 1960 and 1970. But much work remains to be done.

    Ironically, if Pope Francis limited his homilies to the abomination of homosexuality and to the atrocity of abortion, Catholicism would have withered into a terminal state. Instead, much of his preaching coincides with liberal -even socialist- enthusiasms. When Pope Francis condemns corporate greed, materialism and over-consumption, deploring environmental damage resulting from waste and pollution; when he exhorts societies and governments to distribute wealth equitably and pony up humanitarian aid to eliminate world hunger and poverty, he speaks from a bully pulpit that holds captive a congregation of 1.2 billion Catholics and a far greater audience of non-Catholics worldwide.

    I speculate that Pope Francis and his progressive audience have mediated a metaphorical agreement through tacit compromise.

    Pope Francis: I get to condemn homosexuality and abortion, which I sincerely believe to be evil, knowing that sizable minorities and sometimes majorities will buy into “traditional morality” and make a lot of trouble for my socially liberal opponents as long as I mitigate my bigotry with rhetoric citing the imperative to love all people. My positions (otherwise) on “larger” issues of social justice, which I also sincerely believe, will have the preponderant effect of getting the masses to eat out of my hand.

    Audience: I get to gloss over the residual prejudices against homosexuals and birth control or opt to affirm them to some degree on a continuum for personal, traditional, or doctrinal reasons. The Pope and I know that society is changing and these prejudices will be discarded sooner or later. As long as Pope Francis continues to speak to the “larger” issues of social justice from a liberal perspective, idealizing aspirations of the welfare state, then I’m on board with the billions cheering his Holiness on.



    Report abuse

  • GeodesicGnome Feb 22, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    I’m disappointed that the Richard Dawkins Foundation would post an article like this on it’s site.

    Why? This site regularly has discussions analysing destructive religious stupidity!

    The original article is nothing but name calling in an attempt to enforce political correctness.

    No it isn’t! It is mocking damaging stupid bigoted attacks on a section of the community, and to enforce respect for people, and for medical evidence, in the face of bronze-age buffoonery, from ignoramuses posing as expert authorities!



    Report abuse

  • 57
    GermanHumanist says:

    “Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.”

    Oh, that old chestnut. You cling on to a tenet that science for centuries now has allowed a thinking person to be able to doubt and outright reject on a basis of sheer reason and scientific discovery, and you declare that nonetheless anything and everything must subdue itself to your old and busted myth.

    I had an interesting discussion with a Catholic priest here in Germany just recently, an acquaintance of mine. Basically, he told me one day that he was happy that the Catholic Church finally declared evolution as being reconcilable with Biblical creation. So I said, well, let’s examine this for a moment. Christians, some more than others, believe and spend a lot of time telling others that the Bible is the one, true, unadulterated word of God. That it practically comes from God himself, verbatim. Well, in the Bible it says that the Earth and everything on it was created in seven days. Science tells us that there is quite literally no way on Earth that it could have happened that way. So now what. Either the Bible is wrong if you’re actually supposed to take it literally, or practically all natural science of the last 150 years has erred. While at the same time there isn’t a shred of evidence at all that supports the theory of seven days of creation. So in effect, either the Bible isn’t the true word of God, or it is the word of God, and then either he doesn’t have his own memories straight about how he actually went about creating the Earth, or he is flat out lying to us. In both cases, if he exists at all, that would point to this God being an imperfect being, either because he’s got memory problems or because he is a liar. And then, would you really want to follow a god that lies to you about such basic principles of the faith that is centered around him. You wouldn’t necessarily let that kind of thing slide with a romantic partner who tells you some very fundamental lies about him- or herself, and still think that that person is the greatest thing that’s ever happened to you. And being that religious faith can be somewhat nearly as much an intrinsic part of some people’s lives as the romantic partner they choose (this is certainly true for most born-again Evangelical Christians, who do take the Bible literally), why believe in and devote yourself to a god who lies to you.

    So the priest said to me, no, you’ve got it all wrong, you must see the Bible figuratively, and try to seek and find its wisdom in doing so. And then I said, well, but if you’re saying the Bible is to be understood as a work of figurative metaphors and whatnot, then it becomes arbitrary, because you can interpret anything one way or another. Which brings you no closer to the universal truth that the Bible claims to proclaim. Because no two people, having read the Bible, will ever be 100 percent in agreement about what they’ve actually read. So he said, just trust in God to show you the right way and make you realise what he really means by what’s in the Bible. So I said, oh, so at the end of the day, the Bible is more a great big riddle than actual fact? And he hesitated, but said that if I can’t think of it any other way, perhaps it is that, in the very widest sense.

    But I still wasn’t happy. Kind of patronising of a god, not to mention a bit conceited and pehaps even condescending, to expect you to solve a 2000-page riddle before you can claim you’ve understood his great plan.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.