E-Mail Exchange With Seminary School Cousin

[Pecker]

First off, I'll admit I'm not the most active member of the board. I read posts occasionally. While I loved this site when I was going through my deconversion, I'm the type of atheist who has decided to not focus on religion very much. I don't seek out arguments on the issues of religion. I don't disparage atheists who do engage in these conversations and seek them out, however its not really my thing. That being said, this past weekend one of my cousins sent me a couple emails. To give you some background, Mike was a HS teacher for 17 years. He left his position recently, 3 years short of securing a pension. He's now gone to seminary school to get a degree and become a full time minister in a Baptist church. Here is our exchange below. I think my replies will be obvious.

 

His first message with the subject line of "anger":

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Mike wrote:

All anger is caused by an unmet / unfulfilled expectation. So the question is why are you angry at God?

 

I'm not angry at God by any means. That's like saying I'm angry at the Easter Bunny, angry at Santa Claus, angry at Hans Gruber from Die Hard. I can't be angry with something that doesn't exist. Anger isn't the emotion I feel in this "arena." I'll admit there was a period of disappointment when the light bulb went off and I shed the blinders. I was disappointed at myself for trying to fit in with social group and family pressures when I knew all along I really didn't believe. I was disappointed that I spent so much time judging people and declaring myself better than others due to my religious beliefs. I was disappointed of how many friends I didn't spend time getting to really know because in the back of my mind I was thinking "this person is going to hell." Its a bit depressing. While many Christians tell stories of their testimony, and how much better life became after knowing Jesus, my story is quite the opposite. I feel much more at peace with the world after letting go of "God" and religion. I'm a happier person. To someone who doesn't share these views it probably seems absurd and I wouldn't expect you to understand.

 

1 - Why would God commit all those "atrocities" in the OT?

 

Well, "God" didn't do anything. Essentially an unscientific people with a limited understanding of their surroundings created stories to explain what they didn't understand. And to put the word "atrocities" in quotes is interesting. Look at Numbers 31 for example. In any other context, the story would be pure and evil genocide. However since "God" commands the death of every man, child and woman that's not a virgin its not an atrocity? If you think that somehow these events are moral, or can't say that they are wrong, I'd really question your sense of morality. If you started hearing voices today, or had a vision of an angel of God, you were positive it was an angel, and that angel told you to go down to a local town and go on a killing spree to wipe out the sinners of the world, would you do it? If the answer is yes, I really feel sorry for you. If the answer is no, why not? Aren't "God's" ways greater than our own?

 

 

2 - Why do "Christians" act like such hypocritical jerks, including Mike XXXXXX (me - it's true, I am).

 

I'd attribute it to evolutionary dynamics. Humans have continually grouped themselves together. Our survival over time was reliant on us working together. Until recently on our evolutionary process, a lone human was a dead human. People grouped together to survive threats, whether it be the environment, animals, or even other humans. That carries over to today. Look all around you and you'll see "us vs. them" dynamics. Nations, religions, sports teams, hobbies. Why do skiers hate snowboarders, Harley-Riders mock bikers on import bikes? Only you can ultimately answer your question. When I was inside the bubble I looked down on those on the outside. Now that I'm outside the bubble of Christianity or religion, I probably am a jerk to them I guess.

 

Also, I wouldn't say you are a jerk. You are honest in your beliefs. Although I don't share them, I at least applaud you in actually sticking by them and standing up for them (assuming you don't intend to use violence to stand up for your beliefs.) Like I said, I made my feelings known to a small group of people, including my pastor, when I ultimately left my church. Not one of that group took any time out to discuss issues with me. The biggest acknowldgement I got was my pastor saying, "that's some pretty heavy stuff man, lets get together for coffee." He never called. Ultimately I believe its because of their own doubts. Its easier to stay away from someone that is challenging your belief system than it is to meet it head on and discuss it.

3 - Why did I spend all that time believing in a "god" that does not exist?

That's a question you'll ultimately have to answer for yourself. Sorry I can't help you with this one.

 

A separate message with the subject of "love" and my reply

 

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Mike wrote:

As for the atrocities in the OT...

 

1 - We read how God sent the Israelites to kill them, forgetting how vile, wicked, sick, demented, twisted they were. Those people offered their own children in sacrifices... had sex with anything - living or dead. Murdered each other and other tribes just for money or just for fun... No one "deserves" death more than another, but those people groups defied the living God.

I cannot claim to know the mind of God, but I would say He was then and is now extremely patient. The question is not "why did He do that?" The better question is "why do people today not get the same judgment?" Me among them!!

 

I addressed this in my other message, but your question brings up a point. If God demanded the death of sinners today, and he asked you to be his soldier, would you kill for your God? If God demanded that you kill any non believer and sinner, would you put your neighbors to death at your own hand? Would you kill me?

 

If the answer is no, why not? You can't use a cop out of OT vs NT etc. This requires a YES or NO answer. If God suddenly isn't so patient anymore, would you follow his order to kill me?

 

If the answer is yes, well, I think our relationship is over forever. And I'm not kidding about that.

 

Any critique on how I'm doing?

[Ro-bear]

I think you were doing fine up to that last bit. You put your cousin into a tight spot and left him no way out. I would not put anyone whose friendship I valued in such a position. He has to write you or his god off or refuse to answer.

[Pecker]

I think you were doing fine up to that last bit. You put your cousin into a tight spot and left him no way out. I would not put anyone whose friendship I valued in such a position. He has to write you or his god off or refuse to answer.

 

In all honesty, I see my cousin Mike once every other year. I won't say we have a real friendship at all. In fact if it wasn't for the fact that I'm the black sheep and a cause for him, I'd say there would be no contact from him at all.

 

But, yes, I put him in a tight spot, soon I'll post his reply to that message. It's a hoot, and I'm going to see how it plays out.

[Shyone]

I might have answered some of the questions differently, but that doesn't mean "better."

 

My reply to his justification for the slaughter would have been something along the lines of:

 

1. Weren't there children and pregnant women in those cities that were also slaughtered? Do you approve of that?

2. How do we know they were "evil" people? The killers said so?

3. How is it that every tribe that occupied their own land for so long was "evil"? Isn't that a coincidence?

4. If someone came to your house, said "You're evil, and we have to kill you because our god said to", wouldn't you be upset? How would you protect your children?

5. How do we know that the land was given to the Israelites to take by force? The killers said so?

 

And so on. It might not make any difference. It's amazing how people can excuse god for infanticide, executing pregnant women, slavery, and massacre.

 

But your approach has an advantage - if he proves he can't be moved by reason, then I wouldn't want him for a friend.

[Puddinhead]

I think your points are strong and well-phrased. I wanted to comment on this.

 

I addressed this in my other message, but your question brings up a point. If God demanded the death of sinners today, and he asked you to be his soldier, would you kill for your God? If God demanded that you kill any non believer and sinner, would you put your neighbors to death at your own hand? Would you kill me?

 

If the answer is no, why not? You can't use a cop out of OT vs NT etc. This requires a YES or NO answer. If God suddenly isn't so patient anymore, would you follow his order to kill me?

 

If the answer is yes, well, I think our relationship is over forever. And I'm not kidding about that.

 

I really like that you make it personal. It's not theoretical - but it's about *him* and your friendship with him. One thing that you might consider bringing up while in this topic with him is the fact that he's going to dance around morality and the OT vs NT stuff. I'm a bible college drop-out, so I used that dodge a lot, claiming that others didn't really GET the distinction, etc. The thing cousin needs to address is that HE is the one claiming that Christians follow moral absolutes, given to them by an all-wise and all-loving god. When one is a moral absolutist, certain things (like sticking a sword into a belly of a pregnant woman or selling your daughter into sexual slavery) are absolutely morally wrong. They can't have their cake and eat it too. To claim a kind of "Kings-X" when it comes to moral attrocities in the OT is just dishonest.

[Vixentrox]

I think you were doing fine up to that last bit. You put your cousin into a tight spot and left him no way out. I would not put anyone whose friendship I valued in such a position. He has to write you or his god off or refuse to answer.

Someone on the net here or one of the other ex-christian type sites had a graphic of a guy taking a baby and throwing it down a cliff, smashing its skull. It gave bible versus about killing children and the one about being joyful smashing skulls and asked the viewer, "God told the people in the OT to do this, to kill children and babies; if you believe in God, would you be so faithful too?" It's a great tool to make these brianwashed people start to think.

[Yaoi Huntress Earth]

Not to mention why didn't God make any effort to make these "evil" stop doing these bad things? Why not send them holy men and reach out to them. It's odd how the OT God is supposed to be god of all, but only focuses on one group, ignoreing all others and gets made when these ignored groups don't do what he wants or won't acknowledge him. It's like the deadbeat dad that comes back into their kids' life and demands that kid call him father despite the kid never knowing about him.

[Ro-bear]

I think you were doing fine up to that last bit. You put your cousin into a tight spot and left him no way out. I would not put anyone whose friendship I valued in such a position. He has to write you or his god off or refuse to answer.

Someone on the net here or one of the other ex-christian type sites had a graphic of a guy taking a baby and throwing it down a cliff, smashing its skull. It gave bible versus about killing children and the one about being joyful smashing skulls and asked the viewer, "God told the people in the OT to do this, to kill children and babies; if you believe in God, would you be so faithful too?" It's a great tool to make these brianwashed people start to think.

 

I agree. That's why the baby example instead of the "me, your cousin" example would have made the point without forcing estrangement.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I want to keep my Christian family members. I like them.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I think you were doing fine up to that last bit. You put your cousin into a tight spot and left him no way out. I would not put anyone whose friendship I valued in such a position. He has to write you or his god off or refuse to answer.

Someone on the net here or one of the other ex-christian type sites had a graphic of a guy taking a baby and throwing it down a cliff, smashing its skull. It gave bible versus about killing children and the one about being joyful smashing skulls and asked the viewer, "God told the people in the OT to do this, to kill children and babies; if you believe in God, would you be so faithful too?" It's a great tool to make these brianwashed people start to think.

 

I did something similar on another board. A guy was claiming that Christians had moral absolutes, so I pointed out a couple different verses, including the one about happily dashing infants against the rocks. He basically just said that such things were beyond his understanding.

 

So, I replied back something to the effect of, "If I would happily dash children against rocks, you would say that I had done evil. Yet when the Bible condones the Hebrews doing exactly that, you don't condemn it. And yet you claim that nonbelievers are the ones with relative morality?"

 

In fact, for a Christian to try to cling to everything in the Bible, he/she HAS to believe in relative morality. They can trumpet "absolute morality" all they want, but it just doesn't work in their actual belief system.

[★ Citsonga ★]

My reply to his justification for the slaughter would have been something along the lines of:

 

1. Weren't there children and pregnant women in those cities that were also slaughtered? Do you approve of that?

2. How do we know they were "evil" people? The killers said so?

3. How is it that every tribe that occupied their own land for so long was "evil"? Isn't that a coincidence?

4. If someone came to your house, said "You're evil, and we have to kill you because our god said to", wouldn't you be upset? How would you protect your children?

5. How do we know that the land was given to the Israelites to take by force? The killers said so?

 

Very good approach. I also would have had to have pointed out the issue with the children. Even if every adult in the society was "evil" (not a likely scenario, of course, but granted for the sake of argument), how would that justify killing or enslaving the little children?

[Shyone]

 

Very good approach. I also would have had to have pointed out the issue with the children. Even if every adult in the society was "evil" (not a likely scenario, of course, but granted for the sake of argument), how would that justify killing or enslaving the little children?

Bingo.

 

I personally was convinced that not everyone in a place could be evil. There are good people in Las Vegas!

 

So with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or the violent massacre of an entire people, I just knew that some good people (in addition to the children and fetuses) were being killed unnecessarily.

 

I guess I have more faith in people than Christians. I believe there is some good in almost everyone, and even bad people can improve.

 

Isn't that kind of a Christian thing anyway? Forgiveness?

[Vixentrox]

I was taught that everyone in the town was a whore, homosexual, or a lesbian. Any babies were destined to become the same so it was ok for god to kill them. Such twisted logic......

[Auracle]

I was taught that everyone in the town was a whore, homosexual, or a lesbian. Any babies were destined to become the same so it was ok for god to kill them. Such twisted logic......

 

If this is God and his legendary "patience", I'd hate to see him when he's impatient.

[Pecker]

I haven't heard back from him in over a week. We passed back and forth some interesting point. He evaded my points like a matador in a bull ring.

 

I don't know if I was his homework for the week or what. We'll see.

[Seeking]

1 - We read how God sent the Israelites to kill them, forgetting how vile, wicked, sick, demented, twisted they were. Those people offered their own children in sacrifices...

 

I'd ask him this, if he ever replies:

 

So, when the "bad guys" killed their children to appease their god, it was evil child sacrifice, but when the Israelites killed the "bad guys'" children to appease their God, it wasn't child sacrifice? Hmmm....

[qec]

It's amazing how people can excuse god for infanticide, executing pregnant women, slavery, and massacre.

 

And not only will they excuse it, they will even do it and it's happened recently:

 

 

 

And then they will bury their shit like they always do (like the Vatican has), until the next generation of sucke..*COUGH* people guillable enough to believe their lies can be induced to repeat the whole "cleansing" process over again, at a different time and a different place, and usually a different nation or a long wait in the same nation (these days it's becoming harder for the religious hierarchy to induce these crimes in the same nation as frequently as they did in the past). Christianity as a religious hierarchy, has become expert in developing ways to incite the general population to genocide and then cover up it's crimes and detain/torture/execute any who dare criticize after the crimes are committed and even after the crimes are stopped. There are substantial patterns going back to the very beginning of Christianity that show that systemic genocide, even of the nature shown in the Old Testament, is part and parcel of Christianity and the the hierarchy within Christianity will, from time to time when they can get away from it, induce their constituency to savage genocide in the name of things like "God", "Jesus Christ", "The Blessed Mother", "The Catholic Church", or other Protestant/Orthodox names too. This is a topic Christians avoid, they don't want to talk about systemic genocide of Jews during the Middle Ages, they don't want to talk about religiously motivated genocide like that done by the Ustasha, they don't want to talk about genocide in the third world even today, which genocide also has religious motivations tied in at times. No, instead they merely want to criticize actually rational means of population control like birth control and abortion, as being from the "devil", and they (the leadership) bide their time when they will be able to, yet again, implement their own religious form of population control... Wiping out whole families, tearing children out of their mothers' wombs with knives, killing everyone of a particular social group, torturing people and keeping collections of eyeballs, forced conversions, torture dungeons, all the kinds of things the Ustashe did in the 20th century...

 

Hopefully no one here believes that this sort of thing cannot possibly repeat itself in the 21st century; I for one am under no illusions that it cannot happen again as it has happened many many times throughout the past 2000 years of Christianity's existence. Now perhaps they can get us to focus on Islam a little more.....and then they can start perfecting their misdirection.

[Shyone]

 

Hopefully no one here believes that this sort of thing cannot possibly repeat itself in the 21st century; I for one am under no illusions that it cannot happen again as it has happened many many times throughout the past 2000 years of Christianity's existence. Now perhaps they can get us to focus on Islam a little more.....and then they can start perfecting their misdirection.

No one can clearly predict when or where the next genocidal purge will occur, but I am certain that it will. Maybe it will be religious (it usually is), maybe it will be ethnic (frequently both). Maybe it will even be the people of a particular country, or language, or philosophy.

 

If we don't really know the direction, we can't be sure what it misdirection.

 

BTW, I couldn't quite understand from the film who the Ustashi were and who they were killing. I gathered that the Ustashi were Nazis (Croation Nazis). Were the victims Muslim, Jewish, or Other?

[qec]

 

Hopefully no one here believes that this sort of thing cannot possibly repeat itself in the 21st century; I for one am under no illusions that it cannot happen again as it has happened many many times throughout the past 2000 years of Christianity's existence. Now perhaps they can get us to focus on Islam a little more.....and then they can start perfecting their misdirection.

No one can clearly predict when or where the next genocidal purge will occur, but I am certain that it will. Maybe it will be religious (it usually is), maybe it will be ethnic (frequently both). Maybe it will even be the people of a particular country, or language, or philosophy.

 

If we don't really know the direction, we can't be sure what it misdirection.

 

BTW, I couldn't quite understand from the film who the Ustashi were and who they were killing. I gathered that the Ustashi were Nazis (Croation Nazis). Were the victims Muslim, Jewish, or Other?

 

They killed Orthodox Serbs, and those they didn't kill were forced to convert. They killed in the name of Croatia, they killed in the name of Catholicism, and they killed in the name of Ethnicity. Their religion was part and parcel of why and how they killed, and most of the Catholic Clergy in that country saw the killing as the "Will of God" and didn't merely aid and abet the forced conversions in some theoretical sense, but instead deliberately, joyfully, and willingly, participated in it with mass Baptism of Orthodox Serbs. Now, if I had been an Orthodox in those conditions, I would swear allegiance to the Pope too, and so would many here. A martyr is just another human who removed himself from the gene pool.

 

I should also note that Communism did a pretty good job of hurting people as well during the 20th century. I am quite sure that the Khmer Rouge did a damned good job of proving Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's point that Gulags and forced labor was not merely the province of Stalinism, but instead was an inherent part of Communism since Lenin articulated and started it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

 

 

In all honesty, humans have tried to escape the "box" of their own human nature in various ways with various ideologies (both religious and secular) and while that's a good "Cause" in a sense, it's precisely the Cause as a social phenomena, that's the problem. Perhaps Transhumanism provides at least a measure of relief within the next 50 years? If not, and it's certainly possible it won't, then I estimate another ~1500 years before humans find a way to successfully mitigate their innate savagery. Even should Transhumanist solutions prove to be viable and work to the betterment of mankind, I expect results to be modest and very slow going (no quick cures/fixes).

[Shyone]

In all honesty, humans have tried to escape the "box" of their own human nature in various ways with various ideologies (both religious and secular) and while that's a good "Cause" in a sense, it's precisely the Cause as a social phenomena, that's the problem. Perhaps Transhumanism provides at least a measure of relief within the next 50 years? If not, and it's certainly possible it won't, then I estimate another ~1500 years before humans find a way to successfully mitigate their innate savagery. Even should Transhumanist solutions prove to be viable and work to the betterment of mankind, I expect results to be modest and very slow going (no quick cures/fixes).

I don't mean to seem to optomistic, but don't you think that it matters that "we" now understand what genocide is, and for those not committing it, we have in essence unified in our resolve to prevent or stop it?

 

Or maybe not. I don't know.

[qec]

In all honesty, humans have tried to escape the "box" of their own human nature in various ways with various ideologies (both religious and secular) and while that's a good "Cause" in a sense, it's precisely the Cause as a social phenomena, that's the problem. Perhaps Transhumanism provides at least a measure of relief within the next 50 years? If not, and it's certainly possible it won't, then I estimate another ~1500 years before humans find a way to successfully mitigate their innate savagery. Even should Transhumanist solutions prove to be viable and work to the betterment of mankind, I expect results to be modest and very slow going (no quick cures/fixes).

I don't mean to seem to optomistic, but don't you think that it matters that "we" now understand what genocide is, and for those not committing it, we have in essence unified in our resolve to prevent or stop it?

 

Or maybe not. I don't know.

 

I am not sure of this myself, certainly different people have different subjective understandings of the why and how genocide happens, but the idea that any sizable portion of the human race has some kind of grasp on genocide that actually makes a difference enough to prevent it, is I think, rather naive: witness the impotency of the U.N. in preventing genocide with Rwanda or what happened with Kosovo. However you reach a catch 22: if you use too much force to stop it or prevent it, then you excite various sociological forces and subsequently incite the genocide you sought to prevent, but merely from another sector/social group. It's a sticky issue, and while I admit certain sectors of humanity do have a better grasp of how it happens, I think the way to prevent it from happening will ultimately and very slowly involve shifting people away from questions like "Why are we here", "What can I do to better the human condition", or "How can I make the world a better place", to questions like "What can I do to modify me", "How does this work", "How can I give fellow humans useful tools to use as they like?". The idea being that one avoids "The Cause" by focusing on Science, and only visits "The Cause" in the form of Ethics to prevent mad scientism. Then, as an indirect result, the human condition will be improved and people can modify themselves or their environment with a high amount of personal choice, but with at least a good deal less of the problems inherent in "The Cause" and seeking to "Make the world a better place", whether through religion or other means....

 

But, like I said, such a vision may well fail, and I am prepared to acknowledge it's failure within the next 50 years, should it fail.

[Shyone]

 

I am not sure of this myself, certainly different people have different subjective understandings of the why and how genocide happens, but the idea that any sizable portion of the human race has some kind of grasp on genocide that actually makes a difference enough to prevent it, is I think, rather naive: witness the impotency of the U.N. in preventing genocide with Rwanda or what happened with Kosovo. However you reach a catch 22: if you use too much force to stop it or prevent it, then you excite various sociological forces and subsequently incite the genocide you sought to prevent, but merely from another sector/social group. It's a sticky issue, and while I admit certain sectors of humanity do have a better grasp of how it happens, I think the way to prevent it from happening will ultimately and very slowly involve shifting people away from questions like "Why are we here", "What can I do to better the human condition", or "How can I make the world a better place", to questions like "What can I do to modify me", "How does this work", "How can I give fellow humans useful tools to use as they like?". The idea being that one avoids "The Cause" by focusing on Science, and only visits "The Cause" in the form of Ethics to prevent mad scientism. Then, as an indirect result, the human condition will be improved and people can modify themselves or their environment with a high amount of personal choice, but with at least a good deal less of the problems inherent in "The Cause" and seeking to "Make the world a better place", whether through religion or other means....

 

But, like I said, such a vision may well fail, and I am prepared to acknowledge it's failure within the next 50 years, should it fail.

Regarding the Rawanda and Kosovo (and Darfur, and perhaps other places I can't remember), that was exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that I don't know.

 

Expecting a universal paradigm shift towards humanness and mercy seems unlikely.

[qec]

 

I am not sure of this myself, certainly different people have different subjective understandings of the why and how genocide happens, but the idea that any sizable portion of the human race has some kind of grasp on genocide that actually makes a difference enough to prevent it, is I think, rather naive: witness the impotency of the U.N. in preventing genocide with Rwanda or what happened with Kosovo. However you reach a catch 22: if you use too much force to stop it or prevent it, then you excite various sociological forces and subsequently incite the genocide you sought to prevent, but merely from another sector/social group. It's a sticky issue, and while I admit certain sectors of humanity do have a better grasp of how it happens, I think the way to prevent it from happening will ultimately and very slowly involve shifting people away from questions like "Why are we here", "What can I do to better the human condition", or "How can I make the world a better place", to questions like "What can I do to modify me", "How does this work", "How can I give fellow humans useful tools to use as they like?". The idea being that one avoids "The Cause" by focusing on Science, and only visits "The Cause" in the form of Ethics to prevent mad scientism. Then, as an indirect result, the human condition will be improved and people can modify themselves or their environment with a high amount of personal choice, but with at least a good deal less of the problems inherent in "The Cause" and seeking to "Make the world a better place", whether through religion or other means....

 

But, like I said, such a vision may well fail, and I am prepared to acknowledge it's failure within the next 50 years, should it fail.

Regarding the Rawanda and Kosovo (and Darfur, and perhaps other places I can't remember), that was exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that I don't know.

 

Expecting a universal paradigm shift towards humanness and mercy seems unlikely.

 

I admit it seems unlikely, and indeed I am skeptical. However, I must point out that Transhumanism would only represent "getting the gears slowly moving", and then once those gears started to slowly move in a new direction then they would continue slowly moving, the idea being that we only truly revisit themes like "War" and "Genocide" if we must due to possible encounters with Extra Terrestrials (encounters due to colonization) at some point in the future. That's not to say that, should Transhumanism be successful, it would result in those two things going "poof", but it would if successful result in those two things being put on the back burner and slowly phased out over hundreds of years...

[Shyone]

That's not to say that, should Transhumanism be successful, it would result in those two things going "poof", but it would if successful result in those two things being put on the back burner and slowly phased out over hundreds of years...

Sad to say, we won't be around to witness this change. But I suppose we should still do whatever we can to promote said change, even if the effects won't be noticeable during our puny lifetimes.

 

Life is too short.

[qec]

That's not to say that, should Transhumanism be successful, it would result in those two things going "poof", but it would if successful result in those two things being put on the back burner and slowly phased out over hundreds of years...

Sad to say, we won't be around to witness this change. But I suppose we should still do whatever we can to promote said change, even if the effects won't be noticeable during our puny lifetimes.

 

Life is too short.

 

Ahh yes, life is too short, but I have another 50 years (at least) as I am only 27 years old :-). While this is no guarantee I will certainly do my best to guarantee that I am around to observe a brighter future for us all. Should that not happen as I foresee it, then it is no threat to my ego, as many people have failed in their assessments when dealing with forces far greater than themselves. :-) Also, should Transhumanism not pan out as I hope it would, this is also no threat to my ego for the same reasons. There is a certain measure of peace in Oblivion...

[qec]

 

BTW, I couldn't quite understand from the film who the Ustashi were and who they were killing. I gathered that the Ustashi were Nazis (Croation Nazis). Were the victims Muslim, Jewish, or Other?

 

(1)

 

(2)

(fast forward to the two minute mark)

 

(3)

 

(4)

 

(5)

 

(6)