In the last several years there has been a large increase in Zombie fiction, movies, and references to Zombies in the culture. The excellent World War Z, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the opening of Zombieland this weekend, and the hilarious “Sean of the Dead” are just some of the examples of Zombies used in modern culture. Discussions have popped up all over the place on how to survive a Zombie apocalypse. Of course this topic is all in jest, but I think it distracts from the real Zombies living among us.
Zombies are undead, but they are animated going through the motions of the living. They survive as a mockery of what they once were and only imitate a truly living thing.
But Zombies already walk and talk among us. There are plenty of dissident Catholics and dissident religious orders that are nothing but Zombie Catholics. The Zombie religious orders have no postulants and an aging community. These orders are truly dead since they don’t grow and are full of providing dead theology and the corpse of aging heresies. Yet at the same time appear to be living animated things fooling some into believing that there words have life. The truth will set you free which is why Zombie Catholics will concentrate on one truth while ignoring others leaving them trapped in the world of the undead.
Outside of religious communities there are also plenty of Zombie professors in Catholic institutions. Now it would be nice if these Zombies would physically rot so that you could see the source of the corruption they teach. Unfortunately these undead often look just like everybody else. Though Zombie priests and religious sometimes can be identified because they will wear anything but a Roman collar or a habit. They can often be identified because they teach from the “Culture of the Undead.” Zombie Catholics might seem quite comical, but don’t ever forget that they are quite dangerous to those they convince. They teach of death in two ways – physical and spiritual . You can hear them promoting abortion or relativizing it. Creating reasons for why it alright to withdraw medical treatment from someone who is not dying. Justifying sacrificing embryos on the altar of science. When it comes to spiritual death the Zombie Catholics proclaim how a sin is not a sin and in fact something to be actively accepted. Whether it is the advocacy of homosexual acts, contraception, or any other normalization of sin; it is all a part of the Culture of the Undead.
The undead like to make other things dead to. Now Catholic Zombies don’t go limping around mumbling “Brains, Brains.” No they usually walking around saying “My brains, My brains.” One way to identify Zombie Catholics is that they call themselves “thinking Catholics” and constantly call attention to how much smarter they are than other Catholics. They love to minimize and mock the devotional practices of other Catholics and will ransack school rooms and sanctuaries to remove statues, paintings, and other signs of the devotional life. They are also love to talk against the hierarchical church even sometimes when they are apart of it.
The idea of Zombie Catholics might not seem to be very scary. But if you have ever attended a Mass influenced by the undead I say be afraid, be very afraid. Zombie Catholics being of the undead like to liven things up to give the appearance of life and most of all to be relevant.
So how do we rid ourselves of the plague of Catholic Zombies? Well we can’t just go around shooting them in the head as in pop culture Zombies. There is some folklore that they are afraid of crucifixes like Vampires since they go to so much effort to remove Crucifixes wherever they go. The only real way to get rid of Zombie Catholics is prayer and fasting and of course personally living a life of holiness. Though we must remember the Zombie Catholics will always be among us to some extent. There will always be Zombie Catholics among the Wheat. We just need to make sure they are not taken seriously so that the damage they can cause is minimized.
Just remember that you don’t turn into a Zombie Catholic because you are bitten by another Zombie Catholic. No the infection spreads when people are bitten by ideas spread through the culture. The popular fads can seem new and exciting when you don’t see the pearl of great price in your own backyard. So the best way to inoculate yourself from Zombie Catholicism is to know your faith, scripture study, prayer, fasting, the devotional life, and obedience.
33 comments
So, does this mean we deal with Zombielics the same way as normal zombies. Please! Pretty please!
TWO
TRUTHS
To the Nuclear
Plant I went
With wafered host
I was hell-bent.
Exposed the wafered un-
Consecrated host
To radiation
Now, nuked toast.
Offered heretic
“Taste and see.”
“Oh no!” He cried
“That’s not for me!”
“But look, ” I said,
“Nothings changed…
A still white wafered
Host arranged.”
“Though looks the same,
Could do much harm!”
The heretic knew
Exclaimed with alarm.
As Catholics know
A spiritual radiation
Daily at Mass
The Transubstantiation!
Great post! Made me laugh.
And “Shawn of the Dead” is one of my favorite funny movies!
Excellent laugh.
Perhaps there could be an annual “Zombitholic” award given to the CINO who oozes zombie qualities. I nominate Pelosi for 2010.
You are pretty old and out of touch yourself, Jeff. How do your beliefs stack up against those of your grown children and other young people, who will be taking over the church in the years to come? Do they feel the same way about the culture of life and the persecution of homosexuals as you do?. How about the celibate, male only priesthood? How do the youngsters think about that?
The face of God is in the face of the young. What do you see there, Jeff? Is it the same face that you see when you look in the mirror or is that a zombie face looking back at you?
@reddog:
You may be surprised how many of the “youngsters” today do agree with Jeff. Many of us are tired of the lies our society has been telling us, and sick of the lack of reverence and trust in God shown by many of the older (and liberal) members of the Church.
As a “youngster” myself, I will answer you:
on the culture of life: if you mean a culture in which babies are not aborted or artificially prevented, and life is completely valued from conception until natural death, then I support it!
the “persecution of homosexuals”: a Christian could never in good conscience persecute someone based on any generalizing quality. However, I’m sure you meant the refusal to allow gay marriage or homosexuals to enter the priesthood. In which case, no persecution is occurring. While each person should always be valued, they are not to be given “rights” that are in fact not their right at all.
the celibate priesthood: absolutely a great idea, and I hope that never changes
male only priesthood: this is something that can not be changed by the Church, was instituted by Christ, and shall always remain.
It might be nice to think that everyone believes as you do, except for the people who are “out of touch”, but there are many thriving young Catholic communities who are faithful to the Church herself, not our political or selfish beliefs.
How do your beliefs stack up against those of your grown children and other young people, who will be taking over the church in the years to come? Do they feel the same way about the culture of life and the persecution of homosexuals as you do?. How about the celibate, male only priesthood? How do the youngsters think about that?
Fortunately, Jeff’s beliefs “stack” very well. When we realize how many culture of life issues are already taken care of by God’s Natural Law, the “persecution” issues would dissipate like morning mist like so many other expressions of human hubris: i.e., deciding I must “fulfill” myself by climbing off the tracks for the sake of “freedom”.
Getting off the tracks isn’t freedom; it’s slavery. It is the antithesis of Chesterton’s “common sense.”
True freedom is honoring the ontology given to each one of us, imago dei, male and female, to marry, continue bringing persons into the world, nurturing them as the “domestic church,” and being the Body of Christ, the Church, in a fallen, sin-filled world.
You may be surprised how many of the “youngsters” today do agree with Jeff.
Aye. Just look at the seminarians. The Progressivist Establishment is complaining about them because of their fidelty to traditional Church teaching. And how could it be otherwise? Who the heck would dedicate their life to the priesthood if they were just going to spoon-feed the same old feel-good leftist platitudes one can get by turning on the tv or opening any magazine or newspaper?
Sounds like reddog is a Zombitholic.
I won’t waste my time explaining the concept of revealed, eternal truth to a omniscient, arrogant child who hasn’t done or experienced anything in life – just like that jug-eared moron we have slumming in the White House.
Uh, guys? Reddog’s leg just fell off. You know, the one he has to stand on.
These comments go on nicely with a conversation I’ve been having with my oldest godchild. She shared that her contemporaries (she’s 20) love the Theology of the Body, love our Mother Church’s wonderful, enpowering and uplifting teachings in regards to marriage and family, but are totally unsupported by their parents! The parent thing wasn’t much of a surprise, but it was nice to hear that the kids are getting it. I was a generation ahead of the game – fell in love with biology, knew that abc was crazy, and learned about Church teachings as a result. Yup, my parents definitely think I’m crazy 😉
+JMJ+
Nice one, Jeff! (Dare I hope it’s part of a series of monster-themed posts leading up to All Hallows’ Eve?)
@Catholic Momma:
We youngsters do love Theology of the Body! It’s certainly a better offering than anything the US culture can tell us about sex, marriage, children, and even love itself. I just got married, and you can bet my husband and I take all of the Church’s beautiful and TRUE teachings seriously to heart.
What a weird and “unfunny” post Mister the Jester.
I’ve noticed lately that the pendulum is swinging back from one extreme to the other and if I could agree to a certain extent with some of the conservative catholics arguments I can’t fathom the violence, intolerance or outright anti-christian thinking and behavior of the anti Vatican II crowd.
If we were to listen to and believe you, the number of excommunications among catholics would sky-rocket and actually we would be many more outside the Church than inside.
Not that it would bother you, if I understand correctly, since you and your brothers and sisters, have the absolute conviction to be in THE TRUTH, to belong to the (very few) Chosen, Elected Ones and therefore it is normal for the majority of the plebe to be rejected outside.
You seem to imply that we have the über, superior, true catholics on one hand, and of course the unter, inferior, zombie catholics on the other.
My impression is that in your catholic world (which is not mine obviously)the form, the letter is more important than the content, the meaning, the intent, …
Which brings me to my ultimate point : do you remember that it is why (the above) God had to send us His Son to make a second deal, to conclude a second alliance with us because the first one went wrong ?
Reading and hearing so many self righteous, holier than thou, nonsensical in their extreme arguments from people who have received this wonderful without price gift from God and brought to us and “payed for” by Jesus, is definitely scary.
If the Church is a big and united entity formed by multiple groups and individualities (yes there are cultural, political, historical,worship practices, … differences), Vatican II is truly expressing the essence of the Catholic faith.
Totally rejecting Vatican II is for me a grave sin and an heresy.
God bless you all and may the Holy Spirit blow stong and loud to clear some very foggy, muddy or outright evil spiritual and human misconceptions.
A (not pretending to be that good) catholic on her painstaking way towards the Light of His Absolute Love.
Totally rejecting Vatican II is for me a grave sin and an heresy.
Great. Now find where JM does this. Fail.
While tolerance is certainly commendable, one should never sacrifice truth in the name of tolerance. While I also have encountered my share of pre-Vatican II folks, I really don’t see that trend here. Jeff is right to call out people who have been given the mission to feed the sheep when they are feeding the sheep not only substandard, but often out-right dangerous food. We must all pray for out priests – they are engaged in battle over their very souls. Being pro-contraception, anti-family, and anti-child has absolutely nothing to do with differences in cultural worship.
Here lets get the code out into the open:
Rejection of Vatican II is code for:
getting rid of the priest facing the people
getting rid of the banal crap folk music
getting rid of liturgical dance
getting rid of puppets
getting rid of clowns*
Rejection of Vatican II means the end of “Vibrant*” parishes
*No clowns were hurt in this posting.
**The term vibrant really doesn’t mean anything, except it is used by those who embrace the above to describe their parishes when called on the carpet due to liturgical abuse and theological abuse.
And “Shawn of the Dead” is one of my favorite funny movies!
“Sorry, Philip.” Me, too! I’ll need to pull it out before Halloween.
Aye John. When one hears the charge that we are being mean, superior, or uncharitable (which has become the Christian equivalent of the race card–so often casually tossed out as a discussion killer that it has become meaningless), one need only ask: “What is it specifically that you don’t want me to say?” Usually the question is ignored and our brickbat hurler continues on in his mode of ad hominem, red herrings, and knocking down straw men. On a few occasions they will get specific at which point it becomes readily apparent that our truculent interlocutor is a Catholic that has been given a Ring of Power from secular progressives and, if they have not already put it on, are at least whispering to it and stroking it softly when they think no one is looking.
Scott
It can be no coincidence that you mention the Nazgul, in a comment on a post about Zombies. It extends the metaphor nicely. While the Zombies are fairly brainless, and have been infected with Zombie-ism by others – the Nazgul were Kings seduced by the power of the nine rings made for mortal men. I think when we are referring to the wilfully iconoclastic nu-church leaders among the higher orders of the Episcopate who charge round sniffing out their enemies, and breathing their noxious breath of despair and hatred upon them, sucking all hope – Nazgul is a better description than Zombie.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think anyone here is rejecting Vatican II. The whole point is that we are the people who want to follow the Church most closely and believe everything She believes. So since Vatican II is a legitimate and infallible document, it’s true we can not reject it.
What so many don’t seem to understand is that Vatican II says nothing about liturgical dance, or puppets, or music written by David Haus or Marty Haugen, or tambourines. When one actually reads the documents, one realizes that those who act in the “Spirit” of Vatican II are indeed not following it at all.
Let’s let the pendulum swing to the middle, where we follow Vatican II to a T (rather than do away with it entirely in terms of the Liturgy) but not go so far as to do things in the name of a “Spirit” that does not exist.
Laura: Just to clarify, Vatican II did not define any doctrine, as Paul VI himself said, and therefore did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium.
@John: I thought I might get myself in trouble for using the word “infallible”.
Thanks for the clarification.
Laura,
Thanks for your comment which is one of the few really relevant to my own.
Yes, the pendulum should swing softly around the middle.
As for anyone here rejecting or not Vatican II, let’s schematize the understanding some people here have of it by saying that before there was only one way of worshiping and after there was more choice.
The impression I get is that these people are not happy with the choice others make that is not like theirs. And it appears to be definitely more a problem of form than of content. Although I do not deny that in some assemblies there is an emptiness, a void of what should be there, I remind everyone that God is nevertheless “at work” and He may very well send His spirit and give the treasure of faith to those lost sheeps.
As for the very perceivable contempt one can feel oozing from some posts and comments here, they are pretty close to what I read on another American “catholic” blog calling the rest of us “Vatican II morons”.
Catholic Momma,
I agree with you to a certain extent but the “being pro-contraception, anti-family, anti-child, …” argument has been too much used and abused in certain circles.
As far as I know, natural contraception is accepted by the Church so the no contraception at all argument is an abuse.
The pro-life movement which was to promote saving lives, protect life as a whole (not aborting, not euthanasing, ethical medical research to improve health care, …)has become some sort of a monster.
This supposedly pro life movement is disfiguring the catholic faith by reducing it to fighting abortion (even when it is authorised by the law) by hysterical bullying, very undemocratic means and even brutal force (praying for and cheering the death of a doctor is not ok) while preventing a necessary health reform of a system that is de facto killing thousands of Americans each year by its failures.
The heart of the Catholic Faith is not about that. Focusing so much on one tiny aspect conscienciously separated from the whole is removing out all sense to it.
Now that is sinful in by book.
Ps: Isn’t the separation of wheat from the “you know what” the Lord’s job rather than some poor misguided catholic soul apparently thinking he/she has reached such a level of sanctity that he may be judge and party ?
The not so good catholic.
Ps: has some one seen the movie “Au Hazard Balthazar” by Bresson ?
Let’s clarify:
As far as I know, natural contraception is accepted by the Church so the no contraception at all argument is an abuse.
You are right in the sense that the Church allows birth regulation using natural means. What has happened however is consequentialist thinking. That is, people look at NFP=no children, artificial contraception=no children and wrongfully conclude that they are morally equivalent and therefore, Catholics can use any means they like. This is the abuse.
The pro-life movement which was to promote saving lives, protect life as a whole (not aborting, not euthanasing, ethical medical research to improve health care, …)has become some sort of a monster.
Let’s look at this closer:
This supposedly pro life movement
I don’t think it is necessary to imply insincerity here.
is disfiguring the catholic faith by reducing it to fighting abortion (even when it is authorised by the law)
I’m afraid you are flat-out wrong here. Evangelium Vitae is explicit that not only must Catholics be opposed to abortion as an act in and of itself, but they also have a duty to oppose its legality. To wit: laws permitting abortion are every bit as illegitimate as laws permitting chattel slavery. Now, Catholics may accept incremental legal measures as long as their opposition to legal abortion is firm and unequivocal.
by hysterical bullying
I’d need an example to comment
very undemocratic means
I need an example here, but I’d add that if this means that making abortion illegal is undemocratic because it remove’s someone’s choice, then this is false because it is no more undemocratic to make abortion illegal than it is to arrest people for knocking over convenience stores.
and even brutal force (praying for and cheering the death of a doctor is not ok)
I think this is an example of a straw man. Most pro-lifers don’t do this.
while preventing a necessary health reform of a system that is de facto killing thousands of Americans each year by its failures.
Respectfully, the people hanging up the reform are those who insist on keeping abortion as part of the program. To wit: if health reform is so darn important, they will throw the pro-life concerns a bone so to speak and explicitly make it so that any reform does not support abortion. Do it not, and it is pretty clear that talk of health care reform is political grandstanding.
Scott,
Thanks for your civil argumented response. I’ll try to answer your points as clearly and truthfully as I can.
Regarding contraception and abortion, we have to establish if we are talking exclusively about devout catholics, all catholics or the whole population, a good portion of which not being catholic, in a given democracy where Church and State are separate.
Catholics have the great chance to have clear enough guiding lines given to us by the Church which are totally compatible with the laws of democracy. Whether you like it (accept it) or not, the rule of a democracy is the majority vote wins. Now you can try to fight the law by legal means but it won’t change the fact that the majority rules.
We, as catholics have the duty to try and follow those rules as closely as humanly and lawfuly as possible.
But we are pretty average human beings, not Saints, and therefore far from being perfect. We also are free, free to follow or not. We unfortunately most often than not fail. That shouldn’t stop us from keeping trying to reach the ideal. That shouldn’t keep us from trying to convince (not force) others to follow us on our path but that doesn’t give us the right to decide for others that a law (like the one authorising abortion) passed through democratic channels shouldn’t be applied.
Since abortion is, in very specific medical cases, tolerated by the Church and, according to the figures I’ve read somewhere, concerns many less people than the health care system deficiencies, I have quite a hard time understanding why the issue of abortion is taking such pre-eminence over the overall more serious health care problems involving many more deaths.
Sabotaging the health care reform because of the clause on abortion (which is still legal as far as I know) doesn’t save lives quite the contrary.
[and even brutal force (praying for and cheering the death of a doctor is not ok)
I think this is an example of a straw man. Most pro-lifers don’t do this.]
It is not a strawman and I sincerely hope for your soul’s sake most pro-lifers are not like that. It is something I’ve read on a “catholic” blog. My greatest schock at the extremely vicious and quite unhealthy reactions on that blog came from the fact that the authors were catholics.
In my own catholic smugness, I really believed (at the time)that this kind of hysteric ayatollahesque dictatorial rethoric could not be found among the catholic herd. Well, I was wrong.
Regarding contraception and abortion, we have to establish if we are talking exclusively about devout catholics, all catholics or the whole population, a good portion of which not being catholic, in a given democracy where Church and State are separate.
Catholics have the great chance to have clear enough guiding lines given to us by the Church which are totally compatible with the laws of democracy. Whether you like it (accept it) or not, the rule of a democracy is the majority vote wins. Now you can try to fight the law by legal means but it won’t change the fact that the majority rules.
We, as catholics have the duty to try and follow those rules as closely as humanly and lawfuly as possible.
But we are pretty average human beings, not Saints, and therefore far from being perfect. We also are free, free to follow or not. We unfortunately most often than not fail. That shouldn’t stop us from keeping trying to reach the ideal. That shouldn’t keep us from trying to convince (not force) others to follow us on our path but that doesn’t give us the right to decide for others that a law (like the one authorising abortion) passed through democratic channels shouldn’t be applied.
That abortion is objectively wrong means just that; it does not depend on being Catholic or not, it is universally wrong. Meaning it doesn’t just apply to Catholics. This is why there is such thing as pro-life atheist groups. One can not make an objective wrong right merely by voting on it. Both Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism are clear–laws permitting abortion are illegitimate laws and Catholics are duty-bound to oppose them. There is simply no magisterial support for the so-called “personal opposition” position. Far from it. From EV:
73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.
And earlier, it explicitly dismantles the appeal to democracy or pluralism if you will:
Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive “sign of the times”, as the Church’s Magisterium has frequently noted. 88 But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.
Since abortion is, in very specific medical cases, tolerated by the Church
This is incorrect. As the Catechism says:
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
Now what you may be thinking of is ectopic pregnancies in which a salpingectomy is performed. These are acceptable under the principle of double-effect. But this would be what could be at best called an indirect abortion. Direct abortion and the various erroneous moral calculations that go with them (rape, incest, life of the mother) are off the table.
and, according to the figures I’ve read somewhere, concerns many less people than the health care system deficiencies, I have quite a hard time understanding why the issue of abortion is taking such pre-eminence over the overall more serious health care problems involving many more deaths.
It’s quite simple. Direct abortion isn’t up for debate. It’s always wrong. Fixing health care is a question of how we help people get the medical care they have a right to. We all have a right to medical care. We DON’T have a right to medical insurance. We DON’T have an obligation to cede the whole health industry to the US government. Here’s where democracy is fine in general. That is, if we vote to in fact to cede health care to the government, that is not immoral in and of itself. But it is a point of prudence and as such, it’s up for debate as to what we do. I happen to think that we ought to do something to reform healthcare. I don’t believe it’s so critical that we throw the duty to protect the unborn under the bus.
It is not a strawman
Respectfully, it is. Anyone can find bad examples. Saying that something is strawman doesn’t mean that no examples exist–it means finding those examples and passing them off as indicative of the whole and using it to criticize the whole.
I lost my previous very long comment but I’m goint to try to put down some of my thoughts again.
It is a human tendency to see and believe what is most in accordance with one’s own already entrenched beliefs.
I totally agree that what is legal is not automatically moral and what is moral is not automatically legal.
[73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.]
Some people’s interpretation of “there is grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection” might differ from mine.
Let’s not forget that “the end doesn’t justify the means” applies in any case.
I hadn’t read Evangelicum Vitae so your input is very valuable. Though I have a hard time accepting that civic moral disobedience should not be an exclusive personal choice.
I was basing my argumentation on my catechism and was just reminding everyone that abortion is (if the greatest)a crime among others towards the 5th amendment.
In that 5th amendment part, there is also mention of the respect for health with health care for all requiring help from society if necessary.
As for the strawman, I thought it meant “phoney argument” a bit like the one you use :
[We all have a right to medical care. We DON’T have a right to medical insurance.]
since in the present system both medical care and health care insurance are very closely linked.
You get the best care if you are well insured. Choosing between family bankrupcy or one member’s health (life) is pretty dubious morally speaking.
Correction to my above comment :
It should read 5th commandment and not 5th amendment.
What an interesting lapsus, and I’m neither American nor a lawyer !
Interesting coversation and my children are glad Scott is taking it on, which should keep me off the computer 😉 I just wanted to say one thing about the comparison of nfp with contraception. It’s like that yummy piece of cheesecake – make it espresso cheesecake with chocolate leaves – I really, really want a piece….not the calories though. Hmmm, I could do the hard thing and just say no, or I could have my cake and just purge after. That takes care of those pesky calories 😉
I’m sorry you find me sanctimonious and trust me, I don’t claim to be a saint. I also accept a variety of forms of worship. However, if we thump our noses at Papa Ben, we’re just being disobedient kids and foregoing the Fourth Commandment.
Personally, I’m pretty comforted by the literal way in which God has not left us orphans – He gave us the Holy Father and our Mother Church! How awesome is that?!
What gets me about the Zombies is the way “render unto Caesar” means that if society says it’s okay, then we just have to accept it. And the “render unto God” is about personal motivation or what you think is okay. That’s no different from the Wiccan “Do what ye will, but harm ye none” which some girls at my school say.
But Christians are called to love God with their whole heart, mind, and strength and love their neighbor as themselves. That’s harder. it’s a lot easier to be Zombie.
My aunt read a columnist in the paper that said Lutherans (he’ s Lutheran) are bigots for breaking away over gay ministers who want to have boyfriends. He used the “what adults do in their bedrooms” argument of libertarian and also “Jesus never talked about homosexuality being a sin; Paul did”. It was interesting to listen to my aunt and her friends discuss it and ask me about it. There’s a lot of things that Our Lord never mentioned like having sex with your kid or freeing slaves or burning houses for insurgence.
So it’s kind of like “use your brain to see how the commandments apply, don’t follow the crowd.” Because I know people who say it’s just an I-pod knock-off when they take something that’s not theirs and boys who’s girlfriends get pregnant and they say, “I don’t want to pay for it, and if she keeps it, that’s her choice but I’m not going to f-ing pay for a kid”. So yeah, the zombies follow the crowd
I forgot to say that I am Jess. I am using Jeannie’s computer to type this. Sorry! 🙂