The three fundamental No-no's in Christian fiction

[Steve]

What do members of this group think about the kind of content that should be found—or not found—in a specifically Christian novel?

What I'm thinking about is the kind of prohibitions I've found in other Goodreads Christian groups, but not this one. They usually boil down to the three fundamental No-no's:

1. No explicit sex.
2. No (or only very mild) violence.
3. No profanity/swearing/blasphemy.

Do you think these are too weak? Or too strong? Which, if any, do you think ought to be modified?

[David]

1's fine, but it doesn't cover titillation.
2. No graphic violence or gratuitous violence
3. No blasphemy for sure. Most of the rest are simply showing courtesy to your readers. I know I invent cursing for my characters which stands outside the usage in reality.

[Stan]

I think it depends on the purpose of the work. What really does "Christian" mean where fiction is concerned, which was discussed briefly in a different thread.

If one is writing Christian themes and Christian message for a book that will only be read within the Christian ghetto, then I think your 3 are fine.

If one is writing a book for a lost audience to gain a voice and then present a Christian message or a gospel message, then the 3 may not adequately address the situation within which the book is written.

In a different thread I mentioned the show on Netflix "The Expanse" which comes from several novels. The show is pretty raw. But, there in the middle of it all is the Mormon church - straight-laced and friendly in the middle of all is wrong with the world(s).

So, I had to ask myself if this was Mormon evangelism for a new generation.

Your thoughts?

[Lara]

I think violence needs to be definded some. Most fantasy fiction has battles and wars or even abuse. Even the Bible has explicit violence, but not just for the sake of violence. If a book is for adult Christians, I think the stories need to take place in the real world where pain really happens. Again, I think this means context and appropriate use of violence rather than just pure gore. Maybe I am just being picky.

[Steve]

Interesting responses. So, David and Lara, about my #2 no-no (violence): Would it be OK in your view for a 'Christian' book to contain a brief description of, say, a child being abused (not sexually), if it was required by the plot? And if there was no undue concentration on any resulting blood or injury? On the basis that, as you put it Lara, "the stories need to take place in the real world where pain really happens"?

[Lara]

If it is for an adult audience, I think such a scene maybe of benefit for those who have been abused. I am currently working on a fantasy fiction story with a similar situation in my main female character's past. Heroes overcome quite a lot and God uses all kinds of people.

[Steve]

And David, for my #3 you singled out 'blasphemy' as the principal no-no. You also said you invent cuss-words for your characters, which is great (I do too). But along the lines of the above discussion, if as Stan said "one is writing a book for a lost audience to gain a voice", would ordinary, mild swearwords be acceptable in the mouths of non-Christian characters? Things like "D*mn", "Sh*t", and so on? On the basis that this will help non-Christian readers to identify with these characters, and later be willing to read on when they are drawn to Christ in the story?

[Steve]

Lara wrote: "If it is for an adult audience, I think such a scene maybe of benefit for those who have been abused. ..."

Right. That's a good point. Sounds like we're agreeing that topics like these which may be distasteful to many Christian readers should not be excluded just for that reason. If the book is targeting a wider audience than what Stan called the "Christian ghetto"; and if the events are integral to the plot, and not thrown in gratuitously, then they can legitimately be included.

Would that be a fair summary?

[Lara]

I would totally agree with that summery.

[Stan]

As one living outside the USA, I sense, perhaps more than those within the USA, that Christians there really see the world through rose-colored stained glass windows. They really have no clue, most of them, of the hurt and suffering and sin that goes on in the world. Therefore, they are blind to the needs of the lost to which they should be ministering.

I don't think that gives authors carte-blanche to write anything they want, but I do think it actually necessitates that authors write more realistically than they do.

I am not a fan of writing profanity into stories, but I think I see the potential necessity of it more than I did 10 years ago.

I have no problem with violence in a story, but it doesn't have to be graphic or gory.

Sensuality and sex can be treated discreetly. The Victorian authors included in a way that they never really stated it, but their readers knew what they meant. So, there are ways to go about it without being graphic.

At times I wonder whether Christian authors even have a grip on what actually goes on in the world. Do we present characters who have a Christian response to the vile realities of a Fallen world?

One author who I think handled this well more than a decade ago is Jeff Gerke. One of his novels dealt with the situation in North Korea and the persecution of Christians. I think he gave enough detail without crossing any lines and he wrote North Korea better than any Christian author was writing at that time (to my limited knowledge). I believe another one of his novels dealt with the situation in Sudan (it was not two countries at that time).

So, I think we need to do better than most of us do in presenting a Fallen world in need of redemption. If our writing does not move people out of comfortable pews to engage the lost world, are we really accomplishing much? Or, if our writings does not move people to seek Jesus, are we accomplishing much?

And, I ask those questions as one who has not yet published a book. So, please don't read it as condemnation, but as my own development of a philosophy of writing Christian fiction.

[Justin]

I agree largely with Stan in that I think many Christian Authors do their reader base a disservice by creating these sterile stories where purity is an inevitability and stories are fluffy fantasies of what we idealize the kingdom-on-earth looks like, as opposed to how it is.

I'm in full support of utilizing violence, cuss words, sexuality all when it's appropriate and in a manner that is appropriate. I mean, there is a serious cognitive dissonance when our holy scripture, God's Word - The Bible, is rife with explicit examples of violence and sexuality in particular, and yet we expect the Christian reader base to be well-read in the Bible and their personal theology (as they should), while equally expecting them to read these sterilized novels with no perspective on how the word works.

It's creating a generation of Christians who have no idea how to navigate, with critical thinking and aptitude, a very fallen world.

[Stan]

Thanks Justin.

I was reading this today, "Israel experienced the worst that can come to any of us: rape in the streets, cannibalism in the kitchens, neighbors reduced to beastiality, a six-hundred-mile forced march across a desert, the taunting mockeries of captors." Eugene Peterson in A Long Obedience in the Same Direction.

I have had two conversations in the past couple of weeks with mature men of God. One is struggling with the question of whether violence is a core attribute of man - is a man who chooses non-violence less of a man? The other, in the wake of the Florida shooting (a tragedy) wants to disarm the populace and demilitarize the USA.

In both conversations I reminded them that there have been few generations in extremely few places in the world that have had the comfort to even think about such things. For most of history in most of the world, men have guarded diligently all that they held dear, especially their women.

A few generations of Judeo-Christian morality in the USA has erased from the memory of most the true nature of fallen man.

Now, I don't think we have to bare it all for our readers, but I think it has been sugar-coated for too long.

Your thoughts (not asking just Justin)?

[Steve]

Well, everyone, your words are music to my ears. I have to confess I've struggled in other GR Christian groups where even the report of a murder in a story causes shudderings of shock and horror!

I'm sure you're right, Stan, that US Christians tend to live in a safe coccoon insulated from the real world. This is true to a lesser extent in the UK where, for instance, mild swearing and a certain degree of sexual suggestiveness are acceptable simply because the society in general is saturated with them. But people still shudder at any kind of violence, particularly when it affects children.

You said, Justin, that I'm in full support of utilizing violence, cuss words, sexuality all when it's appropriate and in a manner that is appropriate. … The Bible is rife with explicit examples of violence and sexuality in particular, and yet we expect the Christian reader base … to read these sterilized novels with no perspective on how the world works.

I couldn’t agree more—with the emphasis on the word 'appropriate' in your first sentence. Nothing should be overdone, and there should be no wallowing in circumstantial details to titillate the reader's baser instincts—but they should not be omitted simply because of the subject matter. From the present discussion I see two principal reasons for this:

1. We need to live in the real world, and help our Christian readers do so too. As you said, Stan, we need to remind them of "the true nature of fallen man". The world is not a comfortable, safe place.

2. For our non-Christian readers, we need to help them identify with our characters and their circumstances—and that's not done by sanitizing everything they say and do!

Just as we help readers identify with our characters by putting them into the kind of struggles and dilemmas we all have to cope with, so also we should portray them dressing, acting and speaking like 'real' people. And if that includes some mild cussing or unethical behaviour (sexually or otherwise), then so be it! As always, maintaining a sense of balance and not going overboard.

And if our characters have to learn to cope with the kind of violence that's out there in the real world, then we're doing our Christian readers a favour, opening their eyes to things they haven't seen in their safe worlds, and inspiring them by our characters' victory over far more overwhelming odds to believe that God can bring them through the much smaller things they're facing.

I think I'm summarising what we've all been saying. Correct me if not!

[Stan]

I think you've summarized it well.

I think the examples we've given help to clarify, but the summary is good, IMHO.

I think it could also be said that any cussing, violence, and/or sexuality/sensuality should always be used strategically. Just as our plots and pacing are carefully weighed and strategically developed, so should scenes involving these elements be prayerfully considered and cautiously developed.

[Lauren]

I'm jumping into this conversation a bit late, but... I agree with what's been said so far about Christian authors over-sanitizing their stories to fit the fundamental line rather than writing real stories that deal with real issues and real emotions (spec fic genre notwithstanding).
I've just published a retelling of the story of Moses's birth in a sci-fi setting and have had to go through the amount of heat, violence and swearing countless times with practically every reviewer I've approached.
Babies are murdered in the Biblical version - babies are murdered in mine. I've tried to steer clear of graphic descriptions, but the scenes are intense and have an emotional impact, as I believe they should have!
If we want to portray the truth of our faith, I strongly disagree with sanitized versions of, well any important issue. The world around us is not sanitized at all (especially in the UK and Europe, as has been said already) and I can't see anyone taking my work seriously or considering the Christian world view in it if I don't connect with them in a real way.
Guess that's why I'm not a member of the more conservative groups.
That said, I use no "human" swearing in my story cause my mum alpha-read it and I remember her washing my mouth with soap the last time I swore in her presence. lol. I can get away with doing this in an alien world setting, though.
What I'm trying to say is that, rather than consider whether I'm using any of the three no-nos strategically, I prefer to consider whether I'm using them realistically and go from there.
Hope that rambling mess made some kind of sense.

[Stan]

Lauren wrote: "Guess that's why I'm not a member of the more conservative groups."

Oh no! What does that make us?

[Steve]

We're the dangerous radicals, Stan!

It's an interesting distinction you make, Lauren, between using the no-no's strategically or realistically. It seems to me that #1 & 2 (sex and violence) can be used strategically, in the sense that they're part of the plot: so, as Stan says, we can prayerfully consider where and how much to use them.

But swearing/profanity is a character trait: it's part of who a person is. So I'd go with you there, that that's something which needs to be used realistically—in the same way as you decide what a person wears, or how they do their hair. Once you have a feel for your character's personality (which develops as you write), you'll be bringing in all these personal traits instinctively, where they're appropriate. That's realistic in-the-flow writing, rather than careful advance planning. If it accidentally gets too much, you can always prune it back a bit later!

[Stan]

I like that "prune it back later" Steve!

Another aspect of profanity, or the other two, is that as we write we can show change by diminishing or eliminating them from a character's actions.

Where profanity is concerned, we can reduce the amount, possibly, by simply stating "he cursed under his breath" or some such from time to time. We don't have to give the reader both barrels in every scene.

Just a few more thoughts.

BTW - I am enjoying this thread!

[Lara]

I typically just write that my character swore and move on. Sometimes I'll add the reaction of another charcter to it. Having lived in a few countries, I find it difficult to replicate the creativity I have encountered. Leaving it to the reader's imagination lets it be as clean or as dirty as they want it. I also invent some clean replacement exclamations that is unique to my world. I am not saying this is what others should do. I'm just sharing some ideas.

[Lauren]

Stan wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Guess that's why I'm not a member of the more conservative groups."

Oh no! What does that make us?"

The perfect group for me to be able to express myself freely without overt censure based on convention or tradition rather than sound Christian principle and careful consideration?

[Lauren]

I'm enjoying this thread too.

To a certain extent, I believe violence or sensuality is also driven by a character's traits (or, at least, it is in my writing). I agree that, on the whole, these are part of the plot, but different characters do respond differently in the same situations. That being the case, the amount/level of violence, for instance, would be determined by the character as well as the scene. If not, how would any good conversion story show the impact of meeting a saviour on the character in question?

I like Lara's point that just because a character swears, it doesn't mean we have to define the word, only make reference to it. The same could be said of the other two points as well. And... we're back to should we include the three no-nos or not. lol

[Steve]

Lauren wrote: "The perfect group for me to be able to express myself freely without overt censure based on convention or tradition rather than sound Christian principle and careful consideration"

I like your response, Lauren! That’s how I feel too.

Coming back to swearing, though… I started writing for a British audience, where as I've mentioned above swearing/profanity is endemic. Some of my characters are non-Christians, and my books are aimed equally at believers and non-believers. This means that, following the reality criterion, there just is no way I can portray my non-Christian characters realistically without at least some swearing.

I have heard from non-Christians who have read my books, and they do identify with the non-Christian characters. I'm sure that's at least partly because the characters speak and behave like they do. That can't be covered by a generic "He swore", or some made-up expletive. (Though I do use made-up expletives for my non-Earthly characters!)

In fact in the UK the name of God is so widely used as a mild expletive that it's lost all connection with the real God. When people exclaim, "G*d!" there's absolutely no thought of God in their minds. It's equivalent to a slightly more forceful "D*mn!" or "Sh*t!". Yes, technically they're taking the name of the Lord in vain; but that is not even remotely their intention.

So it will seem utterly unreal to UK non-Christians if a 'normal' (i.e., non-Christian) character says "Gosh!" rather than "G*d!"! They certainly wouldn't be able to identify with him or her. In situations of sudden stress, "G*d!" is what people say. It's part of the language. Not to use it, in my view, would be to apply that sanitising process that we've deplored earlier in this thread. Fine for nice, comfortable, decent Christians; but immediately alienating to your normal 'bloke' in the street.

Having said that, I agree with all that's been said here about keeping such language appropriate to the context, and also keeping it down to a minimum. I also agree with Stan's earlier point, that the degree of profanity will naturally be reduced or eliminated as non-Christian characters are confronted with Christ.

What do people think? Is this a bridge too far?

[Lauren]

Steve wrote: "Lauren wrote: "The perfect group for me to be able to express myself freely without overt censure based on convention or tradition rather than sound Christian principle and careful consideration"

..."

I'm British, and still live here, so I know exactly what you mean. If I were writing for a mixed audience, I'd be laughed out of town if I deliberately avoided all swearing in a context where it would usually be used by them. The same goes for violence or romance. That's where my point about reality came in.

At the moment, I'm not particularly writing for the mainstream market, so it's not such an issue for me. With the way things are here, I might have to use a different pen name for my Christian and mainstream works if I crossed over at some point, though.

In fact, what I think is difficult here is reaching a Christian market at all, especially in my chosen genres (I obviously like a challenge). Even my Christian friends tend to read mainstream fiction (some had never heard of Christian fiction 'til I introduced them to it), there are NO Christian novels in any library within easy driving distance, Christian bookshops are few and far between (and tend to have a fiction section the size of a shoebox). Off topic again, sorry.

I think you have to bear your market in mind with these three things. What would be realistic for Christians wouldn't be for secular readers and vice versa. Tough call on a mixed demographic. You must like a challenge too.

[Stan]

"The perfect group for me to be able to express myself freely without overt censure based on convention or tradition rather than sound Christian principle and careful consideration?"

Now, that I can relish! Great wording!

[Steve]

Lauren wrote: "I'm British, and still live here, so I know exactly what you mean." Good to know we're on the same page, Lauren!

Well, my 'mixed demographic' came about more or less by accident. I started out with a clear idea of writing 'clean' fantasy fiction for Christian readers. But I sent drafts copies of my books to my son, then at university—and he passed them out to all and sundry! Next thing I was getting urgent requests for more from several of his non-Christian friends. I also had critiques done, and my reviewer felt strongly that non-Christians should be targeted as well as Christians.

So I've categorised my first published book as both Christian and sci-fi/fantasy, and we'll see what happens!

(Slightly off-topic, sorry…)

[Stan]

"In fact in the UK the name of God is so widely used as a mild expletive that it's lost all connection with the real God. When people exclaim, "G*d!" there's absolutely no thought of God in their minds. It's equivalent to a slightly more forceful "D*mn!" or "Sh*t!". Yes, technically they're taking the name of the Lord in vain; but that is not even remotely their intention."

Interesting situation. God told His people not to use His name in vain. Could a pagan in the ancient world take God's name in vain? Would they have even known His name?

So, in your writing for a secular audience does their use of the word "god" even reference God? You say it does not. Have we lost the original intent of the 10 Commandments by using a general word for "God"? What if we use "god" rather than "God"? Does it make a difference? Would your readers even notice the difference? Which of His names did God use in the 10 Commandments?

Am I splitting hairs?

[Lauren]

Stan wrote: ""The perfect group for me to be able to express myself freely without overt censure based on convention or tradition rather than sound Christian principle and careful consideration?"

Now, that I c..."

Thanks!

[Lauren]

Steve wrote: "Lauren wrote: "I'm British, and still live here, so I know exactly what you mean." Good to know we're on the same page, Lauren!

Well, my 'mixed demographic' came about more or less by accident. I ..."
Sounds interesting. What's it called?

[Lauren]

Stan wrote: ""In fact in the UK the name of God is so widely used as a mild expletive that it's lost all connection with the real God. When people exclaim, "G*d!" there's absolutely no thought of God in their m..."

Ooh, interesting point. *Wanders off to give it some thought. Will respond after sleeping some.*

[Steve]

I'm not a theologian, so I may be treading on shaky ground here, but I've always understood 'taking God's name in vain' to imply a situation where the speaker knows full well who Almighty God is (or who His followers believe Him to be); yet deliberately diminishes Him by using His name frivolously and without respect. I.e., he knows he is challenging God by speaking that way.

If I'm right about this, then what British non-Christians do when they exclaim "G*d!" doesn't fall within that definition. It's sadly true that God is not widely known in Britain today. He's not even a disapproving policeman in the sky: He's just an ancient myth that no sensible person pays any attention to any more. So what's there to challenge by taking His name in vain? His name means nothing, anyway. (Very cynical, I know!) The exclamation "G*d!" is therefore just a swearword on a par with the normal 4-letter ones, nothing more.

The most common form of the expletive is what I've written above: just the word "G*d!". So as it comes at the beginning of the sentence and requires a capital letter for that reason, there doesn't seem to be much mileage in downgrading it to "god". (It would work with "My god!" or "Dear god!", but in my experience those aren't so common.) And no, I don't think my non-Christian readers would notice the difference. To them it's only worth a small letter anyway!

Just a bit more fuel for the fire!

[Steve]

Lauren wrote: "Sounds interesting. What's it called?"

Since you asked, it's The Mindruler. Yours about Moses' birth in a sci-fi setting also sounds interesting. Could you give me the link?

[Note for the mods: This is not a proposal for a reciprocal positive review!]

[Lara]

The hebrew word for God/god was El and it was used in all sorts of context, both Jewish and Canaanite. Instead of swearing as modern people do, they typically used oaths that were both serious and hyperbolic. My husband is an Old Testament professor so I'm just throwing that out there to be a know-it-all. I am in total agreement with where this conversation is going and so happy to hear everyone's point of views. I get the luxery of my made up fantasy world to avoid the swearing issue, but I definately have some characters wrestling with the other two points. Btw, the Moses idea for your book, Lauren, is brilliant! I think the Bible is full of great plot inspiration. I have been recently geeking out over David's wild days running from Saul.

[Stan]

Steve wrote: "but I've always understood 'taking God's name in vain' to imply a situation where the speaker knows full well who Almighty God is (or who His followers believe Him to be); yet deliberately diminishes Him by using His name frivolously and without respect."

You mean like when people call themselves Christians and yet do nothing that Jesus actually told them to do?

[Stan]

Lara wrote: "The hebrew word for God/god was El and it was used in all sorts of context, both Jewish and Canaanite. "

Since the 10 Commandments were written after God revealed himself as YHWH, I didn't know if the "name" in the 10 was YHWH or El. Hebrew and I were not good friends all those years ago in seminary.

[Lauren]

Steve wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Sounds interesting. What's it called?"

Since you asked, it's The Mindruler. Yours about Moses' birth in a sci-fi setting also sounds interesting. Could you give me t..."

Sure, it's called Courage

[Lauren]

Lara wrote: "The hebrew word for God/god was El and it was used in all sorts of context, both Jewish and Canaanite. Instead of swearing as modern people do, they typically used oaths that were both serious and ..."

Thanks, Lara. I love those characters, especially the women. Such inspirational stories at a time when only men's actions were usually recorded. David... hmm. Yes, I can see lots of potential there too. Can't think about that too much, though, or I'll get too distracted to finish the first series.
I have the same situation - no real swearing in my fantasy universe, but the violence they suffered is real and has to be addressed. I went with weapons that leave no gore/blood as it avoids graphic descriptions as well as sounding more alien and futuristic. For earth settings, though, it must be much more problematic.

[Lauren]

Steve wrote: "I'm not a theologian, so I may be treading on shaky ground here, but I've always understood 'taking God's name in vain' to imply a situation where the speaker knows full well who Almighty God is (o..."

Steve, I think you're right. Most people I know would be shocked if I told them they were taking God's name in vain. Still makes me wince sometimes from my own upbringing, but most people don't blink an eye at it.
They also don't blink at graphic violence any more, or explicit sexual scenes, thanks to the direction most films and TV programmes are going. Entertainment, here at least, is becoming more and more 'edgy', leaving a wide berth of more 'tame' ground between secular tastes and Christian. There's a lot of room there to have to cross in order to reach both markets, thinking about it.

[Lara]

Stan wrote: Since the 10 Commandments were written after God revealed himself as YHWH, I d..."

I decided to pick my husband's brain again for this one. He says that the commandment is specifically about invoking God's name in a magical sense such as witchcraft. It's a lot about using God as a talisman rather than with respect as our creator and authority. You are correct about YHWH, but in the Hebrew, multiple names are used for God from then on. I would suspect that the commandment is more about the intent than the specific name. In this context, I actually have seen more Christians break the commandment than non-Christians using God's names in swearing.

[Stan]

Thanks Lara!

[Steve]

Lauren wrote: "There's a lot of room there to have to cross in order to reach both markets, thinking about it."

I'm sure you're right, Lauren! I confess I don't have any specific strategy to deal with it—just seeing how it works out at the moment. Time will tell which market (if any) predominates!

[Steve]

Stan wrote: "You mean like when people call themselves Christians and yet do nothing that Jesus actually told them to do?"

I hadn't thought of it like that, but maybe you're right. Lara, you said "I actually have seen more Christians break the commandment than non-Christians using God's names in swearing"—which seems along similar lines. Is this related to what you described as "using God as a talisman"? In what particular ways do Christians do that? Do you mean, like, attributing positive events to "God's protection" or "an answer to prayer", when really they have no conviction from the Holy Spirit about that—they're just 'presuming' God is looking after them? I could certainly see that as "taking God's name in vain".

In any case, I think what you're saying would tie in with the view that mindless use of "G*d!" as an expletive is not the same thing at all. Would you agree?

[Lara]

I do think it can be up to interpretation, but having grown up Pentecostal, I have seen many superstitious uses for God. I am not against Pentecostalism, but God isn't a formal in which you speak and act a certain way in a church service to get a miracle. I have also seen bordline Catholics use crucifixes in magical ways while calling on God to do things like have good luck in a car purchase. I can't say if both of these groups have a relationship with God, but their actions are not about working in God's plan. These examples are about making God do what I want by the force of my will. I think the primary point is whether we are submitting to the authority and will of God or are we trying to use God to make him do our own purpose. It is more about intent, but sometimes actions and reveal the heart. I also want to make it clear that praying to God to do something and commanding God to trap him are very different things. Praying in faith is part of being a Christain, but God always has the right to say no to us for our good. When I hear people say God MUST do this or that because they did certain actions or said certain words, that is a big problem. It becomes superstition.

[Steve]

Lara wrote: "I have seen many superstitious uses for God"

OK, right. So it's not (only?) presuming on God's protection etc., but (also) trying to "force" Him to act by following time-honoured formulas (words/actions) that have "worked" in the past—which as you say is superstition.

That makes a lot of sense.

This has been an interesting discussion. Thanks for sharing your and your husband's wisdom on it!

[Stan]

Spot on, I believe Lara.

I live in Brazil and there are all manner of "evangelical" voodoo and folk Catholicism. There are true expressions of both as well. But when a prosperity gospel preacher sells blessed brooms so you can sweep the demons from your home, things are getting pretty non-biblical (to put it mildly). Some of the things I have seen and heard from these charlatans makes me believe there will be a special corner in hell just for them. And, when the leaders teach such things, the followers believe as much or more in a God that can be manipulated to do one's will.

[Steve]

Fascinating examples, Stan. Your and Lara's comments give a depth of meaning to the 3rd commandment that goes way beyond mere verbal cussing!

[Stan]

Steve wrote: "Fascinating examples, Stan. Your and Lara's comments give a depth of meaning to the 3rd commandment that goes way beyond mere verbal cussing!"

I'm glad the examples help. The one that makes me want to rage is the prosperity preacher who sells blessed douches so that barren women can have children.

[Lara]

Stan, I laughed so hard at these examples! I once saw a Christian bookstore sell these little statues that one was susposed to plant in your yard to sell your house.

[Stan]

Lara wrote: "Stan, I laughed so hard at these examples! I once saw a Christian bookstore sell these little statues that one was susposed to plant in your yard to sell your house."

Not surprising! Appalling, but not surprising.

[Steve]

Amazing, the lengths superstition can go to!

[Stan]

Steve wrote: "Amazing, the lengths superstition can go to!"

I think this goes in a different direction.

Blind trust in a spiritual leader. Due to limited literacy, an inability to test the message by Scripture. A seeking after prosperity to exit poverty.

These combined are something of a perfect storm for Satan to further blind people from the truth.