The US has dropped one of their MOAB (Money Obviously Aimlessly Bust) bombs into Afghanishtan. The purpose of the operation was to attack the ISIS fighters there. Now they report, that the bomb killed 36 ISIS fighters. What was the point of this exercise? To test the bomb in practice? Or really just to kill meager three dozen ISIS fighters?

It is really hard to tell what the actual purpose was. Was it to send a message, that the new president elect, Donald Duck, (the businessman and gameshowhost – yes you can all by now recognize his orange hued beak) is determined to continue the so called “War On Terror”? Perhaps, it sent that message.

GBU-43 pommi.

I find the incident tragicomic as now the prize for one killed ISIS fighter has gone up to something like 436 111 dollars a head, and that is only counting the price for the actual bomb, not the cost of the operation itself of actually transporting and dropping it. I came to this conclusion through a simple calculation. As the bomb itself costs some 157 000 000 dollars, wich can easily be calculated from the reported price of 20 such bombs is along the lines of 314 000 000 dollars. If that sounds costly, you can just guess what the development costs for this MOAB (Mad Ominous Antics Booby) were. This is, naturally, for what the US taxpayer wanted their money to be spent on. Is it not?

The bomb is extremely powerfull. There is no doubt about it. I am told it is actually so heavy, that it can not be delivered to the target by other means than a Hercules C-130 transport plane. In practice, this means the weapon is useless against any conventional army with actual air defence. Hence, it seems to be a weapon designed precisely for the so called “War On Terror”. To kill the “Unlawfull Combatants” of the terrorist organizations. In effect, armed civillians. It is difficult to fathom, that even the most expensive military in the world would see such a weaponsystem as even remotely cost effective. But apparently, when people are scared enough, there is no cost they are not ready to lay down to feel safe again. Or is there?

It is incredible to me, that the astronomical sums of money spent on such a powerfull, yet obviously innefective, weapon can be justified by a country, that at the same time struggless to provide decent care for the often economically and psychologically challenged combat veterans, not to mention a universal healthcare, or even proper school system, that would not fail their citizens to an amount where so many go through public school thinking the world is only 6000 years old, that global flood in an old storybook is actually true, not to mention, that some of them do not even learn to read and write. How sad is this?

It is a vicious circle. The uneducated masses are easily scared of the terrorist, or what ever other, more or less imaginary threat, as a result they produce a mockery of democracy by voting ridiculous candidates, that hand out taxmoney to feed the greed of the very richest, and buy innefective weaponsystems to make the general uneducated masses feel safer. But they do not feel safe. Do they? They do not even trust their own police to keep the peace, instead they want guns for their own protection. These guns do not really keep them safe from anything, as very few of them have proper, or even any training in their use, but serve more as talismans to make them feel safe. At the same time the easy access to guns causes all sorts of terror, damage and deaths. That in turn make the people even more fearfull. It is not the “land of the brave”, but the land of the scared.

What I would want to know, is how they calculated the death toll of the ISIS fighters. They may have had a reconnaissance group on the ground near the target area. Or at least quite near, as the weapon causes a massive air blast, the friendly soldiers can not have been very close. Especially not in any helicopters. They may even have been the group that pointed the target for the bombing. Even so, how are the dead bodies hit by the bomb counted to be members of the ISIS forces? They certainly do not wear any ISIS uniforms and in Afghanishtan many civillians carry guns, not much unlike in the US, I am told. Did the blast not cause disfiguration of the bodies? It being an airblast bomb, this may be true, as it is not based on the shrapnell or fire effect as so many of the more conventional bombs. Still, to come to such an exact number on the dead enemies, someone has to have gone into the area of the bombing pretty soon after the bomb, that is, before anyone else, like survivors, might remove any of the bodies, and they must have some unimaginable method to recognize the ISIS fighters from any other dead bodies.

In any case, we do not really know, if the bomb killed anybody, or was the number 36 just pulled out of the hat of some officer, who wanted the operation to look like a some sort of success. Now the politicians in Washington may claim, that it was a success, and that the bomb consting something like 157 000 000 dollars was not dropped in just for the laughs of it. There is no indipendent source, that could verify this death toll, or that the killed, if there were any, were actually of the ISIS. It really does not even matter, because the price of the bomb, makes even 36 fallen enemies, that is, if we could actually verify that the number is accurate, or that there were any fallen enemies and no civillians, would make the operation grotesque and ridiculous.

What we do know, is that the bomb scared the Afghan civillians in the area and many of them felt they had to escape, in case there would be more. Some even thought it was an earthquake. Will there be more? I guess, if killing 36 ISIS fighters was worth, 157 000 000 dollars and more, then killing the rest of the hundreds of ISIS fighters in Afghanishtan must be worth the same and the US can drop all of these 20 bombs there. If they decide to do so, and drop the remaining bombs and expecting that 36 is some sort of average number of enemy killed, they may achieve destroying something like 720 ISIS fighters in return for 314 000 000 dollars of the taxpayers money and then they need to order some more such bombs, as there are some 1500 ISIS fighters according to the government of Afghanishtan estimation in their country alone at the moment. What else would they do with these bombs? Such bombs seem useless in any other situation and as I already may have pointed out, rather innefective even in this situation.

To be honest, this is not surprizing at all. The US military budget is growing ever more, though they allready pay more for their military than the rest of us combined. Many of their weaponsystems are very expensive in comparrison to their reliability or effectiveness and it seems ANY sums spent on the military can be spent almost without any complaints from the voters.


A gender neutral marriage law was recently affirmed in the Finnish parliament. This aroused some attention and controversy. There were arguments for and against it being presented. They were much the same as in this issue around the globe where ever it has become into focus. I do not even try to repeat them all here. There are a couple of concerns I would like to address about this discussion.

“Born this way.” The question wether, or not, homosexuality is a trait a person has from birth is not and should not be brought up in the entire discussion about marriage. It is totally irrelevant. Even the question, if someone chooses, or not, to be a homosexual is irrelevant to the question of marriage. We do not really know, if people are genetically caused to be homosexuals or wether it is a trait that developes onto the person. We do know that a lot of homosexuals would choose not to be homosexuals, if they possibly could. The reason to that is, that the society around them has trouble accepting them as they are and in respect to that some of them even learn to have similar cultural reasons of having trouble of accepting themselves as they are.

The real question is not what causes homosexuality, but wether we have any actually rational and sane reasons to think it is wrong on any level. We do not. The “reasons” presented to make the claim, that there is something wrong about homosexuality are presented as follows and often the path from one claim to a nother are presented on this line of thought:

Is it a sin? Now, sin is something determined to be some sort of violation of the will of some particular gods. Freedom of religion however dictates necessarily for a peacefull and mutually respectfull society to exist, that the beliefs about the divinities, or the supernatural in general, may not decide legal processes, or be used to step on the rights of a nother individual. Not even within a religious group that has accepted one doctrine or a nother. That is, even if the Catholic church and all the victims of rape by Catholic priests thought it was not really a crime, by the secular mutual standards of the modern soceity, they still are and should be treated as such. Therefore even if the majority of religions in any given country thought, that eating shellfish or being homosexual was a sin, they could not ethically make it illegal based on that imaginary guess on what their god supposedly thought was a sin.

Because the entire issue of marriage equality has been raised mostly in secular countries (and not in the Vatican or Iran), the question wether it is a sin is irrelevant. In modern democracies religions are a private matter and sin is something you discuss privately with your particular god, if you wish, who then redeems you from it, or judges you from it. Or you do not bring this or any other subjects to your god, if you even have one in the first place. This is why the people whose dislike of something like homosexuality often is derived from religious prejudices, often move to the camp of inventing seemingly secular “reasons” to justify their feelings about the issue.

Is it unnatural? There are people who try to frame sexuality into this tight box of reproduction. They have the right to do so in the privacy of their own homes, but not force the idea on others. No doubt that this line of argumentation appeals to all sorts of simpletons, as it seems simple. However, human sexuality is far from simple. I could discuss how a lot of animal species have homosexual behaviour, but from experience I know that this tends to lead down the rabbit hole of humans not being animals. Wich strangely often leads us back to the idea of sin. No, humans are not the same animals as those other animals that also engage in homosexual behaviour. That is there just to show you, that it is natural in the sense that it happens in the nature. But wether or not any animals engaged in homosexual behaviour does not in any way address wether it is right or wrong. Animals do not drive cars, but we do not try to ban driving a car because we see it as unnatural. Sex is as much just a form of reproduction and should be as much limited to that, as human transportation is all about walking and should be limited to walking. If you do not want to run or ride a bike, fine then don’t. But do not try to make running illegal. OK?

Gods are by definition unnatural. They are not part of nature, if they even exist beyond our natural brains. Should we ban gods because they are unnatural? Everything that happens in nature is natural. Salt is natural. Polio is natural. Homosexuality is natural. The only relevant question about homosexuality regarding laws is wether it is harmfull or not and if then to what extent. The entire question wether it is unnatural is ridiculous.

Is it harmfull? People see a lot of harm done to the homosexuals by people who feel justified in disliking, or even hating them for the “reasons” they give, that I listed abowe. There are also people who have been harmed by homosexuals. This works much the same way as with racism. When people are harmed by the representative of this, or that group of people, they make the connection between the group and the deed. Despite wether or not the group identity, or what ever makes the purpetrator of the harm part of that group – even skin colour, or sexual orientation –  was actually the motive for the deed. If a homosexual rapes a child, it is not the homosexuality that caused the deed. Any more than, if a white man shoots a black man, him being white was his motive for the act. The rape of a child is the result of the rapist being a) rapist and b) pedophile not being homosexual. If the rapist was not a homosexual, he would simply have chosen his target differently. The white man shooting the black man may have been motivated by any number of reasons from theft to racism. But even if it was racism, the motive was not him being white.

As for the marriage equality, there have been a number of more, or less comic attempts to stop the change, that has now finally taken place. There is this notion, that a family unit ideally consists of a father, a mother and some children. The idea has been, that the reason why the society recognizes a marriage as a special status between two people is because they are able to reproduce and should be given social support to be better able to do this. It is a ridiculous notion, in that even if that could be proven to be some form of ideal family unit, it does not mean all families need to reach such an ideal. Especially not those families who do not find the arrangement ideal in any way. By the same token, people who can not have children should not be allowed to get married and old people whose children have grown to adulthood should divorce.

There is this claim, that there is some sort of harm done to adopted children in same sex marriages. This claim has not been confirmed in any scientific arena. But even if it could ever be proven that the children have it better in a heterosexual family than in a same sex family, that would be a moot point. It is like saying that since the rich families can better nourish the needs of their kids, than the poor ones we should ban the poor people from getting married, and/or from having children.

Kuvahaun tulos haulle aito avioliitto mielenosoitus

The picture abowe is from a “Genuine Marriage” demonstration at 24. september 2016 , that gathered almost a hundred demonstrators (wich is pretty few even in Finnish terms) in Helsinki to protest against the gender neutral marriage law. It seems they had more balloons than demonstrators.

Last but not least the most stupid argument against the gender neutral marriage must be the slippery slope argument. Wich is that if this is allowed, what next? Shall we allow polygamy, marriages with children and marriages with house pets? It shows the level of stupid from the political side that opposed the gender neutral marriage, that they themselves did not laugh at the representative who presented this ridiculous argument. Was it not the same as arguing that if we allow people to drive cars, we may have to allow people to drive tanks next? If you do not understand the difference between two consenting adults havign sex and sex with a child or an animal, never get any children or pets. As for the polygamy, where in any holy books ever does it even hint that, that was a sin? It is a separate discussion we may have in the future, but it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the gender neutral marriage law.

This is a wide topic, I admit, but I try to be as brief as I can.

The medieval era from the fall of western Rome to the rise of renneissance was the era of the heavy cavalry in Europe. The Roman legion was made obsolete by more mobile and better equipped heavy catapracht cavalry, that the Romans adopted from their eastern neighbours in Armenia, Syria, Persia and the Scythians, Sarmatians and the Huns of the wide steppe. The medieval epitome of warfare was the concept of the Knight. Armoured, highly skilled and armed like his predecessor the cataphract with a lance and sword.  A knightly culture and social class ruled over rest of the society for some thousand years and went into decline as the infantryman once again surplanted the heavy cavalry as the foremost element to win any battle.

So highly was the heavy cavalryman regarded in medieval times, that often even though armies consisted from far more greater numbers of infantry (of varying quality) their numbers were not even mentioned or really counted when the strength of an army was evaluated. Examples of this can be found from the opposite ends of the European continent. Even in the long tradition of military training and analysis of the Byzantine empire they would often only count the number of cavalrymen, when they made estimations of their campaign forces. When the English met the French in the battle of Azincourt in 1415, the contemporary sources say that the French outnumbered the English three to one, but in reality this only meant that there were three times the amount of French chevalliers and gendarmes in comparrison to some 1000 English knights and men-at-arms. We know, that there were several thousand English archers and siege specialists on the field as well, but we simply do not have any contemporary estimate as to how many infantrymen (crosbowmen and such) did the French bring. Neither the archers or the crossbowmen, nor any of the possible billmen, spearmen, halbardier, or what ever were expected to have any impact on the result of the battle.

One might think that such disregard of the infantry was the result of mere arrogance coming from a sort of espirit de corps -sort of elitist social culture. In part it was that, and as in Azincourt, sometimes this sort of arrogance was proven to be fatal, but there were reasonable reasons for this attitude. The archers and crossbowmen and what have you other sorts of infantrymen were brought to field battles only to give a supporting role to the “real” soldiers of the heavy cavalry. Their main function was to serve as siege troops. To provide the necessary arrow fodder and shoot their arrows to make both assaults on ramparts and their defence difficult, but not to solve any field battles or even sieges. Thre were battles fought where a score of few hundred heavy cavalry destroyed several times stronger armies of infantry, suffering hardly any losses in turn. In comparrison the individual infantryman, hired or levied, had rudimentary education to the arts of close combat, was poorly equipped and motivated. The armoured man-at-arms in effect ruled the battlefield wether if he was mounted, dismounted or stood on the parapet of a castle.

The military ability of the man-at-arms did not only provide possibility for him to set himself to lead the society, it was also seen as a justification for him to stand in that position. The relevance of the knightly class in the medieval society has often been misunderstood and not seen as significant as it was, because such institutions as the church painted a bit different picture and gave other excuses for those who held power than their ability for violence and quite a bit of the contemporary sources from said era were written and preserved to posterity by the priesthood. But the medieval era was far from being extremely religious. It was superstitious and religion gave plenty of moralist excuses for the violence, but this was because the priests almost invariably came from the same social class as the men-at-arms. The priests were born as sons of knights, lords and well, other priests. Medieval bishops often had themselves depicted in armour, rather than in religious vestments. In general it seems religions do not set the moral standards for any society, rather the society sets the moral standards for the religion they have adopted. For the medieval European Christians church was not much else but a method to justify the feodalist social system, just like for the modern US Christian fundamentalists their churches are mere methods to justify their Capitalist values.

This dude in the picture is the archibishop of Cologne from around mid 14th century. His shield has the cross emblem, not uncommon heraldic device for less religious troop types either, and his helmet bears the bishops mitre as a heraldic device from wich his status can be easily recognized on the field of battle.

It has been often presented, that the introduction of gunpowder made the heavy cavalry obsolete, and thus ended the era of the knights. But this is a silly notion, as we know that the heavy cavalry retained it’s elite status on the battlefield even long after Napoleon. There are several reasons why heavy cavalry went into decline and foremost of them is that they themselves started to dismount for combat more and more often during the late medieval centuries.

The warhorse was an expensive asset to loose in combat, so it stood to reason not to waste it in so many frontal charges. While the benefit of the cavalry is the hard hitting mobility, this mobility makes it also an unreliable battlefield asset. If the heavy cavalry decides to retreat, they do it faster than any infantry, and that is one of the main reasons why medieval infantry was considered weak and unreliable, as they had to run away from the field long before their mounted masters decided to, if they did not want to be the ones easily cut down in the chase by enemy heavy cavalry. In the late medieval times some military minds gathered, that infantry could be a lot stronger, if it was armed so that it could withstand enemy cavalry charges on it’s own, without the support of the men-at-arms wether mounted or dismounted. Great national armies began to appear as kings and cantons were no longer dependable on the feodalistic protection racket. With the appearance of the national armies and autocracy slowly the national states appeared as well. And thus the medieval social structure based on the monopoly of violence by the heavy cavalryman crumbled. This in turn released all sorts of new ideas, that led to religious reformation, but more importantly to ideals of human value and enlightenment.

Sadly the history of warfare is not just a straight line of violence and of technological innovation separate from the rest of human achievement, but rather the history of human sociological evolution.

If we are to assume, that the universe may not have appeared by natural reason, and that there has had to have been a creator behind the creation, and if we further assume, that this creator is still around, by the same token should we not accept also, that this creator is responsible for all the suffering in the world?

It does not really matter wether we think the creator entity is justified in creating, or allowing evil, for what ever reasons we could possibly excuse this entity for all the suffering and pain in the universe. You see, wether if someone is justified in some action or inaction does not remove the responsibility of the choise to act, or not.

I have been told, that all the suffering is the fault of mankind for having fallen from the grace of a particular god, by a more or less symbolic act of some of our ancestors. This is a vile and immoral concept, since when has anyone been responsible for the actions of their ancestors? What sort of a person would hold anyone responsible for the actions of their ancestors?

I have also been told, that suffering is the result of our free will, but I do not see how that would be a prerequisite for freedom of choises, nor how that would set the alledged creator free from responsibility of having created us as we are. Many of us are fully capable of making choises between two good things and most of us seem to prefer to choose between such options rather than that our choises were between good and bad. If all choises need to be between good and bad, then the creator entity either made and/or makes choises between good and bad, choosing sometimes bad over good (for the heck of it), or this entity has no free will of it’s own. If we look at the world presuming there is an ultimately powerfull creator entity acting behind the scenes, there is no escaping the notion, that this is an entity who has created evil, and allows it to run amock.

Further more, I have been told that the point of evil existing in our present state of existance is for us to learn compassion. This idea was obviously presented by someone who really needed to learn compassion. A child is capable of learning compassion from imaginary fairy tales, that do not have to involve the reality in wich the child lives in any way. As if the suffering of animals and other humans only existed for the benefit of some individuals who are (or possibly were created to be) incapable of learning compassion through imaginatory stories?

You may ask, to whom would a creator of the entire universe be responsible to, if there are no higher authorities, than this creator god? As in might makes right sort of excuse for this creator being beyond our moral estimation. But I expect you would not ask such a silly question, as you my friend, propably already understand, that such a question would represent regressive authoritarianism. That an adult is responsible to a child to protect the child, because the child is less capable than the adult and not vice versa. Should not the same apply between humans and their gods?

Responsibility means taking care of things regardless wether there is someone stronger to answer to, or not. Not because one has to answer to some stronger authority.

If we assume the universe has appeared and formed to the current state of things through natural processes, we are still fully capable of choosing to be moral, that is to provide ourselves and each other with as good lives we are able to. Are we not? Why would we choose otherwise?

Ultimately, the assumption about the creator entity remains beyond our capacity to prove, provide any evidence of it, or even investigate. How should we treat such an assumption? Or do you have any evidence of it existing?



“Hey guys, I think we have a live one here!”

Many Christians profess to have a personal relationship with Jesus. What do they mean? A personal experience impossible to replicate, if one has not experienced it. It is sometimes even presented as the best and foremost evidence they have to believe in the existance of their god.

What do Christians mean when they say they have a personal relationship with their god entity? It is often described some form of conversing between them and their god. They ask their god for advice in choises they have to make and supposedly this god of theirs answers. How? How do they know, that who ever answers is actually their god?

How does one make the distinction between a particular god talking to oneself within the limits of the inner mind of the person experiencing this, from the normal inner dialogue we have? How does one make the distinction between different alledged supernatural entities talking within our minds?

Or are they referring to hearing voices? Hearing voices is not necessarily a sign of schizophrenia and it is far more common than commonly assumed. Be it caused by such serious condition or not, it is a trick of the mind. The physical brain within our cranium. It is perfectly natural, that when a person starts to hear voices, those voices that are echoes of the brainfunctions reflect the cultural heritage of the individual. Sometimes including their religious beliefs and cultural ideas about the supernatural. The Jesus character in the Bible seemed to think, that sort of experience is a form of coexistance with some sort of demons. This makes the Bible appear very much as a book and the Jesus character in it as a typically superstitious human being of the time when the book was written. Does it not?

If the relationship with a particular god entity is not described as much as hearing actual voices inside your head, merely the natural inner dialogue, perhaps even a muted version of it, it still is necessarily connected to the cultural heritage and culturally induced ideas such as particular concepts of gods. Even if a person later in life becomes convinced, that the connection they had to a particular god was not those of a particular god concept of their own cultural heritage, in order to recognize wich god concept fits the experience they remember having had, they first need to become aware of the cultural notion of a particular god that would fit the bill. God concepts are necessarily cultural constructs. Similar god beliefs have appeared ignorant of each other around the globe, but the very same concept has never appeared simultaneously in different cultures indipendend of each other. Instead the succesfull religious movements all require a form of proselytising.

How could a personal experience, limited between our own ears be evidence of a particular god to exist? Even to us ourselves? Most of these experiences are direct reflections of the cultural heritages and subsequent beliefs people already had even before they had the experience. Putting aside the fact, that the personal experience of an individual is presents very poor evidence for a nother person. The obvious cultural connection of recognition of a particular god depending on the culture and experiences of the particular individual, at very least, puts the evidence value of any such experience to question. In any case it reminds us, that either, if there is a god behind such phenomenons this god is “challenged” in trying to convey who this god is to human individuals, or then there are multiple different gods providing evidence of their existance.

Now, if the god of the Christians manifests somehow differently from other gods, and the “personal relationship” is a concept to describe this, it still means, that it is a cultural concept. As this personal relationship seems more common among particular mutually competing Christian sects, it means, that most Christians are not included in this personal relationship. Most Christians in the world are just normal people who have no personal relationships with anything supernatural. Why?

What if there is something supernatural causing these experiences, and the cultural interpretation was just a side-effect of the phenomenon being transmitted to the rest of us, by superstitious and culturally indoctrinated individuals? Well, perhaps, but how likely is that? According to the Occam’s Razor, the more simplistic model of explanation is the more likely truth. If applied to voices in the head, the inner monologue feeling or seeming like it was between the individual and a god, or just a chance occurance seeming like it was an answer to a question presented by the person inside their head, it is still more simple to explain any of those as tricks of the mind, rather than by anything supernatural, that would still require an external verification to even exist as much as to be a possible explanation to the experience.

I have to admit it, if I ever had any such an experience, I would rather have my head examined, than jumped to the conclusion, that a particular deity was trying to make a contanct with me. But is that just my own cultural heritage and bias? I am not immune to my own culture, or the assumptions it provides me. Yet, my ally is the scientific method. As long as it does not provide any direct information about divinities, I am quite happy to neglect any suggestions of gods as fable. Much the same way I neglect any ideas of demons, angels, pixies, unicorns, dragons and such. Besides, being a researcher of history, I have quite scientific evidence of how the beliefs in the supernatural appear. We have no reliable knowledge about anything supernatural, but we do have reliable knowledge about otherwise perfectly rational people being able to make up fantastic stories, believing them against all evidence and even sacrificing themselves for their faith in the most ludicurous and harmfull beliefs. Like for an extreme example the Nazies.

There is an interresting story in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It tells us of a man called Ananias and his wife Saphira. This couple had joined the early Christians and followed the order by Jesus to sell all their property and give it to the poor. Exept that they did not follow it to the letter. How many Christians have ever done so?

In the story Ananias hides some of the money instead of giving it all to the Apostoles. Peter the Apostole then tells Ananias, that it was foolish of him to try to betray their god, who surely would know about such decietfull attempt. Incidentally Ananias dies on the spot. Some young men take his body out and bury him rigth after and as his wife Saphira comes to look for her husband Peter asks her if she knew about the money. She claims she had no knowledge of any money, but Peter who somehow knows she is lying tells her so and tells her that her husband has allready been buried because he tried to hide this money, and then she also dies.

What is the morals of the story? That Ananias and Saphira died because they secretly decided not to give all the money they had from selling their own house to the Apostoles? Is this the description of the values of THE religion of set up by the alledgedly benevolent creator of the universe,  or a healthy social movement,  or rather a cult, or a pyramid shceme hoax, or even a criminal mob?

I have been told it was all because the couple did not have deep enough faith, even though they had committed themselves enough to sell all their property and give a share to the congregation. I have often been also told, that all the bad stuff in the Bible is only in the Old Testament. But this story is one of the most wile ones in the entire book. You see, here we have a couple who have committed themselves to this doomsday cult, wich promises that the end of the world comes within their lifetimes, but just in case it does not, they hide some of their own money from the cult leadership. And when the cult leaders find out about it, they are killed. Did this couple end up in heaven, or hell?

Now, even if we accept the silly supernatural aspects of the story, it still boils down to, that the couple were killed for not giving their money to their god (i.e. cult leaders) and/or being a bit skeptical about the entire sherade. What could ever justify this horrid storyline, or any “morals” possibly derived from it?

What sort of person would accept this story as moral and why?