Four things or five you need to start deconverting from any invisible mythical sky god religion.
1. Read. Read more than just the official versions your church allows. You’ll be surprised what they hide from you. If you all ready know? Shame on you and skip to step 2. Stop apologizing for them. Read something contrary. You’ll be surprised at the common sense kindness of the atheist community. Smart, accepting, and reasonable. Not for power, not for money, not for control. For a free mind and acceptance. For peace. Really!
2. Observe. Even the simplest observation on your own time can easily overturn the miles of apologetic writing your church has split hairs to write. Don’t forget to look around you. Take a hike in the canyons. The earth is older than that. Cmon man! And there’s more!
3. Critical thinking. For instance, the jesus story has been told almost verbatim by several ancient civilizations long before Christianity. Virgin birth, half man, half god, dies to save everyone, celebrated at Christmas time and they were gods. But hey! This time it’s for real. Right! Think about it. Look it up. It’s all out there. Just peek outside the box. You’ve been duped! And there’s more!! Way more.
4. Whiskey. Relax. The world is not coming to an end. No one is coming out of the sky to save or rapture you. It’s up to us to fix our situation. So let’s put away the waiting for Jesus and praying for the end to come soon and get to work. We’re wasting time. A lot of time. Enjoy life and be brothers and sisters. Religion divides what otherwise would be whole. Try it. What is there to lose. What you’ve been doing is not working. Give it a chance! Peek!
If you’re still here this might be for you. I have a secret surprise I’ve waited for the end, and this is very typical of the folks I’ve met. They are liberated from guilt and they are happy. They have a high moral standard based on natural laws and consequences and we love the earth. A true deep desire to preserve the world. Our way of life
Follow some atheist books and blogs. The basics will get you by, but there is a world of good reading and real knowledge out there.
I was a follower for 50 years I’m sorry to say. I’m actually a little embarrassed by it. I walked away a few years ago from the mind games, guilt, ambiguous doctrine, cover ups, brainwashing, poorly translated mythology I was supposed to analyze and work out my salvation. If I guess wrong? Oops. Sorry jim. You’re going to hell. It was all a trap to keep me payin and prayin and obeyin. Believing a stifling dogma has consequences that restrict growth of the mind and well being. And I defended it!
respectfully–jim, the common atheist
Did I miss anything?
TheCommonAtheist 
Though I am a Freethinking Humanist, there’s many crossovers, commonality between us and Atheists; one major commonality: fuller truer Freedom and Liberty! 🙂 But one I feel is HUGE is a much higher standard and sense of Accountability or Ownership for our actions, words, and behavior — i.e. we do NOT pass it off to some mythological Proxy or Substitute!
A good post Jim! Thanks. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you sir. Couldn’t agree more. Accountability is our own responsibility. Hope you got your boxes unpacked at the new place. Or just put them under the tree. Happy holidays
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interestingly I would have prescribed your first 3 needs to recognize the truth of Christianity. I also would have prescribed your fourth, I just would have skipped the whiskey part and gone right to the relax part (although I do not think drinking in moderation is wrong).
As for feeling freedom, interestingly that is how adult conversions to Christianity feel (and even those who came to Christ at a young age, like myself). I know because my church has had hundreds of adult conversions in the past 4 years and that is their story: freedom.
Please allow me ask this honest question: do you feel more free because you feel free to “sin” (although you would not call it that)? I have thought honestly about what kind of person I would be if I were to become an atheist. I have to admit that I would not be as moral as it sounds as you are. I would sleep around and not feel guilty about it. I would curse and not feel guilty about it. I would flip bad drivers off and not feel guilty about it. I would not give my money to charity and not feel guilty about it. I spend my money on me and not feel guilty about it. All that does not mean that I would not be kind to those who were kind to me or to those who could help me. But I know I would not feel guilty because there is no such thing as moral guilt except for what exists in my own mind, and I could abolish those thoughts.
I think most people who struggle with guilt and shame in a religious construct are those who do not actually understand or have not been taught the correct understanding of Scripture. Did you come from a very strict religious upbringing? I would not be surprised that you feel more free if you removed yourself from a very strict religious upbringing that had many man-mad religious rules. I would hope you would leave that environment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am going to have to address these after tonight. We’re doing our Christmas Eve. But I am interested in answering your questions. Merry Christmas 🎁🎄
LikeLike
With all due respect I find it interesting that if one did not have religion one would be openly “sinning ”
To me that speaks to the personal core. Does one need religion to harness them into being moral?
I have met many religious people who struggle with pornography and the other vices. I’ve also met atheists who have a strong moral code. I feel people can do the right thing and give to others, not be sexual deviants and awful humans without the restrictions of religion and threats of being damned. Who then has a brighter light shining from within? Maybe one should realize that the power to be decent is within themselves no matter what. It’s always about personal choice.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for your reply.
You are correct that it speaks to the personal core. I agree with you that there are atheists out there who are more naturally moral than many Christians. However, even those moral atheists still have many moral failures. Christianity is not only about being moral, but about being forgiven for one’s moral failures. Christians (who understand Scripture) should not be claiming moral superiority, but claiming moral forgiveness.
C. S. Lewis addresses the fact that some atheists seem more moral than some Christians in his book “Mere Christianity”. I highly recommend it.
I agree that people can do the right thing without religion. However, there is no right thing without God. There is no brighter light inside atheism because there is no moral standard inside atheism. Atheism provides no moral construct. Any atheist could decide any thing they wanted on morality and be just as justified as the next. In other words, one atheist could decide to give to charity and another could decide not to. Neither one would be any the more right because atheism does not demand one to give to charity. If atheist A thought he was the brighter light, then he would be self-righteous, not more moral.
You are right that inside atheism it is about personal choice. Therefore no one person could be judged by another as less moral because it is solely based on personal choice.
LikeLike
Hey having someone else put a fence around you restricts you from your potential. Who decides the size of that fence? That fence is what allows stagnation in societal progression. But back to where we left off yesterday. I could give you a thousand reasons if I had the time. Here are a couple of random posts from atheists I don’t even follow. But it gives you a sense of what it is all about. If you look at the comment above from Professor Taboo you see the sincerity of commitment to our fellow man. I have thought about right and wrong and set standards. I haven’t changed to bad behavior since deconversion, but I do have a strong sense of right and wrong based on natural reasoning and a commitment to fellow sentient beings. Stealing causes harm to another and that makes it naturally a wrong behavior. I wouldn’t cheat on my wife either for the same reason. If you take an untrained teenager into romance, and then the person is cheated on it hurts them. Naturally that is a wrong behavior. If drinking is damaging to a family member or yourself, same thing. And there are inherent consequences to those said behaviors. You wind up divorced, alone, or in jail so I avoid them. I would never intentionally cause harm to any person.
This here is another atheist speaking in morality. This is typical sincerity. of those I know. Quote #1
“Being an atheist brings a tremendous amount of freedom. I’m not worried if god approves. I decide what’s right and wrong. Yes, that’s subjective and elastic, but so are the morals of “god” and his believers.”
“On the other hand, as an atheist, I understand that there are certain obligations that come with being human and with the awareness that all we have is each other. I’m obligated to be courteous to my fellow man, even to those I don’t like. It doesn’t mean I must have relationships with those folks, but when I’m cruel or unkind, I only show who I am, not who they are. Being kind doesn’t mean that I approve of someone’s actions or that I like who they are, it only means I extend the civility of a sentient being.” That from https://raisingkidswithoutreligion.net/
This is typical atheism. Guys like Bill gates and Richard Branson. Uber-Philanthropies giving because of need. Not because of a command. Self aware and proactive because god, though all the prayers, is not doing anything.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry. I forgot to reply to this.
First, fences are necessary. Why do we have stop signs, traffic lights, and speed limits? To restrain mankind’s impulses. There is nothing wrong with such restraints, in fact they are necessary. And of course there are punishments put in place for people who refuse to keep laws.
Again, I understand that there are moral atheists. But atheism itself does not provide any moral imperative. Atheism frees mankind of any moral obligation. If one decides to place a moral obligation on himself, great. But this atheist is no better than an atheist who decides he does not have to abide by any moral guideline. There are many atheist who abide by moral anti-realism, which means morality does not exist in actuality.
LikeLike
Judeo-Christian morality has been more elastic than any athiest I’ve ever known. Slavery, concubines, plural wives, stoning, inequality and double standards for men and women. A humanist/atheist would never allow this, as we are all we have, we have an obligation that incites fairness and equality. It demands it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim,
Slavery in the Old Testament was not the same thing as the slavery in the modern world. Slaves were more like servants in that they had rights, could leave a master if they abused them, and had many other protections that cannot be listed here.
Jewish law actually did not say anything about allowing concubines, it only gives laws protecting them from abuse. The only law that talks about plural wives are laws that protect them from favoritism and actually that kings were not allowed to have multiple wives (Deuteronomy 17:17). So the laws were not allowing it, but protecting the women who were in a situation like that. God knew that men would treat women unfairly, so He created laws that protected them.
I could address every issue you bring up, but this is not the place for that.
As far as humanist/atheist never allowing these things, that is completely incorrect. The majority of atheists may not now allow for slavery, but there were plenty of atheists in the past who had no problem with slavery and even saw it as natural. I honestly have not read any atheists on polygamy, but I know plenty of atheists have no problem with multiple sexual partners.
Lastly, there is no obligation inside atheism. Humanism is a brand of atheism, but it is not the same thing as atheism. Atheism obliterates obligation, not creates it.
LikeLike
If plural marriage was illegal why would Nathan the prophet marry so many to David with gods blessing? Except in the case of Bathsheba it was all cool. Very elastic anyway. We disagree here. Obligation is automatic when you realize no god exists. It’s all up to us is a powerful motivator.
LikeLike
Nowhere does Scripture say Nathan married David and his many wives with God’s blessing.
Nietzsche would disagree with you as a host of other atheists would as well. They saw obligation go completely out the window as well as the meaning of life.
LikeLike
Have Christians yet even decided why we’re are here and why the earth is here? What is the meaning of life? For a great number of people we have only found real meaning after religion. Not the endless search.
LikeLike
We are here to for a number of reasons. We are here because of a creative God. This God gave us a life that is supposed to be eternal. As it says in Genesis, we are to subdue the earth, meaning to discover, invent, and create. We are also here to love God and each other.
I believe that if mankind had not sinned, then we would already have colonized other planets. But we were slowed down because of sin.
LikeLike
With all vagary and hide and seek games of this invisible god that answers prayers these days by the number of likes on the Facebook post, and with all the ambiguity of scripture and religion, I have chosen not to believe. Through all the unanswered prayers and torment religion has played in the world, you choose to believe. It is a choice. I have been much happier and liberated since leaving religion. I know what works for me and many others. By choice
LikeLike
2 Samuel 12:8. Wives are given to David
LikeLike
Yes, it says wives were given to David, but it says nothing about God or Nathan blessing it. It says a lot of things that David did but it does not say God blesses it. Just because it is in Scripture does not mean God desired it.
In fact, there are even laws that God created that God would rather have not been there. But God created the laws because He knew that we needed them because He knew we would sin anyway. Christ indicates this in Matthew 19:8. God allowed for divorce because He knew that men would not treat their unloved wives fairly. But God would rather not have men divorce their wives (“from the beginning it was not so”).
LikeLike
You’re splitting hairs. That is usually a red flag for me
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not splitting hairs, I am correcting your wrong assumption. Factually, you are wrong. That is something you should admit. You claimed Nathan and God blessed David’s marriages. There is no evidence of this. There is plenty of evidence that David did things that were not blessed by God.
LikeLike
Nathan was speaking as the lord in that chapter.
LikeLike
You think Nathan wrote the book of 2 Samuel? You may be the only person in the world who believes that. 2 Samuel was written by the scribes, the historians, and it did not give any blessing, but documented the event.
LikeLike
Nathan said!! Thus saith the lord!! How hard is that that? “And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
2 Samuel 12:7-8 KJV
http://bible.com/1/2sa.12.7-8.kjv
LikeLike
Notice that it says that God gave Saul’s wives “into [David’s] bosom”. But NONE OF SAUL’S WIVES WERE DAVID’S WIVES. David did not marry Saul’s wives, that means you are incorrectly interpreting this verse. That means this verse is not saying that God gave many wives to David, it means that God gave the authority of the kingdom and its people to David. You have misunderstood the verse.
LikeLike
You are splitting hairs. Davids masters wives were given to David. And they wee David’s wives “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.”
2 Samuel 12:11 KJV
http://bible.com/1/2sa.12.11.kjv
LikeLike
Again, I am not splitting hairs, I am correcting your incorrect assumption. David took control of the kingdom, that is all it says. You are misunderstanding the verse. Verse 11 is a prophesy that David’s son, Absalom, would commit adultery with David’s wives (and concubines).
LikeLike
This is a good example of what’s wrong. The Bible verses here are so plain , yet you are blinded by faith. It says what it says as clear as any passage. You have resigned to your prison cell. I myself spun my head with this crap far too long. 50 years. No more.
LikeLike
You are correct, it is plain, but you are not allowing yourself to see the right understanding. Because you do not understand the language, you are ascribing an incorrect understanding of it.
LikeLike
I guess we went to different bible schools. We spend the years sifting through what god meant. It is a waste of time and energy. And this is an easy one. We could spend time fixing the worlds problems, but the very nature of the Bible demands your full attention to details that never happened. Up next– The Exodus
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amen! 👍🏼
LikeLike
It’s very plain. No interpretation needed. God gave him his wives. Another strike against elastic Christian moralism
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not directly answer your question about if one needs religion to harness them into being moral. So here I will give a short answer.
We all need some kind of harness. Even atheists have harnesses. Their harness may be government laws or cultural shame. For Christians, yes, there is a harness, but it is not seen as a bad thing, but as a good thing. Just as the fence around the dog is a good thing since if the dog were allowed to roam free he may be hit by a car, so are the moral guidelines put in place by God a good thing since our sin often times takes us to dangerous places.
LikeLike
Ah, the old dogmatic assertion that atheists have no moral code. They are incapable of love and honor. Always running around willy nilly sinning at every opportunity. Terrible terrible people you should avoid at all costs.
Pretty pathetic strawman. The atheists I know are pretty good people. You should get out more.
LikeLike
Thank you for your reply. However, I did not assert what you claim I assert. In fact, I asserted the opposite in other comments. You were quick to judge my thoughts, jumping to conclusions and condemning me as ignorant (“You should get out more.”). I am sorry that you thought I was saying that, but I did not.
What I do assert is that atheism is amoral, not immoral. Atheism itself provides no moral construct. This does not mean that atheists themselves cannot be moral. It is not that they are “terrible people you should avoid at all costs.” It is that their worldview, atheism, does not provide a moral construct that they can claim others should live by. Inside atheism, morality is a personal creation. That means one atheist could give to charity and feel justified in his actions, and another atheist could not give to charity and feel justified in his actions; neither one would be more right or wrong.
I actually have many atheist friends and I enjoy our conversations immensely even though we disagree. I hope that you can be one of those friends as well.
LikeLike
Amoral:
lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.
I’m still pretty sure you should get out more.
LikeLike
Please realize that there is more than one definition to words. The meaning that I meant is below. It is the first definition from dictionary.com.
not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
That definition accurately describes atheism, not necessarily atheists.
LikeLike
…and how would you actually know I or any other atheist is without moral quality?
A pecksniff view I think if there ever was one.
The first rule of holes, when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not sure you are actually reading what I am typing. I said ATHEISM is amoral, not necessarily ATHEIST. I wrote that atheists could be moral. The worldview of atheism does not provide a moral framework, therefore it is amoral.
LikeLike
I think we get what you are saying. But since morality is but a natural development without the aid of religious dogma, it is not moral or amoral. It just is. Naturally based on consequence of action and laws.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not say morality is moral or amoral, I said atheism is amoral. Morality is a natural development, but it loses all its authority without God. Atheism cannot create a consistent moral construct since it is all individual based, hence it is amoral in essence.
LikeLike
You are being sold a bill of goods that already exists in nature. There is no moral authority with god. He isn’t there. It is up to us and we could be more fair today to all people than the Judeo Christian laws we have now that allow discrimination and servitude
LikeLike
How then do we separate the atheist from the atheism?
I suppose you would tell me your religion is moral?
Maybe I do have this all wrong. But I have to wonder at this point, do you get nosebleeds from being so far up on that high horse?
LikeLike
Of all people he quoted Nietzsche. The only thing he had in common with modern Christians was he lost all his mental faculties before he died
LikeLike
A worldview is distinct from its adherents. Atheism claims that there is no God, it makes no moral claims, which means it is amoral. However, there are atheists who then create moral constructs, but atheism does not provide any framework itself, the individual creates his own framework.
Christianity is moral in the sense that it inherently makes moral claims. Atheism is amoral in that it does not inherently make moral claims. You can disagree with the moral claims of Christianity, but atheism makes no moral claims with which to disagree.
You are again judging me. Why do you think I am on a high horse?
LikeLike
Oh goody! He fell for it.
Here is some morality for you:
1. “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)
2. “So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)
3. ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)
4. “And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)
5. “This is what the Lord Almighty says… ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
6. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
7. : “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
I could go on, but I believe the point has been made.
You might want to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
So yeah, let us not speak of religious morality until they actually have some.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When you read the scriptures you need to take time to ponder what god meant…. Or realize it was an account of psychotic inbreds that had a little power. Looks like curtroo has left the building. Thanks for jumping in!
LikeLike
It wasn’t that I did not get the point he was trying to make. It is the fact that the point is A. irrelevant. and B. a case of wishful thinking where he sets himself up to feel good for making some small point while at the same time spouting from his high horse of religious morality, assuming his position is somehow neutral when in fact it is not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know. He’s still busy behind the scenes trying to wordsmith another scripture to fit his liking.
LikeLike
And I liked Badlanders point. “And yes religion can’t make a rotten person good. It can only justify or mask them”. He already admitted he has a rotten core. Now he can spend his life trying to justify a book full of rotten cores
LikeLike
I didn’t mean to run anybody off, but I was feeling the need to sharpen my fangs a little bit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I ran into him on a different post and he seemed like he was ready to look. He isn’t. Guys like that take up a lot of time when the goggles are still on tight.
LikeLike
And no filter required here! But we try to be civil to a point
LikeLike
I’m sure you misunderstood these verses. 😂
LikeLike
That has to be it, right? I must not have had my babble glasses on.
You can live the social construct they build around you, all the love and the gooey sugar coated horse shit. But at some point one has to confront the discrepancies, the lies, the bigotry, and the hate… in religion. Or find yourself a willing proxy to its function.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You know my story. I was in deep and they keep me too busy to look around. Or debating unimportant ambiguous scripture.
LikeLike
Yours is a powerful story to be sure.
So…how does it feel to be free from morality? I bet you have been busy knocking down little old ladies and taking their purses, having sex willy nilly with any old willing filly, and just in general being a complete disgrace to society? If you are and want some company let me know 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
I really like smearing animal blood on everyone around just for fun, but down in the cave is where all the good stuff happens. Other than that I haven’t changed but have a more positive outlook on life, fear, dying. All those types of thing are much better without the good church people’s judging me. And I don’t have to pay and apologize for awful doctrine. Life is good!
LikeLike
You have a secret lair?!
I’m jealous!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I prefer sacred to secret. It off limits to those who aren’t worthy. And for 10% of your gross you can sit in a special room where I can make up some phony promises and give you secret passwords and handshakes to see the other levels. People eat it up but they don’t know why!
LikeLike
I want a super secret password and a club handshake! Please? Only 10%? All of that super neato stuff should be worth a lot more than that.
Ok, it has been a long coulpe of days I am miserable, battling the flu, hot flashes, cold chills, body aches from hell, I need to rest 🙂 Take good care of your resident apologist, maybe when I’m feeling better I can tackle some of that nonsense. Maybe someone can take a swing while I lie down. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good luck. Feel better. Thanks
LikeLike
I can’t stop laughing!!!
LikeLike
I fell for it? Unfortunately you show how little you know about Scripture by using the verses you do. I am going to explain them and then let you have the last word.
1. This is a cry for justice. Babylon invaded Jerusalem and killed many of its adults and children. This cry is for these acts to not be forgotten by God, it is not a call to action for Jewish people. Indeed, Babylon would be taken over later because of their injustices. Of course I know you do not like the idea of infants being killed, but what you do not realize is that babies being killed means they go to be with God, so death to God is not the same thing as it is to us. You can choose to not like that God allowed babies to die, or you could open your mind to the fact that these babies dying is not death to them, but an utterance into the presence of God.
2. Just because something is mentioned, it does not mean that it is condoned. A number of terrible occurrences are mentioned in Scripture and are not condoned. In fact, shortly after this story in Judges it says, “and everybody did what was right in their own eyes”, emphasizing the deplorable actions of the people. So this is just bad reading comprehension on your part.
3. By quoting this you only reveal how little you know. If you were to read the rest of this story, you would know that God stops Jacob from offering Isaac. God did this to test Jacob and to create an example for other people for all time. That lesson is that God is first in our lives, not other things. Again, this is a reading comprehension issue.
4. This is the same thing as point 2. Just because he rashly made a vow does not mean God wanted Jephthah to fulfill that vow.
5. Yes, God commanded Israel to destroy Amalek. But Amalek was a terrible tribe of people. First, the Amalekites attacked Israel first and were bent on destroying Israel (Exodus 17:8). Second, God knows the future and knew that the Amalekites would always seek to destroy Israel (read Esther). Third, as far as the infants being killed, this was actually an act of mercy towards them as I stated in point 1. Children are considered innocent in God’s eyes, so they died, but then were in God’s presence.
6. You use this verse not knowing its context and not using other verses that clearly show women teaching men. This verse means more than what you think. I will add this article here to give more information. http://juniaproject.com/5-reasons-stop-using-1-timothy-212-against-women/
7. Slavery was not the same in the first century as it was practiced in our modern times. Slavery in the first century was closer to servanthood as people often times voluntarily became slaves, and slaves had rights and could become free. This verse is assuming that the slave owners are not Christians. If they were not Christians and the slaves still showed them respect, this was a powerful witness to the slave owners. You also need to open your eyes to the fact that this life is not the end of life. If a Christian slave endured a cruel owner being a powerful witness, then God was storing up rewards for the slave, securing a glorious future, more glorious and enduring than anything this life can offer. Lastly, you conveniently leave out the verses that talk about if you were a slave, it would be better to become free (1 Corinthians 7:21-23), which means Christian owners of slaves would want to free their slaves since it was better for them, and the verses that command a slave owner to treat a slave with respect (Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1). You also ignore the historical fact that with the rise of Christianity, slavery became extinct in the Roman empire.
8. I am well aware of the Catholic Church sex abuses. This again is not a mark against Christianity itself, but against the people who incorrectly followed it. If these priests would follow Scripture, they would not have done what they did. They were at fault, not Scripture or Christianity.
Stalin was an atheist who murdered millions of people, does that necessarily make atheism itself a murdering belief system? No. That is a logical fallacy called a straw man or a kind of ad hominem (guilt by association).
9. Lastly, you conveniently ignored the many things that Christianity has done to advance society (things such as hospitals and universities, scientific advancement …).
LikeLike
Oh sweet jeebus! The old it’s ok they all got killed, cuz they’re with the dog now routine. And the “they were terrible people” excuse? And slavery was different then than it is now canard? The Catholic church sex fiasco is not a mark against x-ianity inanity? If anyone was missing the Stalin spot on thier bingo card there it is!
When it gets to be dipstick-o-clock I have to check out. There is nowhere left but the downward slope from here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shelldigger,
You misrepresent my arguments and simply write off the logic of them by ranting. It is not worth debating a ranter. You list a bunch of “bingo” slots in your last comment and then say I listed a single bingo slot by mentioning Stalin. But what you failed to see was that I actually did not say Stalin proves atheism is flawed, I actually said that Stalin does not necessarily reflect atheism. So I was actually defending your belief system, but you were too blinded by your rant to see so.
LikeLike
Logic? Logic? All you have convinced me of, is that you are perhaps one of the most despicable kind of people I have ever run into.
Anyone who can casually hand wave away all of these obviously disgusting scenarios with such sickening aplomb has a screw loose.
“but what you do not realize is that babies being killed means they go to be with God,”
Read that again and spin it into something it aint.
“God did this to test Jacob and to create an example for other people for all time.”
What kind of motherfucker god would do such a thing?
“But Amalek was a terrible tribe of people” and “, as far as the infants being killed, this was actually an act of mercy towards them”
You disgust me!
“You use this verse not knowing its context”
In what context are women supposed to shut the hell up?
“Slavery was not the same in the first century as it was practiced in our modern times.”
Did you take a slave poll then? Were all the fucking slaves throughout history pleased as pudding to be slaves?
“I am well aware of the Catholic Church sex abuses. This again is not a mark against Christianity itself, but against the people who incorrectly followed it”
No true Scotsman much?
“No. That is a logical fallacy” Oh good you do know what a fallacy is.
Atheism is NOT a belief system. So don’t make yourself look like that much more a fool by using the term.
So, Im curious, where did you get your apologist credentials? Are you one of those AIG graduates who has been released upon society to help all of us woeful heathens to see the light? If yes, you are doing a terrible job.
I will close with this, Charles Manson probably thought he was great guy too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could write his rebuttals for him. I’ve heard it all, and the justification of this all comes from the same schools. This is why I left religion. I followed along the blogs here quite a while and I started commenting. I was curious, but true blue. One day I commented and I got stopped dead in my tracks. “I had a moment of clarity about myself. “What if you were right?” You know who it was? Violet. And that got me to actually start thinking. Son don’t think your efforts are useless. I was the cutroo 5 years ago. Have t seen anything from violet for quite a while. You know who I’m talking about?
LikeLike
Yes I know Violet. She is a good one. Does she know she was instrumental in your journey?
Violet has been quiet for a while and many of the WP crowd we run with have expressed some concern.
I am going to let this go. I have dealt with a crank flat earther, and now a x-ian jihadist (someone who can justify/condone any number of atrocities as long as it can be warped into somehow god said it was okey dokey) in just the last few days. I can only take so much of this crap at a time, and being sick doesn’t help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No she doesn’t know. But hoping to thank her one day. Cutroo has all the info he needs. Thanks. Now he needs to take a look at himself and make a decision. Get well soon
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey if you get a chance I’d like to hear your thoughts on my last post “The double slit”. Thanks good man!
LikeLike
I’ll give it a look, but be warned I’m still pretty ornery with the flu 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s here now too.
LikeLike
I have to ask and hope you will share what branch of Christianity you belong to. Maybe I could understand you better if I knew your baseline. What doctrine you subscribe to.
LikeLike
I do not doctrinally subscribe to any denomination wholly. I claim Christianity alone. I realize this is not very helpful, but it is true of me. While there are denominations that I would line up very closely to, there is not one denomination that I am a member of. I currently go to a nondenominational church.
I base my doctrinal convictions based on years of Scripture study, early church fathers studies, and other Christian philosophers. If you knew who Ravi Zacharias was, then you would have a very good understanding of where I fall on a number of issues.
However, I do have a background that has helped to shape me. I was raised in the Baptist denomination, mostly Southern Baptist. I have since attended several other denominations and do not claim to be a Baptist. I went to a college where I was trained to not believe in God and that Christianity was just a made up religion. I had to investigate what I believed. I read all that they wanted to me to read that defended their claims and I also read authors such as C. S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Henry Morris, Josh McDowell and a host of others. I became convinced of the truth of Christianity over the other options.
Sorry I could not give a shorter reply. Thank you for asking. I appreciate the sincerity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It does help. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.I know you mean well and stand by your beliefs. I hope that you will not lump atheism and atheists into one category and think of us as savages without morals or a moral code.
Please understand that the Bible is just a book that I personally don’t believe in. When you quote it, it’s as if you were quoting The Shining to me. It is just a book written by men. I had a nice chuckle at the exchanges shared because it reminded me of a conversation I was roped into about Star Wars vs Star Trek.
Having a little peek into the window of what molded your belief system aides in communication with respect. To me if that’s what works for you, more power to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Valleygem,
I actually take pains to separate atheism from atheists. In fact, I had to point out that atheism is distinct from atheist to an atheist on this thread. I have blogged before about how atheists could take on many forms, and yes, they could be moral, very moral.
I also understand that the Bible is not authoritative to you. When I quote Scripture to atheists, I quote it as a source confirming Christian beliefs, not as an authority for the atheist to acquiesce to. When I quote Scripture to an atheist it is to clarify Scripture’s stance, not to demand the atheist to follow it.
LikeLike
I think we get that Curtroo. When I was in the faith it was my life too. Everything Jesus all the time. Not till I tested my beliefs in a larger audience did I start to see that maybe I was mistaken. I saw a meme a while back saying “be humble, you might be wrong”. When you throw faith aside for a minute and see how others see it, it really didn’t hold any correct moral value or unique truth. Just a lot of immorality and ambiguity that requires further explains. If it so true and so right and moral, Why all the justification. Religion doesn’t make a bad man moral, but it does justify him or cover for him. And if you see things in that light, it might be worth a look.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim,
I actually was educationally trained to not be a Christian. However, I found Christianity to be intellectually accurate. The same could be true for many great thinkers, so I do not think that it is simply a matter of opening one’s mind. My mind I believe is very open.
I would have to disagree that at least Christianity does not make a bad man moral. I I have personally witnessed and have read many testimonies of bad men becoming Christians and becoming moral. I just got off the phone with someone who became a Christian as an adult in the past year and he said he did not know what love was until he became a Christian.
I do not justify bad morality that is recorded in Scripture, I simply explained why it occurred. Just because it occurs in scripture, does not mean it is condoned by scripture. I also try to explain to people to look at things through God’s eyes. Many people look at God’s actions through human’s eyes and do not take eternity and other things into account.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Been a pleasure for today. I have to go run some errands. If you think of anything else I’ll check in this evening. Or see you on some other posts.
LikeLike
I agree that it is time to move to another post. I hope you have a great day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One more thing I can add that can definitely help: I am not Calvinist or a Predestinationist. In other words, I believe in the free will of the individual and that God does not determine every act that happens. That is a big one. I could call myself Arminianist, but even that may be too specific. Does that help?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know spending a lot of time with something it becomes saturating and skews our ability to see outside that. I was there too. Everything I read was religion related and I failed to have a balance of knowledge and thought for far too long. That’s why I encouraged people to peek elsewhere. Things aren’t what they seem when one thing is all you read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, a large amount of what I read comes from opinions against me.
LikeLike
Well I have been there too. Everything was in defense of the faith. It was mostly all I knew
LikeLike
“do you feel more free because you feel free to “sin” (although you would not call it that)?”
Depends.
If you look at it as “I am a sinner because I was flawed from the start and can never achieve what this god wants from me so I need to grovel every day of my life else I burn in hell, and I might anyways” then yes. I am happy to be free of Original Sin and go on with my bad self.
If you look at it as the stereotype of “without fear of divine punishment atheists run rampant” … yeah, no. It’s actually HARDER to not have whips and chains driving you towards a prescribed morality, because you have to
a) constantly recheck your own moral compass to see where you might have gone wrong and how you might do better, and that involves a never ending process of self reflection and learning and improving yourself
and b) live with yourself when you mess up. That can be the toughest part. To take responsibility and carry your burdens/sins with you all the rest of your days. To pay for your wrongdoing in your own pain, always. No magical dude on the cross (or stake, whichever you believe) washing it away for me, nor would I want that. To quote the good Captain: “You know that pain and guilt can’t be taken away with a wave of a magic wand. They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my pain taken away! I need my pain!”
“I have to admit that I would not be as moral as it sounds as you are. I would sleep around and not feel guilty about it”
Funny thing, that. Over the years lots of Christian acquaintances of mine got divorced over serial cheating. Sure they feel guilty the entire time, but it never seems to stop them.
Me, I don’t fear divine punishment. I fear hurting another human being. Using them for my own gratification. If that’s what they’re after, too … well that would be alright then, I just happen to not be the type. Meaning that at my age I have pathetically fewer notches on my bedpost than most Christians I know. Bugger.
“I would curse and not feel guilty about it. I would flip bad drivers off and not feel guilty about it”
YES! Sweet, sweet freedom! Creative colorful metaphors! LOTS of them! As blasphemous as I please! Let’s face it, “Oh, random-fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!” or “Aaargh, primitive-and-outmoded-concept on a crutch!” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
“I would not give my money to charity and not feel guilty about it”
If I needed to be guilt-ed by a deity into helping fellow humans in distress (or puppies! How must ANYONE be guilted into helping PUPPIES!) I’d seriously wonder what was wrong with me.
“But I know I would not feel guilty because there is no such thing as moral guilt except for what exists in my own mind, and I could abolish those thoughts.”
Ah, if only. There, I think, we’ve reached the core of the major misconception. Those pesky thoughts are a bugger to abolish, even and especially without a god. Unless we are talking about individuals with certain personality disorders, who can and do shut off compassion, empathy, self reflection at will. Funny thing again, many of those are drawn to religions and cults, or start them.
For context: Agnostic with serious skepticism/dislike for organized religion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You. Are. The. Winner! Thanks. That was a lot but necessary. Glad you came by!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Weeee! *Clutches virtual trophy and canters off into the sunset* 😎
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your response. As you said at the end of your comment, you dislike organized religion. I would agree with you in that man-made religious rules create more problems than they solve. It seems as if your problems are not not with Christianity itself, but with the man-made religious rules that many people have attached to Christianity. For instance, you talk about guilt being a driving force in Christianity. However, it is not guilt that is the main driving force, love is. Acceptance and love is the main motivation for obedience, not guilt. Of course guilt and pain plays a role, but they are secondary motivations, not primary. Love dominates guilt. The apostle John said, “Love casts out all fear”, so fear should not be the primary motivating force. Unfortunately some religious people made it the primary force, but that is not a mark on Christianity itself, but on the people who incorrectly represented it. Scripture agrees with you that pain and guilt should be a part of one’s experience, but they should not dominate.
“Over the years lots of Christian acquaintances of mine got divorced over serial cheating. Sure they feel guilty the entire time, but it never seems to stop them.”
This again is not a mark on Christianity itself but on the people who did not keep Christian principles. Free will is still allowed. Also, I wrote a blog recently on how most self-proclaimed Christians are not actually Christians, so I wonder if that is true of your acquaintances.
“Ah, if only. There, I think, we’ve reached the core of the major misconception. Those pesky thoughts are a bugger to abolish, even and especially without a god. Unless we are talking about individuals with certain personality disorders, who can and do shut off compassion, empathy, self reflection at will.”
I know plenty of non-religious people who do not habitually donate to charity and they do not have any personality disorders. They simply recognize the fact that they worked hard for what they earned and they do not have any inherent obligation to anybody. That is simply recognizing the truth of atheism. Their admittance, not mine. They do not blog about their thoughts because they would be condemned … even by self-righteous atheists.
I would like to clarify that I do not donate out of guilt. I do so out of love primarily and obligation secondarily, but the obligation admittedly disintegrates without a God.
LikeLike
From my personal conversations with Christians it is nearly all of them that are dissatisfied with organized religion, mega churches, and everyone thinks everyone else is doing it wrong. Reminds me of common sense. Everyone thinks they have it. But common sense comes from being able to apply multiple experiences to solve a new problem, or address something you’ve never done before and succeed. I have had many many experiences with religion and scripture and Christianity. I have applied what I have learned to solve the issues in scripture, doctrine, and religious bias and it comes up short. The only way it stays together is god gets a free pass when things don’t work. When prayer is unanswered “god knows best”. When you pray and people are still starving god knows best. When the someone finds their friggin keys after a prayer it glory to god. What a joke! He isn’t there. But someone provided a road map that leads nowhere but creates a lot of conjecture and endless debate called the Bible. While we sit back and debate the exodus which never happened, life goes on and we solve nothing. Facebook prayers and likes to save the sick child don’t do a dam thing. Neither does anything else with prayer. Look for tiny clues that your prayer was answered and give a lot of credit to god for something that normally resolves itself anyway with a little time. Or a good doctor. But God steadied the hand of the surgeon who learned it all from the antithesis of religion. Science. Athiest freakin scientists are “Christians unaware” doing the lords errand but they don’t even know it. Excuses for god over and over and over. When I stepped out a few years and homesteaded in the Panama jungle I was able to get clarity. No one to correct me. No on to excuse the biblical error with sweet talk. No one to mentor me into just believing, I was able to see it is all a farce. And a big one. Time, money, debate and progress and energy are better spent elsewhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“When the someone finds their friggin keys after a prayer it glory to god. What a joke!”
Agreed.
“While we sit back and debate the exodus which never happened, life goes on and we solve nothing.”
Christians have and are doing more now than any other group of people in the world. Many charities that are thought to be secular were actually started by Christians or other religious affiliated people, such as the largest American charity, United Way.
LikeLike
What about all the free passes and excuses?
LikeLike
I would not call them free passes. There is a lot to say on this subject, but I will give a brief try.
I think you are fighting against a Calvinistic mindset. I do not believe Scripture teaches Calvinism, that God predetermines every event. When something happens it is not always directly God’s will. In fact, we know that God wills things to happen that do not happen. God allows, even ordained, free will. So when something happens, it could be solely because we wanted it to happen. God judges our free will. God is less concerned with WHAT happens to us and more concerned with HOW we handle what happens to us. Remember, God created us to be eternal. So while we think this life is all there is, God sees beyond it. This is not a free pass, this is truth.
I do not think I know what you mean about excuses. There are many things in this world that require explanations that given the current information we do not have the full answer, but we can give partial answers. I believe this happens at times in the Old Testament when we discuss things that happened millennia ago and we have very precious little information about the whole time line.
LikeLike
Hey curtroo,
well, it’s often darn difficult to make that distinction. Out of courtesy I tend to call everyone a Christian who tells me that they are (“When people tell you who they are – believe them”), no matter how wildly their respective creeds and beliefs and actions may differ.
And you are right that I might not have an issue with Christianity itself if it were defined by some of the mellow, good natured, “This works for me but if it doesn’t for you then peace be with you” types I’ve come across.
Alas, the Christianity I have to deal with is 99% NOT that. And said mellow (meek? loving? oh dear….) guys and gals are among the bible thumpers’ preferred targets. All the while the latters’ man-made rules are imposed on me without my consent.
“However, it is not guilt that is the main driving force, love is. Acceptance and love is the main motivation for obedience, not guilt.”
If THAT were how it worked for even just 85% of Christians, I’d throw in the towel and sing Hallelujah! 😉
Alright, maybe not because I’d still be that pesky kid asking too many questions about the book and getting thumped behind the ear for it, but I could accept and be a caring, fun neighbor for people like that.
“Also, I wrote a blog recently on how most self-proclaimed Christians are not actually Christians, so I wonder if that is true of your acquaintances.”
I wonder how much heat you’d get if you read that blog post out loud in a few randomly selected churches in America (this was not a suggestion! please do NOT try this. At least not without backup and secure escape routes).
But it goes back to what I said above. It may well be true they’re not actually Christians, but by which standard am I supposed to judge? Everyone tells me something different and has the bible verses to back up THEIR version. And they not only call themselves Christians, they are firmly convinced that they are. And they have the numbers to prove it.
(you know the old joke: The problem with asking a general “You and what army?” is that he only has to point out the window)
“I know plenty of non-religious people who do not habitually donate to charity and they do not have any personality disorders. ”
It was an extreme example, yes. And just like with ANY other group of humans, your mileage will vary. But one might classify those specific acquaintances you mentioned as somewhat lacking in empathy and social graces.
Not to go to deeply into human biology and psychology, but we are pack animals and as such exhibit certain patterns of behavior. Continuous selfishness is detrimental to the survival of the pack and as such is instinctively ostracized. And one MAY argue it’s a mild form of personality disorder.
I’d be interested to know how those specific people would feel if they got into trouble through no fault of their own (or even through carelessness) and required assistance – but were denied it.
“…they do not have any inherent obligation to anybody. That is simply recognizing the truth of atheism”
Mmmmhhh no. Mileage, again. Sure, one can go all lone wolf and “I don’t need anybody and I don’t owe anybody nuffin” but that’s a hard path to tread for a naturally social creature. And hardly the atheist norm.
The ‘no inherent obligation’ part is similar to the ‘herd immunity’ issue. If a sufficient number of people is inoculated against a disease within a population, even the non vaccinated are safe. If a sufficient number of people within a population are acting to preserve the pack as a whole (altruism without imminent reward), it benefits the selfish as well.
Once the balance tips however, you get a measles epidemic where the disease was all but eradicated once.
“Their admittance, not mine”
Then their logic is as flawed as that of the anti-vaccine crowd.
But I daresay just because they don’t donate habitually, they’d still help out a neighbor whose basement is flooded. Or make a one-time donation to disaster victims. Or stop to help someone with car troubles.
If they’d not even do THAT I stand by my ‘disorder’ definition.
I’d also submit that the truth of atheism is not found in individual selfishness. Not only would the available evidence not bear that out, but it’d be selling them short. 😉
The selfishness is much, much larger – it removes obligation from gods and places it on humanity. Rather than work for ones OWN eternal life and favor in the eyes of god/s, one works for the survival and betterment of the species in what little time one has. Some in small, “best I can do” ways, others schlepping hefty loads. Some catching a free ride (there’s always some of those buggers…)
“I do so out of love primarily and obligation secondarily, but the obligation admittedly disintegrates without a God.”
Love will do. It’ll do just fine. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
“It may well be true they’re not actually Christians, but by which standard am I supposed to judge?”
Even Christ said that some who claimed to be His followers were not actually His followers. Admittedly it can be difficult on an individual basis to know if someone is truly a Christian, but in many cases it is not difficult. Christ’s standard was that you would know if someone was a true follower of him “by their fruit”, i.e., their actions, their obedience to Christ’s commands (Matthew 7:15-23). So someone saying they believe in Jesus, the most common cited reason given for being a Christian, is mostly invalid. To decipher if someone is truly a follower of Christ (I say follower, because that is what Christ required, not simply belief), it takes a decent amount of New Testament knowledge. If you studied the Gospels a lot, it would not be as difficult to know who are true followers of Christ.
If you knew someone who claimed to be an atheist but still believed in God, you would let that person know that they are seriously confused about what it means to be an atheist. The same is true for people who claim to be Christians but do not act like a Christ follower.
“I wonder how much heat you’d get if you read that blog post out loud in a few randomly selected churches in America (this was not a suggestion! please do NOT try this. At least not without backup and secure escape routes).”
I have taught that same message out loud in a number of churches and bible study groups. I have even heard a number of other pastors say basically the same thing. Unfortunately though, many people are convinced that they are just fine because they “believe in Jesus.” It is a terrible misunderstanding. Many people either justify their actions or ignore them. It is sad.
“Continuous selfishness is detrimental to the survival of the pack and as such is instinctively ostracized. … If a sufficient number of people within a population are acting to preserve the pack as a whole (altruism without imminent reward), it benefits the selfish as well.”
I agree with all of what I quoted from you. However, atheism does not provide a moral framework, but a survival framework. In atheism, morality is based on survival, not what is traditionally known as morality, the idea of right and wrong. Survival (ofen times of a group, but also often times of the individual alone) is what defines right and wrong. In most traditions of morality, survival is not the grounding force of morality. So really morality is stripped by atheism and replaced by survival. So “morality” is performed out of necessity for survival, not because morality itself is important.
“Love will do. It’ll do just fine.”
The want to clarify that at times the only reason I love is because God loves me. God is my motivation for love. Of course love comes naturally and easily at times, but other times I need motivation from outside of me. “Love your enemies”, Christ said. I love because He first loved me. So even my love would be shallow and greatly limited without God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The same is true for people who claim to be Christians but do not act like a Christ follower.”
“Many people either justify their actions or ignore them. It is sad.”
I’d argue for the individuals in this case by pointing out that lots of them simply follow what they are told/taught in childhood and don’t question their leaders/superiors (“for they know not what they do?”). And why should they, if the message “Do as I say because I’ve read the book and god told me how to interpret it and if you obey you’re going to be saved while everyone else goes to hell” is so appealing? Perfect carrot/stick arrangement.
Funny enough it would take the atheist/agnostic pet approach to break from the indoctrination: start thinking for yourself.
But either way, thank you for taking the time to explain where you’re coming from, I do appreciate it 😀
“However, atheism does not provide a moral framework, but a survival framework” and
“So “morality” is performed out of necessity for survival, not because morality itself is important.”
Now HERE’S an interesting topic. 🙂
If we go by literal definition alone, I’d say you’re spot on.
Of course one could also enter the po-tay-to po-tah-to argument. If survival instinct engenders morality, and morality leads to survival, then is the distinction really so cut and dry? Or are we rather in “all things are interconnected” territory?
Enter the steady, if turbulent evolution of the human concept of ‘morality’
Do we really need Liberty, Equality, Pursuit of Happiness for survival? Or are we, as a species, moving beyond the cave and reaching for an as yet unrealized potential? Violent setbacks included, of course. We are predators, after all. But the overarching trend is interesting.
We tend to focus on Western civilization because it’s been the dominant one for quite some time, and has exported its religion, including moral concepts, all over the globe (makes one wonder what would have happened to Christianity without Rome’s massive infrastructure, and later the violent conquests launched from Europe).
Yet morality has developed outside of Christianity for millennia. Still does. I’m neither Taoist nor Buddhist, but I find their core philosophies quite interesting. An almost elegant concept of morality.
“Simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.”
Lovely, no? 😉
“The want to clarify that at times the only reason I love is because God loves me […] So even my love would be shallow and greatly limited without God. ”
I’m not sure whether I find that beautiful or sad.
Maybe a bit of both. But if that’s what makes YOU happy, then I say grab that ball and run with it.
But anyway, I think we’ve gone from a tangent over to the curve and out around the bend, eh? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Follow the carrot 🥕. I like that! It’s a good trick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It works veritable miracles with horses! 😉
LikeLike
Deep rooted equestrian tactics. I guess the early Christians had horses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice work
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s an interesting discussion for sure, but I’m afraid curtroo and I have hijacked your post just a wee bit 😳 (sorry. Coffee?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m glad you jumped in. You never know what little thing will get someone to have the “aha” moment. Jump in anytime! Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is funny how Christian love is executed by force which is not free will at all. Parents believe. Parents teach. Child doesn’t comply. Parents spank and then downright abuse to make them comply. In the end they use force to get submission. Very militant in the Christian home. Believe or be berated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those four propositions look pretty good to me. A grand path to enlightenment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the fourth one is on me! But tequila, not whiskey 🥃. It is Christmas!
LikeLike
I’ll take a good drinkl of either. I like me a shotglass of good bourbon. Also I do not turn my nose up at tequila.
I’m not much of a drinker really, but every once in a while I break out a bottle for a snort.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Same here.
LikeLike
Lol, with my butchery of the word drink, it looks like I may have been drinking already 😉 I swear it ain’t so!
LikeLike
I think I’ll just do coffee. Unless Steve Ruis shows up. The. It’s tequila !!
LikeLike
Drinkl is now a word.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ll drinkl to that!
LikeLiked by 3 people
“I’m actually a little embarrassed by it.” Me too man. When I started boldly looking out of the box, a lot of the the things I found were both amazing and shaming for me. To think that I’d never seen such simple logical inconsistencies, that I’d ignored all that BS so openly displayed in the Bible, that I had closed my mind to open questioning and exploration of the world around me in favour of an otherwise terrible doctrine made me feel like a fool and ashamed. Guess it’s time to redeem myself.
LikeLike
For me I trusted too much. Someone I trusted always ahead an explanation and if you looked at it through those lenses it made sense (apologetics). Hair splitting explanations are no longer my forte!
LikeLike
When you examine the explanation for its self and not in the context of the one that gave it to you, you are amazed at how little sense it makes. I find myself shunning the wisdom of famous apologetics and PhD doctors because of this. You have to be bold and say, this is how I see it and I am pretty confident that I am right (and you are wrong).
LikeLike
I know. And when the groupthink pressure of the congregations you learn not to even question it or you are lacking sufficient faith. Their was literally no one to talk to about concerns inside the faith without being judged, or being re schooled in what the “meaning” of the text was intended to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person