Without Religion There Would be Less Sin, not More.

How ethics surpasses the morality of religion

  • Reverse psychology is a tool for the young and feeble minded? Not really. It works well on nearly everyone (do you want to go to hell) “Don’t do this, and don’t do that, do what they tell you to, don’t want the devil to come out out your eyes”—Roger Hodgson Religion makes me think the founders just wanted to get their freak-on by making everything a sin, creating even greater allure. “We value people and things unavailable to us—things we can’t have”.
  • “Lord give me chastity—but not today—Saint Augustine

    In order for god to pursue the maximum pleasure by proxy of things he cannot have, forbidding a natural occurrence produces miles of pay-dirt for his viewing pleasure—it increases the things he observes. And he watches everything—things he cannot touch or experience in this vile world.

    Want to populate a world with eight billion people to revel in the ensuing madness? Forbid a natural act, keep it taboo to even talk about—and control it. Christianity has not produced any moral behavior. It produces cunning behavior and shortens the joys of life by regiment—but in fact produces more mischievousness and anxiety.

    Without the institutions of religious and legal marriage there would be less broken homes, not more. Contracts make people feel fidgety and confined, often taking for granted the contracted companion. There would be less people and more personal responsibility, less mystery and more fact—equals stability. Religion has thrown a wrench in the natural flow of life—it’s brand of morality has made an interesting lure making waiting to live as you wish contrary to commandment, instead of a personal responsibility.

    “Atheism does not constitute an end in itself, but a beginning, a necessary base, an ethical foundation“—Jean Meslier

    Christianity doesn’t produce better behavior. I’d say a little less talk and a lot more action, but the end game is the destruction of the world. It’s an odd wish, clinging to the past and Hopi g the future ends. There is no amount of belief that will save them from hypocrisy. It will take the joy out of life. A life that passes you by waiting til regret plant it’s ass on your doorstep.

    I’ve had countless encounters with believers stating I just don’t believe so I won’t feel guilty for sinning. The fact is, most of the things that were intriguing lost their curious luster after losing faith. It ain’t no big deal.

    Author: jim-

    One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

    92 thoughts on “Without Religion There Would be Less Sin, not More.”

    1. “Sin” is not a concept.

      Emotions like “pride” and “envy” are very real things.

      Atheists deny God, they deny religion for its “relevance”, and so they also deny the meaning of “sin”.

      I say, there is far more to Christianity than meets the eye for most Atheists and most Christians.

      Have you considered this?

      The movement of Feminism is merely a 21st century rendition of the tale of Adam & Eve…

      That is right. A 21st century rendition of the 3,000-year-old story.

      Eve was deceived by the representation of deception, Satan, and brought to believe that she could make an independent decision outside the control of both God and her husband, Adam.

      Feminism has operated in the same manner…

      A woman, seduced by that movement, is brought to believe, by the words of a politician, a celebrity, a talk show host, or anyone else who represents deception, that she could make an independent decision outside the control of her husband.

      I look at the Bible as the greatest understanding of the human Psychology.

      Like

      1. Faith in god is the ultimate display of pride. Stubborn pride, unwilling to reason a single non evidentiary point. Religion has done a number on wordplay. 2 things; “the natural man is an enemy to god”. The natural man is actually the believing man. EVERYONE wants a belief. 2. Condemn pride and command faith, which is the greatest source of pride on the planet, but giving virtue points for something that man can’t help but do, is the trick that locks brains in belief.

        Like

        1. There is no difference from a belief in a “God”, than a scientist’s trust over his tools for chemistry or his tools to perform a dissection or autopsy.

          I have written on this:

          “Religion” is merely the act of faith. It is a trust in the answer to come forth to aid an unknown.

          I have noticed something among Atheists who find a closeness with science, and Christian who find a closeness with God. They both ask questions.

          However, scientists turn towards the Earth, while Christians will turn towards the sky. What does this mean?

          This references how little scientists will ever know.

          The “power of reason”, referring to “the ability to question” something over its realness, has placed deception upon deception into this society. Lies and dishonesty are things we constantly discuss in today’s contemporary world.

          We were once faithful humans, whether we were religious or not, we had faith and believed in romance and companionship. Today, with the “power of reason” making the shape of this world, we have turned over from “the answer” to “the question”. That is, with the “power of reason” as today’s strength, we have gone from saying, “This is who I am, and there is nothing I can do for it,” to the question of “What can I make of myself?”

          However, because the “power of reason” is attuned with the “ability to question”, scientists will forever have more questions than even the most intellectual of mathematicians and engineers can ever answer.

          The essence of “change” marks itself more upon the “question” over the “answer”, and due to this, there is more confusion, more endless “solutions”, than there is ever a single answer to a problem.

          Due to this, we confuse ourselves, create division, and create internal warfare within nations.

          Science doesn’t know it, but they have caused this, all through the “power of reason” that they believe is the key to finding “greater truth”.

          Like

    2. I couldn’t agree more! I am not atheist, nor am I a christian. I prefer spiritual. What you wrote is so spot on with how I have looked upon religion. Using psychology to control the masses for personal gain, is a common theme in it, which is why I get the heebee jeebies when I walk into a church.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I am an atheist but I do think there is another option between believing and atheism. The universe is a grand and complex machine and some people are attuned differently to it. Mans impatience for answers has stifled creativity and variety with the big box religions. Just like Walmart, people hate it but the other options are no good either, so there they are. Nice to see you. Thanks for stopping. I’m going to send you a link to another post that might be up your alley.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Thank you, I would love that! Grand and complex it is, and I find it absolutely beautiful and amazing and I look upon it in wonderment every moment of my life and I am so thankful I do not comply to any box. A pleasure to stop in!

          Liked by 1 person

    3. If you need fear of god to tell you what’s right from wrong, something is really wrong with the society.
      Bias comes from experience, not religion.

      Like

      1. Are you sure it’s not the other way around? People who travel, see the world, actually get out and meet people tend to lose their fears through experience. Bias comes from thought transfer—ideas, teaching and indoctrination; What you’ve been told to believe, not what you’ve learned from experience (mostly)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Transfer of ideas is an experience too, Jim. 🙂 We see things, we know things and we do things. That’s how it works, doesn’t it?

          Like

          1. Sure, it can go both ways but from the way I see most things fervent belief comes without evidence. And most beliefs are imaginations unfounded and cause the greatest argument. Good points to think about

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I agree with you. We’re forced to believe in something just because the masses do and the fear of hell and punishment is induced to make sure we follow the path.
              Coercion, to be precise.

              Liked by 1 person

    4. When I lived in Guatemala in the 70s, there was no regulation on alcohol. The local teens rarely imbibed, but we Americans “went to town”. Make it taboo (sin) and increase the popularity of any given thing.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Right on. Very true. I’ve heard the same stories about some European countries. It’s just no biggie. Sure there’s always going to be abusers, but not on the level we see with the laws here.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “What you resists, persists.” That is the whole point of restrictive laws. It should be obvious by now that those who make the laws generally also make themselves exempt from adherence to said laws – some way or other -and you can safely take this claim all the way to God himself. The Bible is rife with instances where God grossly violates his own laws.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Excellent point. And he gets a free pass because after all, he’s has to be this perfect god, so we just don’t grasp divine command and murder of babies and even the animals. I’m going to hell for you pointing that out! Thanks Sha’Tara. I’ll see ya there.

          Like

            1. Head of the table eh? I prefer flame retardant hammocks or sitting on a log. Might as well make the most of our endless bon Fire. 🔥 Hell, I’m in.

              Like

    5. totally agree with this one. that concept of ‘sin’ exists in christian societies only, and its purpose is to control only. it is nonexistent in buddhism and other traditions.
      all concepts, good/bad, beautiful/ugly, exists in mind only, and they are all limited and limiting. reality cannot be put in boxes.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. But that would require one to look outside their indoctrination. It’s pretty obvious from my viewing that abrahamic faith has been a disaster on the world, and in the self esteem and empowerment of regular people. Maybe they’re just not ready to call their own shots. I guess until one is willing to stand up to it they don’t have the integrity it takes to live peaceably without being told what to do.

        Liked by 1 person

    6. Jim
      This post is just filled with baseless assertion. When leaders actively go against Christianity we get some of the worst sins. Saying this stuff without even addressing the recent history that overwhelmingly shows it is false seems disingenuous. Mao Pol Pot the Soviet Union Nazis etc etc. Are we supposed to pretend that never happened? They wanted morals based on science and actively wanted to rewrite or suppress christian influence. Do you really think this was coincidence?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The nazis were led by a Christian. You obviously have a blinded agenda and handwaved all the witnesses to that from your last appearance here. Hitler was endorsed by many great Christians that should have known better too. But the religion does nothing to improve discernment. Bye, the others didn’t do what they did in the name of religion. I thought you guys were supposed to no better than them. Apparently not.
        These aren’t baseless accusations, just observations. The world IS safer today and is less religious than ever. It’s about time.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I will address your views on Hitler and leading Nazis in a blog. At this point I will just say that you are cutting against the consensus of historians.

          But in the mean time what about all the other regimes? North Korea, Soviet Union, Mao, Pol Pot? I mean yes we are safer now that many of these horrible anti-christian regimes are gone. Of course North Korea widely seen as the worst regime. Do you pretend that didn’t happen? Is this all coincidence that these clearly anti-christian regimes were so horrible?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Your busy deflecting the inadequacy of your religion. Of course there have always been destructive people. You are ignoring the first hand endorsements and proclamations of the people that were there and go with the excuses and commentary. That’s truly the Christian way. If they err, they weren’t true Christians. That’s the history of your faith. The fast that nobody is doing it right—I certainly agree that Christianity has led to bloodshed since the beginning, and since Augustine it’s been widely accepted.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Are you still talking about your views on Nazis that cut against the consensus? What about all the other regimes I mentioned that were even more openly hostile to Christianity? I am actually wondering what you think. Was it just coincidence? Do you think this history did not happen? It is just puzzling to me how anyone can be even remotely aware of the history of the last century and somehow think religion is the big problem.

              I am not sure what I am deflecting. In the past I have offered droves of evidence that Hitler told those close to him about his dislike of Christianity. Other Nazis that played key roles in the abominations were also quite anti-christian. It is well documented. Look at all the sources you can find even in a simple purusal of wikipedia:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

              Liked by 1 person

              1. You seem to be bent on excusing the ineffectiveness of your faith by deflecting to others. You’re all supposed to know better.

                Like

              2. Jim I am not sure what you are even saying. You claim without religion there would be less sin. You offer not an iota of evidence for this claim.

                I point out that the history of the last century provides overwhelming evidence that anti-christian regimes committed huge atrocities. And you say that I am just proving Christianity was ineffective? Sure Christianity wasn’t effective in these places where it was pushed out by the regimes.
                That is why we had these horrible atrocities. This shows the opposite of your title. It shows where religion is effective there is less sin.

                Liked by 1 person

              3. I’ve observed and read about Christian atrocities. I see Christian behavior is sneaky and it matters not what you do—as long as the words are said. The behavior doesn’t improve. It’s ridiculous actually that the almighty can’t come up with a decent morality that any three person committee or mom and pop can do in their own. You block it all out because you decided to believe it, then have found every means to excuse it because it doesn’t settle well, but you fail to denounce it. Faith doesn’t make you whole, it’s makes one delusional. Take a breath man. The religion you defend is powerless without your submission. That should be a clue.
                The nuts and bolts of it is you’ve had two thousand years of near monopoly to produce some bliss. How long do we wait to see it develop? Truly amazing people cling to this failure.

                Like

              4. Do you think it is a christian conspiracy theory that the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Mao, North Korea were all anti-christian and some of the worst regimes ever?

                You keep ignoring these facts that destroy your conclusion. Yet you say I am biased and mention some vague claims about “Christian atrocities” you “observed and read about.”

                Who knows what you are even talking about. But yes of course Christians have committed many sins. But to support the conclusion that we would be better off with out it you would need to show that Christians are worse than most in the same sorts of situations.

                Liked by 1 person

              5. I already stated that those atrocities were inexcusable. How does that exonerate Christianity? You see things how you want to see. I am seeing them for what they are. We’ve done a pretty good job at reversing the Jim Crow laws of abrahamic faith. No thanks to the religions help at all. Always 500 years late and lots of history revision. It’s all good bro. They weren’t your people. They weren’t true Christians. From colonial barbarism to the forced conversions of Europe. They weren’t your people. But the converts are now? Weird.

                Like

              6. The horrendous actions of anti-christian regimes doesn’t exonerate Christianity. But it is evidence we are better off with Christianity then without it – contrary to your title.

                Its interesting that you say racism is based on Christianity. I guess someone should have told that to the Reverend Martin Luther King. I think you are the one trying to revise history. The facts don’t support your title – at least when it comes to Christianity.

                Like

              7. Facts—it’s awash in facts. “a more critical examination would put Christianity’s death toll at 9.064 to 28.734 million.” However, if you widen responsibility to mean any mass atrocity caused by largely Christian societies regardless of motive [Like how atheist get blamed for the Great Leap Forward which caused half of communism’s deaths even though the motivations were economic not anti-religious] then the death toll of Christianity would ascend to 82.069 to 106.734 million deaths more or less equal to the “Black Book of Communism” 85 to 100 million deaths from communism”.
                Mass extermination is a way of life in religion. Thought they should know better, but god (the writers) create fanatics with the faith scam. How is this better?

                Like

              8. I am not sure where you get your figures. But even there you are talking about deaths from Christianity over thousands of years and comparing it to a few decades of a couple of anti christian regimes. Even if we buy all your facts wholesale your case is still obviously lost.

                Liked by 2 people

              9. Obviously lost? Your faith has never even approached the promised bliss and wholesale slaughtered continents for god. How can you defend that? Deflecting to non Christian regimes and hiding the fact that Hitler was a Christian. Unbelievable.

                Like

              10. And Joe, by the way, I get my figures from as non-biased sources about history as I can. One of the greatest sins of omission from Christianity is hiding the truth.
                Lake Saint Augustine authorizing the use of force to convert people turned into 1000 year bloodbath by using scripture in the Bible. This is one of the heralded fathers of your faith and nobody had the balls to stand up to it. He was wrong by the way.

                Like

              11. Jim what is the source for your figures again?

                I think agree Augustine was wrong to think we should use force to convert people to our beliefs. Of course that was nothing new. Freedom of expression is something that is most protected in countries with a Christian history – except in times that for whatever reason they have had anti-christian regimes take over.

                Romans would kill Christians (that is what gave rise to the whole donatist dispute augustine was dealing with) for their beliefs. Pagans killed people for all sorts of reasons.
                Here is some information about the dechristianization of France:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

                I am not sure what truth you think I am hiding. Christianity has pretty obviously been a cause for good overall through history when it is compared to other options. China and North Korea are some of the most anti-religious places. They are also some of the worst places in the world.

                Im not saying all atheists are bad. But I also think we should try to identify why some anti religious views tend to fly off the handle and lead to so many catastrophes.

                Liked by 2 people

              12. Joe, you wrote: You claim without religion there would be less sin.

                More to the point is … there would be no “sin” without religion.

                Liked by 1 person

              13. I think it would be better to say there would be no sin if the claims of religion are false.

                Sin is sort of a religious view. Just like the relativity is a scientific view. No science does not necessarily mean no relativity. But if all the claims of science are false then relativity would be false.

                Like

    7. Fascinating! I hadn’t thought that all of their “laws” only make more lawbreakers. What is sin anyway? Disobeying God’s will? And who gets to tell people what God’s will is? Ah, that explains almost all of this. “Nature abhors a vacuum” (Aristotle) and a power vacuum most of all.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I can really only speak for myself, but wanting what you aren’t supposed to have have (sin too) only makes it more tempting. Realizing that I now make my own rules and those “temptations” have lost their luster. It’s much more effective to make one accountable for their own actions instead of expecting “forgiveness” because you’re a low life worthless mite.

        Like

    8. In the meantime…right here and now…. religion is a problem caused by religion. I am better off without it, as are most people I know, many of whom hang on to the existence of a god with no evidence. “It is what I want to believe.” Ok, but why?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There is a certain element of people, about a third, that need guidance, If you are not ready to honestly address the fact that you are voluntarily duped to feel comfortable, to get comfort in the death anxiety, and to address honestly the fallacy, fraud, abuse, etc, etc, then you are not ready to call your own shots. And they’ll take the abuses because they fear what will happen if daddy no longer provides everything for them. You’re not to trust in the arm of fresh, but that’s all they do and allow themselves to be abused on someone else’s word.

        Liked by 1 person

    9. I often wonder about this. (before I get hungry and start snuffling around in the refrigerator for a snack). I think we have to define ‘Sin’ first. And maybe good and evil. I don’t think either concept would exist without religion to frame it for us. Morality and ethics is such a fantastically complicated subject. Really difficult to study and observe in laboratory like conditions though. Ie, what would happen if we just had a bunch of humans evolve insolation. And probably unethical… ha ha.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Any mom and pop or three person committee can outdo religious morality. There are plenty of examples of societies living quite well until they were forced to comply or die. Everything finds its equilibrium without the wrenches of religion tossed in the spokes.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I’d love to be able to test it though. I think what we think is good and moral and acceptable is so colored by religion. Cannibals thought it was fine to eat people of the opposing tribe. And they also have… eh… had their own animist religious stuff going on.

          I think any society eventually creates religion. Its a physiological defence mechanism to take responsibility away from… you know that we are completely responsible… and also completely alone. Thats quite a daunting prospect…. the loneliness aspect.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. That’s a pretty good point, especially coming outta you. Wow! I think so too probably the “men of words” were finding a good way to control the superstitious masses while they themselves ignore all it it.
            I mentioned this before, if you need religion to light the way for you, and not willing to expose it for what it really is, you still need someone to tell you what to do. You still need the imagination of another to guide you into some purposeful servitude.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. And to touch the cannibal thing—a few isolated pockets of animalistic cannibals makes the news every time. In the meantime, killing millions without eating them is handwaved by Christians even today. Those weren’t true Christians. Lol

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Ha ha. I’m actually fine with eating people. I mean in the life boat ethics scenario. I’d probably advocate we murder and eat the heftiest person first. (If we had to create a dead body to consume I mean) The calories to person capita is likely better on a fatty.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. You also don’t know how ravenously hungry I can get after three hours. Even people who have the meat content of a drumstick might not be safe.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. You’d be a light heavy weight in boxing. But a middleweight in MMA. Both great divisions imo.

                Like

    10. One: you would be hard pressed to to find any text of Scripture that condones what some nominally (“in name only”) “Christian” groups have done to others in the past. So that is no argument against what Christianity actually claims.

      Two: the decrepit and insane state of U.S. politics and society (e.g. endemic abortion/murder of babies, the homo/transsexual totalitarian agenda, rampant divorce and child abuse, along with mobs destroying property and the like over who’s in office) are due to the nation’s rejection of Christianity – not its embrace of it.

      And where on earth did you get that “prison population” statistic? Again, nominalism (I.e. claiming to be something) does not make one a Christian, the Bible speaks often of those who believe in name only and not in action. Also, I would be willing to bet that atheism makes up less than 15% of the population of anything in America — since human beings simply were not designed to “lack belief” — they were made to worship something, and though now they mostly just worship themselves or gods of their own making, they cannot escape that ultimate purpose to their design.

      Like

      1. Christians always want to separate themselves from the outcomes of Christendom. I don’t afford that luxury. The fact is when Christianity has exerted its monopoly on any community it has been to strip the freewill and force conversions at the suggestion of the Bible. 1000 years of swordplay authorized by the Bible and Augustine. Truth!
        Your no true Christian/Scotsman fallacy is so blatantly obvious.
        Today, right now, is the safest time in the history of the world to be alive. And it is because of less religiosity, not more. Don’t be clueless. Your religion is the greatest oppressor the world has ever known and you know it.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. What fallacy did I commit?

          And could you please supply source material for where the Bible condones the “forced” conversion of the masses (which is no conversion at all)?

          And no, I don’t “know it” — evil human beings, which is all human beings are apart from God, have committed atrocities in the name of anything they could think of (including God) throughout all of history. God and His statutes are not to blame for the idiocy and evil of mankind.

          Like

          1. I’m not evil at all. I hurt no creature and have a beautiful family. Augustine used the scripture in Matthew to “compel them to come to the feast”. It all started with his efforts to re corral the Donatists and it spread through the church. After 200 years conversion without the sword was unimaginable and accepted by the mainstream church for a thousand years. The heralded fathers love god so much they’d kill for him as usual.
            If your really serious about learning the sources I’ll shoot them your way. They aren’t my words, but true nonetheless. But I’m not wasting time arguing if you’ll dismiss the Catholics themselves on this

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Jim, how do you define “hurt”?

              If you have ever spoken insensitively or harshly to your wife or children, you HAVE hurt them. If you have ever looked upon a woman who was not your wife with a desire for her, you have hurt her (by objectifying her), your wife (by being unfaithful), and yourself (by disobeying God).

              You judge yourself by other sinful human beings around you that are like you. God judges you by Himself — and none of us measure up to that standard.

              Like

              1. You probably won’t convince me to self deprecate and buy that. I am not disobeying anyone. You don’t even know me but are judging my character based on a blanket statement from a god (the writers) that have deceived you into accepting an abusive relationship. You’re no good without god. Sound familiar? This belief really is self defeating. Faith and grace is always there to bail you out and chests you if maximal growth. Really.

                Like

      2. Humans aren’t born to believe. They are born gullible and become woefully neurotic raised in a society of liars, deceived at every turn. Offer a smidgen of hope? They believe anything they are told. Add a few threats of hell and you too, can compel another to believe just as Augustine authorized. Nice work!

        Liked by 1 person

      3. One: you would be hard pressed to to find any text of Scripture that condones what some nominally (“in name only”) “Christian” groups have done to others in the past. So that is no argument against what Christianity actually claims.

        Are you ignoring the old testament here for your claims like many other apologists. The bible endorses so many contradictory things as moral you’re on extremely ground, or at the very least look like you haven’t actually read the bible. Please keep your No True Scotsman fallacy to yourself.

        (e.g. endemic abortion/murder of babies, the homo/transsexual totalitarian agenda, rampant divorce and child abuse, along with mobs destroying property and the like over who’s in office) are due to the nation’s rejection of Christianity – not its embrace of it.

        abortion/murder of babies – something that has been going on since we were hunter-gatherers, and was still widely practiced even in Christian societies of the past?…yes…it’s all because of secularism. Give me a fucking break. If abortion happened at lower rates in the past it’s only because they didn’t have to worry about abortion when deaths at birth and children dying of diseases we have cures for now were so common.

        homo/transsexual totalitarian agenda – Prove this. I would love to see you try. What a ridiculous claim. How is totalitarian? Again, such people have existed in human societies since we were first human. There is nothing harmful or unnatural about it.

        rampant divorce – actually divorce rates are decreasing. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/divorce-united-states-dropping-because-millennials/

        But isn’t it nice that women aren’t financially dependent on men and it is socially acceptable to get away from their abusive husbands?

        rampant child abuse – You think this is new? Just now we have laws to protect children. That’s what’s new. So naturally we know more about child abuse when it happens. And it’s the bible thumpers who are most for punishing children physically. Please use a No True Scotsman argument again…it’s wonderful.

        mobs destroying property – Yes…so many of those. Much better though than the mobs lynching black people wouldn’t you say? They were such good white Christians too…who would have thought that they’d just hang black people like that?

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Thank you for taking the time to attempt to respond to my comment.

          Again, please actually point out how and where I have committed this “Scotsman fallacy”. When someone throws out logical terms without actually explaining where that fallacy has occurred, as far as I am concerned you are simply writing words that don’t mean anything — just because you invoke the term “fallacy” does not mean one was used.

          I do not ignore the Old Testament — I simply read it in its appropriate context. The Jews were indeed, as a nation, commanded by God to slaughter many nations that were sacrificing their children to Moloch and participating in a whole host of other sins that many (if not all) nations practice today. But nowhere in the Bible can you find a direct command (NOTE: parables are not commands) to the followers of Jesus to “conquer by the sword”. Regardless of what those who have claimed to be Christians have done and taught in the passed — granted, many of them making horrifying interpretations and/or misapplications — that does not change the truth that the authors of Scripture had only one correct intent in mind when they wrote.

          Here’s a very simple/non-complex example: let’s say I interpret what you wrote: “please use a No True Scotsman argument” to mean that we should always use this fallacy in writing comments on WordPress. Now, of course that would be ridiculous — we all know you were being sarcastic. But what if I misinterpreted or took out of context and twisted everything you say? I could make you say anything I want, if that were my goal.

          The problem is that words have meaning depending on their context and the intent of the author. Just because someone misunderstands or deliberately twists what that writer wrote does not change the truth of what was actually intended by what was said.

          So again — just because Christians are sinful human beings like everyone else, and they have had some counted among them who have taught or done terrible things, that does not change the truth of what Christianity ACTUALLY TEACHES.

          Which leads in to the particular sins I listed. The point is not how often or in what quantity those or all the other sins of humanity are committed (though they can have relevance), the point is that human beings do and in fact have done these things ever since their rejection of the God who made and sustains them. Have there been pockets of unbelievers who may have mostly treated their fellow humans with compassion and kindness? Possibly — by the grace of God no one is as bad as they could be. But have even those pockets of humanity (if their doubtful existence was a reality) ever treated or thought of GOD as He ought to be treated? No. And that is the problem.

          But that is why God, the Father, gave His only Son to live a perfect life on this earth, truly compassionate and loving toward every single human being He encountered, died a gruesome death on a Roman cross, was buried and rose again on the third day to atone for the sins and justify all those who would repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, so that they may once again have fellowship with God and one day stand in His glorious presence, washed clean by the precious blood of Christ.

          But for now, even those of us who repent and believe are still held in this world of sin and its curse of death. Which is why we must repent and believe on a daily basis as we strive to imitate our perfect Savior. Do all Christians do this well? No. Are there evil men who have claimed the name of Christ for their own selfish ends? Yes.

          But I wouldn’t be so quick to point fingers at historical people you have no connection to for the evils of the world. Especially not when you have Stalin and Hitler (and plenty of others) among your number.

          Today no one is to blame for the evils of our day except those who commit those evils. If you walk into a cake shop you know is run by a person who holds a particular faith and demand they celebrate and support your rejection and profaning of that faith — and then you sue them for refusing and shout down anyone who tries to argue, you are evil and totalitarian. If you decide you want to promiscuously have sex on a regular basis without any of the natural responsibilities that follow that pleasure, and so you have the child which is the product of that selfish desire murdered because they would inconvenience you — and then you shout down anyone who pricks your conscience, you are evil and totalitarian.

          The list could go on, but again, the point is not what others have done in the past (there isn’t much we can do about ancient history). The point is that all human beings sin against a Holy and Just Creator that demands their repentance and faith in His offer of gracious forgiveness — and sometimes slowly now, but ultimately in the end God will redeem and cleanse those who believe from all their iniquities.

          Like

          1. You just can’t help it. They were in name only (as usual) “ Scripture that condones what some nominally (“in name only”) “Christian” groups have done to others in the past. So that is no argument against what Christianity actually claims.” What Christianity claims has never produced the promised bliss. Ever. Always

            Like

            1. Shouldn’t we allow the founder of a religion the right to define who qualifies as his followers? I.e. Matthew 7:20-27

              Suppose someone followed your blog and claimed to believe everything you do and teach is right and considers themselves a disciple of yours — but then they went and did things you abhor… would that mean you can be blamed or held responsible for there atrocities since you are the founder of this “Jimism”? I mean, you believe all the same things as that other atheist, so why shouldn’t I blame atheism for those terrible things?

              The difference is understanding a separation/distinction in categories. If you must do or be certain things to be an atheist (e.g. not believe in and hate the idea of God), then if you do NOT do or be those things, then you cannot truthfully be considered an atheist.

              Like

              1. That’s a nice try. No members allowed here and I believe in nothing. I do get your point though. The problem is, it doesn’t really compute. If there are real Christians they’re nowhere to be found. “Straight is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be that find it”. 2.4 billion is not few. No signs follow them that believe. The blind do not receive their site, and mountains are not moved.
                Christ promised— “Greater signs than these will follow them that believe”. So, we should turn water into whiskey, feed the world with fewer loaves and fishes, and ophthalmology would be a declining profession, but it’s not. Reality shows us a long list of false advertisement. It also causes its devout adherents to abuse their children and hoard arms to protect themselves from what they pray and hope is going to happen. This is a sickness. No one is coming out of the sky to fix anything. We are completely alone. Living in the past, hoping the future ends is a sickness in our world where belief gives license to mine and mill and deplete resources till we’re living in a hell unfit to live in. This is what religion does. It defers responsibility and I’ll do what I can to wake people up.
                Sure the authors of the religion should define its perimeters, but it takes an outsider to see the effects because the faithful, once you fall for the story, it’s lights out for making peace on earth in the now. Religion causes division. Period. And a group that will embrace you over mere belief, will betray you over unbelief. Simply put, This 4 min video has it all in perspective, if you have a moment. It’s about humanity.

                Sorry to ramble, but what You are believing is affecting the world in a negative way and has for centuries.

                Like

        2. Thinking more about this “Scotsman fallacy” it really doesn’t work in this situation.

          That sort of thing really can only be called a “fallacy” if used on something that is ontological about the subject. For instance, it IS silly or fallacious to make a claim “true Germans don’t ___” or “true men will ___”. But that is because people cannot decide what nation they are born into or what sex they are. Those things are completely outside of the control of the subject.

          However, once we leave the realm of ontology and start talking about things that one can decide to be or do, this “fallacy” no longer works in these kinds of categories — otherwise every form of objective reasoning would take on the nature of “fallacy” (which it often does with beginners in logic, no matter how you reason with them about something for which they have a lot of passion)… anyway, thought I’d throw that out there.

          Like

    11. “Christianity doesn’t produce better behavior.”– TRUTH!! I recently read that a study was done that shows evidence that “prayer” actually produces anxiety in individuals rather than a, “give it to God” feeling. Prayer causes stress for some people..imagine that..And also referring to your above comment– Isn’t it disturbing Jim. The conquistadors conquering the natives all for power in the name of Religion. Demanding they convert to Christianity or be slaughtered, and demanding it in a foreign language, nonetheless. To people that were simply not violent. God’s will.🙄

      Liked by 4 people

      1. There are many accounts of this nature about these godless people that lived beautiful lives. The typical propaganda of the violent savages cane to fruition when they no longer accepted being attacked and robbed.

        Liked by 1 person

    12. Since “sin” is a purely religious concept then logically, without religion there can be no such thing as sin, nor can any non-religious person indulge in sinning. Outside of religion that’s a meaningless concept. There is still the matter of moral behaviour though and that makes me wonder why we are “moral” beings instead of simply living amoral lives? If we were amoral, could we still have personal property since the concept is predicated on law and as amoral creatures we of course would not understand the concept of a law, would we?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Sure. I guess I could’ve been a little clearer. The things that are considered “sin” lose there luster when they are no longer forbidden to you through unbelief. And from understanding where morality actually comes from—us

        Like

        1. Morality comes from us? Why would we “invent” such a thing? There is nothing natural about morality: as you pointed out in your article, it’s an imposition that causes all sorts of negative behaviour. Calling it ‘sin’ doesn’t change the fact that it’s morality, i. e., law, that is being discussed. All the ancient laws of the world came from religious ordinance and those religious canons remain the foundation of our modern law codes. Amoral creatures neither could, nor would, develop a moral code of conduct since morality is an imposition from some “higher” source. My point is that getting rid of religion or God or spirituality is never going to solve man’s problem of ‘sin’ until morality is done away with, i.e., law. Do I qualify for an honorary membership in the Libertarian Party now, I wonder? 🙂

          Liked by 3 people

          1. I doubt that laws came from religious ordinance, because not surprisingly, many of those laws actually made practical sense for the time. I think morality simply stems from the choices we would naturally make as a social species. Actions that build mistrust, and are anti-social would tend to isolate you and we do not survive well on our own, nor do we have good mating choices to pass on our genes or provide us with the genetic variety we need to remain a viable species. I think morality is just a word we’ve given to describe these actions, but it’s easy to see why things like theft and murder are bad, and why a lot of things that ruin social cohesion are condemned like praying to other Gods and other heretical acts, envy, jealousy, and other of the 7 deadly sins. If cooperation is key to survival then actions that reduce cooperation are going to be unwanted in society. I think it’s more the case that the laws we have, by coincidence, appear in religious ordinance, because religion was the best way to enforce the law, not because divine revelation is what led to the creation of those laws.

            Liked by 1 person

    13. Question: if religions or rules didn’t exist you mean to tell me people wouldn’t kill other people? Or steal what does not belong to them?

      Leaving aside religion for a moment — no human being has ever NOT lived by some rule of conduct, even if that rule is unspoken.

      Another question — do you mean you actually think that, if you hadn’t heard of the concept of “theft”, that you would be completely fine with someone walking up to you and taking a plate of food from you without asking your permission?

      Like

      1. Societies regulate fine without religion. In fact, Bartolome de las Casas recorded Columbus’s brutality to the natives. He said “it appears they have no religion, they would make fine slaves”. They no not violence nor resist our blows”. Question—do religious rules keep their adherents from killing? No, it even improves the odds they will kill, and even do so for sport, kill other sentient beings because it’s their god given right.
        Rules of conduct are fine. All societies find equilibrium based on biology and evolution. Even among the animals it is all too common to even suggest morality comes from god.
        Theft is offensive but not in all cultures. Samoans are likely to borrow without asking and it’s part of the culture. It’s obvious theft bothers westerners because we insist we own things, so we have laws for that. These types of things self regulate just fine. Christianity likes to take credit but the prisons are full of Christians. Weird. .02% of the USA prison population is atheist. That’s a telling statistic. We self regulate very well.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. You call theft a sin, jdw? You can only have theft if you believe in personal property, and ownership. If there is no ownership, there can be no theft. What is it that makes someone believe in ownership anyway. It breeds greed, and it breeds envy, if not jealousy. Those are all destructive behaviours. Why do we allow them?
        Likewise rules! Who do rules help? They don’t stop the strong or powerful from taking what they want from the weak or passive. RULES ARE MEANT TO KEEP THE SHEEP IN LINE, NOT THE WOLVES! Get rid of the rules, and as Jim says, you will have more self-responsibility. The bible says the meek shall inherit the earth. So who then gets to go to heaven? The strong and the powerful? Why would anyone want to go to heaven? They’ll be fighting to see who gets to sit at the head table!
        Will there be more killings without religion. Of course not! There won’t be so many reasons to kill others. Religion breeds division, hatred, racism, all minds of reasons to want to destroy others. Religion breeds power. Religion breeds ownership. But I don’t expect christians to see that, or members of almost any god-worshiping religion. To you the world is evil. There is no evil in the world. Only people who have not learned yet to share and share alike. And religion talks about sharing, but who does it? Only some… Mostly atheists.

        Liked by 4 people

          1. I learned it, and though I don’t always succeed at least I try. No one had to teach me, and in fact most of what I was taught I threw out with the bathwater. I listen to my heart, and I listen to my gut. Living your own life is easier than living someone else’s, especially god’s. Yet, in it’s own way, it is more meaningful to live your own life AFTER you have tried to live someone else’s life, I think because you can see other people’s error easier than your own.

            Liked by 2 people

      3. you don’t need religion or state-imposed rules to know right conduct, or right living.
        when one is happy and peaceful inside, there is no need to steal or kill or cheat.
        these actions come from wrong view, or ignorance.

        Liked by 1 person

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s