Atheism

35af0c181ce1f4179b8ba8511d8205e1In all respects, but without dismissing the branches and peripherals of atheism; atheism, itself, boils down to this very simple philosophy, “Survival of the Fittest!” With this in mind, obviously, God is ruled out of the picture by the mere fact that atheism leans heavily on naturalism. It’s very foundation and the premise is that of evolution, even though it has never been documented, neither has it been seen in any lifetime or aeon!

Therefore, with regards to the fundamental belief of atheism i.e. No God; survival of the fittest, and evolution, then it is safe to say that morality; that which is given by God, ordained by God, and impressed by God on and in the hearts of all men – that deep central core of the spirit and being of man – is fervently rejected by atheism and its proponents.

 

There are two points to be made on the above-mentioned paragraphs.

1.      Atheists would most certainly and with great hope consider themselves to be in the group of, “The Fittest” for that is their own Anthem, and thereby labelling the poorer and the sickly and the less fortunate as the determining factor and as a resulting example of, “I told you so” of their belief system; their “Faith”!

2.      Now, having, “Survival of the Fittest” in mind; if and when an atheist is violated because of the obvious lack of morality in this world, for instance; he or she is robbed by another person, then it stands to reason that the person who did the robbing, in this case, is, “The Fittest” because the robber appropriated the goods of the atheist; that which the atheist deems valuable. The atheist was outsmarted by a prowling thief, even though the thief may not even have had the equivalent or near academic calibre of the atheist.

Another example and this should be the last, as the number of examples are endless but, suffice it to say, if – and I say this with trepidation – when an atheist’s spouse (taking for granted for arguments sake it is his wife and that she too is an atheist) was brutally raped, tortured, and then murdered; the atheist, whether he like it or not, is left to concede that he was definitely not the fittest in this incident because the violent perpetrator got the better of him by raping, torturing, and ending the life of his wife! The atheist had survived, but most certainly was not the fittest in this instance, for again, the “Immoral” or even amoral perpetrator has taken that which is most valuable to the atheist, thereby making the perpetrator “The Fittest” once again.

Now, the question has to be begged; how could that be? In anyone’s books, immorality which is agreeable on both instances has won the day! Unfortunately, the atheist has had to concede to natural selection and survival of the fittest and yet it was “Immorality” that came out strong and proven to be the fittest in both cases. Naturalistic atheism denies morals by its own virtues and standards but yet clings to the morals that would hopefully cause them to survive. Paradox and Irony are the bitter Demons of its and their own devising schemes and it has bitten them more than once, injecting deadly venom into their veins, but yet they ask for more with vehement faithfulness to their cause! The bitter pill of “Immorality” – the anthem by which they go by – seems to be their own demise and to any society that lends an ear to its coaching.

In all cases of atheism, whenever the survival of the fittest has come into play, immorality has always won the day, but yet inadvertently and or even knowingly, as blind as the “Evolving Eye”, atheism has been the downfall of its own pyramid and in and of itself is in fact its own “Trojan Horse”!

No God, no future! Know God, know future!

Shane Bryant – OMIN CLC, Adiv


Written by

+ Follow
Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Atheism

  1. Which morality are you talking about? Killing women who have known a man, killing children and keeping the virgins as sex slaves, sorry, servants? Executing prisoners of war? Slavery? Misogyny? Having 300 wives and 700 concubines?

    The amount of ignorant tripe in this diatribe is amazing.

    Like

    • Well, I cannot and was not speaking about that at all. I never once made reference to the Bible. I cannot and will not defend immorality within the Bible. It is there to show us an example of degeneration and hypocrisy. I certainly am not siding with that. Your point is well received and I am standing on your side in this case.

      Like

      • Unless you’re talking about a different god (one of some 2,500-5,000 depending on the source), then you’re talking god of christianity, which comes from the bible. I do agree it’s stuffed full of immorality, but I wouldn’t say as an example of degeneration and hypocrisy (though it does serve as that), but as a demonstration of god’s power and righteousness. Many a christian will suspend judgement on such acts as killing innocent children and talk of god’s righteousness as pure and unquestionable. At least you recognize some of the problems with the bible. If you’re going to disregard parts of it, why not the rest?

        The “survival of the fittest” you talk about is social engineering, i.e. a human construct, which was used by man men, religious and otherwise, to justify enforced sterilization and euthanasia. Until we eventually realized the immorality of such abhorrent acts. Your example of being robbed is an act that has been going on for millennia prior to the term being coined as part of evolution and has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, or at best a dog-eat-dog world. Atheism is not necessary for immoral actions, religion has proven that time and time again. Survival of the fittest has to do with species able to adapt and survive, such as when the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and allowed for mammals to rise.

        Survival of the fittest as you apply it can, and should, also be applied to religion. To do otherwise is hypocrisy. Jim Bakker, Peter Popoff being two examples of countless. Pedophile priests being a great example, as they are fitter to enforce their desires upon children.

        As for your example of rape, what a joke. No husband is going to take the “well he was fitter” attitude to his wife being raped, atheist or otherwise. But religion gives us things such as misogyny, and such ideas as husbands should just not look their wives in the eye when wives resist sexual intercourse. The site Biblical Gender Roles used to say this, but they took the page down. Archive.org hasn’t stored it, but fortunately, I printed it to PDF. I’ll send you a copy if you wish.

        Atheism is not about survival of the fittest, but the lack of belief in a divine being. You then tie negative aspects of social engineering to atheism, while disregarding the problems of religion. So your premise begins with fault.

        Morality has never been instilled by religion. Two thousand years of christianity has proven that, never mind Judaism before that. Fundamentalist are a prime example of the morality of religion. How come the “extremists” aren’t extremely peaceful?

        The reality is people are going act immoral or moral based on their own desires. Religion has never stopped it, and has actually worked to propagate immorality, using divine righteousness as justification.

        Like

      • Hi. Let me start off by saying that the “Moral/Immoral” analogy probably was not the best analogy to give. No one in their right mind would stand for that type of evil. I was trying to measure up autonomism with morality, but I do not think I did a very good job at that. I am not sure if you have ever really read the Bible for all that it’s worth, and please, I am not being demeaning by saying this. I have read the Bible for all that it is worth. I have not just read the Bible but I have studied as deeply as I can and that’s not to say that I have “Arrived”. But, further to me understanding Scripture I have also studied outside the “confines” of Scripture; Sumerian and Mesopotamian History, world History, and the list goes on and on. One or two of my Professors did not even mention the Bible but were teaching from documented History itself and then one is left to see how credible and authentic the Bible really is. I am not saying that I am the expert on this subject, but I think I do have some sort of clear understanding about ancient history, especially Sumer and Mesopotamia, even though there is still much to be learned. Why do I mention these two civilisations? It is all because of Abraham because that is the world that he was living in – documented and etched. I have to stress, Abraham was taken out of that environment to allow God to give the world a picture of how mankind was meant to live. Misogyny and child sacrifice was never an initiation from God, neither did He ever overlook it. These famous indictments against Christianity may be true in general, but, with respect, I can make the same argument against atheism as well! People say that God is an evil God because of all the blood and violence and in the words of Dawkins; “petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” – Him and His people. If I had someone living next door to me offering up children as burnt sacrifices and having sex slaves in his basement; if the police could not help, believe me, I would certainly not remain neutral, and I am dead sure neither would you and I think that is the point that Scripture is making. War, in the Bible, was made on people that were evil to the very core, disregarding the sanctity of human life. Then the Bible is also very transparent and truthful about “wrong and unjust war” that was made for no reason except for absolute human power and despotism. Never, in my experience and academia, do I find endorsement by God on such evils within the pages of Scripture. Instead, what I do find, appreciate, and love about the Bible is that it is an open Book so to speak and God never withheld any rights or wrongs from the print – He showed it all. The Bible shows man at his worst and also at his best – in many cases worse than the good, mind you.
        May I also say that I took a jab at Atheism, but that is not my main directive. I take slugs and straight punches at post-modern Christianity and all the falsities that it stands for. Most of my articles are against such nonsense and gibberish that turns my stomach. But as far as there being a God- and in this case ; one true God – I stand believing not because I grew up as a Christian, because I did not, but because of the objective evidence that I have. Your very pseudonym tells me you need evidence- hence Skeptic – but I am not sure that many so-called Christians can give it, and if they could, they are most certainly are not giving it because of word and deed! They get rich off the backs of others, extortion, sexual abuse etc. But, mark my words, judgement is coming for them. This may sound strange and I would not be stunned if you dismissed this statement because it makes me sound like a ludicrous peasant with no aptitude. However, my fight is not against Atheism, albeit I took a tiny jab, but my fight is for people destroying others in the name of God. Correct me if I am wrong but I think it was Hitchens who said Religion poisons everything. He was right in that sense – religion and religiosity. But God is not a religion to be subscribed to. I am not a Christian because I am religious. I am a Christian because I irrevocably believe that there is a God. Everything I have said you will probably object to and I would expect nothing less. I have seen with my own eyes the true power of God, but that would be considered hallucination and a downright fairy tale, so it is senseless for me to give examples that you have never seen or that can be proven through any sciences. I am not a Christian because “I have a feeling” because my feelings have many times betrayed me. But, one thing is for sure; my eyes have never done so in this case!

        Like

      • As far as divine righteousness is concerned, the Joel Olsteens’, Kenneth Copelands’, Benny Hinns’ and all the other false ministers and the likes of them have turned Christianity into a mockery and expect every other intelligent person – religious or not – to sit back and lap it all up. What a tragic and deadly blow to the very nature of all that should be deemed as “Good”. Here in my country, we have Pastors getting their congregation to drink petrol; telling them it is “Pine-nut” soda. They get them to eat grass like animals, spray insecticide in their faces telling them its demon deliverance etc. Someone like you is then expected to look on all of this and just smile and wave. Not on your life! It’s disgusting. The world has gone MAD! Your response will probably be, “No, Christianity has gone mad!”

        Like

      • By the way, just as an extra thought; if morality is autonomous and self-governed, or perhaps inherent, that is if I am understanding you correctly, then it can change from day to day. I know that sounds extreme, but where then is the absolute? Is that moral absolute then initiated by man and government? If it is, then we can go back in history and find out why there was a french revolution in the first place. We can reflect on more than that. History is remarkable in its voice on moral absolutes versus self-constructed morals for the “Benefit of Society”! To the best of my knowledge, and help me out over here; no society in history has prospered on autonomous morals?

        Like

      • I’ve read through the bible (not the entire thing), attended church (funnily enough, still do, more for the wife and social aspects). Fair enough on the analogies. It is not so much my hope to refute and disprove you only to walk away smugly. It is partially to refine my arguments, learn, as well as to hopefully have you slow down and reflect. I don’t even necessarily want you to just agree with me. You can only come to your decisions based on your experience. I can only hope in a more balanced way. Your conclusions are your own.

        I’m working my way through your response (this is growing large), so let me say, in case it comes up (or even if it doesn’t), I look at religion as separate from the people. I refer to christians in general, and I know that blanket statements do have exceptions.

        I’m fairly hard to insult, so no worries. If I haven’t read something, there’s no sense in pretending I have. It’s good to see someone spend the time to learn outside the confines of the bible. But we have come to different conclusions (possibly) as things like the Genesis creation story has some major similarities to many other creations myths (such as starting with water), the flood myth and it’s extreme similarities to the Sumerian flood myth (I think, I’m working off the top of my head on that one, also check https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vRY9mTUZKJcC&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false), and the lack of archaeological evidence that the nation of Israel was ever enslaved in it’s entirety in Egypt. On that last, I think it’s telling that many religious archaeologists went to Egypt to prove Exodus was real, and have found virtually nothing, plus such things as moving 2,000,000 people (600,000+ men, and their wives, and their children, and all their possessions and animals) across the desert and the Red Sea in rapid succession. The trick to looking outside the bible is to not look to confirm what you know, but to see what the evidence shows. It’s reasonable to speculate, but speculation doesn’t equate to evidence.

        As for child sacrifice, certainly some civilizations practiced it (although not to heavily, they end up wiping themselves out), but what I was referring to was Numbers 31:17-18, among others as well. Literally slaughtering innocent children, and women who weren’t virgins. Now, through moral relativism, I’ve heard people justify this as if you didn’t kill the children, then they would grow up to avenge their fathers. Handmaids weren’t just servants, it’s a nice term for slave. Slavery wasn’t restricted solely to the Hebrew, but the entire world’s economies were built upon slavery, which was eventually replaced by serfdom, to eventually change to what we have today. But handmaids were also sex slaves. Wife not producing? Go into the handmaid. Granted there are guidelines about how to treat slaves, but if you do beat them severely, as long as they live a couple of days, then that’s okay.

        I think you’re misunderstanding atheism’s place in history. Yes, Stalin was against religion. But it wasn’t to enforce atheism, his rule was a cult of personality with himself at the center. Plus, people are often more loyal to religion, which transcends borders, than to their country. With no state religion or preferred religion, such as in Myanmar and other countries, and of the major religions, their center of power was well outside of Russia, atheism, or more specifically, no other religion was Stalin’s prime choice. Eliminate competition, focus the people on the state, set one’s self up at the head of state, tie the health and prosperity of the state to basically worship of the state, and kill non-conformists. It’s the basic formula for all tyrants.

        Misogyny. Well, we’re going to have to differ on this point. I do agree it wasn’t initiated by god, but by those that created Judaism. Who’s at fault for the fall of mankind? Eve. Stricken with menstruation for Eve’s failure, women are seen as unclean during her period. Wife starts her period during sex, husband is unclean and must separate himself for a day, the wife for a week. Women are second class citizens, who must be submissive to their husbands. They must be silent in church, must not have power over men. Historically, they are are blamed for making men lust after them, hence why they need to be covered. And why is a woman’s honor tied to her groin? Who put it there? Men. A virgin is valued because it ensures that any children she has are his, once we figured out that sex can lead to childbirth, men became possessive. Woman at that point became chattel.

        Human sacrifice was sadly very common. At least that is the one thing that Hebrew couldn’t be accused of. Abraham on the other hand was willing when god asked. He didn’t follow through, but why ask in the first place? There are any number of other ways to prove one’s dedication.

        As for War. This one is a bit harder. Yes, it’s good to fight injustice, but I doubt very seriously that was the prime motive, often the nations were smaller, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they had some resource. Moses asked a local to guide his people (working off memory, so I might be wrong), when he refused, his people were declared unrighteous and war was made upon them. Plus there is a passage where the tribes contemplate ambushing women from another country to provide wives for one of the tribes. Hardly fighting against injustice.

        While the bible does “show” everything, it is hardly objective. It is written from the Hebrew perspective, and every act right or wrong is always justified using god.

        I will agree that it does show mankind; what it shows to me are some aspects of mankind’s nature. Behind it all, whether religion, atheism, war, acts of heroism, greed, lust, kindness, perseverance, is man; the cause of and solution to all of man’s problems.

        As for me, I am a skeptic first, humanist always and atheist by association. Yes, I do require evidence. What you and I constitute as evidence will differ. Anecdotes are of some use, not strong, but neither useless, and I wouldn’t dispute the conviction of your beliefs in your experience. For me it is more understanding how the mind works, as much of what we feel and experience can be recreated in the lab. I highly recommend The God Impulse. It’s very good at explaining what goes on in the brain and how we’ve discovered the various mechanisms of how it works and how it affects the mind. It goes a bit south at the end with some mysticism stuff, but prior to that it’s a great book. I think you are correct on HItchen’s quote. Religion has some good aspects to it, but I believe it’s more to do with our better nature, and I think the bible does have a few good things to say. I say, take the good and discard the rest with the understanding that it should only serve as an example of what not to do. There is nothing wrong with feelings, it’s part of our nature, the important thing is to understand then and put them into perspective.

        Response to 2nd post
        Damn! What country are you from? I think that is a major problem with religion, it gets it’s followers to shutdown their brains, in extreme cases, or at least gets them to not question it. C.S Lewis is someone I can’t stand. In one of his writings, Mere Christianity I think, he advises people to step back from something they don’t understand, when they are mature enough, then they will. I say, the “maturity” and “understanding” comes when they just accept it and derive their own reasons for things, or cobble together other thoughts to explain things, even if they don’t make sense.

        Response to 3rd post
        Morality can change from circumstance to circumstance. Pass one beggar but give another some money. It’s easy to do. Maybe the first beggar is a man, who should get off his lazy ass and provide for himself, but the second is a woman, who’s been abandoned by her husband. Plus, it’s hard to provide for everyone. My wife often says at charity events, “If everyone here gave a Pound, the charity would raise thousands.” Yes, that’s true. But there are some (a guess here) 50,000+ charities, we all can’t give one pound to each.

        Each person defines their own morality. We do borrow from and are influenced by several sources, family, friends, co-workers, society, laws, and yes, even religion. But that morality comes form a common cause. If we all killed on a whim, society wouldn’t even be possible. Some people do and we will always have those, sadly. But overall, we are getting better. Read Michael Shermer’s The Moral Arc and Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of our Nature, despite the scaremongering and the news, we are overall a more peaceful race. Yes, there are problems. Man is the problem and too often uses religion as a justification. The Milgram Experiments show just how easy it is for us to foist responsibility off onto authority and perform bad acts. And when we make god the ultimate authority, then we can perform evil acts. And feel righteous about it. Combine this with our ability to strip people of their humanity (which is ironic since we bestow human traits upon inanimate objects), and we can perform any ultimate evil. For the “benefit of society.”

        If you made it this far, thanks for putting up with me.

        Like

      • I MADE IT! Very interesting to read your thoughts. I will certainly try and purchase the two books that you suggested: Michael Shermers Moral Arc and Steven Pinker’s Better Angels of our Nature. I have a medium sized library and it would be great to add to it. To be honest, this is the first time I have heard of these books. Regarding the link you sent me; it will not allow me to go in. I do not know if it is a geographical issue because I know that certain items on amazon can not be purchased in South Africa. Now you know where I live.

        I want to give you a link aswell for your own library: http://www.ushistory.org/civ/
        It is not the “be all and end all” of everything but I still do find this site quite compelling.

        I am giving the Numbers 31 conundrum some thought (there are many like that throughout Scripture) and I do not want to spew out an answer for the sake of defence but rather I want to take my time on that for a couple of reasons. Number 1: Our English rendering of the Hebrew many times is not adequate and can be very misleading especially in the transliteration area. Number 2, And this is more important ;I do not want to come back to you with loaded dogma but something you can perhaps digest and to be honest I want to try my best, not to defend myself or persuade you but rather to give a satisfactory answer from context. I most certainly do not want to respond in a preemptive fashion – monkey see, monkey do!

        As far as the “Flood myth” is concerned, even with fragmented evidence (See links above), it is still very hard to prove in its entirety scientifically although much progress has been made. Will we know for certain the very specifics and all the details? Not by a long shot. Neither will we ever be able to prove origin but all we are left with is conjecture. I find it rather paradoxical though, on both fronts that there are protagonists and antagonists but sadly both think that they are protagonists and not the latter. Who is right. It’s like a Army General exclaiming: “God help us in killing those vile bastards” and yet the ememy is praying the exact same thing. WHAT? I am not getting all philosophical on you but those are the questions I ask all the time.

        As far as morality is concerned, and this is just me speaking, I know the lust’s, prejudice, the racist thoughts and the long list of evils that reside in my thinking and soul. But I also know, and again, this is me speaking, that I did not manufacture or conjure up the good inside of me at this very moment. Everything inside of me, apart from Christ, is exuding immorality. I cannot for one moment give myself a pat on the back for helping my poor mother with groceries each month (this is the genuine truth) and then look at another man’s wife and have sex with her in my thoughts. Then after all is done, how then can I place the two – the good and the bad – on a scale and hope that my good outweighs the bad. I am married and I cannot imagine someone else looking at my wife in such a manner and say, “Oh, well, at least he gave bought his mother some groceries! What a good chap.” Do we have good? Yes, but do we also have bad. I think if most people were honest enough they would soon realise that there is more bad than they would like to mention.

        Nevertheless, if I may digress for just a moment and this is not to stonewall your response but, what I do find very interesting is the amount of surviving copies of ancient literature and historical documents that we have today in comparison with the Bible.
        May I suggest something to you from an objective point of view as far as the validity and the authenticity of the Bible is concerned. Even though I do experience God on a personal and subjective level, one cannot say that the Bible is true because of how I or any other Christian experiences it to be! In other words, if I think that the Bible is true because of my subjective experience then that won’t hold much water in a defence for the validity of the Bible. It’s like me bumping my toe and feeling the pain and hoping someone else will feel that same pain also or let my pain be transferred to someone else!. No, that cannot be the way I can present the Bible to be true! It is not about “experience”! It cannot be how I have had an experience with God! Even though that may be a marvellous encounter or a starting point for me, that cannot and does not necessarily prove that the Bible is true. A Muslim could say the very same thing about the Qur’an and any other “Religion” – Monotheistic, pantheistic, or polytheistic. What then makes the Bible true?

        I want to give you a few examples that I have personally looked into but let me assure you once again, there is still much that I have probably missed and much still to be learned. Also, just so that you know, I am not the “clever” one who came up with this, but it is through studies that I have done, gleaned and learned from other academic scholars and professors.(By the way, our conversation thus far has been a learning experience for me as well)
        For the sake of brevity, let me talk just about the New Testament alone for a moment. There are approximately 5000 manuscripts which are copies of the original manuscripts of the New Testament since the time of the early Church and since the time the New Testament was first penned.
        Now, what I want to do is to compare that with other writings that come from approximately the same time as the early church did and, in fact, even much earlier than the early Church and the New Testament so please bear with me.

        1. Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars!
        The original manuscript on Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars was originally scribed between 58-50 BC; that is at least 50 to 48 years before Christ. Today there are only 10 surviving copies of the original manuscript. The earliest copy out of these 10 copies was found 1000 years after the original manuscript.
        2. Homer’s Odyssey!
        The original manuscript of Homer’s Odyssey was originally written around about 800 years or the eight century BC. Again there are only 10 surviving copies that are available since the original poem was written by Homer. The first and earliest copy out of these 10 copies was found 2100 years later after the original manuscript.

        3. Aristotle’s Poetics!
        The original manuscript of Aristotle’s Poetics was written approximately 335 BC. Regarding the copies of the original manuscript, there are only 5 surviving copies since then of which the earliest copy was found 1400 years after the original manuscript was scribed.

        4. The Works of Herodotus!
        Herodotus as you well know was a Greek historian and he lived between 484-425 BC and he was known as the “Father of history”. He is known to be the first Greek historian to treat the historical subjects as a method of investigation by collecting materials systematically and critically and arranging them into Historiographical narratives. Out of his original documents, there are only 3 surviving copies that have been found. The earliest surviving copy was found around about 1300 years after his original manuscripts.

        Now, why am I going to such great lengths to try and tell you about, “Why the Bible is true”?
        As I said, there are over 5000 surviving copies of the original New Testament since it was first penned. The earliest known surviving copy is the Gospel of John found around about 60 years after after it was originally penned. Now, there are many, many more examples that I could have given you, but I have just concentrated on four of them for the sake of comparison in order to make my point. However, people will give more time and credence to Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars; Homer’s Odyssey; Aristotle’s Poetics, and The Works of Herodotus even though there are less surviving copies to be found and even though they have less to say than the Bible itself.
        If we take Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars or even Homer’s Odyssey of which there are only 10 surviving copies of each of them and compare that to the 5000 surviving copies of the Bible, which one of them would you choose to be true? This is not a manipulative question, I give you my word. All I am asking is for objectivity. Which would you give more credence to; Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars or even Homer’s Odyssey? If I took just these two examples and compare them with the Bible and give you a percentage on the survival rate then the survival rate of the Bible is 99.8%; more credible than the above-mentioned two examples.

        Unfortunately, people would rather believe the latter i.e. Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars; Homer’s Odyssey; Aristotle’s Poetics, or even The Works of Herodotus (this is not to say they are false) than believe the Bible which, by the way, has far more validity than all of them put together.
        I feel that we are living in a very self-centred day and age where everything is about me, me, me or me, myself, and I! We are living in a day and age where people are being programmed to believe more in the lesser things of life rather than the greater things of life!

        Now, it is my turn to apologise to you for such a Long-Read! Furthermore, I have not even responded to all of your thoughts and I do apologise. You also have given me much to think about!

        Like

  2. By the way, I am busy writing an apologetic on so-called Christianity (no defence), and the hypocrisy it has, and I am comparing that to genuine Christianity (with defence), which by the way, is very few and far between. I will publish it when I am done.

    Like

  3. This is was Jesus had to say to the so-called religious person and the hypocritical religiosity that they stood for: “You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words, you will be condemned.”

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s