God Is Good. All The Time......all The Time. God Is Good.

[Guest end3]

 

Well we have asked what the image of God means and no one has submitted the specifics. Which leads us to knowing Christ in order to understand God.

     What?

 

     I so wish I took drugs so things like this made sense.

 

     Anyhow, I'm going to just go ahead and dismiss the idea of one nebulous concept giving clarity to another out of hand "just because."

 

          mwc

 

Everyone is making assertions about God based on their "nebulous" understanding of Adam and Eve.....which comes down, if I am not mistaken, to one word, "image" of God. Which leads us to thus understanding the original of God. So it follows that in order to understand the original God we must look at Jesus. Again, no one seems to know how old, the level of human nature or lack thereof, or any of a myriad of unanswered questions about A&E that the discussion generates. Just automatically assumes God is leaving toddlers unprotected.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

YOU KNOW, here's another thought, E3. you said,

 

 ...but I would hope that you don't get mired in the sludge of standing in one place to garner your ultimate/finished perspective. We good?  

 

 

come to think of it, we are not good. I have a problem with this statement here. It is wordy and difficult to decipher, but it sounds to me like you are saying that you think I am somewhat UNBENDING in my point of view. This is definitely not the case at all. The dogma of Christianity does not allow people to change their opinions and world view as they talk with others. This can be part of the reason as to why this conversation will eventually lead nowhere. Your religion won't allow you to talk with people and change your views as you grow and mature. It teaches that its doctrine is the ONLY correct answer and NOTHING can convince any of us otherwise. If you do change your stance on anything or disagree in anyway you are an apostate and you are gonna BURN IN HELL!....Now that I have broken free of your religion, I can now change and grow and develop new ideas and perspectives. I can take a stand for whatever I want to now. If anyone is stuck in "sludge and mire" its you. Your perspective is set in stone. It can't change. your religion won't allow it. I am free to change my perspective as i see fit. I can talk to people and really, REALLY listen to what they have to say. I am not under any pressure to force my world view on them. I can just listen and weigh what they say against my values and how I see the world and I can change and adjust if I feel I need to.

 

The fact is, E3, I used to see things the way you do right now. I had your perspective for the last 25 years. Now I live in reality. I am able to see through all the bullshit. All of us here can see through the bullshit of your religion. I am not being stubborn and set in my ways when I talk about these things to you. I am just tossing aside the recycled garbage you are bringing back to me. Unless you have something NEW, something that's not BULLSHIT that all of us obviously rejected a long time ago, you are really just wasting your time and energy for nothing.

[Guest end3]

I like you too, E3. You just made my beer squirt out my nose, I'm laughing so hard. Dammit. "fundamentalist atheist?" Wooooow. I am faaaar from fundamentals. That's a big reason for my big bad apostasy. I like to think I have an open mind, and I was hoping you'd open yours up too, or at least long enough to stop regurgitating fundamental christian doctrine. Sorry to sound harsh, but my christian experience was one of pain and abuse and the wounds are still a little fresh, so I may come off as crass, but I mean no disrespect. My snarkiness comes from a place of pain caused by people who talk JUST. LIKE. YOU.

 

Now, to answer your question, I guide and direct my children. I do not just boss them around and punish them severely for minor offenses. If I tell my child, "don't touch that cookie in that cookie jar" and my child does it anyway, I carry out the consequences I set in place. Usually the penalty for that type of disobedience is, no more cookies for you. You DONT get any more because you disobeyed me. Now if my teenager steals my car and goes to a party I told him not to go to, the punishment for that type of disobedience gets a little more severe. Justice, to me, is where the punishment fits the crime. Do I toss my children out on the street for disobedience? NO. Do I mercilessly torture my child unrelentingly till he dies? Fuck no. This is the type of "parenting" style the bible god has, and I think everyone here can agree, that's not right. Its pretty twisted. Would I set my child alone in a room with a plate of cookies laced with arsenic and tell my kid, DONT EAT THESE OR YOULL DIE, and then walk away, and then send another adult in that room to coerce my child into eating the cookies? (My kids actually wouldn't need coercion, they'd just eat those bitches right after my back was turned)....what kind of a loving parent does that to their kids? Who is more at fault? The disobedient children, or the psycho adult who set up that sick test?

Glad you are a beer person....I think we will be able to communicate. It's just some of your arguments seem to me stem from fundamental non-belief....i.e. standard arguments against. It's not a crime. Actually, I don't consider myself as sounding fundamentalist. I was hoping to have had that aspect gone years ago.

 

Reading your response triggered one of my walk to Emmaus memories. Don't know how to say this where it makes much sense, but I think the stakes of non-belief are so high that extremes are necessary. Let me please think on this a bit. Glad for your OP S.

[mymistake]

 

Well we have asked what the image of God means and no one has submitted the specifics. Which leads us to knowing Christ in order to understand God.

 

 

If no one has submitted the specifics then it can't lead to knowing anything or understanding anything.  Derp.

 

 

 

There is this thing . . . and nobody knows anything about it.  And that is how this thing gives us full understanding of God.

 

Derp Derp

[Guest end3]

YOU KNOW, here's another thought, E3. you said,

 

 

...but I would hope that you don't get mired in the sludge of standing in one place to garner your ultimate/finished perspective. We good?  

 

 

come to think of it, we are not good. I have a problem with this statement here. It is wordy and difficult to decipher, but it sounds to me like you are saying that you think I am somewhat UNBENDING in my point of view. This is definitely not the case at all. The dogma of Christianity does not allow people to change their opinions and world view as they talk with others. This can be part of the reason as to why this conversation will eventually lead nowhere. Your religion won't allow you to talk with people and change your views as you grow and mature. It teaches that its doctrine is the ONLY correct answer and NOTHING can convince any of us otherwise. If you do change your stance on anything or disagree in anyway you are an apostate and you are gonna BURN IN HELL!....Now that I have broken free of your religion, I can now change and grow and develop new ideas and perspectives. I can take a stand for whatever I want to now. If anyone is stuck in "sludge and mire" its you. Your perspective is set in stone. It can't change. your religion won't allow it. I am free to change my perspective as i see fit. I can talk to people and really, REALLY listen to what they have to say. I am not under any pressure to force my world view on them. I can just listen and weigh what they say against my values and how I see the world and I can change and adjust if I feel I need to.

 

The fact is, E3, I used to see things the way you do right now. I had your perspective for the last 25 years. Now I live in reality. I am able to see through all the bullshit. All of us here can see through the bullshit of your religion. I am not being stubborn and set in my ways when I talk about these things to you. I am just tossing aside the recycled garbage you are bringing back to me. Unless you have something NEW, something that's not BULLSHIT that all of us obviously rejected a long time ago, you are really just wasting your time and energy for nothing.

 

I hear you, but it's easy for me, given your current perspective to lump you into the "she is currently subscribing to all of the standard arguments" group. I would hope that we ALL do not remain static.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Well we have asked what the image of God means and no one has submitted the specifics. Which leads us to knowing Christ in order to understand God.

     What?

 

     I so wish I took drugs so things like this made sense.

 

     Anyhow, I'm going to just go ahead and dismiss the idea of one nebulous concept giving clarity to another out of hand "just because."

 

          mwc

 

Everyone is making assertions about God based on their "nebulous" understanding of Adam and Eve.....which comes down, if I am not mistaken, to one word, "image" of God. Which leads us to thus understanding the original of God. So it follows that in order to understand the original God we must look at Jesus. Again, no one seems to know how old, the level of human nature or lack thereof, or any of a myriad of unanswered questions about A&E that the discussion generates. Just automatically assumes God is leaving toddlers unprotected.

 

Folks are simply as assuming this god of yours exists for discussion purposes.  Oblivious to this temporary assumption (for purposes of discussion), you double down with the Jesus sky fairy dogma.

 

Defend your myths all you want, and be an ass about it while you do it.  Your god is an asshole, and, because you defend and apologize for his asshole behavior, you are perceived as one too.

[mymistake]

 

I hear you, but it's easy for me, given your current perspective to lump you into the "she is currently subscribing to all of the standard arguments" group. I would hope that we ALL do not remain static.

 

 

 

And who would be the one who isn't learning regardless of how many times the facts are explained to him?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Well we have asked what the image of God means and no one has submitted the specifics. Which leads us to knowing Christ in order to understand God.

     What?

 

     I so wish I took drugs so things like this made sense.

 

     Anyhow, I'm going to just go ahead and dismiss the idea of one nebulous concept giving clarity to another out of hand "just because."

 

          mwc

 

Everyone is making assertions about God based on their "nebulous" understanding of Adam and Eve.....which comes down, if I am not mistaken, to one word, "image" of God. Which leads us to thus understanding the original of God. So it follows that in order to understand the original God we must look at Jesus. Again, no one seems to know how old, the level of human nature or lack thereof, or any of a myriad of unanswered questions about A&E that the discussion generates. Just automatically assumes God is leaving toddlers unprotected.

 

 

 

So God created mankind in his own image,

    in the image of God he created them;

    male and female he created them.

 

If image means A & E knew the difference between good and evil, then that disagrees with Gen 3 : 5 (Satan) and 3 : 22 (God).

 

If image means A & E didn't know the difference between good and evil, then God's command and warning to only Adam (Gen 2 : 15 - 17) was pointless.

 

How can they obey a command and a warning God made sure they couldn't understand?

.

.

.

Did you ever entrap your kids by giving them a warning they couldn't understand and then punishing them for not understanding it?

 

Your God did that!

[bornagainathiest]

Or did you just require your kids to obey you without question?

 

And then punish them when they didn't?

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

The standard arguments I hold, however common they may be, are still stronger than yours. You have not presented anything NEW, E3, so why change my position? Why move, if you're not moving? If you've heard all these arguments before, why can't you answer them with anything new? Why dance around in circles with wordy, obscure sentences? I feel like I need to start smoking my "good and evil plant" to unravel what you are trying to say to me. Theres not enough beer in the world for this conversation, bro.

[Guest end3]

The standard arguments I hold, however common they may be, are still stronger than yours. You have not presented anything NEW, E3, so why change my position? Why move, if you're not moving? If you've heard all these arguments before, why can't you answer them with anything new? Why dance around in circles with wordy, obscure sentences? I feel like I need to start smoking my "good and evil plant" to unravel what you are trying to say to me. Theres not enough beer in the world for this conversation, bro.

I don't know what derives belief S, but I can't move from my belief. Anyhow, thanks for the visit. You're new....fyi, I don't write well. My mind makes jumps and I don't fill in the jumps with my writing. Thanks again.

[mwc]

Everyone is making assertions about God based on their "nebulous" understanding of Adam and Eve.....which comes down, if I am not mistaken, to one word, "image" of God. Which leads us to thus understanding the original of God. So it follows that in order to understand the original God we must look at Jesus. Again, no one seems to know how old, the level of human nature or lack thereof, or any of a myriad of unanswered questions about A&E that the discussion generates. Just automatically assumes God is leaving toddlers unprotected.

 

     I think I see what you're trying to say.

 

     However god was present along with the serpent in the garden so it doesn't change what I said.  Adam and Eve would see them as equals.  Neither one good nor evil in their point of view since, without eating the fruit, they could not possess that ability to discern unless we're being misled by the text that the tree/fruit did exactly what it said it did.  Only after eating the fruit could they look to (or reflect upon) god and know if he was good or evil, likewise the serpent and even themselves.

 

     If I am to assume that Adam and Eve had the ability discern good from evil simply because they were created in the image of god then eating the fruit is redundant and to tell me their eyes were opened (v3:7) is not required because they would have already been in that state.  Perhaps their eyes were further opened or opened fully from a lessor state but that's not what we're told.

 

     The story does make it sound as if they had the ability to make some judgments based on the quality of things such as they decided the fruit was good to eat but they were given all the fruit of the garden to eat so it should have all been good in that sense.  We're not told that some of the trees were bad for food and they had to pick and choose beyond this single tree that was only bad to eat by declaration.  To our knowledge, from the information in this story, they made no choices of this nature.  So the story telling us the forbidden fruit looking good only follows given what we know about the food in the garden as a whole.  It was all good in that it was edible.

 

          mwc

[Travi]

 

The standard arguments I hold, however common they may be, are still stronger than yours. You have not presented anything NEW, E3, so why change my position? Why move, if you're not moving? If you've heard all these arguments before, why can't you answer them with anything new? Why dance around in circles with wordy, obscure sentences? I feel like I need to start smoking my "good and evil plant" to unravel what you are trying to say to me. Theres not enough beer in the world for this conversation, bro.

I don't know what derives belief S, but I can't move from my belief. Anyhow, thanks for the visit. You're new....fyi, I don't write well. My mind makes jumps and I don't fill in the jumps with my writing. Thanks again.

 

Can't? It isn't impossible End. It's more like you won't for whatever reason. Lifting 10,000lbs is something that is impossible, but changing a mindset isn't.

[bornagainathiest]

End3 : "I can't move from my belief."

 

Written 28 minutes earlier...

 

End3 : "I hear you, but it's easy for me, given your current perspective to lump you into the "she is currently subscribing to all of the standard arguments" group. I would hope that we ALL do not remain static."

.

.

.

But End's going to remain static because he can't move from his belief!

 

 

 

 

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

The standard arguments I hold, however common they may be, are still stronger than yours. You have not presented anything NEW, E3, so why change my position? Why move, if you're not moving? If you've heard all these arguments before, why can't you answer them with anything new? Why dance around in circles with wordy, obscure sentences? I feel like I need to start smoking my "good and evil plant" to unravel what you are trying to say to me. Theres not enough beer in the world for this conversation, bro.

I don't know what derives belief S, but I can't move from my belief. Anyhow, thanks for the visit. You're new....fyi, I don't write well. My mind makes jumps and I don't fill in the jumps with my writing. Thanks again.

Yes I am new here. This forum is a good place to let go for those of us who see your religion for what it is. A tool. A very effective one, used to control people. Of course you can't stop yourself from believing. Your head is still fucked. But that's okay, because you are not a prick about it. I really do like you a lot and I've enjoyed meeting you. You have been most gracious during our conversation and I am grateful for that. I like the fact that I can come here, to continue to unfuck my head. Talking with Christians here definitely helps. By talking with them, I can see exactly how fucked my head was, and I can see progress in myself during the unfucking process. Its good to have the support of everyone around here too, so I can keep my head on straight, as I talk through my thoughts here.

 

Oh, random thought, since we both mentioned beer, E3, you guys know who I would want to worship if gods really were real? Silenus! The Greek god of beer! He's cool as shit yo! He doesn't punish, doesn't judge, he's just a fat, jolly, drinking buddy. NOW THAT'S a god worthy of worship right there!

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

The standard arguments I hold, however common they may be, are still stronger than yours. You have not presented anything NEW, E3, so why change my position? Why move, if you're not moving? If you've heard all these arguments before, why can't you answer them with anything new? Why dance around in circles with wordy, obscure sentences? I feel like I need to start smoking my "good and evil plant" to unravel what you are trying to say to me. Theres not enough beer in the world for this conversation, bro.

I don't know what derives belief S, but I can't move from my belief. Anyhow, thanks for the visit. You're new....fyi, I don't write well. My mind makes jumps and I don't fill in the jumps with my writing. Thanks again.

 

Can't? It isn't impossible End. It's more like you won't for whatever reason. Lifting 10,000lbs is something that is impossible, but changing a mindset isn't.

 

 

End's the finest exponent of the Harry Randall Truman school of 'won't', Travi.

 

His can't means won't and staying won't, even if it kills him.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

Oh yeah, Athirst, and ALSO, 1 HOUR earlier, "Don't get stuck in the mire and muck of an unchanging perspective, Sy!"

[Travi]

 

 

 

The standard arguments I hold, however common they may be, are still stronger than yours. You have not presented anything NEW, E3, so why change my position? Why move, if you're not moving? If you've heard all these arguments before, why can't you answer them with anything new? Why dance around in circles with wordy, obscure sentences? I feel like I need to start smoking my "good and evil plant" to unravel what you are trying to say to me. Theres not enough beer in the world for this conversation, bro.

I don't know what derives belief S, but I can't move from my belief. Anyhow, thanks for the visit. You're new....fyi, I don't write well. My mind makes jumps and I don't fill in the jumps with my writing. Thanks again.

 

Can't? It isn't impossible End. It's more like you won't for whatever reason. Lifting 10,000lbs is something that is impossible, but changing a mindset isn't.

 

 

End's the finest exponent of the Harry Randall Truman school of 'won't', Travi.

 

His can't means won't and staying won't, even if it kills him.

 

Yeah, I was kind of getting that vibe.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

But you know, guys, in E3's defense, its not that he WONT stop believing, I actually believe that he used the correct word, "can't". He can't move away from his faith, or allow it to be shaken no matter how well thought out our heathen arguments are. What he WONT do, is open up his mind and truly examine his doctrine rationally. He WONT truly consider our logical, solid, well constructed thoughts on his doctrine. Therefore, his faith CANNOT be shaken. He is correct. While his mind is still locked into his religion, he can't move from his belief. It just isn't possible. And that's okay. There's nothing we can do for him. He's just gonna keep coming in here, doing his best to " minister" to us heathens and apostates, in a feeble attempt to appease his god. This is the shit his religion demands him to do. We can't break him freem he has to break himself free.

[Guest end3]

But you know, guys, in E3's defense, its not that he WONT stop believing, I actually believe that he used the correct word, "can't". He can't move away from his faith, or allow it to be shaken no matter how well thought out our heathen arguments are. What he WONT do, is open up his mind and truly examine his doctrine rationally. He WONT truly consider our logical, solid, well constructed thoughts on his doctrine. Therefore, his faith CANNOT be shaken. He is correct. While his mind is still locked into his religion, he can't move from his belief. It just isn't possible. And that's okay. There's nothing we can do for him. He's just gonna keep coming in here, doing his best to " minister" to us heathens and apostates, in a feeble attempt to appease his god. This is the shit his religion demands him to do. We can't break him freem he has to break himself free.

No, you missed it because you don't know me. It's not something intellectual. As it kills people here to mention that I have managed multiple analytical laboratories through the years, logical and well thought out are not beyond my capacity. My belief stems from when I go to church, when I hear the words, there is a deep sense of comfort and understanding and knowing for me that this is right. It really doesn't boil down to logic. Logically, there are several arguments here that make decent sense to me, but I won't simply switch sides on those criteria alone.

[Guest end3]

 

Everyone is making assertions about God based on their "nebulous" understanding of Adam and Eve.....which comes down, if I am not mistaken, to one word, "image" of God. Which leads us to thus understanding the original of God. So it follows that in order to understand the original God we must look at Jesus. Again, no one seems to know how old, the level of human nature or lack thereof, or any of a myriad of unanswered questions about A&E that the discussion generates. Just automatically assumes God is leaving toddlers unprotected.

     I think I see what you're trying to say.

 

     However god was present along with the serpent in the garden so it doesn't change what I said.  Adam and Eve would see them as equals.  Neither one good nor evil in their point of view since, without eating the fruit, they could not possess that ability to discern unless we're being misled by the text that the tree/fruit did exactly what it said it did.  Only after eating the fruit could they look to (or reflect upon) god and know if he was good or evil, likewise the serpent and even themselves.

 

     If I am to assume that Adam and Eve had the ability discern good from evil simply because they were created in the image of god then eating the fruit is redundant and to tell me their eyes were opened (v3:7) is not required because they would have already been in that state.  Perhaps their eyes were further opened or opened fully from a lessor state but that's not what we're told.

 

     The story does make it sound as if they had the ability to make some judgments based on the quality of things such as they decided the fruit was good to eat but they were given all the fruit of the garden to eat so it should have all been good in that sense.  We're not told that some of the trees were bad for food and they had to pick and choose beyond this single tree that was only bad to eat by declaration.  To our knowledge, from the information in this story, they made no choices of this nature.  So the story telling us the forbidden fruit looking good only follows given what we know about the food in the garden as a whole.  It was all good in that it was edible.

 

          mwc

 

Here's the NIV's version...gives us some idea of her abilities. Would have to do a word study to discern "saw, good, pleasing, desirable". The Prof and I hashed this out a while back...but I have slept since then.

 

Gen 3:6

 

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

No, you missed it because you don't know me.

 

 

....says the dude who reads a thread or two of mine and then concludes that I'm a "fundamentalist atheist" ....whatever the fuck that is. I haven't even gotten to the point yet where I can even label myself, and I know myself FAR BETTER than you do. Where do you get off slapping a label on me and then get all uppity with me about how I don't know you and shit.

 

 

.... As it kills people here to mention that I have managed multiple analytical laboratories through the years, logical and well thought out are not beyond my capacity.

 

I absolutely agree. Logic and reason are NOT beyond your capacity. You are a very intelligent person, I have no doubt about that. It actually gives me great hope for you to know you are an analyst of sorts. On sure it doesn't "kill" people in this forum to know this information, but merely frustrates them. It tells them that you are fully capable of analyzing data and processing it rationally. You just don't apply these same principles to your religion. This is called cognitive dissonance. You are separating two conflicting realities and trying to live in both. Your faith has this one way of reasoning, and our natural world, including your brain, have another way of reasoning. You are able to do both which is fascinating. You disconnect one when the other is in operation, and then the other likewise. So you can have both. I have done the exact same thing for 25 years. I have a really good idea of how you think, based on what little I know about you. I DONT presume to know you, or slap a label on you, but I can get a good idea of how you think and reason, because I used to be you. I am a recently deconverted christian, so as such all of this is still very fresh in my mind.

[mwc]

Here's the NIV's version...gives us some idea of her abilities. Would have to do a word study to discern "saw, good, pleasing, desirable". The Prof and I hashed this out a while back...but I have slept since then.

 

Gen 3:6

 

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

     I see.  Another "word study."  You're out of ammo.

 

     I already noted all the fruit of the garden was good for food.  This is the very nature of the food of the garden.  It was all suited to be food.  There was no bad food in the garden.  They had no ability to discern good food from bad food since there was no reason to do so.  Unless, beyond the single tree we're discussing, there were other poisonous plants we're not told about that they had to avoid though that's an odd reading.  Pleasing to the eye is just that.  Perhaps I would not find it pleasing to my eye yet it is still edible since all the food, we're told, is edible.  And there's absolutely no way anyone can tell if anything is "desirable for gaining wisdom" by looking at it.  That statement is nonsense on it's very surface.  To say she wanted the wisdom of knowledge of good and evil overlooks the very argument of whether she knew this very act in and of itself was good or evil.  The desire of wisdom and/or knowledge we're led to believe is an evil act but we're pursuing, or desiring, that now.  It's not.

 

          mwc

[Guest end3]

No, you missed it because you don't know me.

 

 

....says the dude who reads a thread or two of mine and then concludes that I'm a "fundamentalist atheist" ....whatever the fuck that is. I haven't even gotten to the point yet where I can even label myself, and I know myself FAR BETTER than you do. Where do you get off slapping a label on me and then get all uppity with me about how I don't know you and shit.

 

 

 

 

 

.... As it kills people here to mention that I have managed multiple analytical laboratories through the years, logical and well thought out are not beyond my capacity.

 

I absolutely agree. Logic and reason are NOT beyond your capacity. You are a very intelligent person, I have no doubt about that. It actually gives me great hope for you to know you are an analyst of sorts. On sure it doesn't "kill" people in this forum to know this information, but merely frustrates them. It tells them that you are fully capable of analyzing data and processing it rationally. You just don't apply these same principles to your religion. This is called cognitive dissonance. You are separating two conflicting realities and trying to live in both. Your faith has this one way of reasoning, and our natural world, including your brain, have another way of reasoning. You are able to do both which is fascinating. You disconnect one when the other is in operation, and then the other likewise. So you can have both. I have done the exact same thing for 25 years. I have a really good idea of how you think, based on what little I know about you. I DONT presume to know you, or slap a label on you, but I can get a good idea of how you think and reason, because I used to be you. I am a recently deconverted christian, so as such all of this is still very fresh in my mind.

 

 

Ok, I'm guilty of the former. Apologies. To the latter. When you try to apply science to the language of the Bible, all the "brilliant" minds here balk at the thought of even attempting such for I assume the same reason in reverse, that they can't let themselves do both. The "take home" message for me is until science gives me an understanding of what our brains do, then I'm not going to jump ship....nor am I really compelled to do so anyhow.

 

Here's my explanation of fundamental atheist so you may know "my" definition. When something starts to work for us, a belief let's say, then whatever anyone tells us at that point is gospel because it's what coincides with our experience of life getting better. For instance, if I am attending a legalistic church at the time of my conversion, then by God, legalism is gospel. I will be careful in suspecting you are in that boat only with disbelief. I will hold my label slapping because you caught me(lol), but you present evidence of such without me knowing you.

 

Enough about me...what's your story S.

 

[Guest end3]

Sorry about the editing difficulties