The experience of a teenage atheist

The title was not meant to sound like “confessions of a teenage werewolf”.
This is the background to an earlier thread, “How an atheist became a Christian”. The timing seemed appropriate, because this Christmas is the fiftieth anniversary of the previous turning-point. If you like, you can think of it as a “prequel” (though I hate the word as a lazy and inaccurate neologism).

My family’s religious history has been a cycle which begins with my father. His background as a village boy was Primitive Methodist. But while he was at teacher-training college, he was advised -by a tutor, I suppose- to get himself confirmed. The reasoning was that a very large proportion of the jobs in his chosen field (primary education) would be in Church of England schools.

As a career move, it worked like a charm. He spent his teaching life in two C. of E. schools, and as a direct result I was brought up in a parish which happened to be at the “high” or “Anglo-Catholic” end of the Church of England. Church services were conducted in the pastiche of Catholic ritual that was devised by late Victorian clergymen. We had “Sung Mass”, in English, with incense and bell-ringing and also the English Hymnal, which includes a selection of hymns that are “suitable for use in procession” (mainly because of their length). As a school, we would be taken up to the church on Ash Wednesday to have crosses marked on our foreheads, and for the appropriate services on other special days. At least on Ascension Day we got the rest of the day off. This training had an important and unintended side-effect. Namely, that when I reached the normal age of adolescent rebellion, it was the catholic and ritualised version of religion that I was rebelling against. The evangelical version would be a fresh discovery at a later date.

The impact of the religious education which we received in secondary school was very limited. In the Victorian age, our developing education system was the focus of a three-cornered fight between the Established Church, the Nonconformists, and the secularists. The outcome was that religious knowledge, or religious instruction, or religious education (I’ve known all these names at different times) was established as a compulsory weekly lesson which had to be non-denominational. The result, in my experience, was that it was taught in a very casual, informal way, by teachers who were specialists in other subjects like French or Mathematics. There was no particular need to give the subject any serious thought.

So I did not begin questioning things until I reached the Sixth Form (if you’re American, I think that means eleventh and twelfth grades). My subjects there were English, History, and Latin. In the History course, which was my main interest, the chosen period was that old classic “The Tudors and the Stuarts”. This included the European history of the time, and necessarily covered the events of the Reformation. Looking at these controversies, I was inclining to the verdict that both sides were wrong. The Pope, for claiming an authority which was quite unhistorical, which had been a much more gradual growth than he was willing to admit. Luther and Calvin, for promoting the doctrines of Election and Predestination, which I rejected instinctively. So I felt rather detached from religious enthusiasm and talk of God. I felt more at home, when we got that far, with the clockmaker God of the eighteenth century Deists, who set the machinery in motion and then left it running.

Meanwhile I was learning philosophy. Not from the usual suspects of the time, like Marcuse and Marshall McLuhan and Jean-Paul Sartre, but from Cicero. One of the set-books in the Latin course was “The thought of Cicero”, an anthology of selections from his writings. (“The thoughts of Chairman Cicero”, observed my History teacher. A topical joke.) Cicero proved the existence of gods, and souls, by the “unmoved mover” argument; that something must be around that is entirely self-sustaining, or else the universe just grinds to a halt altogether. Nevertheless, I spent my Sixth-form years, as I analysed later, drifting from an original basic Stoicism into Epicureanism.

I finally became a teenage atheist fifty years ago this Christmas. Ironically, the event took place at Midnight Mass, in the middle of the sermon. It wasn’t our usual church, because we were visiting my grandparents in Teignmouth. There was not much room between the pews, I remember. The hassocks, for kneeling purposes, hung from nails on the pew in front. In fact the nail immediately in front of me kept bumping into my knee every time I kneeled down. The sermon was delivered in very unctuous tones, and the turning point was probably the phrase “the little baby in the manger”. It seemed to me that he was talking to the congregation in exactly the same way that he would have addressed an audience of children. My reaction to all this was to think to myself “I don’t believe in this stuff”.

I was keeping a diary at the time, but there were no free moments to reflect upon the event until Boxing Day; “… I do not have the powerful motives which drive men to religion. The origin lies in the desire for some kind of security, to offset the dreadful weakness of man alone inside the vastness of the universe. The faith in religion gives comfort, but since I have not any strong faith, I felt there was little point in maintaining nominal adherence to it, in pretending to have faith. I would not have the comfort of religion, but I would not have it in any case…”

But how should I relate to the rest of the prevailing Christian environment? “The decision raises further problems. How far is it ethical, in arguing what one thinks is the truth, to raise doubts in a man’s mind and deny him the security he finds in his faith? Only a few people are actively doubting the validity of Christianity, most people will prefer to pay lip service to it whether they go to church or not. Whatever the sincerity, children are brought up in an atmosphere of Christianity if only that taught at school. If I had children, I would have nothing to fill that vacuum… In fact, if their mother was a devout Christian, it would be better to leave them to be brought up that way, so that they could opt out later if they wanted to.” In short, I could see no cause to be aggressive. The phrase “standing on my own two feet in the universe” occurs on another occasion. I felt strong enough not to need the emotional support of religion, but that wasn’t a reason for trying to take it away from the less fortunate.

I could take a relaxed attitude, because I wasn’t going to meet religious oppression. Our family was not strict on religious observance, and church attendance was only expected on “family occasions” like Christmas and Easter. I could register my new position simply by staying at home the next Christmas Eve, by which time I was eighteen and a college student, with a greater claim to independence. Only once (approaching Teignmouth again) was there even any comment on the matter; “ Last night Simon started talking about his confirmation. Dad remarked that it had at least ended his religious life, as it had stopped him going to church. When Simon said he supposed he would have to go on Easter Sunday, Dad said Yes, he would. Would Dad force him? Yes. Why? Because he was in Dad’s household. Simon observed that I had not gone at Christmas, and I added that I didn’t intend to go on Easter Day either. “We’ll tell you to go and jump in the river, then”, Dad said. “Don’t say that,” said Mum, “because he will.” (I wouldn’t. It would be an awful waste.)”

But of course the Christians in college weren’t going to let things go as easily as that, as I discovered at the Freshman’s fair; “Undoubtedly the most persistent and most numerous of the persuaders were those of the Christian Union. I had a ten minute argument with one when I told him that I was an atheist.” This did not happen very often, because I did not seek out Christian contact. Although I did once walk into the trap accidentally;
“In the evening I went down to [a local church] to see what had been advertised as a play. It turned out to be a play “with a message”. While drinking coffee in the church extension beforehand I was met by a little American called Mike, very earnest and eager, who attached himself to me as a new friend and introduced me to others we passed…. The final message at the end, in the parson’s summing up, was that in this world of showiness and uncertainty, everybody was looking for “the answer”, and this was what Christianity could supply. In other words, Christianity satisfies deep human psychological needs; but that would be exactly my reason for being suspicious of something which was so obviously wish-fulfilment. While he was speaking, Mike whispered something in my ear about how loquacious he was, and then asked if I were a Christian. On my shaking my head, he looked into my face, as he did often, and then suggested I “stay behind” for a moment, as the parson had suggested. Instead I continued going out…”

But the controversy between atheist and Christian is not half as bitter, apparently, as the controversy between atheist and agnostic, and my room-mate turned out to be an agnostic. He was studying Mathematics, while I was studying History. It will be clear from the following account, anyway, that neither of us was studying Philosophy;

“In the early hours of this morning (and resuming this afternoon) Malcolm and I created the new science of Mathematical Theology, or rather Theological Mathematics. It followed on from the argument after the last staircase party. He’s been talking to [a girl in another college] called Nicky, and they came to the conclusion that religious faith could be expressed as a circle. Taking agnosticism as a fixed point, Christian faith and atheism went off in opposite directions to meet at the other side of the circle, proving themselves to be the same thing. So I set out to disprove this. I argued that faith was not a circle but a straight line. Since he would turn an infinite line into a circular one, I made it a finite straight line, with absence of faith at one end and maximum faith at the other.

But I then made the mistake of introducing complications. Taking into account the different kinds of belief in God, I gave them separate lines, all originating from the “0” fixed point of atheism, and so becoming a cone, which made the figure three-dimensional. “Maximum faith” would then be a circle or circular plane at the other end. The length of the line was arbitrarily fixed at 200 units of faith, because Malcolm had wanted to place agnosticism half-way along as the zero point, and measuring 100 units in each direction, and I wasn’t having that. In fact I got agnosticism off the line altogether by giving it a separate band, hovering detached and equidistant from the surface of the cone. All this was putting areas into the picture.

Malcolm then pointed out that human beings are not capable of standing on a point. Therefore nobody could stand exclusively on my point of “Zero faith”, but must extend a little beyond it; therefore nobody could be a pure atheist. This was really cheating, because I had originally meant the lines merely as directions. He questioned the possibility of maximum faith, so I compared it with an egg-cup being full or empty with water. He also attacked the idea that faith was quantifiable, but I retorted that the idea appeared in his circle as well and was inherent in any attempt to portray the question in geometrical terms. As he argued, he was writing to Judith in Manchester, sometimes inserting a running commentary on the discussion (“Steve has just admitted…). We argued until about four o’clock in the morning, and in the resumption this afternoon we were examining his circle.”

I did not encounter the Christian version of the silly argument that “Atheists don’t exist” until I was already a Christian myself. Even so, and despite the fact that the lady who proposed it was my-co-leader in the Bible Study group we were attending, I found it intensely annoying, as an affront to my former self.

More recently, when I wrote the “How an atheist became a Christian” thread, one line of response (unconsciously borrowed from the Calvinists) was that I could not have been a “real atheist”, because a real atheist would never have given up that position. So my historic atheism has been denied at different times by all three groups, which must be a rare experience.

A common Christian argument against atheism is that abandoning belief in God has the effect of undermining the moral sense. I can endorse that theory, because frequent self-observation was leading me to the same conclusion at the time.

“I’ve already come to realise that my philosophy, taken in the abstract, leads to the destruction of all morality. I think it is a fact of observation that I have any morality at all only because it suits me, and I am forced to recognise that religious people are right in thinking that religious belief is necessary for the bonds of society. If everyone else reached my position, not all of them would hold it in their interests to abide by the rules.” “Because it suits me” would have been partly force of habit, and partly my interest in being liked. This means that in practice I was fairly well-behaved.

And again; “…as some of the questions [at the Humanist Society meeting] were revealing, it is impossible to work out any purely rational basis for altruism on a grand scale. I don’t see how the logical process of thought leads away from self-interest and personal feeling as the main basis of action.”

And again; “I agree with Shakespeare and the Christian that there is no ultimate meaning to human life in this world, but don’t agree with Shakespeare’s despair or the Christian answer. I simply don’t think that “ultimate meaning” is at all necessary. I think all we need to do is get on with living it and enjoying it. Although things like money, power, fame, physical pleasures of all kinds have no absolute value, there are many other things of equal value in the enjoyment of life, like peace, privacy, freedom of thought and action, health and emotional pleasures. My big caveat is that none of them are so important that it is worth pursuing them to such a degree as to spoil the enjoyment of the whole. Thus the skinflint miser, the fastidious valetudinarian, Howard Hughes, and the self-punishing ascetic are all making the mistake, or in danger of making the mistake, of preventing their enjoyment of their lives by distorting them in pursuit of wealth, health or holiness.” This is the classic Epicurean position, the importance of balance. I told you that I was an Epicurean.

Incidentally, my source for “Shakespeare’s despair” was undoubtedly King Lear, which must have been a stronger influence than Wordsworth or William Golding.

It was in this state of mind- being aware that I was not on “moral high ground” and not being bothered by the fact- that I had the encounter described in the previous thread (q.v.), which forced me into another act of self-observation and another moral choice.

How an atheist became a Christian

I too was very much like you in my late teens and early 20's. I was a staunch atheist who held the dogma of philosophical materialism in the highest possible regard.

Then after I graduated college and started working I discovered USENET news groups. I began posting contributions on the Atheists vs Christianity forum. It was a lot fun especially when a well honed arrow hit its mark.

After a while I began to become bored arguing the atheist position against the theists. It's a very simple argument anyone can master with just a few hours of thought. As an intellectual challenge I started arguing the pro-theist position just for fun.

After the first year of arguing a pro-theist position I began to realize how challenging it was to argue a pro-theist position with the usually intellectually superior atheists. But after about 10 years of trying my arguments became much more refined. And a really thing happened. I started to actually believe in my own arguments!

So now 30 years later my view of God has change dramatically. The video below is probably my favorite and is the closest to representing my current way of thinking about God:



Especially the Q&A section at the end some Sheldrake's answers I found really profound.

It's funny how people are with their conversations about God. It reminds me of what said about plumping, "Just because you use a toilet everyday doesn't make you a master plumber." What I find extremely fascinated about Sheldrake's views on the nature of God is Apophatic theology.

Apophatic Theology

I don't make a habit of commenting in your threads, but I would like to address a couple of items in brief.

More recently, when I wrote the “How an atheist became a Christian” thread, one line of response (unconsciously borrowed from the Calvinists) was that I could not have been a “real atheist”, because a real atheist would never have given up that position. So my historic atheism has been denied at different times by all three groups, which must be a rare experience.

Or more likely borrowed consciously from Christians who like to tell atheists they were never a real Christian because they would still be one if they were. From my perspective, if someone were a devout Christian and became a genuine atheist, it is very unlikely they will ever return to Christianity, but it isn't impossible.
However, if someone was raised in a Christian household, but not so much a practicing or devout Christian, I find it easier see that person turn atheist and then go back to Christianity later. We have a tendency to return to our upbringing more often than not.

A common Christian argument against atheism is that abandoning belief in God has the effect of undermining the moral sense. I can endorse that theory, because frequent self-observation was leading me to the same conclusion at the time.

“I’ve already come to realise that my philosophy, taken in the abstract, leads to the destruction of all morality. I think it is a fact of observation that I have any morality at all only because it suits me, and I am forced to recognise that religious people are right in thinking that religious belief is necessary for the bonds of society.

This statement I take strong issue with because it comes from arrogance and falsely assumes that Christianity is the sole author and arbiter of morality. It is not, nor has it ever been, even though that IS what Christianity teaches. Abandoning belief in God does not undermine the moral sense. It redefines what morality is from a realistic perspective based on personal and social responsibility and accountability. Religion has been used for millennia to accomplish this, but it is completely unnecessary unless one also wants unbridled control over the hearts, minds, and purse of the people.

Carry on, and Merry Christmas to you and yours.

originally posted by: Klassified
This statement I take strong issue with because it comes from arrogance and falsely assumes that Christianity is the sole author and arbiter of morality.

I'll just remind you that I wasn't a Christian when I wrote those words. I was observing the fact that pure rationalism wasn't providing a motive for following whatever abstract moral principles might be devised.

The old world must fall before the human race can advance significantly. You cannot shoehorn real human rights into the confines of ancient superstition. People have been trying to do that for hundreds of years and we don't even have the right to request merciful euthanasia for ourselves in the vast majority of the world because of this crap.

The various religions of the world have stubbornly clung to their old nonsensical prejudices and superstitions to the point to where they are actively holding us back in ways that are deeply divisive and harmful. Millions of atheists have gone to their graves without religion (and many of them have spent months or years suffering in agony with religious zealots beating them over the head with "the sanctity of life" the whole time.

I'm done feeling sorry for them as far as the prospect of them losing their precious delusions when they are actively exerting massive influence over things that have a direct impact on everyone.

I have never been an Atheist,per se, but rejected man's religions and culture.

Brought up going to church every Sunday, mostly Methodist, sometimes Baptist.

But, my dad never went.

When I was around the age of 13 years old, Seeing what I saw of people who were Christians and all, doing not so good Christian deeds outside of the church,I recognized the hypocrisy and refused to go to church anymore.

Haven't been to a church since, other than funerals and weddings.

I do believe in a God, but on my terms. I see it in people, I see it in nature. I see it in my own experiences through out life.

I believe I should not have to worship, but , instead, live a good life and be loving and kind as best I can.

And I am at peace with that and more than willing to accept what ever is thrown at me.

My 2 cents......

My teenage years consisted of many things I can't discuss without breaking the T&C of this site.

I was raised a baptist, believed nothing and then I read a book that really hit me in the heart and the mind.
It was called Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl.
I read it on the side of a highway while I was hitchhiking to jail to serve a sentence....that book changed my life.

What I or anyone else believes, should never be anyone's business.

Let an atheist be an atheist, a jew be a jew, a christian be a christian, a muslim be a muslim etc etc etc.

If anyone is talking about someone else, they aren't spending enough time looking in the mirror and are spending too much time talking about problems and not spending enough time looking for solutions.

This is gonna take some time. I'm working on a reply so look back here on occasion. It might take me a day or so to edit several times. but I will get back to you.
Have to start the 2nd page now.

One note here and it stands the chance of offending many but, Have you ever looked at the catholic church as being a religious cult?
eaec.org...

Roman Catholicism Founder: Emperor Constantine Overview: The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called "miraculous conversion" to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god. Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reins of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire – that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus – a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine's titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops).

Also, waxing and waning in one's beliefs is typical. My story is unique culminating in my spiritual reaffirmation when I was 66. I may insert here and there.

What other religion demands it's professors convert or not be hired.

originally posted by: CharlesT
This is gonna take some time. I'm working on a reply so look back here on occasion. It might take me a day or so to edit several times. but I will get back to you.
Have to start the 2nd page now.

One note here and it stands the chance of offending many but, Have you ever looked at the catholic church as being a religious cult?
eaec.org...

Roman Catholicism Founder: Emperor Constantine Overview: The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called "miraculous conversion" to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god. Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reins of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire – that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus – a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine's titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops).

Also, waxing and waning in one's beliefs is typical. My story is unique culminating in my spiritual reaffirmation when I was 66. I may insert here and there.
What other religion demands it's professors convert or not be hired.

My wife and I were watching many shows on different religious cults, and I asked her , do you think the Catholic church is a cult? She said not so much.

All these cults were sexually abusing children , and so was the Catholic church.

I believe all religions are a cult of some sort to an extent, that is I why I rejected religion, a man made belief system designed to control people and gain power.

I have a problem with authority because they become power hungry and want to screw over the common man to get what they want.

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
My teenage years consisted of many things I can't discuss without breaking the T&C of this site.

I was raised a baptist, believed nothing and then I read a book that really hit me in the heart and the mind.
It was called Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl.
I read it on the side of a highway while I was hitchhiking to jail to serve a sentence....that book changed my life.

What I or anyone else believes, should never be anyone's business.

Let an atheist be an atheist, a jew be a jew, a christian be a christian, a muslim be a muslim etc etc etc.

If anyone is talking about someone else, they aren't spending enough time looking in the mirror and are spending too much time talking about problems and not spending enough time looking for solutions.

I agree with you. Spirituality is personal , don't be going around looking down at others because of their beliefs and human condition. My family is a perfect example of that hypocrisy.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Klassified
This statement I take strong issue with because it comes from arrogance and falsely assumes that Christianity is the sole author and arbiter of morality.

I'll just remind you that I wasn't a Christian when I wrote those words. I was observing the fact that pure rationalism wasn't providing a motive for following whatever abstract moral principles might be devised.

From perspective, Christian morals are actually quite twisted bordering on evil:

"Friedrich Nietzsche had some acute criticisms of Christianity. He said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to take what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfillment was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, good sex, intellectual mastery, personal wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they really wanted but were incapable of achieving while praising what they did not want was being virtuous. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." A Christian slave was too weak to have any personal voice and was only capable of bending a knee to whoever was in authority. "

Submission to authority is not a very good basis for a religion. It's really good for monarchy and building empires.

a reply to: Groot
You are basing your faith on the thoughts and actions of other external reasons when the only true reason that needs to apply is the relationship between you and the creator. Nothing else matters more and all else is a distraction from your search for truth. I did and still do recognize the hypocrisy all around us but It no longer has any effect on my faith. My faith is in God and I don't necessarily need any denomination to worship my master. But I do travel 70 miles, passing 8 or 9 churches along the way to attend the church my mother and sisters attend.
If you truly have a problem with authority, good luck with your trying to get along with God.

PS: Yes, I do think the Catholic church is a cult even though they have spread Christianity around the world. Refer back to my previous post and read it.

Primarily, they worship the virgin Mary as a god that she was not and never will be. They pray to the virgin Mary while protestants pray to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They demand your confession to a priest when your confessions are between you and God. Yes, it's a cult.

All of the pomp and pageantry, colorfully crafted royal adornment and king like ceremony. Yes, it's a cult.

Ask your self this. Why does the Catholic chruch display the cross with Christ being crucified when he was taken down and arose again after 3 days. Protestant religions have the cross.....

a reply to: dfnj2015

He said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression.

No! It started when Christ died on the cross. It took hold in free men and women in occupied Israel of that time.

a reply to: Klassified

K Klass, where does an atheists morality come from, society?
Who defines morality? Individuals?

Who says Christianity defines morality, you?
Christianity is a faith for Christians, Jesus instructed Christians, didn’t instruct non Christians

I think your perspective is unbalanced

a reply to: Raggedyman

K Klass, where does an atheists morality come from, society?
Who defines morality? Individuals?

Morality was born of necessity. Groups of people can accomplish more than an individual, but maintaining a cohesive group working together toward the common good requires guidelines that benefit both the individual and the group. Hence, the birth of what we call morals, which are defined by the group or culture.

Who says Christianity defines morality, you?

Christianity says so. Morality perceived as having come from God, written in a book, interpreted by Christians and meted out to the masses as the one and only way, truth, and life. Kind of a "our way or the hell-way" type of thing.

Christianity is a faith for Christians, Jesus instructed Christians, didn’t instruct non Christians.

The gospels disagree with you. He instructed anyone who wanted to hear in repentance, salvation, and how to live. Granted, he instructed his disciples(Christians) in the more advanced teachings they needed to go out and do as he did, but he instructed ALL who would listen. Sermon on the mount ring a bell?

I think your perspective is unbalanced.

Of course you do. I would expect no less from you.

Raggedy, I hope you and your family enjoy the Christmas holidays, and may the new year bring you health and prosperity.

great back and forth here...cool

for me, in Vietnam...all the home had a buddist alter in the front yard...my Air Force buddy told me he thought God was Buddah.....I was 19 years old, had to get to the bottom of that

I was in agony for 8 months...walking around Mountain Home AFB searching my being for the answer....

It came to me from above walking the flight line....went and read the Bible through twice in 4 months....

did you know the only thing that works to help troubled young ones is Biblical interaction, I spent thanksgiving bringing a 26 year old back from the brink.....he was really street smart and had a spirit that wanted to smash that glass and cramm it into my head.....then got a filet knife out of his dads car....by the end of the day he realized that his smarts....he was smart.....were needed in the MIllenium by God.......he had several felony and other legal troubles, and cried to his dad in immaturity....nothing else would help....

the only thing that helps the youth.....not the legal system or the county help place or counselors......could make him say maybe God could use his smarts in the MIllenium. ya shoulda seen him flipping the filet knife in one hand.....

a reply to: Klassified
And the same to you and yours, appreciate the kind words

Irrespective, Christ’s message was for those who believe, you are welcome to ignore them

I know of societies who ignore morality, communist countries, fascist spring to mind, killing people who won’t accept their ideology
Christianity is for believers, no one should have a gun to your head.

Paul was clear, if people,don’t accept the message, wipe the dust of your feet, don’t cast pearls.
We disagree, that’s ok, just can’t see how you arrive at your commentary, it’s not for you to have to follow

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Klassified

K Klass, where does an atheists morality come from, society?
Who defines morality? Individuals?

Who says Christianity defines morality, you?
Christianity is a faith for Christians, Jesus instructed Christians, didn’t instruct non Christians

I think your perspective is unbalanced

Morality is a social construct agreed upon by national consensus and enforced by federal law.