User Profile: FreeUsAll


Member Since: December 27, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [-2] October 7, 2015 at 11:25am

    I agree with your first sentence. However, couldn’t Christianity, like any belief system, be held as indoctrination? We’re all indoctrinated with some paradigm, though the choice remains ours, (on a conscious or unconscious level,) to accept, reject, or choose the “salad bar” method with what we are presented. For most, (and this is conjecture,) I think they accept on an unconscious level via “salad bar” method, as there are many conflicting worldviews out there. I’d also say that the resulting worldview is a “Frankenstein” held together by logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance. I really don’t know for sure, however.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] July 30, 2015 at 8:19am

    The devil didn’t ruin his life – he ruined his own life. This smacks of one trying to dodge responsibility for past transgressions.

    Responses (1) +
  • July 28, 2015 at 4:19pm

    Not only do I agree with your comments on this thread, but I logged on to tell you I absolutely love your avatar. That’s dark… read: perfect!

  • [11] July 15, 2015 at 8:15am

    I can’t really hope for an eternity of unending pain for him, as I don’t believe it to be, but I will agree with you that the description was awful. I think now I know why he was content with his own method of demise – he knew firsthand of other possibilities.

  • [-1] July 9, 2015 at 3:22pm


    In response:

    1) You never answered the question, justy offered a counter based on what you think I am. That could be a red herring.
    2) “If you no longer believe in Christ, then I doubt you ever did…” That’s called rationalizing, nothing more. “…people can convince themselves of most anything…” Yes, the same could be said of you.
    3) “but being ‘yoked equally in Christ’ is an ultimatum?” Yes, if it involves just THAT – an ultimatum.

    Bonus #1: “Lastly, 12 people walked with Jesus for a 3 year ministry, watched him die and come back to life, then carried his gospel to their deaths by torture. 2000 years later he still has followers.” THis proves nothing. Another logical fallacy to believe that something is true because other people believe it to be.

    Bonus #2: “… it’s called election. God seeks out, not the other way around. If God doesn’t draw you, you are not the elect.” Then the rest of us are damned by your count? It’s no wonder I think God’s an *******. Fortunately, if it does exist, I really don’t think it is what you think it is. Have a great day!

  • July 9, 2015 at 12:41pm

    Actually, American libertarianism is what you are thinking as far as the name, but in Europe, libertarianism takes on a different meaning in many circles. I’m an American libertarian, but I make no mistake with nomenclature.

  • [2] July 9, 2015 at 12:39pm


    That is correct. There are certain neurotransmitters at work when the brain begins to shut down, a particular one of which is called DMT.

  • July 9, 2015 at 11:35am


    Interesting responses.
    “I think that Connie wrestled with her conscience and told Ken what she believes. She holds her beliefs in her heart…”
    You know her heart? I suppose it’s imposition of your own views, so you must either be the optimist or merely have a good heart. Either way is fine by me.
    “…the truth is that only the Holy Spirit moves someone to Christ.”
    By that count, if I no longer believe in Christ or never have, then has the Holy Spirit been ineffectual? Has God turned it’s back? Is there really such a chance for the occurrences or would it be more logical to say two people met and didn’t jibe until he made some “adjustments” at her behest? By your count, I could easily hold the Holy Spirit, (read: not myself, but someone or something else,) accountable for my lack of “faith.”

  • [-1] July 9, 2015 at 11:20am

    Lol! Motivations connote sincerity, which suggests integrity as opposed to vice. Motivations mean much for an individual. The fact that you toss it aside like an errant thought is illuminating.

  • [-1] July 9, 2015 at 8:19am

    Great story, but how sound is operating on an ultimatum? In certain circles that’s referred to as “missionary dating.” Hell, if it worked for me, I’d jump on. The only problem is that if God even exists, I don’t find any virtue in it at all and no amount of ultimatums could tell me otherwise – they’d merely reinforce my beliefs. After all, what is an ultimatum but a coercive technique aimed at an end goal rather than addressing the issues at hand? I wonder if there isn’t more to it than what he’s stating?

    Responses (3) +
  • June 12, 2015 at 10:30am

    I ponder the same. If some prayers are “answered” and some not, you either have to believe that somehow it is part of a “master plan,” (which seems cruel to me;) or that “God” is either apathetic, cruel, not omnipotent, or doesn’t exist. I suppose that’s why I remain an agnostic on said matters. I think, ultimately, people see what they want to see. We are all ingrained from birth with a certain worldview. To shift that takes something catastrophic. I liken those who see “miracles” everywhere to those who see “racism” everywhere to those who see “miracles” nowhere to those who see “racism” nowhere – it seems completely subjective and based on core beliefs passed on during childhood. I can’t say I’ve ever had an answered prayer, so I’ll respectfully go about my business without it. How’s that for empiricism? Have a wonderful day, HabanaJoe, and don’t beat yourself up over your questions like I did with those very same questions. Look for Occam’s Razor – usually the simplest response is the correct one.

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] June 10, 2015 at 10:20pm

    I would disagree, as not all Christians were for any of those things. Look up Susan B. Anthony – she had a Quaker background. Look up Sojourner Truth – she used her faith as what appears to be a bedrock for her activism. I think you aren’t being entirely fair.

  • [1] June 10, 2015 at 10:10pm

    If you are being sarcastic, you may be right (about Christianity ending those things that J-Mo mentioned) and I again agree with you. There were Christians on the forefront of abolition and women’s rights. The issue lies in the “broad-brushing” of particular groups, rather than examining the individual. For instance, saying that Christians were pro-slavery and lumping all individuals into a category because they believe in Christianity would be an example of “broad-brushing” or categorizing purely within a collectivist mindset.

  • [4] June 10, 2015 at 12:19pm

    I would agree, though I think people, in general, view any difference in thought as an attack on their worldview. If the paradigm shifts, it means their cognitive biases are stretched or can no longer exist, necessitating change in their worldview. Once this happens, if the necessity for a paradigm shift occurs, one either must follow it or swallow it and keep it submerged, making for a potential whole new host of problems. If they choose to shift their views, they risk ostracism from the group into which they are integrated. I am an agnostic, having formerly been a Christian. I know a little of the ostracism that goes hand-in-hand with a shift in worldviews. It happens with atheists and any other worldview, as well, including political views. This is also the reason I think politics and religions are merely tools for control, as well. Have a wonderful day, by the way.

  • June 5, 2015 at 9:48pm

    The book titled, “Buddhist Boot Camp” caught my eye. Honestly, I’ve yet to start reading it. Well, I guess now is as good a time as any. Have a great evening and enjoy your weekend.

  • May 21, 2015 at 1:39pm

    I wouldn’t necessarily state that the article could only be pointed toward a Christian readership, though it may be just that. My point is that the advice given could be taken to heart by anyone willing to listen. People who make a difference in the world usually aren’t those who mindlessly plug in and follow the crowd, they are those who, at times, go against the tide. I am not a Christian, but I don’t plan to watch a lot of the stuff peddled on television programming. It could be called “programming” for good reason. The ideas we take in – whether consciously or unconsciously, whether through books, T.V., or music – still do affect us and our paradigms. (Some people more than others.) I try to avoid the pitfalls of our current culture, which includes a lot of the ideas pushed in the entertainment industry. I’m tired of being a slave to our culture and government and I don’t necessarily need God to tell me what I should and shouldn’t be doing, as I attempt to live by what I would consider universally preferable behavior. (If you believe in God, that’s fine by my standards, though I could come up with some arguments. Another day, perhaps? :)) Hence, I still think the article could have a broader audience than what you may be thinking.

  • [2] May 16, 2015 at 7:46pm

    I see your point, but hear me out a moment. Coffee is like exercise – it isn’t necessarily the enjoyment during, but after that makes for the appeal. Exercise can be brutal at times, but the endorphins that kick in shortly after make it awesome. The same goes for coffee, in a sense – it tastes awful, but the caffeine kick really helps. No pain, no gain.

  • [3] May 16, 2015 at 7:37pm

    Honestly, it isn’t the coffee, as I prefer Dunkin’ Donuts. I occasionally go to Starbucks and nurse a misto or a dark roast straight-up due to the fact that a lot of attractive women frequent or sometimes even work there and a coffee shop seems like a better place to meet a person who would pursue a relationship longer than a one-night tryst.

    TL;DR? – Starbucks seems a better “wife material” place than a bar.

  • [6] April 8, 2015 at 1:41pm

    I agree. You could go a step further and add Oakley’s and a buzz cut on a balding head and complete the “I like to yell at my wife in public” ensemble. We’ve all seen that guy, though no word on whether he’d actually run the country any better/worse than Obama.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] March 4, 2015 at 8:52am

    Both hi and Jeninfl, you may want to read The Third Archon’s post from above – posted on March 3, 2015 at 3:10 pm. He basically explains why you can’t necessarily rely on “feelings” as any sort of factual evidence of anything.

    “Rather it is based solely on fallacious appeals to emotion, tradition, and popularity. Easy to understand, impossible to justify; and no mystery to me, for I was brought up in precisely that culture.”

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love