God, sin, and diapers

Surely you have heard countless times how ‘sin’ does not exist except in the minds of the deluded? There’s a creepy photo floating bout the webtoobz that shows a bunch of little tykes in diapers who are members of a ‘supreme council of atheists.’ You know, the cute little buggers with innocent looking faces just waiting to coo their ways into your heart.

The idea suggests that babies are born atheists and without outside influence will remain such stellar forces of intellectual prowess. Are you listening carefully? These are unthinking, unwise, unintelligent, completely clueless as to the ways of life, little babies who are atheists.

Hmmm.

If I was of this mindset, I would run and hide from the idea that atheists are unthinking, unwise, and completely incapable of reasoning that there be a God. Is this the end result of such intellect? Grown men in diapers who are still clueless? Ya might want to rethink that.

So let’s get out of the diaper pond and do a little diving shall we. Your cute little bag of cotton balls ages. He is now mature at the age of two. He continues to impress with such a vocabulary, belting out noises that would make Webster proud: ga ga, doo doo, mah mah, duh da, cack cack,  ra ra. Heck, even dogs don’t talk this good at that age.

With age and experience under his belt, your proud junior increases his intellect, and while he still cannot do a crossword puzzle, he can say ‘ya’ meaning ‘yes,’ and ‘na’ meaning no.  The little atheist would make any mother proud. Still not able to say ‘thank
God………’ yep, a fine specimen of DNA.

A year later, our toddler snags a cookie, and Mom asks: ‘Honey, did you take the cookie from the table?’ Without hesitation, and without thinking of the eternal dilemma he is faced with, he (mark this) instinctively looks around to protect his cover, and shakes his head sideways with chocolate dripping from his mouth: ‘uh uh,’ and immediately mom knows the kid is lying. No big deal right?

Remember, here is the finest specimen of atheism, a kid left to himself, and right out of the gate, he steals then lies, without ever knowing what theft or a lie is. No learning necessary, and thus begins the entire, complete, and fatal demolishing of the atheist house of cards.

Pure and simple, junior lied, and junior trespassed. He missed the mark. He sinned. Oops, I just offended somebody’s sensitivities. ‘Sin.’ Hold my tongue!  But wait, maybe I am exaggerating by attributing such a defect to mankind’s progress aka evolution. Ha, if it were not so funny.

Without ever hearing a lecture, without ever hearing of the word God, atheism, sin, character, flaws, right, wrong, little junior chose wrong. He wanted to hide something, as light-hearted and humorous you may think this is, it simply reveals the unchangeable human heart, and the perfections of God’s word.

The kid missed the mark. Like the proverbial archer who strives for the red in the bull’s eye, he missed it perfectly. Sure, he may get lucky or close, but look carefully, it is not perfect. But talk to the atheist and they will tell you ‘sin does not exist.’ Ha! Can’t stop laughing.

One does not simply go about and create their own reality. Harry Finklestein believes he should not pay taxes, therefore taxes do not exist. Moe Dupressie says he should not have to shovel snow from his sidewalk, therefore snow does not exist. Are we beginning to see the braindeadness of the atheistic mind and its inability to connect the dots?

The supreme council of atheists who cannot even wipe their own behinds, and these people are lecturing us on mental hygiene? Give me a break.  I would be embarrassed to take my marching orders from a kid who can’t thpell kat or tie his shoes. But here we have examples of such esteemed intellect, yeah ok, and I can build an eagle’s nest high atop the Rockies.

Sin is not a comfortable word. That’s the point. It is not 5′ 9″ in heels with a svelte body that stops other women in their tracks. Sin is innate, where little babies who grow to toddlers have already gained much experience, and left unchecked, the seemingly harmless tale of not taking cookies, morphs into corporate embezzling, the theft of property, adultery, more lies to protect the old lies, more learning to mask the lies and the theft, and ultimately, sometimes the death of others, where little junior  grows up and makes himself his own god. He decides who lives. Tis a fact.

It’s no wonder so many travel to make God’s word of no effect. The very book which gives context into mans origin, history, and destiny, is thought to be outdated or irrelevant. Yep, the accounts of the kings cannot be trusted, Daniel was a liar used by Darius, Solomon was a liar who never built a thing in his life, Christ was a liar used by Herod, and of course Paul the apostle created his own set of lies, and spent his lifetime focusing on lies.

Yeah ok, and I invented gold.  See how easy it is to lie?  No effort, no sweat. But you may want to consider how and why the diaper dude lied at such a young age having had no experience nor teaching. Oh wait I forgot, he is a professional atheist, there is no such thing as sin.

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
This entry was posted in Unbelief (ahem: atheism) and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to God, sin, and diapers

  1. tildeb says:

    So you’ve managed to rationalize that lying for Jesus and holding zero respect for what is true and knowable or even reasonably informed is a virtue sanctified by your god but disagreeing with that is a vice, a sin, is ‘braindeadness’. Oh well done, CS. Speaking of the poster child for intellectual ineptness and bankruptcy, you epitomize both in the name of your religious belief. Thank you for this public service.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Please point out the lie I am allegedly guilty of. I’m sure everybody in this zip code would like to know.

      Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb says:

        The lie: “Remember, here is the finest specimen of atheism, a kid left to himself, and right out of the gate, he steals then lies, without ever knowing what theft or a lie is.”

        Reality reveals this to be a lie. You’d know this… if you ever bothered to check in with reality from time to time. For you and your ilk, facts are too unscrupulous and atheistic to bother with when lyin’ fer Jesus is so sanctified, so pious, so worthy of praise and admiration. Who cares what’s true? You’ve got a Just So story to sell, so I’ll let you get back to it. The gullible are awaiting…

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Sorry tildeb, this is entirely true.

          If you paid attention to the springboard of this post, it was focused on the picture of the toddlers who were ‘of the supreme council of the atheists.’ Surely you have seen this, as it is a favorite picture put forth by atheists to ‘prove’ that atheists are born.

          You may also have noticed that the gist here is a kid…….uninfluenced, and left to himself, WITHOUT teaching, knowledge, or awareness of right or wrong, being oblivious to nurture or nature, taught himself to steal or lie.

          This is the essence of atheism, a complete denial of FACTS. Sin isn’t a pretty word.

          Your ‘evolution’ cannot in a billion years account for this, as scripture proves true as always.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          That ‘essence’ of the child is not aligned with this weird and untrue religious notion that children naturally lie and steal because they have not been taught otherwise. This is the lie. Children have to be taught not to tell the truth, not to be honest and upright and forthright, not to share, not to be kind and considerate and generous, and so on. You are spreading falsehoods, CS, not because you assume them to be true but because you have taught to spread such lies (you simply don’t care what’s true even after multiple corrections) and call it pious. That’s the very ‘essence’ of lyin’ fer Jesus.

          Like

  2. ColorStorm says:

    Tildeb, do you INTENTIONALLY misrepresent something solely because you do not like it?

    I have proved that a child will LIE and STEAL having never been taught.

    The essence of atheism as I have proved many many times, is part and parcel in denying SIN exists. Period. You may not like it, but it does not change the reality.

    And btw, you have totally missed the point made here again. The kid lies……HAVING NEVER BEEN TAUGHT. Do you think he is like a prairie dog who needs to go to obedience school before he has an excuse to disobey? Be damned with evolution.

    But please do not call me a liar. I happen to know better.

    Like

    • tildeb says:

      You have proved a child’s ‘natural’ condition – their ‘essence’ is to lie and steal, have you?

      No, you haven’t.

      In fact, this is incorrect. The natural condition is to tell the truth and give. This in effect is the ‘essence’

      Fact. Reality. Conditions you do not respect.

      Overwhelming evidence in all kinds of child development studies show any honest conclusion based on the greatest preponderance of evidence would be that it is NOT – repeat, NOT – some natural ‘essence’ for a child to lie and steal. The overwhelming evidence is to the contrary, not because I wish it or think it or state it (which seem to be the sole conditions you use, apparently, to ‘prove’ whatever contra-factual assertion you wish to empower) but because reality demonstrates this. To then state a contrary belief as if true like you do here means that you do not respect this overwhelming evidence even after you’ve been made aware of it. This is equivalent with lying. On purpose. With intention to deceive, to state something that is untrue as if true.

      Sure, there are many young children who will lie and steal, but the ‘essence’ demonstrated by the vast majority of behaviour is in fact opposite to this selected behaviour you then go on to equate with atheism. That is why I claim with compelling and fully justified reasons that your contra-statement is in fact a lie. It’s not true. It’s not an ‘essence’ for children or, by extension atheists, to lie and steal whatsoever but an outlier behaviour.

      In comparison, it is you – the religious fanatic – who is a liar with this kind of deplorable counterfactual statement about children and their ‘essence’ and someone who demonstrates a willingness to steal the truth from others and bury it behind the southern product of a north facing bull.

      Like

      • Citizen Tom says:

        In fact, this is incorrect. The natural condition is to tell the truth and give. This in effect is the ‘essence’

        That has to be one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard. And you are accusing ColorStorm of lying? Rubbish!

        Anybody who has spent any considerable time around children knows they must learn and sometimes have to be taught to think of others. We are social creatures, but it still requires wisdom to put ourselves in the shoes of other people. Unfortunately, not everyone does.

        Some people far smarter and wiser than you and I, and some of these have given how we form a conscience considerable thought. Adam Smith was one such. Check out. => https://citizentom.com/2010/02/28/an-occasion-for-a-humbling-comparison/

        Liked by 3 people

        • ColorStorm says:

          True tom, good link too, I suggest others read it.

          And it goes without saying that we are not saying the children are ‘evil.’ (are you listening tildeb) No, they can learn that when they get more information.

          However, what is innate needs cultivated; that’s why we are told to ‘train up a child in the way he should go…………’

          Seems kind of odd to suggest that you can grow good tomatoes without some effort. 😉

          Liked by 1 person

      • ColorStorm says:

        tildeb-

        I too am highlighting CT’s observation of your assessment here:

        ‘In fact, this is incorrect. The natural condition is to tell the truth and give. This in effect is the ‘essence’

        How then is it sir, that little junior did not instinctively tell the truth? Maybe you have the toddler mixed up with a raccoon maybe, who cannot lie or steal?

        My point stands that the lie of atheism is oblivious to sin, and hence the lie that there is no God. Thanks for helping.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: “God, Sin, and Diapers” | See, there's this thing called biology...

    • ColorStorm says:

      Look at you msb, you took a sad song and made it better, hey jude. lol.

      I told Ctom and it bears repeating, that I am not saying children are evil. But it’s a fact that while a fox can’t sin, little Janie and her brother do a fine job of missing the mark. Ask any parent, and if they are honest…………

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Wally Fry says:

    The natural condition is to tell the truth and give? Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Tildeb lives in an alternate reality inside his own head or something. I wonder if his kids have ever lied or been selfish? If so, did he teach them to? I so, why did he? Sheesh.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. CS, your post reminded me of one I wrote years ago based on a story that 60-Minutes ran about a Yale laboratory study of children. The findings are fascinating and scientific, but for some reason I don’t hear people changing their assertions about people because of them. Anyway, here’s the link if you’re interested. https://rebeccaluellamiller.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/scientific-discovery-of-the-sin-nature/ The segment aired on CBS is now only available for those who have CBS All Access, but the written transcript is still available. (See link at the bottom of my post).

    Becky

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Good article becky. I like how the kids remind me of little adults with their pecking order, choices, and protectionism of things that suit them.

      Careful though eh, that word ‘scientific’ might scare people. lol

      Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb says:

        Good grief, CS, can you not comprehend what you read? Bloom points out babies are born with an innate sense of preference for what we adults call ‘good’ behaviour that is contrary to your assumption I have criticized, that they do indeed and without our imported bias show an overwhelmingly preference for pro social behaviour. This means a moral sense is a precondition of our species based on biology, not religion. We are born this way.

        For those of us in the child development biz, the ‘essence’ of the human condition is indisputably built on a biological inheritance for recognizing what is fair, a baseline understanding and need for giving and receiving fairly, what we call ‘reciprocity, and a very strong pro-social preference from infancy. This understanding is in direct conflict with your assumption that children are born to lie and steal and require religious instruction to become moral. No. You are incorrect not because I say so but because reality indicates your assumption is exactly backwards.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Well for those of you in the child development biz, do pray tell WHY your toddler lies, steals, and cheats, WITHOUT having learned…….

          You are once more missing the premise of this short post. To repeat, SIN is an uncomfortable world, and frowned upon in universities to be sure, but it does not change this fact. Period.

          And btw, without a baseline standard of what is fair, you are at the mercy of sheer opinion.

          Like

      • It’s just so typical that science uncovers what the Bible has said all along, but then the try to usurp it and claim these developments were due to evolution. For what reason would we be moral beings with a bent to do selfish things? That makes no evolutionary sense. But created in the image of God and marred by sin? That fits the facts they uncovered to a tee. I find it interesting that this study and the 60 Minutes segment has made no noticeable difference in the atheist narrative, even though Stahl herself said, so we’re not blank slates? Babies are “little bigots?” She could see that the study undermined all the popular notions floating around and repeated by anti-god forces. But the truth hasn’t seemed to take hold. Too bad, I think.

        Becky

        Liked by 2 people

        • tildeb says:

          You, too, missed the main message: morality precedes religion.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Can I refresh your memory as to how this conversation continues?

          First sentence of this post: ‘‘sin’ does not exist except in the minds of the deluded?

          Your ‘morality’ needs a reality check. Unless of course you view children born like empty pumpkins instead of ones with a conscience created by the Designer.

          Liked by 2 people

        • No, Tildeb, I understood perfectly—we have a nature that the Bible describes and which this Yale study verifies. We are made in God’s image, so we have a moral compass, but we also have a sin nature so we continually choose for ourselves.

          Becky

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          If what you said were true, then we should find infant behaviour skewed in favour of the sinful nature. We find the opposite, We find the moral compass exercised in favour of a nature that recognizes and prefers and rewards reciprocity. That is strong evidence contrary to the claim that we are born with a sinful nature. But I also understand that, like most apologists, you want to have your cake and eat it too, want science to support your beliefs even when its findings are contrary to those beliefs. That’s what apologetics is. And that’s what you’re doing here.

          Like

        • I don’t understand how you can make such a comment after the mass killing last week in Florida. Despite our efforts to educate out our natural selfishness, it still breaks through. The researchers said as much. I’m not the one trying to have my cake and eat it too, tildeb.

          Becky

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          Florida shooting, non sequitur.
          Researchers, you’re not comprehending.

          Like

        • OK, tildeb, my new rule is to end a conversation when actual dialogue ends and accusations begin. I comprehended the research just fine, as did Leslie Stahl who was seemingly quite shocked that infants do have a sense of morality. She’d been taught a la Skinner, that we’re born a blank slate. But along with the clear understanding of what is good and desirable behavior, there’s also very clear evidence that we choose selfishly. That’s not hard for anyone to understand and are actually the conclusions the researchers arrived at. As expected, we see different reasons for these results.

          And how can you say the Florida shooting has nothing to do with this? Doing right or wrong is exactly what we’re talking about.

          You can have the final word.

          Becky

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          First of all, Becky, Skinner is all about conditioning. The blank slate idea – tabula rasa – belongs to Locke. No one today even passingly familiar with child development – certainly not me – thinks children are born as a blank slate. CS threw this idiocy into the mix in order to divert the criticism of his claim I made about his erroneous assertion that kids need religious instruction in order to become ‘good’. In fact, it’s obvious – or it should be – I believe that our biology equips us with a moral sense that strongly favours reciprocity. Not god, not parents, not even Sesame Street: biology. I have overwhelming evidence from reality to demonstrate the very high likelihood that this is the case, that kids ARE born with strong preference for ‘good’ and really do demonstrate awareness of the difference between behaviour that favours reciprocity and behaviour that does not. This is contrary to CS’s claim.

          What I am criticizing is CS’s absolutely false claim he makes with such pious absurdness, that “a kid left to himself, and right out of the gate, he steals then lies, without ever knowing what theft or a lie is.”

          This is incorrect. This factually wrong.

          I am claiming that kids right out of the gate do indeed know what a lie or stealing is because his or her biology equips him or her to know ‘right out of the gate’ using the biological sense we inherit called ‘reciprocity’. This is what these researchers now among dozens of well examined studies also found regarding babies, regarding kids right out of the gate. This finding is exactly contrary to the claim CS makes. That’s my point, the very point you seem to have missed entirely: kid’s are not born without a moral sense, all of us agree; we are not born to lie and cheat and steal but do indeed know the difference between them ‘right out of the gate’ and this is where the disagreement arises with CS’s claim – the Christian claim, in fact – that we are born sinners, that we are born with a skewed moral sense, that because we are born flawed this way suffering what you people call ‘original sin’ we then require instruction to be ‘good’, that we don;t know know why lying and stealing are ‘bad’. That belief/opinion/assumption/claim is not supported by child development studies but is a claim that is diametrically opposed to its findings. That’s the central point all of you here seem determined to miss.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Becky certainly does not need my help tildeb, but please do not attribute to my words meaning never intended.

          I never said kids need ‘religious instruction to be good………….

          2ndly I stand by the fact that a child lies and steals without instruction; without one classroom lesson.

          Perhaps you should reread all the comments by folks here who have said as much, who have children and experience,, and have not been forced into a way of thinking because of what is popular.

          My view is not popular. It is correct. But don’t confuse ‘religion’ with morality. They are not twins.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          True, you never said it but, if this inference about needing belief in God to be good wasn’t assumed to be your central thesis, then your essay makes no sense.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Sure it makes perfect sense. That’s why I wrote it.

          I happen to think that children are different than jackals, which animals by the way cannot lie………which children aspire to a higher purpose created for them alone, not to feed on carcases and survive by killing, but to live as they are intended, not perfect mind you, but different than animals.

          A kid stealing a cookie may lie about it, but he is no monster; the jackal will always be a beast and can never apologize for taking his brothers Big Mac.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          Yeah, look to nature. That’s a good idea, CS. In fact look to our closest evolutionary cousins and then look further down the branch and you’ll find something very interesting indeed regarding reciprocal behaviour demonstrated by our mammalian cousins. If you have the intellectual courage to question your own assumptions, mind you. But I suspect otherwise…

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          You may have an evolutionary cousin tildeb, but maybe you should ask for a refund since they apparently screwed up big time.

          They did a lousy job of man eh…………..

          Meanwhile, I’ll continue to look to nature and the sole God of nature who made monkey and man, worm and wombat, exactly as He designed.

          Like

  6. Tricia says:

    Such a great post CS and very well written. I don’t understand tilde’s reasoning behind the claim that kid’s don’t like, cheat, steal, etc…Spend 5 minutes with toddler aged siblings and you will soon learn how false that is.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      It needs repeating trish,, that we are not calling our children little monsters; heck, our good friend ib22 observed that the mere fact that they arbitrate is proof of a built in morality compliments of the Creator.

      They may choose wrong, but they know it is wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tricia says:

        Oh totally agree. The morality is built in to the wiring and IB is correct I think that we are all born with a yearning to know God whether we know it or not. It’s that darn sin thing that gets in the way and mucks everything up.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. The natural tendency of a child to lie to cover up his/her actions is indeed a powerful argument for “conscience,” ColorStorm. And conscience certainly points to general revelation of God. Thank you!

    Like

  8. It is funny how this works with children. As they get older and begin to reason and talk and they snap back at you and get nasty, if they are being discipled to submit to God and into the love of Jesus, they tend to evaluate apologize even long after it is over. They feel conviction. But a kid left to themselves would not and has not proved in society to have evolved into a being that can be self discipled into morality. Good post.

    Like

    • tildeb says:

      “…being disciplined to submit to God and into the love of Jesus…”

      This teaching, this ‘discipline’ you mention, is actually and properly called ‘religious indoctrination’. You think this indoctrination is necessary teaching for moral self discipline!

      Wow. Just… wow! You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

      That’s the same reasoning used to explain why it was necessary to bomb a village into oblivion in order to ‘save’ it. There’s a problem with the reasoning.

      What you’ve done is rationalize exactly that which allows you to avoid any personal moral responsibility. By doing so, you justify it not by using your self but requiring an outside moral authority you call ‘God’… whatever that might be. You excuse your indoctrinating action (and its moral component) for the immoral self-denying consequences they produce by simply claiming it is pious and therefore correct.

      The overwhelming evidence from reality does not comport with this assumption… if you care to question your belief, which I very much doubt.

      So every time I read this kind of comment from someone who thinks themselves pious, I am further convinced religious belief is decidedly counter-productive to producing morally mature adults because, as younger people indoctrinated into accepting this kind of ‘teaching’ as if true, as if beyond question, means they continue to presume themselves morally suspect without some outside religious authority to sanctify some moral concern about their actions. This assumption, and then enforcing its teaching on vulnerable young people in the role of ‘teacher’, is what prepares people to stop listening to their hearts and feelings and guts and grants ownership of their own moral autonomy to another to use as he or she sees fit… as long as it’s pious, of course. That’s not self-discipline; that’s becoming an automaton. And that’s why I think such belief as you’ve stated here is a guaranteed way to keep many people morally immature… which is exactly the opposite real world effect you assume you are avoiding!

      That’s why I say: Wow!

      Like

      • This is funny! Maybe you can be the star of my next post. It is great to meet you. Your passion almost convinced me I actually used the wrong word. You wrote a very long post about the word “discipline.” You wrote a very wordy and long and nasty post filled with assumptions about me and how I think, and what I am like, and how I process religion, and my intelligence over one word.
        Most fascinating is: I did not use that word. To that I say “Wow! The word I used was discipled.

        So two things if we are to have honest dialogue.
        Option 1: You misquoted me accidently because you read something into what I was saying based on your pain or other people you have met, or your feelings toward the subject.

        Option 2: You misquoted me on purpose because the word “discipline,” fit your narrative better. Your narrative about me not questioning anything, control, blah, blah, blah.

        Either way you disqualified yourself from useful dialogue when you used the word, “discipline.” The word was “disciple.”

        The example with children I gave is deals with when a child has submitted their life to Jesus they feel convicted later to come back and apologize for the offense without someone yelling at them, or disciplining.

        It is actually life skill teaching that is opposite with how you took the word “discipline.” Discipling in this case is actually helping to make the child into a functioning adult.

        That is what makes these conversations fun, your preconceived idea took you down a road of a different subject.

        Here is some recommended reading about what it is like when you have met Jesus personally and someone comes at you with a blind rant. Read about how you help build the Kingdom.

        https://chaplapreneur.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/athiest-observations-fruit-of-the-spirit/

        I look forward to useful dialogue, but I don’t have time for long rants and anger.

        Liked by 2 people

        • tildeb says:

          You’re right: I did misquote you. My apologies for that.

          But the misquoted term changes nothing of the merit of my criticism. My comment’s intention was to show that the goal you sought – self-taught (self-discipled (sic), as you say) morality – was in contradiction to the method, my point being that to be moral is not achieved by passing on responsibility for one’s morality, is not achieved by submitting as you say to God and the love of Jesus by giving up, giving away, one’s moral autonomy to the authority of this divine agency. That’s the point. That’s the point you missed.

          The root term ‘disciple’ means ‘teacher’ and is fully applicable to ‘discipline’ – ‘to teach’ – as it is to your preferred term ‘being discipled’, which you used as a substitute for the verb to teach. So my mistake was not fatal but aligned in meaning and language. My comment, in all honesty, was neither a rant nor done out of anger but amusement and amazment that such an obvious incompatibility between goal and method was missed. It was meant to expose the inherent problem raised when one advocates that submitting to God and the moral authority of scripture is somehow a path to morality. It’s not. It’s the abdication of moral autonomy. It achieves the opposite goal. In effect, this latest comment of yours misses the mark entirely.

          Like

        • That is where you are wrong. You made personal assumptions about my piousness, talking about the same mentality that you need to bomb a village, denying personal responsibility. You don’t know me, and didn’t even use my word or idea correctly.

          What I am talking about is discipleship. With a child you model what it looks like to follow Jesus. You then to tell them how and show them the way, helping them to understand it is their choice. When you do this you don’t have to control them, manipulate or anything because they are experiencing him.

          Speaking of experience did you read the link I left for you above. When you have met Jesus and experience love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control and someone like you comes along with all kinds of false narratives, assumptions, accusations, and misquotes it only builds my case and it makes it easy for the seeker reading to see who is really being honest. Even to the child who met Jesus they see through it too.

          You are not using my quote right still and you have your own agenda. Thanks for the interaction. We don’t understand each other. I don’t see any reason to continue. You can have the last word until we meet again.

          Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          Great response Chap.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

w

Connecting to %s