white-magic-tricks“God told me to ________ .”

“Kill them” – Jesus (Luke 19:27)
“Avoid them” – (Romans 16:17)
“Shun them” – (1 Cor. 5:11)
“Forgive them” – Jesus (Luke 24:34)
“Hate THEM” – Jesus (Luke 14:26)
“Let ME kill them” – Jesus (Rev. 2:23)
“Remove him” – (1 Cor. 1:13)
“Curse HIM” – (1 Cor. 16:22)
“LOVE THEM if they are Jewish” – JESUS (Matt. 10:5-6)
“IGNORE THEM IF they are NOT JEWISH” – JESUS (Matthew 10:5-6)
“CONDEMN HIM” – Jesus (Mark 16:16)

Does God decide? Or you? Religion subjects you to a parlor trick.
Your choices are all pre-approved by God no matter which one you pick.
And the result is a reflection of YOUR morality – not god’s.

Unfortunately, religious people are convinced that God is giving them guidance. This belief makes their decisions feel special and right. But this is a cheap and lazy trick –  it is easier to pretend an imaginary god is deciding for you than to face the personal responsibility of whatever choices you had to make. God offers you a multiple choice – and you are always right!

Atheists have no belief in gods. So when we make moral choices we do so without the middle man – we are likely to consider solutions which go beyond God’s multiple choice list of options.

God has no morality. He never did.
You are the one who makes the moral choices. Don’t diminish your value by letting an invisible crook rob you of credit for what you do.


About Atheist Max

I'm a former Christian who became Atheist in middle age. My blog is a journal of how I lost religion and discovered a better life. For Peace, Civility and the Separation of Church and State
This entry was posted in agnostic, Atheism, God's Failures, godless, Nonbelief, unbelief and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Dangerous thought #14 – GOD HAS NO MORALITY. INSTEAD, HE TAKES CREDIT FOR YOURS.

  1. themysteryof says:

    If you look at Jesus on the cross, you can see how it hurts God to hold the ones who finally believe him. You can also see how it hurts him to let go of those who absolutely would never believe him. He loves each of us as if we were his own (John 3:16-17).

    He is on the cross because of all of us. Whatever we say and do to other human beings is the same as if we did it to him (Matthew 25:40). Ultimately, we judge our own souls if we continue to the end to reject Jesus (Matthew 7:1-2). When he who could have saved us is forced to let us go, then all is lost (Matthew 23:37-38).

    Jesus witnessed first to those of his own nation, and later (Mark 16:15) sent his followers into “all the world,” not to condemn anyone, but to save as many as possible. If we are condemned, then it is because we condemn ourselves.

    I admit that the church is doing a lousy job of explaining the meaning of the Bible, but many often intentionally misquote it. It must be taken as a whole, and the context of Bible passages taken into account. If a little faith and understanding is used when studying the context of Bible verses, then all charges against Jesus must be dropped.

    But, that isn’t the way of history is it? Neither is it the way of the world today. The same misunderstanding that existed when God visited this planet still exists today. It takes a miracle to get past it.

    Thanks for allowing my comment.


    • Atheist Max says:


      Please realize there is no evidence your claims are true.

      When we don’t have evidence for something the only honest answer is “maybe yes, maybe no.”

      Did Jesus perform miracles? Maybe yes, maybe no.
      Did Jesus’ life mean anything? Maybe yes, maybe no.
      Does it matter if we believe in Jesus or not? Maybe yes, maybe no.

      I think the church is doing a very good job of explaining the directives of Jesus Christ.
      The church is contradictory because Jesus is contradictory.

      Does Jesus preach love and forgiveness? Yes. And many legendary characters in history have taught the same thing. Unfortunately, Jesus insists his message is truer than other messages and it isn’t.

      “Kill my enemies” – JESUS (Luke 19:27)
      Is that a nice message? No.


  2. themysteryof says:

    I don’t have much time, but let me say this before I move on. God told the first humans not to “eat” of the tree of knowledge, or in other words, not to try reinterpreting the moral implications of knowledge for themselves. God didn’t create robots however, and with intelligence comes “freewill.”

    Adam and Eve made the wrong choice. Now humans come up with all kinds of contradictory ways of looking at everything. We can even complicate things so greatly that we make the message of God seem contradictory. We could just as easily interpret things in God’s favor if we would.

    The 19th chapter of Luke contains a parable about the behavior of the enemies of a “King” in his absence. Later in that chapter, in Luke 19:41, we read that Jesus wept over the things that would happen in Jerusalem. Matthew 23:37-38 provides another account of that event. Jesus went to the cross trying to make friends of his enemies (Luke 23:34).

    In the “absence” of Jesus, Islamic terrorists behead those who oppose them. “Wolves in sheeps clothing,” who have sometimes taken control of the church, have persecuted believers and unbelievers alike. Atheistic, communistic, regimes have been responsible for the suffering and death of untold millions of people. What is the Lord to do? He is condemned for not intervening, but at the same time, he is condemned for promising to bring justice (2nd Peter 3:9).

    I can’t reasonably suggest that you read my blog from A to Z, but I have put a lot of time into presenting overlooked evidence for the Bible. There is enough there to convince anyone if they are open-minded enough to give Jesus the benefit of a doubt. I feel like I must get back to work there.

    Again, thanks for allowing the comment.


    • Atheist Max says:


      There is no evidence of a god in your comments.

      I notice that you are apologizing for Jesus calling on others to be executed – but you must remember that Jesus was using that parable to threaten his followers. Jesus wanted to let them know what he would do to them at the Parousia.

      The Nobleman is Jesus.
      “Bring to me those enemies of mind and execute them” – JESUS (Luke 19:27)

      Jesus is making it very clear that his enemies will be executed by the good servants. It is how the Second Coming is supposed to occur.

      Jesus repeatedly argues in favor of killing his enemies – while telling others to forgive. Jesus makes it clear he will never forgive his enemies:

      “They will be condemned in the eternal fire” – JESUS

      Fortunately, there is no evidence this character existed – and no reason to believe any of the legends are true.


  3. themysteryof says:

    Besides the Bible and countless other historical documents written by believers, there are also secular writers of the era of Jesus who mention him. Also the great Roman persecution of the first Christians testifies of the truth of Jesus, as does the modern persecution by militant Islam and other groups. I can’t rewrite my whole blog here for you, and one human being can never prove anything to another. “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

    You can however, prove it to yourself if you will investigate it fairly instead of simply repeating all the popular pro-pagan-da. That is the way I became a believer. If God had appeared to mankind as “almighty” God instead of meeting us as a man, everyone would have fallen on their faces, but that would have changed few hearts. The Lord is trying to keep us from destroying ourselves and the earth by all the falsehoods that we love and believe.

    Jesus will forgive any of his enemies who come to admit that they need it. It needs to be of the heart though, and not something that we feel is forced upon us by his direct presence.


    • Atheist Max says:

      There are no secular writings about Jesus.
      The ones you are thinking of are very few and all have been debunked as fraudulent.
      Josephus, etc.

      You said, “The Lord is trying….”
      You know, it gets very difficult explaining to Christians how ridiculous this sort of thing sounds. If the Lord can do whatever it wants – why doesn’t it do so?
      If the Lord is in charge, what role do you really think you are supposed to have?

      Your message about an all-knowing, all-powerful god is incoherent. It is superstitious.


  4. themysteryof says:

    There are references to Jesus by several hostile secular writers, as well as “Gnostic” writers. At this point in time, the existence of Jesus can be denied but it can’t be “debunked.” The historical impact of Jesus’ life and death was so great, even from a strictly secular standpoint, that a new era recognized by the chief civilizations of the world dates from his birth.

    Tacitus, the ancient Roman historian, wrote of “Christus” being “put to death by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

    Josephus, the Jewish historian, made two references to Jesus. Both of them are in all the copies that we presently have. While one of the two references to Jesus was possibly tampered with, historians agree there was at least a core reference to Jesus prior to any editing. Josephus’ references are, at the very least, evidence of the reality of a historical Jesus.

    There are also references to Jesus, or to early followers of Jesus, in the writings of Roman historian Suetonius, second century Greek satirist Lucian, Pliny the Younger, and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion.

    Other writers of the era, whose writings have been lost, were also quoted by later writers. I don’t know of a complete list, but you can verify some of this information at these websites (I don’t know how to add links into a comment).






    While God can do anything that he chooses, that is a very different thing from that which he desires. He desires to save everyone, but all of us have freewill, and love can’t really exist without that freedom. Sometimes we are all frustrated by the freewill of others, but it is a necessary thing.

    At this point in time, because of the Tree of Knowledge, we have all become the judges of God and he is crucified by our rejection. Jesus is the one on the cross, and not us, but I think that it is in everyone’s best interest that we look at the evidence as honestly as we can, even if we feel convicted in the process.


    • Atheist Max says:


      First – The writings you listed are all questionable. There is no reason to believe they are authentic.

      Second- even if those very few writings were authentic, they don’t prove Jesus rose from the dead or did any of his miracles. They are at best hear say.

      Third – The Gospel legends are contradictory and clearly written by people who were not eyewitnesses. Paul’s letters describe Jesus as an apparition and not a real person.

      The Bible is a peculiar bundle of contradictory writings and there is no reason to believe a real god is behind any of it.

      You are not succeeding at providing evidence for God. You are only providing the well-known sources of the CLAIMS about Jesus.

      As I pointed out – these claims about Jesus are contradictory and unsubstantiated in any case. As such, I cannot even being to discuss ‘free will’ or the other claims you have made about what God wants.

      God is a hypothesis – an ancient sort of philosophy. And Jesus is an incoherent add-on theory. I can’t see a reason to believe any of this stuff is either true or good to pretend so.


  5. themysteryof says:

    Human beings can question anything if they are of a mind to. That’s why God warned Adam and Eve about the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 2:17). To think that we could judge all moral aspects of all knowledge, would obviously lead to endless questions and argument. Wouldn’t you agree?


  6. themysteryof says:

    A good while back, when I was 15, I thought of myself as an atheist. That was back when atheism wasn’t considered cool. Now I believe in Adam and Eve, because the biblical history fits well with genetics (ref. Identical Ancestors Point and other posts in my April 2012 archives), and also because like the rest of the Bible, it makes sense. I’ve investigated this stuff very thoroughly, and I believe Jesus. I feel sure that the bit of the Bible that doesn’t seem to make sense to me, is due to my lack of proper interpretation, or understanding of the context.


    • Atheist Max says:


      You are not making sense.
      Adam and Eve are not explained through genetics. In fact, genetics and DNA prove there never was an Adam or Eve.
      You are clearly caught up in what you ‘like’ to believe and are not caring about what the truth is. There are no facts which support Adam and Eve. And there are millions of facts which disprove Adam and Eve.

      Chromosome 2 proves humans share a common ancestor with apes hundreds of thousands of years ago. What a shame it is that you can’t appreciate the extraordinary science which shows our direct lineage to all of the animal kingdom.

      Your refusal to look at evidence is just sad.


  7. themysteryof says:

    You apparently did not visit my April 2012 archives and read “Identical Ancestors Point,” and “Genetics and Jesus.” I realize it’s a good bit to read but sometimes an answer takes a little more space than a question. Chromosomes are God’s building blocks, and the fact that we share certain chromosomes with animals only means we had the same designer. You will find many of the same type of parts in both cars and airplanes. If something works, then you use it in as many ways as possible.

    Evolutionists “fit” bits of factual information to a framework that suits their own belief. Any scientist could just as easily interpret all scientific data within a biblical framework if only they had not been carefully trained to do otherwise. Evolutionism is the probably the greatest hoax ever accepted as genuine science. I was taught evolution just as you have been, but I’ve rejected it after taking a closer look at it.


    • Atheist Max says:

      If you have rejected evolution you have rejected science.
      I’m sorry you don’t believe science but the good news is, science works perfectly whether you believe in it or not.
      Evolution is a fact. You are apparently afraid of the fact so you pretend.
      Don’t call that a virtue – and don’t call it ‘humble’.


  8. themysteryof says:

    Evolutionism is not “science” but a belief system that influences the way scientific facts are interpreted. A fossil is a fact related to the science of geology, but there are things that are only “believed” about the “age” of the fossil, and its supposed relation to fossils of other creatures that have nothing to do with science. The actual sciences of chemistry and such would function just as well if no one had ever even thought about evolution.

    Evolution is taught to naive children in school as if it were science, but it is unethical to not explain the difference. It’s like being taught what to think instead of being taught scientific method. I do not reject science, but only the evolutionary interpretation of science. God created all things by his scientific understanding. Man’s trial and error, experimental, way of living and learning is not as smart as we like to think.


    • Atheist Max says:


      Science is belief? Certainly not.
      Science depends on the re-proofs of claims. ALL claims.
      If a scientific statement simply has no support behind it, we are left with a hypothesis which remains unsubstantiated.

      Hydrogen and Oxygen when combined produce water (H2O). This is not dependent on beliefs. The hydrogen molecule and the oxygen molecule can be proven to be the exclusive ingredients of water.
      Furthermore, it has been proven that no other combination of molecules has been shown to produce water.
      The evidence is not a conclusion stating water cannot be produced in another way. It is only clear evidence which states what we KNOW (Not what we believe) regarding the primary ingredients of water.

      In other words, the ingredients of Water are not only supported by evidence – THEY ARE the evidence.

      Evolution is precisely the same. Evolution is the evidence that natural selection is occurring at all times – evolution is also supported by other evidence.

      It is sad you do not understand evolution. But your rejection of the facts does not change the facts. Evolution is a fact.


  9. themysteryof says:

    I did not say that functional science is a belief. That which we believe about science however, can amount to the same thing as a religion. You are putting theoretical science upon a pedestal. It is this worship of science that will be man’s final downfall. The beginning of the problem is diagnosed in the 3rd. chapter of the first book of the Bible.

    The Latin word for “knowledge” in Genesis 2:17 is “science.” The original Hebrew word is “daath.” It is not real knowledge that is the threat, but our misinterpretation and abuse of it.

    God created all things with some inherent ability to adapt to changing environments. That is all that is observed in “natural selection.” We don’t see something turning into a totally different kind of thing, as “evolution” would require.


    • Atheist Max says:

      What specific problem are you having with evolution?
      Chromosome 2?
      Vestigial organs?
      You seem to agree that science functions predictably – what exactly is your problem with evolution?

      You seem to understand the science behind the evolution of bacteria. Antibiotics are not effective against certain bacteria anymore since those species of bacteria have evolved to combat the effect.

      So I need to understand exactly what part of the science is flawed according to you!


  10. themysteryof says:

    When we don’t have all the facts, the way they are presented can make a great difference. It is often the best salesman who makes the sale, or the best lawyer who wins the case. The same is true in the case of evolution.

    Using a true story as an analogy might help clarify this. A friend of mine, God rest his soul, was found beneath a high bridge. As far as I know, no one saw what happened, and he never regained conciousness. If my friend were to have happened upon someone being mugged or something, he would have jumped in to help the victim. He was proud of his fighting ability, and trouble followed him everywhere.

    The bridge isn’t high enough to “guarantee” a successful suicide, but that’s the official story. He used drugs, and had fights with the police on multiple occasions. He also had several other enemies. Policemen are human too, and I don’t know whether they would have investigated this very closely.

    In a drugged depression, did my friend jump from the bridge? Did a car “climb” up on the sidewalk and force him off? Did someone intend him real harm? The way I told this story leads you to think that might have happened, but I have no idea. No one seems to have been there to see it.

    We have few actual facts in the evolution case, but evolutionists have done a great job on selling their case to the public. That’s the main reason for its popularity, and that’s why I once believed it. It takes a close, honest look to see through the delusion.


    • Atheist Max says:

      The entirety of evolution is DATA.

      Are you also going to deny the computer in front of your face is actually there?
      Science is NOT faith. It is data and analysis – it is how we stop ourselves from fooling ourselves.

      Evolution is true in the same way germ theory is proven to be true.

      Which fact of evolution are you disputing!?
      You have not shown me which fact you object to!


  11. themysteryof says:

    Many gaps exist in scientific knowledge, just as in all human knowledge, and data has often been skewed or misunderstood in some fashion. As some gaps have been filled, functions have been found for many organs that were once thought to be vestigial. We should also consider that besides “adaptation,” devolution has occurred in God’s creation according to the Bible.

    At one time, God’s creatures did not experience death, but now they do. All creatures at one time ate only plants, but that is no longer true either. If the Bible is correct, then you would expect to find evidence of such changes in the study of biology.

    Even if scientists were to create life in the laboratory, that shouldn’t surprise us too much, for God did it by his knowledge in some way or another. If science ever creates life, it should yet be considered intelligent design, because scientists possess a certain degree of intelligence. Even then science would be starting with something that God created.

    For evolution to be responsible for all that we observe, some form of energy or matter would first have to have evolved from nothing. That “something” would then have to transform itself into all forms of energy and matter. Then lifeless matter would have to accidently come to life. This life would have to survive and multiply. It would have to transform itself into all kinds of beautiful plants and creatures, male and female. Female creatures would have to give birth to offspring of many different kind of creatures.

    That kind of stuff happens in science fiction, but again, if science achieves it, it would still be intelligent design. Sort of. Evolutionists are fooling themselves if they don’t admit to filling many gaps in their knowledge with things that they only believe. I am not objecting to any “fact,” but only to the blind faith that evolutionists have in time and chance.


    • Atheist Max says:

      “At one time, God’s creatures did not experience death”

      If those creatures were promised infinite life why did God lie to them?
      Shouldn’t those creatures still be alive today?


  12. themysteryof says:

    The first man was told that he could eat from every tree of the garden with one exception. According to Genesis 2:16-17, he was told that the tree of knowledge would cause death. Because of his intelligence, the lives of all creatures within man’s reach and realm are affected by his decisions.

    If some animal could be found that didn’t experience death, science would take that creature apart, cell by cell, to find its secret. Such a creature wouldn’t have much of a life. As an example, the little creatures called “water bears,” have been subjected to the vacuum and radiation of outer space. Some have recovered from up to 10 days of that exposure.

    The tree of knowledge involves experimental learning by trial and error, and the promise of infinite life was conditional. Secrets of that potential for the extension of life may yet lie within vestigial organs, or in our DNA. According to the Bible, and other ancient documents also, the first humans lived for several hundred years. I assume that animals may also have lived longer. The difference from today may have been a combination of environmental and hereditary factors.

    God didn’t lie, but our intelligence gives us too much potential for evil if we won’t trust God. I don’t mean some “god” of our own imagination, but our actual creator. I personally believe that God God yet retains the life/spirit of his creatures besides man. There are also hints of that in the Bible (Luke 12:6-7).


  13. themysteryof says:

    Data is not usually the problem. The problem is a theory that offers endless faulty interpretations of that data. If an evolutionary scientist was God, and wanted to create different life forms, he would simply modify the genetic code to create the desired effects. If the creature was to walk upright on two feet, and have hair instead of feathers, the code allows for that. Once the code was created it would have many applications, but if you didn’t observe the scientist at work, the end result could yet be interpreted as if it were all accidental.

    Individuals are more to be desired than carbon copies, and the code permits these variations also. In reality, this is all very complex, and only God knows what horrible experiments evolutionists have conducted behind closed doors.

    It’s easy enough to believe the evolutionary interpretation of the data when the “education” begins in preschool. I once believed it myself. I object to the teaching of assumptions and theories concerning the data, as if the assumptions are themselves facts. It’s very unscientific to not know how to tell the difference. You would not accept creationists interpretation of data, because it doesn’t fit in with your belief. I must drop this and get back to work on my own blog, but think carefully about what I have said. Thanks for allowing the comments.


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 )

Connecting to %s