Oh, for God’s sake: Oh,the lies they tell! Caution. Possible Trigger Warning!

True worship is a response to God. It’s never coerced or required or any other such silly thing that some suppose.


As far as religion goes, I do not believe I have ever read such a blatant bare-faced lie as this.

And from a Pastor, as well.






  1. Ah, the No True Scotsman argument again. All of those people who were terrified into “worshiping” the Christian god (Jews forced to “convert”, Moors, etc.), well that wasn’t … true worship. That other kind of worship isn’t “true.”

    Why are we discussing this stuff; it is ludicrous?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Steve:

      That’s old history. We’re talking present day, now. Today nobody is forced … but I have to ask: what kind of ‘worship’ was the forced stuff?

      Oops … perhaps ‘forced’ covers psychological pressures as well as good old-fashioned thumbscrews. And steaks (bugger, I meant stakes).

      Oh … maybe economic pressures count too? Naaaaah … nobody loses their job through not attending the boss’s ‘worship’. Forget I mentioned that …

      So come on, then … how can anyone force anyone to ‘worship’ in this day and age?

      You’re right in that being irrelevant to the 21st century it is ludicrous. Today we are all freeeee …


      • “nobody loses their job through not attending the boss’s ‘worship’”

        Argus, I lost a job 7 years ago because I never attended the company’s weekly Bible study during the 2 months I was there. It was held every Wednesday (in the conference room), an hour before work, and it included prayer. Employees were informed that it wasn’t mandatory. I was the only employee who didn’t attend. There were around 100 employees. The “boss” (owner of the company) was an evangelical Christian and gave the weekly studies.

        I know that’s the reason why I was “laid off.” I had just had a performance review by my supervisor and scored excellent. The job was in the bible belt. I had been told that they were laying off employees “due to the economy.” Funny how my position was filled within 2 weeks, and no, I never talked about my unbelief.

        Liked by 5 people

        • I often use a wee bit of hyperbole and the ‘occasional’ outright sarcasm, Neuro.

          Especially against The Religious whenever I get the chance—mostly they haven’t a clue that their tails are being well and truly chewed. One of the reasons I gave up on ol’ Mel was because he was just too easy a fish in a bucket to shoot (and it was like discussing with a brick)(actually, brick would be more productive). Okay, in my opinion he could well be described as an ‘educated idiot’.

          It’s sad that you were victimised, but one might think perhaps a wee bit of naivety—no, innocence—was involved on your part?

          I try to judge people by what they do, not by what they say/claim: and in total contradiction to what you may have been brought up with, it’s not only not wrong to judge—it is imperative.

          Judgement is an essential vital survival tool. (No wonder the WOGs are trying desperately to outlaw it) (WOG = Word Of God).

          Liked by 1 person

          • Argus, thanks for the clarification, and I agree with you about Mel. I also think they (Ark, John, and others) know Mel isn’t likely to entertain the idea that he’s off the mark, but they make the effort because of lurkers.

            “but one might think perhaps a wee bit of naivety—no, innocence—was involved on your part?

            Was that a wee bit of sarcasm?


          • If you knew the environment and actually expected better, I’d say naivety, yes. You can trust a religioso only so far as you can a potentially rabid dog. True …


          • LMAO — If I knew the environment? I live in the bible belt. Most people here are conservative Christians. It comes across as victim blaming to assume naivety. A woman takes her chances of getting sexually harassed at work. Would you assume she was being naive for taking a job outside the home?

            Liked by 1 person

          • I get your point.

            But you know the environment, yet you actually expect better? That might also be charitably described as optimism …

            It’s hard for someone in New Zealand to comprehend your problems. I have seen hints of them in my travels, and learned to walk softly and when to keep my opinions to myself. Free speech often isn’t—the mistake is to fall for (to swallow) the image and ignore the fact. Sometimes it’s a good idea to set your sails to the wind: “Give every man thine ear but few thy tongue” (or however he put it) (Hamlet).

            Mostly I don’t blame victims. But to stroll barefoot through known snake country is possibly a bit …


      • In the old days, one was a Christian in, say, England, because there was no other choice. One was preached at in Latin (lots of help there). If one erred by saying something foolish, say to a member of the Inquisition, one could lose one’s life. (The records of the Inquisition are loaded with records of peasants admitting to all kinds of heresies simply because they didn’t know any better.) So, society laid claims to your religious instruction (this includes the history of the US until quite recently) and our culture did, too. Say anything untoward and you could suffer all kinds of consequences.

        Translating the Bible out of Latin and into German and English carried a death sentence, that was carried out. This kind of intimidation was coercion of the highest order. It goes as far as the Church Ladies giving you the stink eye if you are not properly dressed at a service. It goes so far that in the US we would elect Donald J. Trump but never an atheist!

        Liked by 1 person

        • No, Steve … you’ve got it all wrong. Completely. Christians don’t run around burning each other at the stake, noooooo! No more than Islamics (may peace and compassion be upon them) likewise.

          Abrahamics are all Truth, Love, Compassion and mercy!

          How many times do we devout Christians have to tell you heathens that? Why don’t you read your blasted Bibles properly for once?
          No Christian would ever (R) ever be nasty! Or vindictive—we just aren’t allowed, we are commanded to be kind, sweet, compassionate and loving to all. And out of love of Christ (with perhaps a wee hint of fear of ol’ Satan?) we are nice to everyone. So there. No exceptions.
          Otherwise God won’t be nice to us, when we die—and rightly so. Gott mit uns~!

          I think that it’s all a commie plot, a deliberate disinformation campaign by historians and others with an axe to grind against the Love and Mercy of God.

          (Wow … I’ve always wanted to do that. It was fun, boom boom!)


  2. But Ark in defense of Christians, they really believe this. Many are sincere, though deluded. This song really speaks to how many Christians feel in their heart. If you listen to the words you will note that in essence it says, God is perfect and us humans are pitiful by comparison:

    This sort of song would really impact on my emotions back in the day.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. He does seem to have a pantomime version of his religion, and of reality. And I wonder if it has ever dawned on him, or at the very least crossed his mind, that his “other-centered love” is simply the evolved human capacity for empathy. Of course, this is not limited to humans, and encouraging it is by far not a bad thing. There have been hundreds of studies demonstrating this trait in almost all higher-animals… and even field examples, such as this

    Liked by 7 people

  4. I don’t have the context of this, but the statement makes total sense, so I don’t see why it is being ridiculed. That would be true worship, indeed. Worship for the simple reason that the subject is rationally found to be worshipful. Unfortunately such occurrences must be about as common as flying elephants.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Maybe it isn’t forced or coerced—not since the Roamin’ Catlicks retired the Holy Stake, bonfires, thumbscrews etc etc … but ‘religion’ as a nomer covers a lot of ground. (Should one be a bit more specific, do you think?)

    But even if applied only to Jezus Agnosticus Cristus and His/Their buddies, it’s still a bit of a misnomer. (In the quoted meanings of the words …)


      • I was shocked when my fundamentalist Protestant Christian sister admitted that Catholics were not True Christians(tm). I asked her who the True Christians were for the first 1000 years or so of Christianity. She was completely puzzled as she didn’t know that all Christians were Catholics from the Roman takeover up until the Protestant Reformation.

        The use of the word “true” allows the defense of “Well, then they weren’t True ” which is defined as they wish on a case-by-case basis. This is Lewis Carrolian in that these terms mean exactly what they say they mean, nothing more, nothing less.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Paul”

      ‘true worship’ in any context is in the eye of the beholder.

      By which we could mean from the viewpoint of the guy currently holding the biggest gun.


      • Hi Argus – I would have thought in any context is in the eye of the worshiper. I would have thought it would be worth asking the person writing the phrase. No big guns required.


        • ‘in any context’ means from any viewpoint.

          No universals, one man’s meat is another man’s poison—so wherein lies Truth?

          The man currently holding the biggest gun and quite determined that his is the One True Viewpoint sets the local pace. Hence the aforementioned holy stakes, racks, thumbscrews, strappado etc ad infinitem (at least as far as the love and mercy of Christ could devise).
          No contradictions there: “This may hurt a bit and make your eyes water, but it’s all for your own good—the sake of your holy soul”.

          Again, the biggest gun sets the pace. No?


  6. I think the question is to Mel.

    I am in the middle of conversation with someone locally (not on WP) re an application form that includes questions about faith and church attendance and needs the “approval” of the church minister/cleric.

    My concerns are that it is a form filled in most quickly by any “unthinking Christian” (no disrespect intended) – but far less easily (if at all) by all other categories: those called “unchurched” which can include “thinking followers” … “thinking followers” …. followers of other faiths … the majority who would not claim any faith or church at all – yet all of whom may be perfect for what is asked of volunteers).


        • Didn’t you just mention unthinking Christians?
          Seriously, jokes aside, ask almost any deconvert the moment they began to have serious doubts and they will all infer when they truly began to think about what they believed.
          The Clergy Project was set up for a reason , Paul and it wasn’t to discuss Weekend Getaways for local vicars.

          Liked by 1 person

          • And seriously – “thinking Christian = atheist”? Having your cake and … springs to mind. 🙂

            Having been there myself, I reckon the thinking should be compulsory. The consequence and outcome is not pre-determined – but the consequence does make the world a better place for all.


          • Jesus was quite prepared to show Tom his holey hands … (holy?) but then said: ”But those other dudes will have to make do with faith.”

            And so it was written … and the church went off in search of the Wholly Profit.
            And somewhere along the way, the thinking stopped.
            Compulsory thinking will empty churches faster than announcing a free buffet at a strip club.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Paul:

            “thinking should be compulsory” … agreed entirely.

            I state often that thinking should be taught from the earliest age—if nothing else, The Law Of Contradiction.

            Namely that contradictions are impossible, they cannot exist:

            if ever you find an apparent contradiction, look to the premises ‘cos one at least is false.

            Teach that in schools? Ain’t ever gonna happen …

            Liked by 1 person

    • Paul:

      if necessary lie through your teeth. With a perfectly clear conscience (I call it ‘biting the biter right back, but subtly’).


        • You want a job and have to lie to get it (unless you really are a practising Christian?)

          So do some sums. If necessary, go along to church, chant the chants, gobble the blood and guts of Christ etc etc as much as you need to score your job.

          Literally—they lie to you, so with a clear conscience lie right back to them.

          And if you want to keep the job (nothing wrong with lying to liars) don’t let them doubt you. Go undercover, or even better: sell your soul.
          But do not (r) NOT ever reveal what you are doing, not in any manner shape or form. It would be a wee bit tactically unsound …


          • Bugger … a wee glitch in my activities and I lost me reply: I understand it’s your pal that’s after the job, not you.
            So your pal should be made aware that regardless of what anyone might say to the contrary: in the Real World there’s nothing wrong with using the attacker’s own weapons against him.

            If upfront the point was made and all applicants warned: “This is a religious nutter vacancy and only people who can show that they are indeed religious nutters need apply” no-one has any grounds for complaint.
            But if it’s something that is being sneaked in (it would be illegal in New Zealand, I believe) then there’s nothing at all wrong with lying to them. Which is what I meant by ‘the biter bit’ (bitten …)

            We do NOT have to be nice to the not-nice.

            And if your pal can survive in that environment then there’s nothing wrong in him/her going through the motions with (apparent) wild enthusiasm. By which I mean—without crossing the line into obvious sarcasm—out-godding the Godiest of them.

            If you missed the point of “chant the chants, gobble the blood and guts of Christ” it means demonstrate that you are indeed a Christian; Communion is symbolic cannibalism that becomes genuine real cannibalism (I’m told) (yeuch) during the transubstantiation. Brrrr … so take the Communion with a clear conscience—the believers are cannibals, you (or friend) get a free sip of wine and a biscuit … and keep the job. Win/win.


          • Hi Argus – not sure we are on the same page.

            What job? What pal? What applicants? And where dis the comments on communion (aka “cannibalism”) come from in all of this?

            Seriously not trying to be obstructive.


          • Yo~! It’s a long story but it tracks back to the comment someone made under your callsign, above—

            “I am in the middle of conversation with someone locally (not on WP) re an application form that includes questions about faith and church attendance and needs the “approval” of the church minister/cleric.”

            —and I allowed ‘stream of consciousness’ to take it from there. If I’ve erred (and I often do) please be divine about it …

            If someone is ‘passin’ as a Christian he may well have to take ‘Communion’.

            Christians believe that when they eat the wafer and swallow the wine both are miraculously converted by God into ‘the body and blood’ of Jesus Himself. The actual body (flesh, meat) and blood of a human being (named Jesus) … ergo, cannibalism. No?

            Modern apologists try to explain it all away as ‘symbolic’. Yeah, right …

            Liked by 1 person

          • PING! Thanks Argus – that helps a lot 🙂

            I think you give Christians too much credit. I have seen some who do and do not take communion. Some who come to the rail and pass on the wafer and wine. I have never known why. And there are some who believe as you have written. And many who don’t. I think a lot of Christians accept the teaching of tradition (no matter the denominational “tradition”) which are the key points of “the bible story” – inclusive of the cross and communion.

            I have seen that in people doing their weekly shopping. The neatly pre-packed cuts of meat pored over and weighed. But never connected with a real farm animal fed, slaughtered and butchered with all the “messy bits”. And I have seen some who are presented with the reality go veggie (that week).

            Juts as your reality seems to be one in which all Christians are clones of a template. I can present you with the reality – but I suspect it would not change anything in how you see Christians for very long. We each hold to our own creations of reality. And in that – cannibalism, for almost all “Christians”, is not that at all.

            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 )


Connecting to %s