This is my thesis and I have evidence to back it up.

First just look to the word religion and where it comes from.
Religion comes from the verb "religo" in Latin and it means to be bound to something. And we all know that a bond limits a person's liberty.

Being religious means having a strict bond with your God. A religious man can never take the liberty of doubting the operating of this god as he demands a blind trust from him.

Just take Christianity, Islam or Judaism for example: their "guiding rules" are majorly based on prohibitionism as to condition and control the life of a man depriving him of his total autonomy.

Also this prohibitionism can somehow subject the believer to many risks.
Example: Jehovah Witness: they can't have a blood transfusion or have any sorts of operation.

So why should I have to bound myself to something that will limit my liberty in taking decisions that also concern my life?

I think most religious people realise this.

Islam means 'submission to the will of god'.

Christians always say that they have 'given their life to christ'.

I imagine that most other religions are pretty much the same in that those who proscribe to said religion dedicate themselves to whatever their leaders tell them they should.

Fact is there are a lot of people who would argue that religion is a useful tool to maintain order in society.

Once upon a time people would also have argued that religion 'doesn't do anybody any harm'- those who didn't realise how much of a myth this was before are sure to know now.

All in all religion is bullshit.

exu:

Fact is there are a lot of people who would argue that religion is a useful tool to maintain order in society.

I'll rather say disorder. Just look at what is happening in Nigeria between muslims and christians. In fact this world would be better without religion.

@Michelin89,
What is your understanding of true freedom or Liberty??. Is it freedom to do as you please or whatever you want? No!!
True freedom is the freedom to do that which is consistent with the character of God/Jesus Christ. True freedom is freedom from sin.!!
Now, I know or I expect that your next question(s) should be:
(1) How can you be free from sin?
Answer: Very simple: accept the free offer of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, and you are free.!!!
John 8:36 : "If the Son (i.e Jesus Christ) therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."
Romans 6:18: "Being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness."

(2) What are the characters of God/Jesus Christ?
Answer: Simple, pick a bible and read and the living God himself will tell you His characters. Start from New Testament for now.

(3) Now, if you want to be 'cheeky or brilliant', you will ask me 'How can you be free when the Word said 'ye became servants of righteousness' after you are freed from sin'?
Answer: Simple: Salvation of your soul requires your Sanctification ( i.e "separated unto". In other words, when you are separated 'from' sin, you must be 'separated "unto" or 'attached' to something greater than sin or something that can overcome the temptations of sin whenever they come or convicts you of sin if it occurs. Because as long as you are in this world, temptations will always come in various forms. So to live a life of constant victory over sin, you need to be with the 'righteousness' i.e the Spirit of God that comes upon you and into you after you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
God will give you understanding and the grace to act upon it.
All the best, bye.

Is it freedom to do as you please or whatever you want?

Actually. Yes.

Within reason.

We have laws to punish those who exercise their freedom in such a way as to harm someone else.

Aren't you religious types always banging on about 'free-will'?

To all: I have tremendous freedom, yet I think I believe in God. God allows mankind to have extreme freedom, even that mistakes are made. He also gave us a way out to His mercy, even after a mountain of sins/wrong. Try Allah in the way of Islam for your taste of sweetness.

I wonder if the motivation of some people to contribute to a thread is actually that of concern/love or simply because they see the username "Havila" there. Stop chasing shadows.

exu:

Aren't you religious types always banging on about 'free-will'?

@Exu,
"Religious types"? That sounds prejudicial but it's all good We will endure all things because of the love of God,,,,Christ still loves you and he is knocking at your door. What is free will? Freedom to fulfil the hedonistic pleasures of the flesh without restraint?. Homosexuality, abortion, chronological polygamy, paedophilia, hatred, racism, oppression of women, honour killing, living in abundance when you neighbours die of hunger, etc there is no right or wrong but how you feel?!!!. We are not talking about breaking the laws of the land but about the living a constant life of Love with the peace of God. This is beyond human free capability, you need the spirit of Love i.e the spirit of God. I mean true God (not idols or allah)
If you are looking for human free-will, look at the suicide bombers of 9/11, 7/7 etc and you see a heart without true divine control. Nature abhors vacuum; it's either you are for God (I mean the living God, not allah!!) or you are under the control of the flesh. The former leads to peace and joy, the latter leads to a life of confusion, bitterness and defeat.

michelin89:


So why should I have to bound myself to something that will limit my liberty in taking decisions that also concern my life?

I agree with your point, to a certain extent. Religion means "to do something repetitively, and at regular intervals", you see, one religiously does something - be it prayer, fast, go to church, or play football, and that is why it is religion, "that which one does". Now, there is surely nothing binding in that! Surely no more than one would decide to be bound to that which one wishes to be bound to? You can leave anytime, you know! Its not exactly like slavery!

Indeed, some people are religiously Christains or Muslims, or Judaists. Some follow what has been laid down as 'law' from God, they obey obediently the religious text of their religion. But how else would one expect those who have such a bond of obedience with their God, those who have so been indoctrinated into ideology without fully seeking to comprehend first that which they call God, relate to their God if not by the way they believe their God has asked them to relate to It? If a person's God asked one to be It's slave, does one say "no"?

Yet, some people relate to their God differently! Some people's God does not tell them to obey obediently so some people dare to say to their God, "God, do you really mean that?"and some dare to ask, "God is that really you?" I hope you can see these type disobediently saying, "Go to hell!" if God were to say to them to, "Take your son Isaac and cut his throat, I want to drink blood"! The religious would have us call murder, obedience! But those who know God would tell you how God does nothing of the type!

Some who worship God do not worship a God because they are enslaved to a God; they worship God because somehow, God has effected or has had an effect in the attainment of their liberation from bad beliefs and ideology, the type that enslaves many! Some peoples God rather than reduce the liberty they may have in making choice for their own advancement in the world, increases the power to make those choices, and make even much better one's so they believe, if they didn't have their relationship with God. The thing is, the God one sees determines whether one's God is a slave master God - one that goes around binding others to It; or a liberating God - one that frees one from even death!

@olabs,

you "think" u believe in God? So u're not sure and waver in ur belief. Lol, dude u need to know the truth and waver not.

@Havila: Stop being very arrogant. I swear by Allah Who is the Holder of my soul, if I do anything, on nairaland or anywhere else is for the pleasure of Allah. There is no importance attached to you, at least not by me. Any importance you may think that you have is within your sphere of friends and family members. I am neither. Rather I am a humanbeing, propagating Islam with every thing I have, my person and my wealth. You do not know me and I am sure that if you do, you will know that you are very insignificant, indeed. Some are kings, some are king makers. Allah has blessed me and you are not thought about, not by me in the least. However, if my involvement on this board is choking you, then hold tight, the ride will get real rough from now on. You see, I make my own rule as long as it is in conformity with the established ground rules. You can not frustrate me. You do not have any acutrimen to do it. Again, stop.

@gbade.x: My 'think', is an expression of which I am not trying to sound very psycho religious in the sight of man. My soul, my heart and the whole of my being are for the pleasure of Allah the Almighty. My heart makes supplication to my Lord all the time. I am very sure of my condition, my brother. I am a very simple man, not arrogant but will defend my honor at all time. I am a Dove when i need to be and a hawk when it is necessary. I am neither meek nor overbearing. So how you living, young blood? Remember, by Allah, Christianity is not for me. Infact, I am working on all by bloodline on this matter.

olabowale:

@Havila: Stop being very arrogant. I swear by Allah Who is the Holder of my soul,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,You do not know me and I am sure that if you do, you will know that you are very insignificant, indeed. Some are kings, some are king makers. Allah has blessed me and you are not thought about, not by me in the least.

@Olabowale,
you better don't burst a vein with all your swearing to idols, did I mention your name? when did you become "some people"?,,,,,,,I think you really need to go for anger management!! I can easily see that you've never had anybody stand up to you and confront you on all angles before,,,so it is really bugging you down. C'mon, take a chill pill and start talking your age. So who's being arrogant here!! I sincerely thank God for your life and "your wealth"; mr-king-maker in your village . I will not say that you Olabowale are insignificant to me, otherwise I will be reducing myself to your level of thinking. Everybody created by God is significant in their own right; even though our beliefs, maturity, understanding, socio-economic status etc might differ. I don't know you physically or what you have; neither am I interested. But you are definitely NOT the kind of individual I will want to know personally. You don't have any enviable quality for a man of your self-professed status. Look, don't make us digress from the discussion here with your consistent violent offtopic tendencies and start talking sense, mr hawk when necessary. Dont frustrate yourself, very funny guy !!

The Christian and the Muslim going at it.

This is fun.

All in all religion is bullshit.

This is so true! (I'm sorry, but I can't resist the temptation to say things like this!)

exu:

The Christian and the Muslim going at it.This is fun.

I don't blame you, my brother. The guy is really like a 'skipping record-player'; but don't be surprised because the 'going at it' started way back in Genesis Chapter 17 vs 18-19,
But, please as I said don't let us digress from the topic of the post. Keep it going!!!

michelin89:

And we all know that a bond limits a person's liberty.

It all depends on what kind of bond you're talking about, and how you define it.  Some bonds can actually give you all the liberty you could ever wish for.

michelin89:

A religious man can never take the liberty of doubting the operating of this god as he demands a blind trust from him.

Why would I want to doubt the operating of the God I serve when I'm convinced He's always right?

michelin89:

Just take Christianity, Islam or Judaism for example: their "guiding rules" are majorly based on prohibitionism as to condition and control the life of a man depriving him of his total autonomy.

Those "guiding rules" are to better their lives.  I can understand if you say they're deprived of going astray.  That, on its own, is a man's autonomy.  You can't blame religion on that, can you?

michelin89:

Also this prohibitionism can somehow subject the believer to many risks.
Example: Jehovah Witness: they can't have a blood transfusion or have any sorts of operation.

If their faith counters any scientific approach to their health, I don't see that as a risk.  For example, if I have an headache and I decide to pray, while having a very strong faith in that prayer, telling me I'm taking a risk by not taking drugs will definitely sound stupid in my ears.

michelin89:

So why should I have to bound myself to something that will limit my liberty in taking decisions that also concern my life?

If the "something" will positively affect your life, I see no reason why you should not bound yourself to it.

goodguy:

It all depends on what kind of bond you're talking about, and how you define it.  Some bonds can actually give you all the liberty you could ever wish for.

There is no no bod that can ever give you liberty. Even the word itself says it all. If you can give me an example of " a  bond that can actually give you all the liberty you could ever wish for." then I'll agree. But as for now I remain of my opinion.

goodguy:

Why would I want to doubt the operating of the God I serve when I'm convinced He's always right?

You are convinced that he is always right and not that he has prove that to you. if he has them please give me an example of his "absolute and indubitably righteousness"

goodguy:

If their faith counters any scientific approach to their health, I don't see that as a risk.  For example, if I have an headache and I decide to pray, while having a very strong faith in that prayer, telling me I'm taking a risk by not taking drugs will definitely sound stupid in my ears.

Your faith won't cure you headache. You'll rather make your situation worse. And that sounds stupid to me. Didn't god say help yourself first then he shall help you? Fine! First of all take your drugs and if they don't help, your unnecessary and time-wasting prayer can be justified. I don't think god wants people who depend on divine intervention while a human one is more than sufficient.

goodguy:

If the "something" will positively affect your life, I see no reason why you should not bound yourself to it.

I always prefer to bound myself with something or someone I know of its existence. And also this someone of something has to be exclusively mine and not of all man-kind.

goodguy:

Those "guiding rules" are to better their lives. I can understand if you say they're deprived of going astray. That, on its own, is a man's autonomy. You can't blame religion on that, can you?

Not being a believer doesn't stop me from living a decent and correct-way life. And that of man's autonomy. How can he be a self-governor when he is constantly under pressure by his everlasting life in hell? That autonomy you are talking about isn't man's but of those who don't believe.

Of course not, unless someone would define submission to the will of a deity freedom, that would be be turnng the world on it's head. Religion is the exact antithesis of freedom. The only freedom religion implies is freedom from thinking for yourself, the freedom to be intellectually lazy.

Pray tell, how does religion make people intellectually lazy? And on the question of religion, please don't make broad ur generalization!

I'll use Christianity as an example 'cos i'm Christian. Is it because on the stance on faith, believing in a God you haven't yet seen, yet experiencing that same God in your life. If you don't experience that God, then how can you know about the minds of the "religious" ppl and judge that they're  intellectually lazy? Exactly what can be defined as intellectual laziness and who is the more intellectually lazy? Is it those who would believe in an Entity they've not seen, yet the existence of that entity be made manifest in their lives, or is it those  who have never experienced such an Entity and never known that entity, yet talk about who they don't know? Saying the existence of a God  is illogical does not mean it is. Imposing ur own view of logic and understanding does not make it seem illogical, rather it is seeing things from your own perspective that makes it illogical to you. Pascal was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy, Faraday was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy, Gregor Mendel was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy!

Pascal was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy, Faraday was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy, Gregor Mendel was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy!

You speak of such people as if they were the manifestation of perfection.

Like you and I these people were human.

Also, like you and I they made errors of judgement- their faith may (or may not) have been one such example.

gbade. x:

Pray tell, how does religion make people intellectually lazy? And on the question of religion, please don't make broad your generalization!

Simply because you have to accept the basic elements of a religion by faith. It blocks that belief from rational enquiry.

gbade. x:

I'll use Christianity as an example 'because i'm Christian. Is it because on the stance on faith, believing in a God you haven't yet seen, yet experiencing that same God in your life.

Have you really studied the sources of that experience? Basic research in sensory perception and memory have shown both to be extremely open to suggestion and error.

gbade. x:

If you don't experience that God, then how can you know about the minds of the "religious" people and judge that they're intellectually lazy?

They're intellectually lazy because they refuse to examine the basis for their beliefs. they rather shelter their beliefs and rationalise them. That's being intellectually lazy in my mind.

gbade. x:

Exactly what can be defined as intellectual laziness and who is the more intellectually lazy? Is it those who would believe in an Entity they've not seen, yet the existence of that entity be made manifest in their lives, or is it those who have never experienced such an Entity and never known that entity, yet talk about who they don't know?

If it is real, it should be empirically verifiable. Either through direct observation or through rigorous inference. No theist has been able to do that yet. The experiental [i]evidence [/i]only exists in the mind of the one experiencing it and can easily be explained through natural neurological mechanisms. These materialistic explanations are far more convincing, as they have proper scientific basis in the material world.

gbade. x:

Saying the existence of a God is illogical does not mean it is. Imposing your own view of logic and understanding does not make it seem illogical, rather it is seeing things from your own perspective that makes it illogical to you.

There is basically only one form of logic. There is neither a theistic, nor an atheistic logic. Faith separates religious truth-claims from rational inquiry and makes them immune to logic.

gbade. x:

Pascal was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy, Faraday was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy, Gregor Mendel was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy!

Invalid argument from authority. When it comes to their religious beliefs, they were intellectually lazy, even though the argument from design still had some meat on the bones in during their lifetime, something the religious can no longer hide behind nowadays

michelin89:

There is no no bod that can ever give you liberty. Even the word itself says it all. If you can give me an example of " a bond that can actually give you all the liberty you could ever wish for." then I'll agree. But as for now I remain of my opinion.

You seem to be mistaking "bond" for "bondage". The type of bond one has with God is the type that can actually give you all the liberty you could ever wish for. If you cannot understand this, then I'm sorry.

michelin89:

You are convinced that he is always right and not that he has prove that to you. if he has them please give me an example of his "absolute and indubitably righteousness"

It's a personal conviction. You don't expect me to narrate my life experiences here, do you?

michelin89:

Your faith won't cure you headache.

Your stance here is rather amusing, I must say. You do not understand the concept of faith, yet you seem to be very definitive in your appraoch towards it. Very ludicrous, indeed!

michelin89:

You'll rather make your situation worse. And that sounds stupid to me.

If I think this way, I won't have to depend on my faith in the first place.

michelin89:

Didn't god say help yourself first then he shall help you? Fine!

I'm not exactly sure where/when God made this statement. But then, in what way do you think God would rather we help ourselves first? Is not by coming to him first before any other thing?

michelin89:

First of all take your drugs and if they don't help, your unnecessary and time-wasting prayer can be justified.

If I don't have a strong faith, this idea may probably be ideal for me.

michelin89:

I don't think god wants people who depend on divine intervention while a human one is more than sufficient.

On the contrary, the reverse is the case.

michelin89:

I always prefer to bound myself with something or someone I know of its existence. And also this someone of something has to be exclusively mine and not of all man-kind.

If it does you good, you will definitely feel it, hence, it's existence. But then, will the physical knowledge of it really matter? BTW, I wonder why you want the "something" to be exclusively yours. That's really weird.

michelin89:

Not being a believer doesn't stop me from living a decent and correct-way life.

I agree with you.

michelin89:

And that of man's autonomy. How can he be a self-governor when he is constantly under pressure by his everlasting life in hell?

Only someone who lives a shady lifestyle will subject himself to such constant pressure. A true believer doesn't need to bother since he knows his place is secured in heaven. So I still don't see how his autonomy is restricted.

michelin89:

That autonomy you are talking about isn't man's but of those who don't believe.

Those who don't believe what?

[quote author=nferyn link=topic=31314.msg722121#msg722121 date=1164481091][/quote]

Simply because you have to accept the basic elements of a religion by faith. It blocks that belief from rational enquiry.

Christianity is not rational.

Have you really studied the sources of that experience? Basic research in sensory perception and memory have shown both to be extremely open to suggestion and error.

Very true. Nonetheless it does not discount the fact of such an experience.

They're intellectually lazy because they refuse to examine the basis for their beliefs. they rather shelter their beliefs and rationalise them. That's being intellectually lazy in my mind.

Christianity is irrational. Rationality is a parameter defined by human experience. Anything outside that is irrational.

If it is real, it should be empirically verifiable. Either through direct observation or through rigorous inference. No theist has been able to do that yet. The experiental [i]evidence [/i]only exists in the mind of the one experiencing it and can easily be explained through natural neurological mechanisms. These materialistic explanations are far more convincing, as they have proper scientific basis in the material world.

The main argument against Theism is the frequent inability of its adherents to provide evidence that can be interpreted in a material, or empirical context. Whether these experiences are real or not cannot be determined solely by empirical science, unless "reality" only refers to phenomena whose existence can be proven with the methods of scientific investigation currently available.

There is basically only one form of logic. There is neither a theistic, nor an atheistic logic. Faith separates religious truth-claims from rational inquiry and makes them immune to logic.

Faith is irrational and illogical.

Invalid argument from authority. When it comes to their religious beliefs, they were intellectually lazy, even though the argument from design still had some meat on the bones in during their lifetime, something the religious can no longer hide behind nowadays

Perhaps so, if intellectual laziness refers to their faith which, by definition, is irrational.

@goodguy,
Your submission on Michellin89 that: "You do not understand the concept of faith, yet you seem to be very definitive in your appraoch towards it.  Very ludicrous, indeed!"; it is very correct and it's the best you get from all the 'atheist or humanists and the rest of the 'pseudo-intellectually hard-working' chaps.
It is just like a secondary school student who is yet to understand or appreciate the concept of Algebra in basic Mathematics trying to 'logically' explain the concept of 'Young Abraham's Theorem' in Applied Mathematics. You might not agree, that's understandable; but it is pure 'cerebral dissociation' to start trying to explain what you do not know using your own logic.

nferyn:

If it is real, it should be empirically verifiable. Either through direct observation or through rigorous inference. No theist has been able to do that yet. The experiental [i]evidence [/i]only exists in the mind of the one experiencing it and can easily be explained through natural neurological mechanisms.

And how do you explain it when two or more people experience the same thing under totally different conditions?

exu:

You speak of such people as if they were the manifestation of perfection.

Like you and I these people were human.

Also, like you and I they made errors of judgement- their faith may (or may not) have been one such example.

i do not speak about them as if they are manifestations of perfection. i speak about them because they were men of science who contributyed to the scientific world and yet were religious and were NOT intellectually lazy.

Also, like you and I they made errors of judgement- their faith may (or may not) have been one such example.

statement here doesn't make sense

goodguy:

And how do you explain it when two or more people experience the same thing under totally different conditions?

Same cultural and social context. Religious experiences are anchored in the cultural contexts those people grow up and live in. Christians have Christian experiences, Muslims have muslim experiences, Budhists have budhist experiences, even though their specific brainstates when examined under laboratory conditions are similar.

Havila:

@goodguy,
Your submission on Michellin89 that: "You do not understand the concept of faith, yet you seem to be very definitive in your appraoch towards it. Very ludicrous, indeed!"; it is very correct and it's the best you get from all the 'atheist or humanists and the rest of the 'pseudo-intellectually hard-working' chaps.
It is just like a secondary school student who is yet to understand or appreciate the concept of Algebra in basic Mathematics trying to 'logically' explain the concept of 'Young Abraham's Theorem' in Applied Mathematics. You might not agree, that's understandable; but it is pure 'cerebral dissociation' to start trying to explain what you do not know using your own logic.

Nobody has been able to explain the concept of faith as it having any epistomological value, except as stading outside rationality and thus outside discourse. It is only relevant to those taking already an a-priori position and already subscribing to the concept of faith. It is completely self-referential, irrational and void of logical validity.

nferyn:

Nobody has been able to explain the concept of faith as it having any epistomological value, except as stading outside rationality and thus outside discourse. It is only relevant to those taking already an a-priori position and already subscribing to the concept of faith. It is completely self-referential, irrational and void of logical validity.

Perhaps. But if we agree that faith is outside rationality, why should it be expected to have "any epistemological value", or indeed logical validity, in the way you refer to it? Logic presupposes that things operate according to specific laws, and so does not provide for phenomena that do not obey these laws. In that respect, logic is unqualified to explain faith and cannot be used to either validate or invalidate it.

Simply because you have to accept the basic elements of a religion by faith. It blocks that belief from rational enquiry.

actually it doesn't block the belief from rational enquiry, it encourages it. the Bible itself tells that the Word be researched. also you don't simply accept the basic elements of the religion. Christianity is accepted by a personal conviction by that same God, that's why i said you won't see the entity but would experrience him.

Have you really studied the sources of that experience? Basic research in sensory perception and memory have shown both to be extremely open to suggestion and error.

and what basic research has been shown? source please. error on what? and being open to suggestion bespeaks the fact that the subconscious mind is being told what to do. On the contrary, it's a personal conviction.

They're intellectually lazy because they refuse to examine the basis for their beliefs. they rather shelter their beliefs and rationalise them. That's being intellectually lazy in my mind.

pls read my first response again. like i once said, how can you know they've refused to examine the basis of their beliefs if you haven't experienced the basis of that belief and then exsamine it?


will write more later,

Genial:

Christianity is not rational.

That's exactly what I was trying to point out. By denying the validity of rationality, it is denying freedom.

Genial:

Have you really studied the sources of that experience? Basic research in sensory perception and memory have shown both to be extremely open to suggestion and error.

Very true. Nonetheless it does not discount the fact of such an experience.

No it doesn't, but it gives an explantion to those experiences that is grounded in reality and that invalidates the explanation of those experiences as being somehow in contact with or understanding of a deity. The truth of that religion is vacuous, because people of all differnt religions have these experiences in their specific cultural context. It would equally validate the truth claims of Judasim, Budhism, Shamanism, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca etc as Christianity and their truth calaims are mutually exclusive.

Genial:

Christianity is irrational. Rationality is a parameter defined by human experience. Anything outside that is irrational.

Any valid intellectual effort a priory requires rationality, therefore faith equals intellectual laziness.

Genial:

The main argument against Theism is the frequent inability of its adherents to provide evidence that can be interpreted in a material, or empirical context. Whether these experiences are real or not cannot be determined solely by empirical science, unless "reality" only refers to phenomena whose existence can be proven with the methods of scientific investigation currently available.

How then would you define reality?

Genial:

Faith is irrational and illogical.

Full agreement here.

Genial:

Perhaps so, if intellectual laziness refers to their faith which, by definition, is irrational.

When resorting to faith, people are intellectually lazy.

michelin89:

Didn't god say help yourself first then he shall help you?

I see you are trying to quote the scriptures, but your quote was wrong. I guess the words just came out just for you to have a little backup for your point, but I would rather advice you to get the scriptures and read it with the fullest of understanding instead of jumping into conclusions.

michelin89:

You are convinced that he is always right and not that he has prove that to you. if he has them please give me an example of his "absolute and indubitably righteousness"

If you can rewind back the clock of time, you will definite be convinced of his pure righteousness, because I don't think you have the valued time to go through the Bible.