A Localized God

As an American, I am surrounded by Christians. It is by far the largest religious group in this country. You can’t drive a few miles without crossing paths with a church of some kind. My small town (about 42 square miles) has only about 4500 residents, yet we have at least a dozen churches. In the small state of New Hampshire where I reside, there are approximately 1.3 million residents. There are (according to http://www.churches-in.com) 109,816 churches in the state. I am sure there are more that are not on their directory, but we’ll go with that number for now. (This is just Christian churches, by the way) That means that there is, on average, one church for every 12 people in New Hampshire. Now imagine if New Hampshire was in the Bible Belt or some other more religious area. How many more churches would there be near me?

There are a lot of churches in this country. A LOT. And we are just one country out of many in the world. Now, with so many churches preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ in this country alone, one must wonder why. Why is it that we have come to believe in, and follow, the teachings of a man named Jesus? Did Jesus ever speak of the Americas? What about Australia? Greenland? What about every single area not mentioned by name in the Bible? It would seem, according to the Bible, that God had only focused on one locality; the Middle East. What is the explanation for this? Was there no one living in these other areas at the time? Did we have to wait for people to leave the chosen area and populate these “desolate” areas? No.

Paleo-Indians lived in the Americas at the time. Roughly 13,000 years ago, the Clovis culture was said to have been thriving in North America. The Clovis people were the ancestors to the Native Americans we were all taught about back in school. Surely God would have known about them and would have wanted them included in his divine plan, right? What about Australia? Aborigines have been on that continent for at least 50,000 years. Some archaeological discoveries even suggest that there were people there as far back as 60,000 years ago. Were they mentioned in scripture? What about all of the other areas of the world that had people living in them at the time the scriptures were written that were completely ignored in the Bible?

In his book, God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens says this when speaking of fantastical biblical claims:

“Moreover, the context is oppressively confined and local. None of the provincials, or their deity, seems to have any idea of a world beyond the desert, the flocks and herd, and the imperatives of nomadic subsistence. This is forgivable on the part of the provincial yokels, obviously, but then what of their supreme guide and wrathful tyrant? Perhaps he was made in their image, even if not graven?”

This idea from Hitchens got me thinking about why we here in America worship and follow a completely Middle Eastern god. If we here in the states, as well as every other area not mentioned in the Bible, were not important enough to even be mentioned, why do we fawn over this supposed all-knowing and all-powerful being? Every story is distinctly Middle-eastern in the Bible. The people, the homes, the landscape and the customs. All of it. Nothing in the scriptures gives us even a glimpse of the world outside of that area. If the story is completely thought up and put forward by men of limited education and experience, then it makes sense. If inspired by God, he’s got some explaining to do.

Before any believers out there reading this say that these omissions were left intentionally in order for us to spread the gospel, (you know, be the hands and feet of Jesus?) stop and think a bit first. Is that really logical? Is that right? How long would it take ancient Middle-Eastern people to reach other continents that weren’t even on their radar? Did the people of Nazareth have a map of the Americas? What about the Israelites? How could they reach these other areas in time to save anyone? Were they okay letting countless generations be damned while they made the necessary technological advancements that would enable them to reach the ends of the earth? And that brings up the invented notion of “Well, I don’t think God would punish those who never heard of Jesus. I believe that they are innocent if they are ignorant.” If that’s the case, then stop spreading the good news. It’s apparently bad news once you’ve heard it.

So what are your thoughts? Is there a reasonable explanation for why the god of the universe focuses only on one small region of this one planet? Is there a good reason for why he makes the rest of the earth wait for the salvation story while his favorites get to witness the events in person? Is planting a seed in one spot and then waiting for it to grow and spread slowly really the best way to teach the word to everyone? God was supposedly so angry with us that he destroyed the world once with a flood and then sent his son to die when that didn’t fix the problem. Is he really okay waiting thousands of years for the rest of us to hear his message? Didn’t he know how long it would take to reach the rest of the wretched sinners of the world? The Bible’s take on God’s wrath doesn’t suggest that he is the patient type. Is this really what we’d expect from a god-breathed religion or is it solely from the minds of short-sighted men who lacked the ability to see beyond their own feet? I have my suspicions. What are yours?

As an aside, I am still in the middle of reading Christopher Hitchens’ “God is Not Great.” It is most definitely worth a read if you haven’t yet. It is extremely well-written and full of terrific insights. If I had known of it while I was a Christian, I would be left with only two choices. One, I could take his concerns to heart and rethink my methods of finding truth. Or two, I would toss it in the trash after just reading the title and claim it must have been inspired by our enemy. As a non-believer, however, I am nodding my head in agreement constantly as I read.

31 thoughts on “A Localized God

  1. why we here in America worship and follow a completely Middle Eastern god”?Maybe because it is a proselytizing religion, which for 1800 years was willing to use any means at all to advance it. Only the complaint genes remained. Might be good for evolution, but horrible for self worth and intellect.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Sacrificing reason in order to spread a religion must have been tough, even for early believers. Maybe it was a bit easier for those in that region. At least they could be shown the important landmarks. They could be taught “This is where God did this” or “This is where Jesus taught that.” Outside of that region, it is all hearsay (as it is no matter where you hear it) but without the visual aids.

      Ignoring red flags and question marks is never a good way to find truth. Compliance out of fear was (and still is) the way of the world. History is continually showing that passing on our unfounded faith is a detriment, not a benefit.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I feel like it’s one thing to understand that God is using the images and forms of thought of a specific culture to connect and reveal Himself. It’s another to suppose that He’s solely limited by that or by geography. What is inexplicable to me is how this very intelligent atheist scholar would not think about this or is his mind so closed to the possibility of a creator that it could not occur to him? I don’t know. And, what was Jesus saying when He explained that He had other sheep “not of this fold,” who would also hear His voice?

      Like

      1. @Rebecca R

        What are you, as a gentile, doing worshipping a Hebrew deity? Shouldn’t you get your own god? After all, Yahweh hasn’t revealed himself to you, personally — you’re just going by scriptural hearsay.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. But, Chris this is just the whole point of my post. I don’t think I am worshipping a simply Hebrew diety. Neither does any other thoughtful Christian.

        God is bigger than culture or any narrow human construct. But, our minds are finite and limited. So, God reveals Himself through culture, and more specifically as Christians believe, He has revealed Himself most fully in Christ.

        To put this another way, the Bible was written for us, but not to us. And, I mean would it have served God’s purpose to reveal to the ancient Hebrews the existence of the Clovis? Why? He connected to them in terms of where they were at in their time and culture.

        Well, anyway, folks, this all makes perfect sense to me. 🙂 What else can I say. Ben, I do enjoy your thought-provoking posts.

        And, I have to say that there’s nothing like the study of anthropology to broaden one’s horizons and thinking.

        Like

      3. Becky, you say you don’t think you’re worshipping “a simply Hebrew diety.” But in essence, you are. There’s no argument that it was the Hebrews who initiated the beliefs about Yahweh. The entire Old Testament is a story of the Hebrews and their interaction with Yahweh.

        And don’t forget — Yeshua was also a Jew.

        I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. It was PAUL who turned the Hebrew religion into the concoction that now exists among the Gentiles. Its ROOTS are and will forever be Jewish/Hebrew. So yes, in essence, you are worshipping a Hebrew deity.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. What’s increasingly frustrating in these conversations is the appeal to emotions rather than facts. The fact is that the god of the Bible spoke to one small group, not the whole world. That is why missionaries and apologists exist, to spread the “good news.” If God actually spoke to the world, the spreading of this very specific Middle-Eastern message would never have been necessary. We’d all already know it.

        It can be quite easy to say that God did this or did that. What’s difficult is proving it. If one was to follow a specific god (Yahweh for example) they would have to go by what evidence is available. The written accounts in the Bible are all we have to go on. They show a god who did not preach to the world but rather to a small group of people in the desert. That is why there are people still to this day who would have no idea of what you are saying when you proselytize.

        You can create this idea of God who does anything you want. That doesn’t mean there is any evidence confirming that. Your feelings, no matter how strong,cannot breathe the god you speak of into existence.

        Christopher Hitchens also appeals to facts and not faith. I think that is maybe why you find his views “inexplicable.”

        You ask “What was Jesus saying when…”

        Who knows what Jesus was saying or if he existed to say anything at all. There were no eyewitnesses to record his words. Everything attributed to him was written down long after his death. There is no way of verifying his words. Only hearsay in the form of scripture.

        Liked by 4 people

      5. Ben, I feel like it probably has more to do with world view and then how we fit and interpret evidence within that.

        I know we’ve had this discussion before. But, I mean, people can even disagree about what constitutes evidence. For me, the almost universality of some type of religious belief among people through time and culture actually is like one signpost pointing toward the existence of an actual creator.

        But, someone like Hitchens, coming from within a totally different paradigm would disagree.

        Like

      6. So, you believe the founders were inspired by Jesus and believe their words regarding government, but you do not believe the words about Jesus’s religion?

        Liked by 1 person

      7. To me, it’s like humans have this “spiritual instinct.” But, of course, we can all argue about why this is, or where it ultimately comes from.

        Like

      8. Nan, I’m struggling to find words to explain myself. This seems so clear to me, but not to anyone here. To use an analogy, when I call God, Father, I know that I’m not connecting to someone who is actually and literally male. But, I”m relating to God as a loving Father, and as a friend as well. In the same way, I understand that God does not really have ethnicity. The texts of the Scripture contain and convey deep truth, but they are also culturally bound.

        Does this make any sense at all? If not, guess I’m not the one to bridge this. 🙂

        Like

    3. I’m not sure what I think about the founders and all of their beliefs, Jim. Can you elaborate more?

      I do feel that for them the ideal of equality and human rights as “self-evident” is rooted in the concept of humans as being uniquely created by God. But, on the other hand, they didn’t always live up to that concept., either. Slavery was a big compromise, later on, to hold on to the Southern states. And, look what happened to the indigenous people of North America as well.

      As far as I know, the founders did not all agree concerning Jesus. Some were committed Christians, but others leaned more toward deism.

      Like

      1. So, consider the statements above that Paine and Jefferson made regarding Christianity first. These men had incredible insights on human nature, crafted the founding documents of a republic, form a government that we have today (thanks to Jesus), but they were not smart enough to see the trappings and deprecation that christianity has on humanity?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I thought you were replying to my most recent post if that comment seems out of context. Your comment fit right in and I didn’t notice we were at Ben’s.

        Like

      3. “Slavery was a big compromise”

        Slavery was a compromise? What exactly does that mean? That these normally “godly” men compromised their integrity to own slaves because it benefitted them? No. Anyone in this country who stood up against the people who owned slaves may have had integrity, but those who had slaves of their own, or turned a blind eye to it, had none. Slaveowners clearly had no integrity. They exploited the words in the Bible for their own benefit. Why? Because the Bible explicitly condones slavery. According to the Bible, slavery is not only permissible, but there are rules and regulations in regards to how you treat your slaves. The god of the Bible does not condemn slavery as he should, but rather endorses it. These men may have had some ideals, but the “ideal of equality” was not one of them. It was not reserved for the slaves, just other white men.

        You asked me, in a previous post, who Matt Dillahunty was when I posted a video clip of his. Well, he is many things. One of which is an expert of sorts when it comes to slavery in the Bible. Below, I have included a clip of his where he responds to another person’s objection of his views on slavery. It is a bit long, but if I truly wrote a “thought provoking” post as you said in one of your other comments, please watch the clip and allow it to provoke your thoughts. It has a lot of useful information that comes straight out of the Bible, not just Matt’s opinion.

        Not only did slave owners use their Bibles to condone slavery, they even created a “Slave Bible” that was heavily edited in order to make more obedient slaves. Slavery is disgusting in both versions of the Bible, but it was in there, straight from the authors who are said to be inspired by God.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Nan, I’m struggling to find words to explain myself. This seems so clear to me, but not to anyone here. To use an analogy, when I call God, Father, I know that I’m not connecting to someone who is actually and literally male. But, I”m relating to God as a loving Father, and as a friend as well. In the same way, I understand that God does not really have ethnicity. The texts of the Scripture contain and convey deep truth, but they are also culturally bound.

        Does this make any sense at all? If not, guess I’m not the one to bridge this. 🙂

        Like

      5. Ben, when I shared that slavery was a compromise, I meant this in the sense it was thought necessary to save the union. Probably there would not have been the United States of America without this compromise at the time.

        Here’s what I think about this, though, before we judge all these folks too harshly. Slavery was practiced all over the world since the dawn of civilization. It was widely accepted. People were conditioned by their culture to accept it. Many did not really know, I think, that this was immoral, or they found ways to justify this practice.

        Of course, slavery is abhorrent and horrible. But, I think it’s also important to look at the cultural context in which people lived at the time, and how that shaped their thinking rather than to totally judge their worth by the standards of our time and culture.

        Many of the early abolitionists on both sides of the pond were committed, Christian believers. They found a foundation in the teaching of Christ as well as in the teaching of Paul that spoke of our unity in Jesus, that there is no slave or free, but we are one in Christ Jesus.

        Now getting to Mr. Dillhunty, if this man is a de-convert from Christianity, I’m willing to bet “dollars to donuts’ that he comes from a fundamentalist background, If not, knock me down with a feather. Scripture reflects and contains the word of God, but also is written by men, and is culturally bound. I don’t think something is necessarily true or worthy of emulation because it is stated in the Bible. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that people are going to sit down and argue about this stuff.

        Now, in all fairness, I’ve heard scholarly discussions related to the culture of ancient times, where certain teachings contained in the law were actually like a “step-up” compared to the practice of other surrounding civilizations. For instance, an “eye for an eye” actually deterred mass revenge and the wiping out of entire peoples because of some individual wrong.

        But, Jesus took this even further when He spoke out against retaliatory violence at all.

        I feel like God’s revelation and our understanding of this is progressive over time.

        I have a step-son who is a conservative Christian, youth pastor. He is a wonderful man, and I love him. But, we do not see eye to eye. He has this kind of view, I would call it the “domino effect,” that if one part of the Scripture cannot be believed or taken in a literal fashion, then the whole thing just folds like a deck of cards.

        My mind just does not reason in this way at all, Ben. It seems crazy to me. But, it is a difficult bridge to cross with someone who thinks and reasons very differently.

        Like

      6. Just a couple of things…

        “Of course, slavery is abhorrent and horrible. But, I think it’s also important to look at the cultural context in which people lived at the time, and how that shaped their thinking rather than to totally judge their worth by the standards of our time and culture.”

        If you had stopped your statement before adding the word “but”, we would have been in total agreement. Adding “but” means you think that some forms of slavery could be justified depending on the era, culture, etc. I cannot agree, however, and I will judge anyone who thinks otherwise as being wrong…and here is why: There is no excuse for slavery. Period. None. It was never okay at any point in time to own another person as property and there was never a point in time where it was okay to beat another person, stopping just short of killing them. Never. Just because slavery has been around for a while and just because many people used it for (in their minds) betterment of a nation or for whatever other reason, it was never okay. And those people were wrong. Every one of them. And we have every right to judge them as wrong.

        “Many of the early abolitionists on both sides of the pond were committed, Christian believers. They found a foundation in the teaching of Christ as well as in the teaching of Paul that spoke of our unity in Jesus, that there is no slave or free, but we are one in Christ Jesus.”

        The above scripture you referenced was conveniently left out of the “slave bibles” that were given to the “property” of slaveowners. Curious, don’t you think? It doesn’t matter what the slaveowners believed in their hearts (minds) because they certainly didn’t want their slaves to know it. It would be quite difficult to control slaves and get them to do what you want if they believed that ” there is no slave or free, but we are one in Christ Jesus.”

        As far as Matt Dillahunty’s Christian background, I think you keep missing an important point. It doesn’t matter if you are a fundamentalist Christian or one of the other thousands of versions of Christian. All have the same problem; a lack of evidence. Fundamentalists judge other Christians and they, in turn, judge the fundamentalists. Just because you all disagree does not mean that any are correct. You cannot dismiss another Christian by saying “Oh, well they are fundamentalists. I don’t believe in what they do” and then simply assume you are right and they are wrong. You need to demonstrate that. Show why you are right, why they are wrong or even why any of it matters. Show me why I should believe any of it and how you came to be in possession of the correct view. There is a “fundamental” error when one Christian judges another as being right or wrong when ALL have the inability to show that they themselves are justified in their beliefs.

        ” Scripture reflects and contains the word of God, but also is written by men, and is culturally bound. I don’t think something is necessarily true or worthy of emulation because it is stated in the Bible. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that people are going to sit down and argue about this stuff.”

        This is where a demonstration is necessary. To make this claim, you will need to demonstrate that “scripture reflects and contains the word of God.” Which parts are from God and which are from men? I completely agree that the Bible “is written by men, and is culturally bound.” I don’t, however, see any evidence that it is anything beyond that. You have stated before that you don’t necessarily need the Bible to believe and that you would believe regardless of whether you had a Bible or not. That’s simply not possible, as I’ve said in the past. Of course you can believe in a god without the Bible, just not the god (or his son) that you believe in. The god of the Bible is very specific and completely bound to that book. He doesn’t exist outside of it. Being a deist is possible without the god-stories of all of the different religions, but nothing more. These stories are found nowhere else but in the writings of ancient men. God does not reveal these stories to us. It is absolutely necessary for man to pass them down in order to ensure their survival. Explain how you would believe in any of these stories without having heard them from another human or from reading them. If they were taught to you, how did you determine that the information given to you (in whatever form you received them) was accurate and reliable?

        In the case of your religion, Christianity, the Bible IS THE SOURCE. And as it was written by man, if you say that it does contain God’s word…which ones exactly? Which parts are from God and which are from the mind of man? How can you tell the difference? How do you choose to follow some and reject others? If this book contains man’s word and God’s word, and we cannot differentiate between the two, the entire book is worthless. Without a god to show exactly which message it wanted to convey, the only evidence we have is that man created the whole thing. I don’t know about you, but I certainly do not need someone else telling me how to think, how to act and how to view the world. I am more than capable of making my own decisions.

        So, if we cannot trust the book where the story originates, there is no story. Without the written word for us to investigate ourselves, there would have to be a personal revelation from this supposed god for every last one of us in order to know any of it. And that’s just not how religion works. You cannot merely “feel in your heart” the Jesus story. You can’t “just know” the story of Moses, Joseph or Paul. The resurrection story is not instinctual for all people. None of these stories are “feelings”. They are stories to be shared. And stories have a source. Remove the source and the stories disappear. All of them. How can we trust the source of these stories? Oral traditions, passed down through the ages are no better. They are still just unsubstantiated stories. In print or on the tongue, these stories require evidence. Without any, one is quite justified in dismissing them.

        Liked by 2 people

      7. EXCELLENT summation, Ben!!!

        Of course believers will simply gloss over all of it and indignantly declare you’re off-base simply because you’re no longer “one the them” and your POV has become terribly warped.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. I can understand why many people would dismiss my views. I would have done the same thing back when I was a Christian. Back then, I simply could not comprehend how anyone could argue with the “truth” and how someone could walk away from Jesus if they truly knew him.

        I have no issue whatsoever with anyone disagreeing with me. I have no issue whatsoever with being wrong. I do have a problem with simply being told I am wrong. I would like, for once, to be shown why I am factually wrong and why someone else is factually right. Give me evidence to the contrary of what I’ve written and I will immediately retract my statements. But that hasn’t happened. Right now it’s just a lot of talk about feelings. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great to have feelings about things. We all have feelings and they help to shape our views of the world. Having feelings can be wonderful. I’m not saying feelings aren’t beneficial to us. Feelings as your sole reason for believing in God, however? Not so great.

        Sure, you can believe in anything for any reason, just don’t use that as an example of evidence and not expect there to be some pushback. Extraordinary claims (God is real, for example) require extraordinary evidence. Saying that you believe in something because you feel it is more likely than not to be true, is not an example of extraordinary evidence.

        Liked by 2 people

      9. Ben, I don’t feel that slavery was ever ok, but I’m able to cast my mind back into the 1700s and understand how many people in that time and culture might have accepted this practice and sincerely not have comprehended the evil of it. Well, just sharing concerning some other comments, my faith is centered more in the churches witness relating to the resurrection which precedes the writing of the NT. It was the church actually that determined the canon based in various criteria. My views of the nature of God are filtered through the incarnation. I can’t see how many of the events described in the OT are compatible with the love of God seen in Jesus who prayed that even those who Murder Him would know forgiveness. But, I’m also open. Lately, I’ve been thinking about how a loving God has wrath against evil that could harm the innocent or destroy the creation. Perhaps this is connected to some of these stories contained in the OT that I don’t fully understand. At any rate, Ben, it seems to me that there are tons of apologetics out there written to point toward the existence of God and the resurrection by scholars more qualified than me. To close, here is the really ironic thing. Before, I started sharing and listening on these blogs years ago, I actually agreed with you and thought that evidence was key in why or why not people were Christian believers. Now, I am actually closer to the fundamentalists in my views. I feel like it has more to do with choice and openness, whether the pole of a person’s life, so to speak, is oriented toward knowing and wanting God or not. All of this then helps to determine how we receive and interpret evidence. But, of course it’s safer and also seems more intellectually respectable to just talk about evidence and let it end there.

        Like

  2. Of course the people involved in writing the Bible didn’t know about all the other continents, that’s the most reasonable explanation. It’s much harder to explain when you believe in the Christian God though, since there’s no reason he should omit mentioning other places. It makes a good case against Christianity really.

    Another thing, the Bible NEVER seems to imply that the earth is round, it’s always implied as flat or on some pedestals or something. The Biblical phrase “ends of the earth” doesn’t make a lot of sense otherwise. Did that ever bother you when your were Christian? Or maybe you just did mental gymnastics like me back then.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. It’s pretty much akin to my worship of Liverpool FC. A very local team which I ‘dragged’ with me when I came to live in Africa, and I worship them still.
    Furthermore, Liverpool’s goalie , Brazilian, Alison Bekker saves more than Jesus!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Mom tossed her copy in the trash.

    I was first of all caught off guard to hear she had even bought it. In hindsight I think she was trying to understand me.

    Anyway, she read it. Shared it with my sister who agreed with her that Hitchens was an awful man.

    Mom never throws books in the trash. Never ever. So, when I asked her if I could read her copy she said no and that she had thrown it away. If she had kept it I might have read it but by that time I was done reading and settling into a comfortable humanism/agnostic atheism. I had already been there, done that.

    It’s entirely interesting to me that Hitch to her was a terrible man, anyone who didn’t believe in some way that there was a “God” was evil and that she couldn’t believe I had ever believed in the literal Noah and his ark. She scolded me: “How could you believe that!?” I simply told her: “No one had ever told me otherwise.” The interesting part is, she’s an all in conspiracy theorist who thinks the Clinton’s eat/ate babies . . . and I’ll crawl back out of that rabbit hole for now. :/

    Liked by 3 people

  5. The bible was written on many assumptions of our world 2000 years ago. All of them rong! Yet presented with authority and steadfast in belief. If the bible were written today we’d have a more accurate with todays times, yet still ridiculous book.

    I found 2 broken Clovis last year. One nearly whole with maybe 1/4″ of the tip missing. Fluted on both sides. A fine specimen even broken. The other was just the base of the point, with a known characterisitic, the “rollover”, where the point breaks into two pieces during the fluting process. Found them both on the same day within 10 minutes of each other.

    I found a lot of stone artifacts in my time as a diver. The known age of the artifacts, across several time periods*, between now and Paleo times, was always a good reminder that the bible was full of shit!

    * Going backwards, Historic, Mississippian, Woodland, Archaic, and Paleo. With some intermediate point types in the mix as well.

    Like

  6. Consider those average New Hampsirans (New Hampshirites? New Hampsters?) sitting in the pews of an average church. How many versions of Christianity are there in that church? Answer: more than 12. Each member of the church, the pastor, any staff, etc. have created their own Christianity to worship through.

    Every Christian selects out what ideology matches their pre-conceived notions of what their religion should be and makes that their version. So, NH has about 59% Christians, or 810,000, so there are only about 8 per church and there are therefore 810,000 sects of Christianity in your state.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Definitely New Hampster. From now on that is what I want to be known as. A native New Hampster. 😁

      I know that in the few churches I attended here in New Hampshire there were several competing views. That was one of the reasons I left for good from the last church. I questioned the pastor about things the church was doing that seemed to go against biblical teaching and it didn’t go over well. The pastor ignored me from then on and instead asked one of the deacons to speak to me to “correct my way of thinking.” That was the last straw for me. Turns out it was for the best since it led me on a journey to find truth and to let go of the faith I was using in its place.

      I had to leave it behind and start all over again but I can honestly say that I now feel like a brand New Hampster.

      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