jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (98 posts)

So..........

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    I am totally calm regarding religious people and others who try to proletyze.    I just let it roll of my back.   I know WHO I AM and am not disturbed regarding their postering.   My life is too short to get upset at this.    Do you agree?

    1. paradigmsearch profile image87
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I thought you were going to bed? smile

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Me too.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good evening, Kathryn, nice to see you again.   Let's add to the discussion at hand.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No. I think religious people who do this and try to insert their beliefs onto children are child abusers and should be prevented from doing so. Legally if necessary - as we deal with other forms of child abuse.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Happy New Year, Mark.

        The idea that the state should legally prevent parents from teaching religion to their children is a chilling reminder of Orwellian Newspeak. {1} It conjures scary images of the Thinkpol eliminating ideas and declaring personal religious beliefs as thoughtcrimes. In a free society, Mark, parents conveying ideas to their children is not child abuse. Forcing all children to be Knowles approved goodthinkers is child abuse.

        I am hoping, Mark, you have continued success in the New Year.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Or good common sense. Sorry you don't see it that way. I suspect that is because you hold some irrational religious beliefs yourself and it bothers you that if you cannot indoctrinate your children into those beliefs at a young age - they will not be likely to agree with them.

          Teaching a 4 year old that evolution is a lie and the sky Daddy will burn them in hell for not believing is mental child abuse. I know.

          Your Orwellian reference is not really appropriate, but I think it is great that you favor ritual child mutilation and mental child abuse as long as it is based on an irrational religious reason. This is why the Catholic church gets away with so many pedophiles. Or - do you derive some personal authority from teaching children religious hate?

          Hopefully, the 2,000 years of abusing children in this fashion is coming to a close. Weird that you are OK with only certain forms of child abuse - as long as they are based on a particular religion. I assume you are not OK with other forms of mental child abuse and think they should be illegal? Yes? Female circumcision? Illegal or no? I do hope you think child abuse should be illegal and prevented - yes? Or do you have no boundaries where this is concerned?

          Where have you drawn your line? Any mental abuse should be illegal except if it is pushing the Christian agenda?

          Happy New Year to you also.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image88
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I worry about you sometimes.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why is that? You don't agree that teaching children to think there is an Invisible Super Daddy watching them who will throw them in a lake of fire if they don't believe should be classed as child abuse? You don't think that cutting off a baby's foreskin to appease the Invisible Super Daddy who - incidentally -  made us in his own image -  is child abuse?

              1. ATexanagain profile image59
                ATexanagainposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nobody ever told me that when I attended church as a child, man what else did I miss out on?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You just weren't paying attention. wink

                  1. ATexanagain profile image59
                    ATexanagainposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, there was this one girl.

          2. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good Evening, Mark.  Many thanks for your prompt comments.

            Please note how much of your reply is not related to what I said. Your initial position is parents “should be prevented …Legally if necessary” from teaching their children anything Mark Knowles considers to be “child abuse.” I read you as clearly being in favor of the Thinkpol eliminating ideas and declaring personal religious beliefs as thoughtcrimes.

            Because I disagreed with your position, you made several assumptions about me, ignored what I said about usurping parental authority, and went about attacking your own false assumptions:

            “I suspect that is because you hold some irrational religious beliefs yourself and it bothers you that if you cannot indoctrinate your children into those beliefs at a young age - they will not be likely to agree with them.”

            ”Teaching a 4 year old that evolution is a lie and the sky Daddy will burn them in hell for not believing is mental child abuse.”

            ”you favor ritual child mutilation and mental child abuse”

            “This is why the Catholic Church gets away with so many pedophiles.”

            “Do you derive some personal authority from teaching children religious hate?”

            “Weird that you are OK with only certain forms of child abuse - as long as they are based on a particular religion.”

            “I assume you are not OK with other forms of mental child abuse.”


            Every one of these statements is a false assumption on your part.

            With your permission, let us stick with your original statement:

            “I think religious people who do this and try to insert their beliefs onto children are child abusers and should be prevented from doing so. Legally if necessary - as we deal with other forms of child abuse.”

            Do you advocate legally preventing parents from teaching their children anything Mark Knowles considers as “child abuse?” On the other hand, if Mark Knowles is not the one to decide what is “child abuse” then who is? Your personal non-religious beliefs, Mark, should have nothing to do with who determines what is “child abuse.”

            Finally, Mark, in the immortal words of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., keep the faith , Baby!
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So - you do agree with me that child abuse should be illegal? Or not? Sorry - your statements have little to do with the matter at hand, and more to do with defending your irrational beliefs and your desire that they be propagated though child indoctrination.

              Perhaps you could state your position on child abuse more clearly, because I am getting the impression that you think child abuse should be left to the parents to administer and the government to keep out of.

              The real issue seems to be that you do not agree with my assessment that teaching religious dogma to children as a fact is child abuse? Would that be a correct statement?

              Sorry - it is so hard to pick anything out from your defense of teaching nonsense to children instead of facts that i rather lost what you were trying to say.

              Lets see where we can agree shall we? Instead of arguing senselessly because your religion is threatened.

              I originally stated something along the lines of "teaching children that evolution is a lie and replacing it with a belief in a god that will punish them for not believing," is child abuse. Do you agree that this in fact child abuse? Or are you going to continue to misdirect the discussion towards that lie that parents are "teaching religion to their children," when they are in fact indoctrinating them into a religious cult.

              Thanks for sticking to the topic at hand. It seems I pushed a few buttons I had not intended to push. I am certain you never derived any personal power from teaching children that you know something about a god when in fact you do not. Do you not agree that cutting off a part of a baby's penis for religious reasons is child abuse? DO you not agree that keeping a child out of the school system in order to teach them religious dogma instead of actual facts is child abuse?

              Am I not qualified to determine if this is child abuse? How so? Thanks for the quick and courteous response also. Lets talk.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hi, Mark. It is a pleasure to talk with you once again.

                Forgive me if I try to hold you on topic. In your reply, you say, “I originally stated something along the lines of ’teaching children that evolution is a lie and replacing it with a belief in a god that will punish them for not believing,’ is child abuse.” This not entirely true. Your original declaration was “I think religious people who do this and try to insert their beliefs onto children are child abusers and should be prevented from doing so. Legally if necessary - as we deal with other forms of child abuse.” (See Quilligrapher desperately trying to keep the goal posts from moving.)

                After which, I ask you for a clarification: “Do you advocate preventing parents from teaching their children anything Mark Knowles considers as ‘child abuse?’”

                You try in your first sentence to shift the focus to me: “So - you do agree with me that child abuse should be illegal? Or not?”(See Mark trying to move the goal posts to another stadium.) The premise in your stated position is not if “child abuse should be illegal.” The premise is whether you advocate legally preventing parents from teaching their children everything you, Mark Knowles, consider as “child abuse?”

                Most everything else in your reply is more of the same smoke and mirrors. Specifically...

                “Perhaps you could state your position on child abuse”
                “Do you not agree that cutting off a part of a baby's penis for religious reasons is child abuse?”
                “Do you not agree that keeping a child out of the school system in order to teach them religious dogma instead of actual facts is child abuse?”
                “ That you think child abuse should be left to the parents.”
                “The real issue seems to be that you do not agree with my assessment that teaching religious dogma to children as a fact is child abuse?”
                “Your defense of teaching nonsense to children instead of facts because your religion is threatened.”
                “Your statements … have more to do with defending your irrational beliefs and your desire that they be propagated though child indoctrination.”
                “Are you going to continue to misdirect the discussion towards that lie that parents are ‘teaching religion to their children,’ when they are in fact indoctrinating them into a religious cult.”


                These are mostly false assumptions and an attempt to divert attention away from your original statement. I do not see why you try so hard to question what you assume to be my beliefs when the issue is you and your beliefs. Do you advocate legally preventing parents from teaching their children anything that you, Mark Knowles, personally consider as “child abuse?”

                So once again, Mark, you originally said you “think religious people who do this and try to insert their beliefs onto children are child abusers and should be prevented from doing so. Legally if necessary - as we deal with other forms of child abuse.” This pronouncement seems to advocate legally preventing parents from teaching their children any ideas Mark Knowles considers as “child abuse?” If not Mark Knowles, then who will define the abusive teaching you wish to ban, a board of scientists, educators, psychologist, atheists, or other parents? 

                Your answer would be welcomed but, obviously, you need not answer if you choose not to. Your position seems fairly clear. Parents do not have the right to teach their children anything Mark Knowles deems they should not teach because he has declared it “child abuse” thereby justifying the force of law. This is not a matter of dogma but of a family’s right to live with a belief system that is no threat to your own. None of my beliefs are really important, Mark, particularly my belief that your position resembles Big Brother, destroying ideas with which you disagree, and advocating that your philosophical views be legally forced on the rest of the world.

                Thank you again for sharing, Mark. How wonderful it is to express different perspectives without implying one of us is inferior.

                Allow me to leave you with one more thought. “Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.” ― Joseph Campbell
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                1. bBerean profile image59
                  bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  +1.  Well stated, Quilligrapher.  You have gracefully and politely penetrated Mark's commonly deployed squad of strawmen while retaining focus on his outrageous statements.  Folks are likely to think he is kidding, so it is good to request clarification.  I am also interested in his answers to your questions.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nonsense, we can find a whole lot of discussion regarding child abuse and religion.

              http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/religio … -abuse.htm
              http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/ … ild-abuse/
              http://grisham.newsvine.com/_news/2012/ … hild-abuse

                  "And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence."
                  —Arthur Schopenhauer, On Religion: A Dialogue

            3. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              This is the way these abusive atheists purport their ideas upon others. Bullying, insulting and making false conclusions, ignoring posts context and coloring statements.
              Its all propaganda designed to spur a set of reactions but is hardly worthy of the name debate or discussion. Its simply the case of those who know less have the most to say.
              If mark wants the world to believe as he does for whatever misguided reasons he wants to put forth as his truth, he is welcomed to try, although we cannot do the same, hmmm, and albeit more honesty would be appreciated.
              This is why attitudes like yours, mark, causes wars.
              I did not need to go to church to hear about satan or know of an underworld i just have to read all your posts. lol I could have grabbed the idea from the illyad and i suppose you want that book burned now. I can get a belief in vampires from the local bookstore i guess we should stop this false doctrine also huh. Do you propose burning the book store that would teach your son to become a fan or admirer of vampirism?  Thank you for being more aggressive than many many many christians i know in life, today. I thank God i see through your smoke and mirrors and lust to (legally) control the minds of all people everywhere.
              If you really want to stop child abuse, get better parental blocks on the television set, stop them reading newspapers, scrutinize everything taught in schools and temper the friends they have and those they might accidentally bump into on the sidewalk. Yes indeed, do not let them out of your sight!! On second thought, this might be equated by some children to be bullying,

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is incorrect, the parents Mark is referring are not teaching their children about religion, they are telling their children to believe in a particular deity and to practice particular rituals and to follow the scriptures and dogma of that religion, which will usually include teaching an intolerance to others who don't share the faith.

          Teaching about religion is nothing like that at all, hence your reminder is pointless.



          So, because Mark, like so many of the rest of us, would like children to actually be taught about religions, just like they're taught about so many other subjects, as opposed to being told to follow a particular religion is child abuse?

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey there, ATM. It has been a long while since we exchange ideas. Very nice to see you here.

            I certainly appreciate your telling me what Mark was referring to.

            You said, “They [parents] are telling their children to believe in a particular deity and to practice particular rituals and to follow the scriptures and dogma of that religion, which will usually include teaching an intolerance to others who don't share the faith.”

            In this regard, I have two opinions:

            First, your remark seems to be teaching your own intolerance to others who do not share your disbelief in faith.

            Secondly, teaching children is the primary responsibility of parents. Although many rely on the state to provide staff and facilities, they can never delegate that responsibility to anyone else, least of all to you and Mark! Consider for a moment that some parents fulfill that responsibility on their own by home-schooling their children to meet specific state imposed guidelines and standards. Your suggestion that the state should also set standards governing religious home schooling is too outrageous to comprehend!

            Another comment is particularly interesting to me: “because Mark, like so many of the rest of us, would like children to actually be taught about religions, just like they're taught about so many other subjects…” With all due respect, what you and Mark would like a parent to teach their children is not something to be forced on them by you or by others. That responsibility lies solely with parents but thank you for your suggestions.

            As for your saying, “like so many of us,” it is my opinion that the number of people in favor of an idea is never a measure of its value.

            I thank you, ATM, for taking the time to comment on my remarks. I appreciate reading your ideas. Happy New Year!
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, that certainly is one of the most ridiculous conclusions I've read today, but it is still early in the day.

              So, by me simply pointing out the intolerance of religion, I am being intolerant. Good one! LOL.



              I really have no idea where you're getting this stuff. What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?



              The only thing I can glean from that nonsense is that you are in favor of indoctrination and child abuse and not in favor of how children are already being taught. How very sad.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                child abuse.. i see we have a new tag word and how effective. lol.
                When this whole God thing comes to fruition.... but i won't even bother to go there, lets just hope you are right. 
                How would i raise my children? vs How i want my children to grow up.
                the world teaches:
                a) love thy neighbor but don't get her pregnant
                b) condoms are safe
                c)abortion is okay
                d) stealing is unpunishable unless you get caught
                e) lying is good
                f) be your own person and get what you can in life any way you see fit
                g) when you die there is nothing (thats a great inspirational talk lol)
                To keep this short,  we can see what the teachings of this world will get us. Look around, visit poor sections of town, See how happy the rich are by reading a few magazines, get a larger worldview.
                Christians can avoid all the above and more, since my list is incomplete for brevity sake.
                Christian children can grow up, leave the faith if they want at any point - many have. Muslims can't ever leave - just a side note.
                Christian parents, i do say, should teach by example and not get their child all wrapped up in a book they cannot yet understand. I don't have children so i am open to mockery about my parenting skills but i imagine that every parent wants the best for their child, even the alcoholic parent or the workaholic parent, from the rich to the poor.  What would make a bad parent in my opinion is one that doesn't care enough about their child to teach them the right way to live life. Just to let them walk out the door and fall into one of the many traps of life would be abusive, loosely defined. For me personally i would keep God talk out of the picture until the child asks. No church attendance, no sunday school for little ones. Church is place for God and his people, not leaving because of screaming or being distracted during the sermon because of fidgeting etc. A childs life should be carefree, parents should be a fantastic role model and not force meat doctrines upon milk drinkers. For me i don't have to worry about the catholic concept of hell or satan, hence my "indoctrination" would be different than others. I have seen christian children grow up to be admirable adults, having one wife, no alimonies, no pardon, the expression, bast..d children, not worried about abortion, not addicted to drugs.
                Perhaps the bottom line here is that nosey parkers should keep their nose in their own business about how parents raise children, stop using children as a crutch to push their non god viewpoints and mind their own bees wax. lol.

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  you can teach your children to be good, moral people without indoctrinating them into a religion.  In fact, you can teach your children to be good without introducing any religion at all.  The false assumption that morality is a religious construct is absurd.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If good were all their were to it then fine but good is not as i have said before a qualification into the kingdom of God. Goodness is not all their is to being christian. In fact, goodness is a fruit or product of the spirit of God, goodness comes later. Many ppl who come to accept the God of the bible were not good people but later became good people. Since God exists to the christian then it would be supercilious to leave Him out. But i don't believe in preaching to children nor naming them after prophets of the OT. Elijah as a childs name to me is just being stupid for God.
                    Lets look at just one aspect of morality.. human sacrifice.. egyptians did it, philistines did it, in fact all other nations did it, except one.. Gods nation expressly forbid it.
                    How about abortion.. pharoah liked the idea, he murdered hebrew babies by decree. the idol of molech was made of iron and heated by fire and babies were put upon his hands to burn.. not in Gods nation.
                    I could go on about the high bar morality of Gods commands to his people but i won't.

      2. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ah! There it is!

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Was I not clear before? I think indoctrinating children into religious cults and teaching them nonsense as reality is child abuse.

          Don't understand how you did not understand that. Probably too busy researching all the things you promised to show me. wink

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, two things I can say about you: you are consistent and you are funny.

          2. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If others are not allowed to teach their children about God and whatever doctrines go along with that God belief then these two should not be allowed to teach in no God. Isn't that fairness.
            Or is the unequal ground of you can't teach God but i can teach no God a good idealism for everyone?
            Truly laughable.

            Second point.. should i, as a christian, teach my child about muslim religion, catholicism or spend years trying to sift through the very complicated hinduism? Now that would really be confusing to the child wouldn't it, maybe even abusive huh. Talk about being a hypocrite lol lol.
            Too easy.
            better luck next year

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So, you do not favor educating your children. You just want to indoctrinate them. This is child abuse. You know nothing of god therefore you have no authority to teach anything.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No one, mark, in your opinion knows anything about God and since you know nothing about God you have no authority to teach against God.
                Funny how that works.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, that would be teaching them about religions.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Our compassion has been assaulted by religions for centuries, depicting humans as naturally evil, yet they themselves continue to be the cause of one human tragedy after another. Usually, it is that which disturbs us that we rise to the compassion we as humans exhibit, cherish and protect from the onslaught of religious debasement.

    4. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As technology advances, and education and information are at our finger tips, it becomes more and more disturbing to hear adults still talking about fairy tales as if they were real.  Best thing  is to laugh, because it is hilarious on many levels, but it is also very, very sick...and sad.

      I don't understand what you mean by "others".....?

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How much science do you need? More than what we have obviously more than what we have. Would another 1,000 yrs of science produce any different conclusion when already, scientists are being muzzled, information is being corrupted, people are being told that all scientific theories are facts? Science already stops at where God begins so what will another 500 yrs produce?
        yes lean on further revelation to prove your points. Lets throw the last and final conclusive piece of non God evidence somewhere into the future and say that our today conclusions are going to be proven in the future, just like darwin did, to his own theoretical demise.
        Go ahead choose revelation that isn't revealed yet.
        That makes perfectly good common sense.
        I see that theory falling like lightning from heaven.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In other words, you're asking how much do we need to learn about the world around us. Is there some reason why we would need to stop learning?

          1. OutWest profile image61
            OutWestposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe science will even advance enough to find the proof of God's existence.

            1. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              doubtful.  In fact, most scientists don't even believe in god at all.  You can't find proof of something that doesn't exist.

              1. OutWest profile image61
                OutWestposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It is His existence that is in question.  You can't say He doesn't exist.   Just as you cannot say we don't exist

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I never said god didn't exist.  I said prove that he does.  It should be an easy request, and the bible even says that you should be able to without question - that you should "always be prepared to give an answer (which in the original hebrew can be interpreted as justification) for the hope that you have"

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey, J.

                    To be fair, that verse does not say, nor even imply, IMO, that a believer must 'prove' God's existence.  It simply states that at any time, we must be able to give a reason for our hope.  From person to person, perception is different.  My faith in the existence of God IS my reason for my hope and goodwill.  But it is 'faith'...'belief'...precisely because it cannot be proven.  If God chose to appear to me the way He appeared to Thomas...with eyewitnesses...I would offer that as proof.  Till then I only have faith...which scripture tells me is my proof.  The substance of all things hoped for and all that.

                    Those without faith demand concrete, tangible proof, and quite rightly so.  But in our time,  there exists not a single believer who can offer it.  It seems to me that it is a circular argument with no satisfactory end.

          2. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Is there a reason we need to stop learning...." how you arrived at this question and why you chose this response shows me a need to learn how to read a hub post. I think part of your troubling relates to how you never seem to notice the crux of the post. One thing is plainly stated and your off on some other train of thought. Many points are mentioned and your response lays somewhere between alpha centauri and our moon.

    5. 0
      Lybrahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Some people just want to spread the good news about Jesus Christ.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Despite the fact we don't want to hear it?

        1. OutWest profile image61
          OutWestposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Who's forcing you.  In fact it is you who is on this forum.

          1. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            did you read the OP on this forum?

            1. OutWest profile image61
              OutWestposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Does that mean he is forced to be on this forum or hubpages?

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The OP was about proselytizing - and when believers come to this forum especially, i find it ironic that they're doing the very thing that this Forum topic is about.  Are they forced to come to come to this forum discussion on having patience with others pushing their religion?

                1. OutWest profile image61
                  OutWestposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  We all have a choice to be on here or not.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    so why are you on here specifically on a forum about learning patience when it comes to other people pushing their religion?

        2. 0
          Lybrahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yep

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Standing in a busy new york street and yelling " I don't wanna hear car noises" is kinda insane, is it not?

      2. 0
        Lybrahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I do not.  Everyone should hear about Jesus.

        1. JMcFarland profile image92
          JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          everyone HAS heard about Jesus.  Hearing about him doesn't mean that everyone has to accept him or believe in him though.  That's the problem - you don't seem able to accept that.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Those that haven't accepted him or believe in Him,  really haven't heard about Him - you don't seem to be able to accept that.
            Of all the comments in hubpages religious forum and topics it is very clear many do not know of what they speak and how shall they speak if they have not heard . Accept that for what it is, truth.

      3. 0
        Sarra Garrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I totally agree.  Everyone has their own opinions about religion.  First there are too many organized religions and second I don't believe religion was supposed to be organized in the first place.  Jesus never taught in a building, he always taught outside.  He tore down temples and never built one.  His only message was to do good by others and treat people with respect and help those in need.  It's a simple request but greed came into it and ruined the original message.

      4. sassytuts profile image61
        sassytutsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I know that one day you have to be there communicating with god.
        So what you can do today do now and enjoy your life. Good wishes and a
        Happy new year!

    6. 0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago

      I don't have a problem with religious people speaking their mind; as long as they don't have a problem with me speaking mine. I'm with you. I know who I am and don't take offense at the pestering. I actually feel a little sorry for them.

      1. OutWest profile image61
        OutWestposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Great example of being condescending, BTW.  So what makes you think that the perspective of an atheist is better than that of a theist?  Considering that there is no proof for either position.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think I'm qualified to answer that. I'm not an atheist. If it makes you feel any better, I feel the same way about atheists who attempt to pester others into agreeing with them.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So - you believe in a god now? Which one did you choose?

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't believe anyone is qualified to push a cosmic opinion as if their opinion is the only one. You are a prime example. I realize you say you are simply reflecting, but that isn't the way it comes off to me. Our conversations are little different than a conversation with an evangelizing believer. You guys all come off as if you think you're better. I'm either going to hell (to the believer), or I'm an idiot (to you).  Which is humorous, to an extent.

              I say I feel sorry simply because it must be difficult to need to believe you know something that I can't see a way to believe you know.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Please stop lying about me - I never said any such thing about you, I asked a straightforward question. Sorry - did you not understand the question? Would you like me to rephrase it in such a fashion as you can answer?

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No. You didn't answer my question the last time we met, read what you wanted to in my responses (  ignoring what I had actually said) and then called me a troll because I reacted in frustration to your attempts to manipulate the conversation away from my original question.

                  Anyway, if you wanted to know; you'd already know. Our paths have crossed before and I've already told you.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Please stop lying about me. That is untrue. I have never ignored what you have said. You lied about what you said and denied saying it - in the same breath you agreed saying it.

                    But - for the sake of discussion - as you no longer claim not to believe in a god - I assumed you had chosen one to believe in. Is that not correct?

                    1. 0
                      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      No that is not correct.

              2. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I thought we just had this conversation "you guys all" 

                Newsflash - although I like Mark and agree with him most of the time, he is not the spokesperson for atheism.  thanks.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Most of these theists (or whatever she is) never seem to get that. Atheism isn't a philosophy - it is a lack of belief in god/s. That is all. While I may call myself a righteous atheist - http://wp.me/p2Jz2C-7 - I cannot and do not claim to be speaking for anyone else.

                  It is a lot easier with the Christians. They say they are a Christian - we can go look in the bible and see what they are supposed to be believing. I guess we need a manifesto or something? big_smile

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm down for a manifesto - although since every atheist is different, and it ONLY addresses a belief/non belief in a deity a manifesto would probably be very simple:

                    "I lack a belief in a god.  Anything other than that has nothing to do with atheism, and you'll actually have to ask each individual atheist"  good day.

                    See?  We have a manifesto.

                  2. brotheryochanan profile image60
                    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What you really need other than a manifesto is patience and understanding. God does not slap us into the strictures of all the intended ways that Christians should be. Sure you can look at the bible and write a list of all that Christians should be, but that is not the spirit of Christ.
                    Christians GROW in the things of God, they mature and this takes time. Although i am sure you would like to compare each one to the list you have made you would be performing a function of flesh and not of spirit. God is the one who changes people, not people.
                    You may see a problem in an area here or there, but what you fail to see is what God is doing over there. There is no point to dealing with say smoking cigarettes when the person has an addiction to heroin. Some ppl have a long way or a deep pit to climb out of and many obstacles in their way. God calls those that are ill, not just those that are well.
                    You cannot expect a month old christian to perform as a 3 yr christian or a 40 yr christian.
                    Indeed you can point fingers but you cannot condemn them, especially when you yourself haven't the inclination to step into the arena. For some ppl it will take a lifetime to adhere to your list.
                    Good luck with understanding this.

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I missed this comment. Don't jump to the gun and take things so personally. You guys refers to trolling atheists whose only function appears to be talking down to anyone who isn't on their personal little band wagon. If that isn't you.....the shoe doesn't fit. When I have something to say to you, I'll chirp up; then it will be appropriate to correct me. The post I am responding to was not that time.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    here's the thing though - on an open forum, everyone responds to whatever they want, or chooses not to respond at all.  I find it ironic that you and I just had this little sub-thread about lumping all atheists into the same category, in which you apologized and explained that you don't actually think that way - and then turn around and do the exact same thing.  It's not a matter of taking it personally - I don't.  I just think it's disingenuous to apologize for something and then repeat it in the course of the same evening.

                    it's like me lumping all christians in with the likes of the Westborough baptist church.  I don't think christians would like that very much, do you?

                    1. 0
                      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Correct me if I'm wrong. I made a generalization in a conversation with you...for which I agreed it was inappropriate in that conversation.

                      I don't owe an apology for a comment I made to Mr.Knowles. I gave you an explanation, out of courtesy. Call me disingenuous, if it makes you happy. I can only suggest you not take things personally. It's up to you to choose to or not.

    7. KCThree profile image59
      KCThreeposted 4 years ago

      This is perhaps the most ridiculous comment I've ever read.  It smacks of more NWO control over every area of life rhetoric.  Parents generally teach their children their own religious beliefs whether those beliefs are atheism, Christianity, Catholicism, Satanism, etc.

      1. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        first of all, atheism is not a religion - and neither is satanism, so your point is completely invalid.

        1. KCThree profile image59
          KCThreeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LMAO!  Is that the best response you have?  That depends on what the definition of "is" is, Not Very Slick Julie.  Allow me to rephrase in response to your lame and debatable response.  Parents generally teach their children their own beliefs whether those beliefs are atheism, Christianity, Catholicism, Satanism, etc. 

          There appears to be quite a few atheists on here with too much time on their hands who love to start begging for attention by posting ridiculous comments.  I have noticed two things each time I have witnessed one of these displays.  First, there is an arrogant, condescending attitude.  Second, there is no tolerance for dissent or differing views.  It quickly becomes boring and predictable.  <yawn>

          1. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            yet you still find the need to come here and respond, don't you - so what does that say about YOU, since it's so boring and obviously "beneath" your "higher, more enlightened" ways.

            there's more than one definition for "is"?  Really?

            There's a word for someone that does that. 

            Hypocrite.

            1. KCThree profile image59
              KCThreeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, I don't generally respond because they are not sincere debates or discussions.  It is generally just to slam Christians and Christianity. Then, of course, screaming from the rooftops how intolerant Christians allegedly are.  I have only met one other group (Illuminati satanists) of any religion, faith or belief that are as condescending, arrogant and blatantly disrespectful as the self proclaimed atheists in this forum.  It has nothing to do with being superior, but with the attitude.   

              You obviously missed the Slick Willy reference.

    8. jimagain profile image82
      jimagainposted 4 years ago

      Excellent comments, Quilligrapher. And what a great statement, i.e., "the number of people in favor of an idea is never a measure of its value." This should be required reading for all the 'Benevolent Dictators' out there who are too eager to flog us with their good intentions!

    9. austinhealy profile image84
      austinhealyposted 4 years ago

      Being openly agnostic, I usually have no beef with people who practice a religion. After all, I was raised within a religion myself so I was one of them for a while and I cannot possibly blame anybody for the educated choice I made. However. I also understand that whatever I choose to believe or not doesn't become a rule of law for anybody else. In that regard, when my child was born, I had him baptised and that's where I drew the line in the sand. I did that for a reason which has nothing to do with religion itself : practicality. When an adult wished to marry, in my opinion religion is not an obstacle but in order to marry religiously, one has to be baptised first, which can be a real pain as an adult. I also made my son aware of the different religions out there and am happy to report that he embraced none. But even though I have no problem with religiously inclined people, provided they behave themselves as responsible members of society, they seem to have a beef with me. There's one thing I don't like, and it is to be considered as an uneducated idiot. Even if I am!. If I'm ever proved wrong, I will live with the consequences of my choice. In the meantime, please leave me alone .I made a deliberate decision, for whatever reasons that are mine, and I will not allow anybody to come and throw scriptures at me in the name of Jesus or God, and try to re-convert me! It's a Christian thing. I never see a Muslim or a Buddhist come to me and sell me a slice of their prophet. But Christians are on a mission and that's what they do, blatantly ignoring the fact that their lack of tolerance for others and narrow-mindedness is highly annoying and discriminating. As if there were no Christian murderers, no Christian abusers,etc... Nobody is better than anybody, period. but non-Christian people often have higher morals, I see it quite often.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Muslims do not sell anything, muslims demand. If you think christians are offensive you have not discussed jesus with a muslim, neither have you answered "i don't believe in any God", which gets you the same as any other wrong answer. Death. Muslims do not push their religion here but look at what they are doing in the eastern nations where they can get away with bombings etc much more easily.
        Christians are on a mission because God is wonderful. The answer to everything and beyond. Christ is magnificent and everyone needs to know Him just because God is so very wonderful. All christians do is introduce God to you and then you either will or wont decide. We don't try to bring you to our church, as all churches must be treated like presents at christmas and shopped around for. We let you find him further by your own desire. We are the greeters at the door and if any person will enter in, then kudos to them. Its not that pushy really. The people i have educated to know God go to different churches and are doing well and are happier than before. The snares of the world bring sadness but christ brings joy.
        (some points generalized for easy reading.. obviously not ALL do this but it is the intended way to not be pushy etc)

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Greetings, “Brother.”

          Here we have another one of your sermons promoting religious intolerance and Jesus with a lower case "j." Show Muslims respect and you will receive respect in return.

          You have already established that your spiritual beliefs have no value to anyone. You are a self-proclaimed “greeter” and your words clearly reveal a lack of respect for one Hubber who had declined your brand of hypocrisy.
             
          Let us have a look at the spiritual fiber of Brotheryochanan from the Hubpages thread “earnestshub, you will be sorely missed.”

          “So much i could say but it would be construed as just nasty meanness.
          and you'd probably be right.

          "I don't know where you get this mr nice guy stuff from? My perception is that he lied constantly, printed misinformation willingly, made himself out to be someone who he wasn't. Was blatantly rude beyond what is normal. He spewed crap like it was second nature and the list goes on.

          "The only thing i think he knew was cars.

          "I am just glad he isn't going to be in torments the rest of eternity, burned by the fires of hell - cuz that don't exist. He went peaceful - so we are told and he will get what he wanted - nothingness after death. He could have done so much better but he held onto the anger.

          "Lets hope others find God through loss.”

          – Brotheryochanan {1}

          I often imagine his widow, his family, and his grandchildren reading your parting words about him.

          Sleep well, "Brother."
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/88788?p … ost1898397

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            nice bias bit of posting. 
            I so do enjoy when ppl repost my posts. If you find one word of lie in that post please correct me. If you find me morally irresponsible, oh well, i wish i had better things to say, sadly, i did not. Truth is truth.
            I really enjoyed this part:
            "I am just glad he isn't going to be in torments the rest of eternity, burned by the fires of hell - cuz that don't exist. He went peaceful - so we are told and he will get what he wanted - nothingness after death. He could have done so much better but he held onto the anger.
            Words for all to consider. I hope you understand the comfort of knowing that eternal damnation in flames does not await him.
            Thank you for reminding ppl about the seriousness of railing against God. I hope those who do rail against God find better things to do.
            This was good too:
            "Lets hope others find God through loss.”
            Do try not to go too far off topic, although i'm glad you had a chance to vent.
            Sorry for the lower case j.. you are picky aren't you. It doesn't show, as you infer, disrespect, just a missed capitalization. There were other inferences and assumptions but i will forgo mentioning them.
            have a nice day

    10. storyteller1st profile image60
      storyteller1stposted 4 years ago

      Look at the bickering over something that's not even significant in the greater scheme of things...The majority of people so lost in the classifacation system of things, people, and places that they fail to realize that none of the things attach to my person upon entering into this world is more important than the reality of "THAT I AM"..

     
    working