Regardless of whether or not you are a believer, have you been wrongly treated by a religion (or those of a religion) whether one that you joined, or never joined but were approached and accosted, or any other poor treatment you may have received in the name of religion.
I'm NOT interested in the horror stories. They all run about the same in content and topic. A basic yes or no and perhaps a few other words would suffice. This is purely curiosity on my part. I have no intent to do anything more than observe.
In my case, yes, I have been wrongly treated by my former religion and by other religions.
Do JW's count?
I told them the orgy starts at 8:00 and they were far too early, but to please come in anyway. For some reason they left hurriedly.
No, I can't claim any bad treatment. Just personal disgust at the sheep.
Hah! I've done that! I told them that I belonged to the church of the holy orgy and we are about to begin services - would they care to join us?
As you say, they left and it was the last time I saw any of them back.
Did you get a chance to read this hub by Mistyhorizon2003? If not, you'll get a good laugh.
http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-avoid-th … r-doorstep
yes, and I have some hubs for more details, particularly the 2 ex-christian hubs
I do not believe that religion is out to get you....
Infact the core teaching of most if not all religion is to be nice or love others and in their own way accomplish much good.
And when evil is done within religion the perpetuators of this act usually goes against the teaching of the religion.
The system of religion have done a lot for this world and without it progress would be much more stagnated..
So it is because of the goodness within religion that their evil persist and can be labelled as the worst kind.
Because it is unable to accomplish the goal and purpose of life in this earth.
Instead it offers what can only be described as second best.. and because it actually offers a practical solution it deceives many and prevents all from seeing the real purpose of their Lives.
This is so because from the very beginning religion was set up to achieve this goal.
It not that they intend evil for all... but is they do not know what real good is because this goodness was not a part of them from beginning.
So we see that most within religion are not necessarily about an evil purpose in and of themselves... but since they follow blind religion, they also blindly fulfill religions purpose.
So it not right to point fingers at those within religion for they are just as blind as those without...
And when the light comes those within religion are not excluded from its benefits.
In short yes. Many people are treated badly by religion. From the racially twisted political agenda of radical christian churches to the hatred and radicalisation that islam fills some of its followers with. People are mistreated by religion. This is probably why few people take part in organised religion and prefer to take discover faith and prayer alone away from all the negatives of religion that is available. There is a phrase that says prayer in front of the television set is more fruitful and less dangerous than prayer in a chuch or mosque or temple where you will be recruited and used for other peoples agend and not encounter the miricales and the hope that genuine faith can bring.
I've never been wrongly treated by an entire religion before. Wrongly treated by several individual members of several different religions, sure, but never by a whole religion at once.
If i am going to say from my experience , there would be so many things to mention. If i make a mistake, i ask God's forgiveness for this case. As you know Myanmar is Buddhist country because of that, there are times we are forbidden to worship the Lord in the church. we are not allowed to build the church as free country. We, sometimes, lost our common rights even being a christian and lost favor due to our Christianity. However, comparing with the suffering and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, my encounter of problems being a believer is so small. In fact, being a believer and encounter difficulties for the sake of our savior is blessings ...
In my experience the sincere, the gentle, the trusting, the already injured in some way,ect. are most likely to be mistreated by religion. I suppose these people are most likely to be mistreated by anyone.
Most of the people I associate with are religious, so it is inevitable that somone is going to step on my toes. It is a sad thing when somone decides to give up on their faith over a couple of insults or bad deals. People are supposed to forgive eachother for Pete's sake!
The church is not a well provisioned resting home for the already perfected. It is a place where imperfect people go to learn, support eachother, and grow in faith.
By some well-meaning Christians (I forgive them because they..meant well), but mostly by some people in the Watchman Nee cult (I forgive them too because....I think they didn't know what they were doing.)
Interesting that you should ask this question, as I was just discussing this very topic about my former religion a few hours ago.
And, my answer would half to be yes - and several times at that. I am still wearing the emotional scars and always will.
I am no longer a member of this church.
Daniel...a very good question!
It is very sad that somebody believing a religion maltreated you. My question is; did the religion had instructed that follower of a religion to maltreat you? If it was not then it is only a mistake of that particular individual; the religion is not responsible for that.
Paar and everyone, I think part of the problem with almost any religion is that anyone can interpret the parts they like in any way and justify any actions. There isn't necessarily a "correct" way to interpret a religion's teachings, although each individual, sect and religion thinks (KNOWS) they are right. But, they can't all be right, can they? So maybe none are.
"...and we satisfy our endless needs, and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God..."
That's a line from an Eagles song called "The Last Resort" and it's a line that always goes through my head when I see people treating each other badly in the name of religion on either a personal or global scale. It makes me sad.
I think it is not difficult to get the correct interpretation if one wants it sincerely. The meaning of a sentence/syllable/verse should be consitent with the context; some verses before and some verses after. Quran expalins it and it is useful for every Word Revealed:
[3:8] He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are decisive in meaning — they are the basis of the Book — and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking wrong interpretation of it. And none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding. —
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … mp;verse=0
As a pastor, of course.
But Isaiah wrote a great parable about this. The key part is that God wants us to distinguish between His unfaithful followers and Himself.
Let me sing for my beloved
my love song concerning his vineyard:
My beloved had a vineyard
on a very fertile hill.
He dug it and cleared it of stones,
and planted it with choice vines;
he built a watchtower in the midst of it,
and hewed out a wine vat in it;
and he looked for it to yield grapes,
but it yielded wild grapes.
And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem
and men of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
What more was there to do for my vineyard,
that I have not done in it?
When I looked for it to yield grapes,
why did it yield wild grapes?
Isaiah 5:1-4 (ESV)
Yes I have been treated wrongly by them bible thumpers!
Especially the ones that come knocking at my door right on tea time, they claimed that I would eventually burn in hell if I carried on living without god and that my dear departed Gran would rise from the dead at the end of days and rejoice because Jesus is great!
I wish I'd done a Truman Show on them and pulled down my pants and let a nice steamy curly turd plop on the floor in front of them, but since I'm very poilte I told them to F&*k off!
Well, it depends on what constitutes religion. I think atheism is a religion and I've been persecuted quite severely by some of its brethren.
Atheism is not a religion and telling you truth is not abuse or persecution.
atheism is not a religion. Neither is evolution (some theists claim both are)
Tell that to some of the zealots I've run across. Sounds like a religion to me.
just because some people are aggressive, doesn't make it a religion
I wasn't really serious, but if you define religion as a set of beliefs as to the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, it sounds like a religion to me.
Anyway, as if said, I wasn't overly serious. I've never believed I was wrongly treated by another person pushing an agenda. I just tell them I don't agree. Or I'm not interested.
nope, thinking logically about things with the exclusion of gods does not make it a religion
Religion isn't simply a set of beliefs. It's the way in which you arrive to those beliefs. Revelations, superstition, tradition, unquestioning of authority, that sort of thing.
So no, a set of beliefs about the nature and cause of the Universe is not religion.
It appears, your understanding of how people come to faith is as limited as my understanding as to why they step away from it. I would disagree with your points, from my experiences. I wouldn't be in a position to speak for others. I am curious to learn.
I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about religion as a body of knowledge and how it came about. How else would you know about the ten comandments if not by reading them, and believing them to be true?
Provide other ways to know if there is an afterlife, and if it indeed is a reward/punishment system, please.
Perhaps I am limited, but the only ways I can think of to arrive at a certain conclussion regarding those questions is either:
A) Revelation. A voice proclaiming to be god speaks to you personally, and you believe it.
B) Someone else's word. A priest, a book, an ancient writting on a wall, which again, you have to trust is right.
C) Kill yourself and see, in which case you could not get back to us to verify that there is such a thing.
Well, by your post, you used the first two, probably. With the exception that the revelation was a voice proclaiming there is no god. I still don't see the difference.
What? I didn't ask you for a difference, I told you to provide other ways to obtain knowledge of religious claims, such as an afterlife.
Oh, sorry. Small window on the droid. As to the question of God? The answer would be A. Revelation, but no voices. Call me crazy.
Faith is not knowledge. It is faith. Just as you have faith in your outlook. I don't think anyone could reasonably believe they know anything for sure about what happens after death. On either side of the question. The text you chose to use to formulate an opinion is your choice. Since no one knows, you take your view on faith just as strongly as another. They are both religions, by my definition of the word. You listen to what man has to say on the topic. Religious people think a higher power has shared some insight. Two sides of the same coin. Whether you like it or not.
Faith is not a synonym of religion. Having faith in something does not make it a religion. Faith is trust in a certain outcome or possibilities of outcomes. It's how you arrive at those conclussion that makes the difference.
You can faith that if you drop a bowling ball from your hands it will fall down. How can you obtain the certainty that that will happen?
A) Experience. You've done it before, with the same or a different object with similar weigh, and insintctevly you know that it will fall hard and make a loud noise.
B) Evidence. Which is nothing more than experience, tested over and over again by different individuals, to remove as much error as possible.
C) Someone told you, and you just take their word.
Now, still don't know the difference between a scientific method and a religious path? Let's take it one step further:
Image a priest comes and tells you it's wrong to drop bowling balls inside churches, because it is an offense to god and you will be punished after you die. What can you do with that? Can you confirm or rebute his claim? All you can do is go ask another priest, who could very well be lying or ignorant.
Science on the other hand would not even go with a preconcieved notion and expected result, you'd just observe and analyze. From that, you could know the speed in which the object will fall, and predict its behaviour and know, for example, how resistant the floor would have to be to take a considerable ammount of bowling ball droppings.
So after you've done those calculations, you can have faith in the outcomes.
See the difference? Faith can manifest in multiple ways. To say because someone has faith in something then they're religious is much too simplistic and shows that all you're doing, is confusing terms.
Faith based on experience, testing, learning, and trial and errors, is strong faith, built on firm grounds. Faith without evidence nor reason is as empty as a bubble.
Definition of religion
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Yes, we can all find a definition that suits our individual needs. Isn't the internet grand? Same coin. Different sides. Simply because you don't want to see it as religion, it is a difficult concept. I do get it.
why don't you find a definition then? Seems you don't get it.
Take sports for example. Not a religion. Yet some people have a religious-like zeal towards sports, whether they play or watch. But still not a religion - which is really about seeking gods with associated rituals eg prayer
Good example, Sport dose have an order and friendliness that everyone can share.
there are rituals with every sport.
some people follow sports religiously
some worship players
some adore players
some travel distances to see games
some wouldn't miss a game.
sounds like a religion to me
atheists persecute theists
atheists reality bash christians
atheists are more aggressive than christians
atheists religiously purport their beliefs
atheists worship creation
sounds like a religion to me.
Oh for f's sake, there we go again.
It's really simple to understand:
Is bald a hair color?
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
Is transparent a color?
Maybe you've met some people who share pretty similar strong opinions regarding one subject. Maybe those people also share the fact that they don't believe in god. Maybe those people also don't wear hats. Nor they have ever parachutted from an airplane, picked a fight or listened to Mozart. Does that make them new "hatless god-deniers" religion whose comandments are you shall not parachute, enter combat, nor listen to good music?
A line needs to be drawn. Not being a criminal is not a crime. Not being religious is not a religion.
I kept getting phone calls and letters from the scientologists, even though I have never been a part of that religion. They would not take no for an answer. They seemed very odd and frightening.
My art businesses is G rated and I have refuse all business related to Military and Religion, but for some reason can't avoid political situation.
I did get fired for not given it all up for Jesus, from building an eco village project for a rich man in Belize. It was a place Nationwide where all the clergyman and pastor had their convention, so it wasn’t cool enough that I was not a Christian regardless that I’m Christian friendly
Plus my pastor brother is angry with me much of the time for not being a Christian too
...hey Daniel...no, not really treated wrong...just questioned things when i was a teen....have my own beliefs... nothing formal...i'm okay with that.....there's no book.....however the roots run deep in family tradition/history for several hundred years and i broke out of the box............the new box is a good one - it has a ladder...i think someone wrote a hub about that actually......maybe it was you! ..... no wait, i think it was Joe BadToe...where is that bloke anyway?
I have also been mistreated by Christians. I realize they are only human and do make mistakes. Holding a grudge against them only hurts me.
The ones closest to you will hurt you more than strangers will. They do not mean to hurt you, but yet they still do. Forgive them and move on with life.
I agree with you on the point that the ones closest hurt you the most. I've come to see them as flawed human beings - we all are. I still find it tragic that people will choose their religious beliefs over family
I don't get that myself. How can you not always be connected to your child? If you are a Christian, don't you think God gave you the child? But I see people behave all sorts of ways towards family that baffle me.
well, I have family members that went to the same church and refused to acknowledge each other/talk to each other for years because of a personal grudge. Guess some families are more dysfunctional than others.
In one of my book review hubs about religious cults, I mentioned how a child was told to pray that her mother dies because her mother left the cult
That is spiritual abuse as well as emotional abuse. Like many forms of abuse, the perps think they are doing the victim a favor.
yah and i remember people praying for those with cancer that they be healed. etc.
guess you zigged when you should have zagged
I allowed God to pick my church for me and i prayed for a church to go to and God as usual provided.
Self is not a good guide often.
SirDent, Agreed. I have been hurt by christians also. I ask God to give me strength and I didn't dismiss God because of people.
My Southern Baptist in-laws are still trying to break up my husband and me because we are atheists. It doesn't matter that we are good, moral, charitable and kind people, only that we don't believe the same brand of superstition that they do. Their behavior is unbelievable and mortifying at times.
...wow.....time to move away..........i say..........that's too bad TD.....awwwww....what about the children at least...what are they thinking?????????
Mmm, brand of superstition, new words the devil made me like.
It's one of the main reasons we stayed in California instead of moving East. They can't understand why we don't want to be around them. Duh.
I feel your pain. I'm not an atheist, but when I decided to step away from what I perceived as the madness the Southern Baptists actually attempted some type of intervention to bring me back in line. My response was as courteous as it's possible to be while rolling on the floor laughing. They've finally realized they're wasting money on stamps for the deacon's letters.
and they blame you for being the wicked woman to take their son away from god?
No question some PEOPLE in religions can make others uncomfortable with their approach, still it bothers me that we call people of a religous faith bad people but say nothing about the people standing in front of a business trying to draw people in with their claims, jestures and the likes. People stoping folks for their signatures for some program but we don't make a big deal about them.
It was said here "Atheism is not a religion" I would disagree with that. People who believe their is no god and behave accordingly, making every effort to support their position sound like faith to me.
That's because you are having problems with the word. An atheist lacks belief. A theist has faith. Anything an atheist might believe is not atheism, and the word atheism tells you nothing about what a person believes,
Does that clear it up for you?
NO it doesn't- Just like the believer Believes-Non-BELIEVERS- BELIEVE 'There Is No God.
Many atheist do not even like the word believe, yet like science
Atheist just think God does not exist, God fearing is not required.
But even science/scientist have to have faith in what they're doing so they are still believers.
Okay, let's look at from that perspective, then.
Scientists "believe" in the physical laws of the universe and can support their "beliefs" with hard evidence while believers "believe" those laws can easily be violated but cannot support those "beliefs".
You know Beelzedad,
You keep talking about these so-call facts that science can come up with then where are they? People have been asking what in science can explain some UNKNOWN for that held the unverse in place UNTIL SOME UNKNOWN BIG BANG happened- WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG? The universe is expanding I'm told-expanding to where?
Geez You've been talking about how science can prove everything Well We're waiting-We've Been Waiting - W e r e S T I L L W a i t i n g ? ?
Science requires patience. The facts are right there in front of you. It's the understanding of Nature, through scientific methods, that permits you to be writting here and communicating instantly with people from all over the world.
Stating that because we can't yet comprehend and verify the begining of the whole Universe, then all of science is crap, is nonsense. Nor does that fact validate creation as a serious theory.
Through science we've actually seen the Universe literally billions of years ago, billions of light-years away; we've determined and seen with our own eyes the shapes of our surrounding planets, stars, and through instruments we've determined what are they made of. We can calculate and predict trajectories and actually send men an machines into space to explore it. Through all of those elements, and countless people analyzing, thinking, and trying to figure out, they've observed and reached some conclussions that may very well be wrong, incomplete, but mistakes are necessary for progress.
Religion, on the other hand, has a book that says one day there was the Earth, the next there was light and stars and then we humans, and then animals. That is no explanation for how things began. The order alone is already wrong.
Those "so-called facts" are in the computer you're using, it's software, the equipment and bandwidth that allows you to access the internet and write on these forums. Those facts are in all the conveniences and technologies that you use every day of your life. There is very little in the physical world that the facts of science hasn't provided for you.
Shortly after the Big Bang occurred, the universe was nothing but an ocean of hot radiation, no matter had yet formed and wouldn't for many hundreds of thousands of years afterward.
The point is that the universe was all energy. And, since energy is always conserved, it is very likely the energy used to form the universe was borrowed from somewhere else, just like energy can be borrowed from a number of sources and used elsewhere.
But, by being conserved, energy must be returned to it's source as all energy is trying to reach it's ground state. So, the question is not really how the Big Bang occurred, but what source did it gets its energy from and how will it be returned? In this way, if we can answer that question, we can then begin to formulate the cause of the Big Bang.
Nowhere really, the idea of expansion is that most all objects in the universe are moving away from each other. In other words, the amount of space between everything is increasing, thus the universe is expanding.
Yes, I know, I'm waiting too. One of my hopes is that we find a field theory for gravity during my lifetime. I think it will indeed enhance a great deal of knowledge and understanding of the universe and technologies to our lives.
My point is, just because we don't have all the answers to the how the universe works today doesn't mean we won't get them as time goes on. Please remember, the church was very hard on scientific men and their theories for centuries.
Science has a lot of lost time to make up. And yes, we do forgive believers for their acts against science in the past. They knew not what they were doing.
The well known Scientific Method follows a simple set of rules. 1. A certain phenomenon is observed. 2. The scientist formulates an hypothesis regarding the cause and effect of the phenomenon. 3. Using the hypothesis the scientist attempts to predict the results of an episode of the phenomenon. 4. Independent, repeatable tests verify the success or failure of the hypothesis. If the tests support the hypothesis it is then advanced to a theory, if not, the scientist returns to step 2 for refinement or replacement of the hypothesis.
this only states what will happen but not what will happen if something else is added. Science is very limited
Yes, science is limited by the vivid overwrought imaginations of the indoctrinated. That is all that appears to be the something else added. Or, is there something else you have to offer?
wrong. Belief is fact is not required or helpful. Beleif in speculation is stupid. What is not fact is speculation.
But beyond that you don't understand that a-theism means without theism. So lack there of. Lack of belief is not belief of lack.
Yes, I was in the Divine Light Missio cult for 4 and a half years up to 1985 - brainwashed to the eyeballs
As the oldest child, my grandmother groomed me from birth to be a Methodist minster. I was forced to church daily, and had bible readings as bedtime stories instead of the three bears. It all got too much, and one day age seven, in sheer frustration, I let off a fire extinguisher soaking everybody in the bible reading class at church. I was expelled and as far as my grandmother was concerned, a total disgrace to family... Any religion that expels instead of forgiving is not for me.
These days I follow Tao at my own pace and it has brought peace and happiness to me.
I still love the three bears too...
From the way you present science one would assume that science has the answers when in fact scientific processes are an attempt to understand that which already exist. Human beings in pursuit of scientific knowledge stumble over that knowledge they gained while trying to understand science. To what degree or amount science makes mistakes regarding their findings, many people have to live with those mistakes believing they are truth and reality-take for example reassembling dinosaurs incorporating that information into textbooks only to discover years later their information was wrong and actual dinosaur did not look the way they had constructed it in the museum.
This term "Big Bang" has been used a number of years and most people would associate with those particular two word with the idea of light and sound as scientists so prominently used this term numerous times when in fact no atmosphere existed before this so-called Big Bang came about so how could there have been any audible bang with no atmosphere so the formation of the universe is unknown to us we are simply using logic to fit a condition we have no idea about so science serves us not when trying to explain this so-called Big Bang?
From my perspective trusting in science is a faith chosen by certain people as their temple of belief.
"To what degree or amount science makes mistakes regarding their findings, many people have to live with those mistakes believing they are truth and reality-take for example reassembling dinosaurs incorporating that information into textbooks only to discover years later their information was wrong and actual dinosaur did not look the way they had constructed it in the museum."
Are you kidding? "People have to live with those mistakes", like a mishapped dinosaur fossil in a museum? Are you being sarcastic? We really need to bring back the Inquisition and torture to stop this horrendous mistakes!
Seriously, not enough was known, bones where put in a wrong possition by mistake, the error was discovered and corrected, what else do you expect? Should they not admit the mistake and ask you to have faith in the dead meatless dinosaur? Or should we stop all scientific progress because of a dinosaur with a misplaced knee or an extra horn?
"This term "Big Bang" has been used a number of years and most people would associate with those particular two word with the idea of light and sound as scientists so prominently used this term numerous times when in fact no atmosphere existed before this so-called Big Bang came about so how could there have been any audible bang with no atmosphere so the formation of the universe is unknown to us we are simply using logic to fit a condition we have no idea about so science serves us not when trying to explain this so-called Big Bang?"
Oh for god's sake, I really hope you're kidding. Big Bang is a name. It's a silly one. Why does a cosmological theory regarding the cause of the Universe have such a silly name? Because the name is completely irrelevant. You're blaming scientist like Stephen Hawking, one of the smartest people alive this day, because ignorant people can't get past the name "big bang"?
Screw physics, screw mathematics, screw decades of study and observation, if a theory is not self-explanatory in its title, it must be wrong!
You can worships these errors all you want but don't bring mistakes of science in my face and say hey we're the only one's who's right here-Because You're Not, you're stumbling around just like every one else and trust me I'll tell you whenever I decide to Start Kidding.
You're justification of misplacing bones is no big deal-what other things would people be living with that hasn't been corrected by the understanding of science.
I don't care how smart a human is- if you really believed in yiour concept of science having all knowledge would know that humans are capable of making mistake and we humans Make A Lot Of Mistakes-So That Reflects On How Trusting Our Understanding of Sciences Is-No I'm Not Kidding!
I was introduced to Christianity and came to embrace it it faith. I studied to be a cleric someday. But as I continue my studies, some questions could not be answered to date:
The Bible: Why does the bible do not have the historical basis. Miracles contained therein should have been recorded by early historians on such event. Why none?
Satan: Satan should have been a creation of the mind for if such entity exists, and by its nature, as being taught by Christianity, all evil doers should have disappeared, taken by Satan being opportunistic so the evildoers no time to regret their acts.
Christ: There should be no need for Christ to be sent to earth to "redeem the world." Was God (the Father) a poor planner to send Christ (his son) to do corrections?
I think that I was fed wrongly and to believe blindly on such faith - a perfect example of abuse.
Yep. Had a Flight Commander who confused prayer and self serving meditation to rationalize her bad behavior.
by Brittany Williams2 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bibl … a-schools/Seems that Orange county in Florida encourages Christian literature to be disseminated to students, but aren't so happy when other religions or groups want the...
by TheBlondie6 years ago
I'm an atheist, and even though I'm a generally good person (volunteer at an animal shelter, nice to people, generous, etc.), I've been told I'm going to hell simply because I don't take part in any religion. I'm really...
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
Is atheism an anchronistic non-belief system? Of all the "isms" that has bedeviled man's existence, it could be said that atheism takes the cake for being inexplicably incongrous...
by just_curious6 years ago
A few atheists on this forum are in the habit of pushing the argument that religion causes war. Although the argument has a half a leg to stand on, I have never seen one admit that there are other causes of this...
by Tim Mitchell3 years ago
Does belief require something to be a known (to know) to exist? Does to know something mean there is belief (rather than simply suggest) that it exists? If there are more than a singular known existing as truths, then...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.