How can you be intimidated by someone who is honest and merely speaks his mind ?
As far as I can see nobody comes into or sets up a Forum to discuss anything especially if has a God issue or a religious theme. They either want an argument or an opportunity to start chanting scripture it's no wonder he lashes out once in a while.
Same old...same old... day in day out they have nothing new to say and take far too long to say it.
No. They can take away my free speech. Which they've done before, and which I've been threatened with having permanently taken away, hubs and all. You of all people shouldn't make light of that. Are you "safe"?
Do you want to know when I felt "safe" in free speech allowance? Pre-Obama. You were there. Things changed as soon as liberals had their man running for the highest Office in the land. Or has your memory slipped? One liberal even boasted about how she/they could "say anything" they "wanted to" now that Obama took over. And now the terms "right" and "wrong" are used interchangeably at the whim of liberals and atheists etc.
People who post crap shouldn't feel "safe" to post their crap. But these days it's people who post TRUTH that have their freedom taken away. And those violations of conservative rights are now filtering into (actually being PUSHED UPON)our legal system.
So, no, I don't feel safe at all in the majority of America's arenas.
I feel perfectly safe I've been banned from this site for stuff I've said to atheists,,,I didn't care, I just went to another site I like. There are hundreds, I think its important not to be intimidated in the virtual world.
Ah, there's a difference between being afraid and being so intimidated that one gives up the fight for freedom. And this is not totally a "virtual" world. There are people behind the posts. One's civil rights don't end just because it's "online".
Aliens don't exist; neither does bigfoot; there are people behind the robots, and demons....well, demons eventually show their true colors; while deceptive humans can get by with their crap indefinitely. Yes, I do fear deceptive humans. To a degree...
Ummm.. you're still missing the point totally. I can handle those assaults. It's when the powers-that-be twist things around and ban the VICTIM for taking care of the situation that really proves bias.
I think people should be able to "fight it out" in the forums. But usually the liberal person, when someone "fights back", turns around and whines to the mods like the bullies they (the whiners) are.
Doesn't mean he's not your master, does it? He IS the man whose power, given his position, is laying the foundation for total stupidity to reign in America. If you don't speak against that, then it IS ruling your life, or will rule the lives of those around you who you do care about.
I think Obama himself doesn't know exactly what he is and doesn't care, or else is too rebellious to go get some counseling! He has an anti-American agenda that he's been putting in place, and that's his goal. So, it matters not where he really was born, or what he calls himself; what matters is that he's not Presidential material because of his confusion and perversity-adocation and anti-patriotism.
John McCain said something right during the Campaign. He said America didn't have time for "on-the-job training" concerning the Office of the President. Obama not only would need on-the-job training, he would need.......a change of heart......before he'd even come close to being fit for the job he's been placed in.
I think it's the condescending attitude that inspires the belief that anyone is possessed of a TRUTH that gets shut down. It's not the idea of god or not god that gets banned, it's the acerbic, rude and demeaning nature of HOW people communicate that get them banned or not. Frequently, people who think they have TRUTH have a hard time being polite to all the stupid morons who don't believe them and so they write in demeaning ways that get themselves banned.
I expect the revocation of freedom you speak of has far, far, far, far more to do with that attitude than any censorship of your version of "truth."
Umm....it's neither illegal nor uncivil to have "an attitude".
If it were, I know several people (liberals, no less) who'd have been permanently banned from here long long ago. If "attitude" were illegal and uncivil, Mr. Swaggering Obama would've been ejected long ago, along with that chip on his shoulder and his mockery of people.
no offense to mark knowles, but i don't even know the guy personally. it's hard to be affraid of a guy that i never even met or at least conversed with long enough to know what kind of guy he is. i know he has a lot of influence on hubpages, but that doesn't mean i would kiss his rump, in fear of him. no, my policy is basically you show me respect, then i'll show you respect, as it's a two way street. if you refuse to respect me, then all that i ask is you leave me alone.
since mark never talks to me at all and i have no idea how he feels about me, then i can only assume that we're cool at this point. maybe someday we'll become friends, or maybe not. who knows. no, the only people in my life i've ever been truly scared of are my father, god, cops, gang members, and the government. that's all. unless mark has anything to do with any of the ones i mentioned, then no im not affraid of him. no offense to you mark, but i don't even know you well enough to be affraid of you.
well i dont think atheist would need anyone to believe in other than rational aspects of life...mark is someone who is convinced that there is no god ..it is same as some one is convinced that what bible says is true ,while second one believes in quran , third one believes in gita..in the end what one believes is reality for him and her..till all are indulging in whatever and who so ever they believe..it is perfectly ok..
@skyfire... no i was just wondering why people are attracted more to religion and if we see science is all about facts and how things work...religion has hope, miracle, some thing beyond death..so in excitment comparison science is boring..i didnt say religion is right..i just said it is exciting...i could have converted if i would have been isolated to single religion...but m not so my conviction of "man made religion" remains intact..
I am not afraid of him, why would I? I am just curious and would like to ask him lots of questions -- What drives him aside from Moolah in terms of making money online? What are his other activities aside from blogging and making money online? In general I would like to ask his lighter side (I ponder making money online is on the heavier side) -- what makes a woman sexy for him?, his lovelife.... his favorite food, favorite place, favorite wine, sort of those things and lastly I will ask him will he apologize to God if ever he found out that God is true?
I was doing that, but I put too much faith in the absorbency and stopped using the bathroom for a while. It sure made drinking beer while hubbing great, but my wife got mad at all the clumps I was tracking around the house.
Seriously, Mark and I disagree on religion, but he's never treated me with disrespect. In fact, he's been very supportive of my writing. I also have a lot of respect for his writing and marketing skills.
Anyway, Mark lives too far away to physically harm me. Randy Godwin, on the other hand, lives nearby and enjoys beating up "wemmings"! lol
Oh I know it was burning down the joint yesterday... and to think we live in Ohio. I'm okay and really don't mind the heat... but I love the days when you can open all the windows and feel that cool breeze through out the house... Soon again.
I find myself being more offended by believers who are offended by Mark than Mark himself.
Why should believers expect someone who doesn't believe to act like they believe? That seems ... silly.
Mark's rude, sure. Blunt. OK. Opinionated? Absolutely. Offended by believers? Yep.
Is he created in God's image? Yup. Is he a talented individual? Yup. Is he a good writer? Yeppers. Does he piss me off a lot? Absolutely.
So, like all of us, he has good and bad qualities. Again ... why does someone who doesn't just back down when you throw the word "God" around intimidate or offend you?
God never granted us the right to be unoffended. He gave us the choice to be unoffenable.
So, tell me where it says we have to MAKE him or anybody else believe the same thing we do in order for him to be valuable to God? And if he has value to God by what right do those who believe in God engage in personal attacks on him?
Yeah, as a non-believer his rules of engagement in a debate are different.
Why is that intimidating?
The apostle Paul said, "Jesus came to save sinners of whom I am Chief"... Attacking people is different than attacking ideas. The basis of our belief is that none of us is perfect. So what if Mark points that out more than most. If it's true, we need to hear it. If it's not, it doesn't matter.
Do I think Mark is wrong about the existence of God and value of region? Of course. Will I go after his ideas and thoughts? Sure.
But if I attach him, I am not attacking him, I am attacking the God who made him. We who believe KNOW that our every word will be judged.
Hmmm.... maybe I still have a plank in my eye that I should be working on.
LOL ... the receptionist came into day and told me she killed two cats in the past 24 hours. One crawled into the engine and died when the car started. Then one ran in front of her on the way into work.
Cats are having a bad week, Mark's just helping 'em.
You're trying to defend someone's non-existent belief in God; matter of fact, Mark has openly claimed that he's descended from animals, as in basic evolution as touted by Darwin or some nut; and I've never seen him show even a hint of desire to be a child of God (which, if he wanted to be, then your theory of paralleling Mark to God would have at least some integrity).
Did you happen to see the movie "Creation"? He wasn't such a nut. He was actually only writing about his observations in nature, traveling the world on a merchant ship. He could never reconcile what the church taught with what he witnessed in nature.
The irony of this reply is amusing. When you attack people who share your beliefs in large part based of the nuances of their beliefs that deviate in small part from yours, you weaken your "side" horribly. So divided, there isn't the collective will to accomplish anything and so, Brenda, you are actually creating your own worst nightmare.
I don't think you can judge a persons character by posts in a religious forum. I'm pretty certain he's a very nice guy. he helps everyone on this site with his generous knowledge of how to hub successfully.
you have to admit, some of the posts here kind of invite a MK kind of response.
not really. I think you said that in response to my post.. all it would be is your opinion. our opinions don't determine someones character.
I don't have the same beliefs as some of my family, some of my best friends and I don't think any less of them. they're amazing people. the same goes on a forum. just because I don't agree with some of the people here doesn't mean they're 'bad' people. that would be a crazy way to live IMO.
Look again people. I didn't call Obama stupid. I referred to stupidity reigning. Others here took that to a different tangent.
and I'm in good company, wouldn't you say, because the all-perfect Mr. Obama said a certain police officer or department acted "stupidly". ?
And anyway, I'm certainly not worried about Obama popping in here and bashing me. He would send his secondary tongue-twisters. Like Robert Gibbs or David Axelrod, or some similar mindless-speaking minion.
...Maybe he already has!....
Watch out people! You must assimilate fully into the agenda of "change"; else you'll be in danger of being on the other end of the liberal axe! (Comical, but oh so true!)
Saying "actions stupid" is perfectly acceptable but saying someone is stupid qualifies for ad-hominem. But then again we can call darwin nut without giving empirical evidence against "common ancestor" point then anything is acceptable ya know.
1 Peter 3:9: Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. --- For Non-believers ... I expect them to repay evil for evil or insult with insult ... Believers are called to a different standard.
Please point to any of my writings in which I have advocated violence against any of those or similar groups based on my beliefs.
I know why I think those things are wrong.... I'm surprised that you would make a "moral" argument, as from a strictly rational perspective morals are subjective ..
Rationally, from a non-authoritative moral stand point, it was simply survival of the fittest. These groups exhibited behavior and/or genetic traits different from the majority of their local society ... it was in the nature of the animals in the group to destroy those other animals that showed traits they found undesirable ... it was simple evolutionary behavior.
To imply that somehow we are "better" than that or that the act of destroying that which we find disturbing implies that some sort of irrational moral authority exists.
Now, as I happen to believe that authority exists, on the basis of that authority I can tell you that I believe the behaviors you mentioned are, in fact, wrong.
Based on an evolutionary world view, these were simply animals culling the herd. Much like a wolf killing the weakest pack members.
Your implications that they are wrong, seems internally inconsistent.
You don't advocate violence. I have never seen a post where you did however, it is 'chilling' to know that you are supporting people that do based on a 'moral principal' a belief in the same book.
When you ask an abundance of christian's what the 'rider on the white horse' is, they will be split 50/50. Believing the 'rider' is symbolic of evil or symbolic of justice or righteousness.
The complications seem to be coming from the very same origin and part of that is from 'indoctrination' or in some way believing that if 'someone is chosen' to inflict justice or avenge the 'saints' then it is a righteous act.
Others will say, there is nothing righteous about taking justice with a double edge sward. Meaning of course, conquering by means of force and equal slaying doesn't make it good it makes it ignorant and evil.
Now on morals. There is no other way to explain morals other than by observation. People were killed for all sorts of stupid reason. They must have not thought much about the emotional and physical effect it had on the ones left behind. In time, everyone could agree that 'killing' is bad. We shouldn't do that.
But society seems to have taken a huge leap back and decided that it is time for justice and the one commonality they have is 'god'. Whether the Bible god or otherwise, there is conflicting understanding about justice, righteousness and moral obligations.
There isn't any righteousness or justice in the way 'they' are acting these days. Religion and Politics will never mix but the 'blind calling' of those who say they have been 'called' to get rid of the government ironically, are subject to their own moronic false sense of 'god'.
If they were actually called to do the 'justice' and it was good, then you could be certain that the bs that is going on today would not be the bs that is going on today.
So while it is true that religions have caused more grief in the world than anything else. The one cause I see for the conflict is 'understanding' Or as my new favorite quote goes from the Sentences of Sextus is that, "To understand you must have understanding, in all things is this sentence."
You know me better than most but if I was asked to stand blind side someone who mearly says 'they have the truth' or 'they have been called' I could not ignore the sward the sward in the right and pretend that it will do some good.
If, for just one instance some could just not talk about god or say your god is right or wrong or whatever and that was kept purely personal, then no one would be subject and what is good would show as good and bad as bad but not because of a false belief in god.
Good people are not vengeance seekers. Good morals are not justified by god. Righteousness doesn't stand along side unrighteousness for the glory of 'god'.
Politics and religion are, historically, a seriously messed up mix, and they will continue to be so.
Among people I love dearly are atheists, wiccans and gay clergy. There are a lot of political liberals that I know to be Christians. And I disagree with them. A LOT. But I love them dearly and they love me. My personal relationships are above politics. In fact, my first hub was to tell conservatives to chill out on the Obama-Antichrist Rhetoric. I figured it would be more effective coming from an insider.
To say I "support" is a bit of an exaggeration.
I've voted once or twice since 1998 and I don't think I voted in the last presidential election. Neither side had anything that I felt like I could vote for. I am absolutely against Obama, but the republicans haven't impressed me much since 1993 or so, and even then, not so much.
I quit giving money to political parties and campaigns in the late 80s or early 90s.
Now, it's true, that because of family connections, I could walk into the office of one of a dozen or so elected republican officials and have a talk ... and I am for smaller government, private enterprise, correct regulation with decisions made at the state and local level rather than the federal level.
I don't think you've ever seen me use God as a basis for my political opinions either. I am Christian and I am politically conservative, but those are two separate facts. The one does not follow from the other.
WOW!!! That stirred a hornet's nest. Being relatively new at this forum, I ask the question tongue-in-cheek. No offense to Mark Knowles.I enjoy his insights....and his cutting remarks, although I wouldn't want to be at the end of it :-)
Mark has a healthy capacity to see the difference between reality and fantasy. ..... and the knowledge to support his point of view. No doubt a terrifying combination for a religious zealot to confront!
He is not dumb, true. But from my discussions with him, what I gathered is he is also not the most updated person on earth...and his field of interests are limited to suit what he already believes. Knowledge is not a fixture. It expands and evolves.
But we tend to view people favorably if we agree with him. I for one, do not.
To Whom It May Concern,There are a number of things I could have chosen to write about in this letter. I could have chosen to write about how Mr. Mark Knowles lusts for a world in which balmy, lawless barbarians alter,...
Everyone knows we both set it off in here. But there's mutual respect. Its the kinda respect you give to someone based on their level of intellect, it has nothing to do it character or judgment. The Religion forum is...
My flock, this 'Mark Knowles' is none other than the Anti-Christ! He is here to try and rob me of my power! Will you good Christian folk let him do so? Not on your life! Defeat Satan's evil logic and scientific...
Is this guy on here to make christian people convert to whatever he is? I'm starting to think Satan has a laptop down there and Mark is the operator...Seriously...So my question is Mark, why do you even click on the...
It's Mark's birthday.He's 113 years old.He's asleep right now, but add your birthday wishes here so he'll get a surprise when he wakes up.So Happy birthday Mark, You Old Bastard. (btw that's a term of endearment here in...
...some ice cream? ...a new, luxury yacht? ...a no holds-barred, slightly sarcastic reply in the forums?Ok, the truth is that Mark most likely won't be giving you any of these (except for maybe the one about the reply...