# So I dedicated my daughter yesterday....



## TheBishop

So I dedicated my daughter yesterday, not willingly, but it was her mothers wish, and it was mothers day.  I did the same thing last year with my son, agian mothers day. I went through the motions saying "I will", ever meaning "Not as long as there is breath in my lungs".  

Growing up catholic I'd say dedication and catholic baptism are very similar.  They both involve a child that is too young to understand (most of the time), and ask of the parent/guardians a promise to raise them according to the churchs beliefs.   I have no such desire to do so.  My children will be taught to question everything and seek their own answers.  If that leads them to the church so be it. 

Again sitting through a baptist sermon is a trial of any logical answer seeking individual.   If you listen, and can't help ask why, how come, what for, to what end, and so on it will drive you mad.  For example, what little I heard of the sermon yesterday (my son got restless and I got to excuse myself and go outside and play ) the preacher was talking about mother Mary (of course).    The underlining message was when god was looking for a suitable mother for Jesus, he chose Mary, becuase she was a completely obedient servant.   He goes on to say that we should all strive to be this way.   Now I do not claim to be a genius scholar or anything but I do know one word that easily describes a completly obedient and submissive person that never questions their master.  SLAVE.  So why would an all powerful, all loving, and all knowing individual, that gave us the ability to question, and the free will to do so, want only slaves to worship it?  Or better yet, find the most submissive of slaves the most suitable servants?  

The more I listen, the more I promise to raise my children without the influences of a religious institution.


----------



## Havana Dude

Prayers for your wife and children......and you as well.


----------



## ambush80

TheBishop said:


> So I dedicated my daughter yesterday, not willingly, but it was her mothers wish, and it was mothers day.  I did the same thing last year with my son, agian mothers day. I went through the motions saying "I will", ever meaning "Not as long as there is breath in my lungs".
> 
> Growing up catholic I'd say dedication and catholic baptism are very similar.  They both involve a child that is too young to understand (most of the time), and ask of the parent/guardians a promise to raise them according to the churchs beliefs.   I have no such desire to do so.  My children will be taught to question everything and seek their own answers.  If that leads them to the church so be it.
> 
> Again sitting through a baptist sermon is a trial of any logical answer seeking individual.   If you listen, and can't help ask why, how come, what for, to what end, and so on it will drive you mad.  For example, what little I heard of the sermon yesterday (my son got restless and I got to excuse myself and go outside and play ) the preacher was talking about mother Mary (of course).    The underlining message was when god was looking for a suitable mother for Jesus, he chose Mary, becuase she was a completely obedient servant.   He goes on to say that we should all strive to be this way.   Now I do not claim to be a genius scholar or anything but I do know one word that easily describes a completly obedient and submissive person that never questions their master.  SLAVE.  So why would an all powerful, all loving, and all knowing individual, that gave us the ability to question, and the free will to do so, want only slaves to worship it?  Or better yet, find the most submissive of slaves the most suitable servants?
> 
> The more I listen, the more I promise to raise my children without the influences of a religious institution.



Actually, what followers strive to be is sheep, from what I understand.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I went to a baptist church for 19 years or so with my family and even without. My dad used to beat it in to my head as a structural engineer, "USE YOUR BRAIN!" I'd say I am now, and he's not... 

My wife wanted to start taking our daughter to church... where they are teaching her that god made her... But my wife insists to her that SHE MADE HER.. Which she did. It's biology... proven science. She asked what to do... I said stop taking her to the brainwashing station...


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> So I dedicated my daughter yesterday, not willingly, but it was her mothers wish, and it was mothers day.  I did the same thing last year with my son, agian mothers day. I went through the motions saying "I will", ever meaning "Not as long as there is breath in my lungs".
> 
> Growing up catholic I'd say dedication and catholic baptism are very similar.  They both involve a child that is too young to understand (most of the time), and ask of the parent/guardians a promise to raise them according to the churchs beliefs.   I have no such desire to do so.  My children will be taught to question everything and seek their own answers.  If that leads them to the church so be it.
> 
> Again sitting through a baptist sermon is a trial of any logical answer seeking individual.   If you listen, and can't help ask why, how come, what for, to what end, and so on it will drive you mad.  For example, what little I heard of the sermon yesterday (my son got restless and I got to excuse myself and go outside and play ) the preacher was talking about mother Mary (of course).    The underlining message was when god was looking for a suitable mother for Jesus, he chose Mary, becuase she was a completely obedient servant.   He goes on to say that we should all strive to be this way.   Now I do not claim to be a genius scholar or anything but I do know one *word that easily describes a completly obedient and submissive person that never questions their master.  SLAVE.  So why would an all powerful, all loving, and all knowing individual, that gave us the ability to question, and the free will to do so, want only slaves to worship it?  Or better yet, find the most submissive of slaves the most suitable servants?  *The more I listen, the more I promise to raise my children without the influences of a religious institution.





ambush80 said:


> Actually, what followers strive to be is sheep, from what I understand.



The more I see post like these the more I see that most of the A/A guys have no idea.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> I went to a baptist church for 19 years or so with my family and even without. My dad used to beat it in to my head, "USE YOUR BRAIN!" I'd say I am now, and he's not...
> 
> My wife wanted to start taking our daughter to church... where they are teaching her that god made her... But my wife insists to her that SHE MAD HER.. Which she did. It's biology... proven science. She asked what to do... I said stop taking her to the brainwashing station...



It's not quite that easy.


----------



## TripleXBullies

You're right, she needed my help.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> The more I see post like these the more I see that most of the A/A guys have know idea.



To have an idea would be to type that the A/A guys have NO idea.... It's true, that we know our ideas. Thanks.


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> So why would an all powerful, all loving, and all knowing individual, that gave us the ability to question, and the free will to do so, want only slaves to worship it?  Or better yet, find the most submissive of slaves the most suitable servants?
> 
> The more I listen, the more I promise to raise my children without the influences of a religious institution.



So...


We work under the assumptions that you have put forth.  "all powerful, all loving, all knowing"

And, quite honestly, I don't know why it's such a hard question to answer.  

Let me ask you this.  Do you demand obedience from your children even when they don't "think" that what you're telling them to do is for the best/in their best interest/because you know better than they do?  I would assume the answer is yes because that's what 99.9% of all good parents do regardless of religious affiliation.

If the answer to the question is "yes" and we work under your assumption that God (were he to exist) is, indeed all powerful, all loving and all knowing...it follows that what he does for us and the obedience that he demands is because he loves us, because he knows what's best for us and because he knows best even when our short-sightedness tells us differently...does it not?  He's more powerful than us.  He knows all (i.e. more than us) and he can see a bigger picture than we can.  Why would we not trust him?


Here's the bottom line.  I'm sure you'll shoot holes in this because clearly your mind is made up.  I'm not sure why I'm trying to convince you.  But your question had a VERY logical answer in my mind.  I'm actually kind of insulted that you would imply essentially that you have to not be logical or, in essence, "smart" to believe in God and to follow him.  

Pretty simple to me.  I'm sure you disagree.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> To have an idea would be to type that the A/A guys have NO idea.... It's true, that we know our ideas. Thanks.



.... your right, thats what I get for typing fast at work, Ill change it!


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

TheBishop said:


> So I dedicated my daughter yesterday, not willingly, but it was her mothers wish, and it was mothers day.  I did the same thing last year with my son, agian mothers day. I went through the motions saying "I will", ever meaning "Not as long as there is breath in my lungs".
> 
> Growing up catholic I'd say dedication and catholic baptism are very similar.  They both involve a child that is too young to understand (most of the time), and ask of the parent/guardians a promise to raise them according to the churchs beliefs.   I have no such desire to do so.  My children will be taught to question everything and seek their own answers.  If that leads them to the church so be it.
> 
> Again sitting through a baptist sermon is a trial of any logical answer seeking individual.   If you listen, and can't help ask why, how come, what for, to what end, and so on it will drive you mad.  For example, what little I heard of the sermon yesterday (my son got restless and I got to excuse myself and go outside and play ) the preacher was talking about mother Mary (of course).    The underlining message was when god was looking for a suitable mother for Jesus, he chose Mary, becuase she was a completely obedient servant.   He goes on to say that we should all strive to be this way.   Now I do not claim to be a genius scholar or anything but I do know one word that easily describes a completly obedient and submissive person that never questions their master.  SLAVE.  So why would an all powerful, all loving, and all knowing individual, that gave us the ability to question, and the free will to do so, want only slaves to worship it?  Or better yet, find the most submissive of slaves the most suitable servants?
> 
> The more I listen, the more I promise to raise my children without the influences of a religious institution.



This is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent posts I've read on this forum.  Sounds like you're raising them right!


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Let me ask you this.  Do you demand obedience from your children even when they don't "think" that what you're telling them to do is for the best/in their best interest/because you know better than they do?  I would assume the answer is yes because that's what 99.9% of all good parents do regardless of religious affiliation.



My children are young so I demand very little of them,  obedience is not amongst them nor will it be.  As a matter of fact I will not demand anything of my children .  Hopefully I will _earn_ their love, respect, and trust. I hope they will do as I say for the fact they love and respect me and trust me to steer them in the right direction. If I have those bonds I will not need obedience.  Obedience is what you teach your dog that cannot think for itself, agian more slave than follower.   Obedience requires no thought, or rational, therefore is useless when preparing a child for the real world.  Any good parent would know that.  



> If the answer to the question is "yes" and we work under your assumption that God (were he to exist) is, indeed all powerful, all loving and all knowing...it follows that what he does for us and the obedience that he demands is because he loves us, because he knows what's best for us and because he knows best even when our short-sightedness tells us differently...does it not?  He's more powerful than us.  He knows all (i.e. more than us) and he can see a bigger picture than we can.  Why would we not trust him?



I cannot trust something that is willing to let those suffer just for the sake of suffering. If he was all powerful, all knowing, and all loving and still allowed the suffering he is not worthy of my worship. 



> Here's the bottom line.  I'm sure you'll shoot holes in this because clearly your mind is made up.  I'm not sure why I'm trying to convince you.  But your question had a VERY logical answer in my mind.  I'm actually kind of insulted that you would imply essentially that you have to not be logical or, in essence, "smart" to believe in God and to follow him.



There is strong evidence that supports the link between intelligence and religious belief.


----------



## Huntinfool

> As a matter of fact I will not demand anything of my children .  Hopefully I will _earn_ their love, respect, and trust. I hope they will do as I say for the fact they love and respect me and trust me to steer them in the right direction. If I have those bonds I will not need obedience.




Oh brother.  Let me know how that works out for you.  I can only assume that you have very little children.  Do you think that to earn their respect you have to let them "run free"?  Is it not possible to raise them with discipline and still be respected?  Have you given thought to what you'll do when they get older and you've not earned their respect?  What then?  How will you deal with them?

What is your role as their father if you demand nothing of them?  Food provider?



> Obedience requires no thought, or rational, therefore is useless when preparing a child for the real world.  Any good parent would know that.



It's called training.  Children are not born with the ability to make proper decisions.  Someone must teach them.  But we disagree on the usefulness of training.  So I won't take it any further.  You don't get it.




> I cannot trust something that is willing to let those suffer just for the sake of suffering. If he was all powerful, all knowing, and all loving and still allowed the suffering he is not worthy of my worship.



Again, we need to end the conversation here.  I figured as much.  You say suffering for the sake of suffering.  I differ.




> There is strong evidence that supports the link between intelligence and religious belief.



There are stupid athiests and there are stupid Christians.  You won't get argument from me.  Please do not imply, though, that I must abandon logic to believe in God.  It's insulting.


----------



## Huntinfool

I do have one more question for you and I don't mean this the way it's going to sound, so forgive me.


Do you think it hypocritical to have allowed that dedication or to have even participate in it (assuming you don't consider yourself the leader of your house)?

Does that bother you at any level?  Do you think that helps to contribute to your children respecting you?  You verbally made vows that you have no intention of keeping.  Do you think that makes your children inclined to respect?


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Oh brother.  Let me know how that works out for you.  I can only assume that you have very little children.  Do you think that to earn their respect you have to let them "run free"?  Is it not possible to raise them with discipline and still be respected?  Have you given thought to what you'll do when they get older and you've not earned their respect?  What then?  How will you deal with them?



You do not need obedience to get respect, but you can use discipline to get respect.  You can use discipline to get obedience and you can have obedience without respect.  I will/have use/used discipline to gain respect. I never said anything about discipline.  We were talking about DEMANDING OBEDIENCE.  Big difference.  I will never ask/tell/demand my children to do anything out of blind adherence without reason. If I ask them not to do something I tell them why.  An obedient child complies out of fear, a respectful child complies willingly, as not to disappoint.  I prefer the latter if you the former I pity your children.  I would wager you will be the one suffering from lack of respect when they come to the age with ability to reason.   If I have failed to earn their respect by the time their that age them I will place the blame soley on my self, but I feel demanding obedience (speaking from experience) will do more harm than good. 




> What is your role as their father if you demand nothing of them?  Food provider?



Teacher, provider, friend, comforter, philosopher, mentor, ect.......... not slave owner. 



> It's called training.  Children are not born with the ability to make proper decisions.  Someone must teach them.  But we disagree on the usefulness of training.  So I won't take it any further.  You don't get it.



We do not disagree that training is usefull.  No were in my posts can you find that.  We disagree on the methods of training.  Big difference.  That something that you don't get.   





> There are stupid athiests and there are stupid Christians.



True.



> You won't get argument from me.  Please do not imply, though, that I must abandon logic to believe in God.  It's insulting.



Never implied that.  I too beleive in a higher power(yet undefined). I simply stated the facts. The facts are (according to the study of Helmuth Nyborg) there is a correlation between level of religious belief and intelligence.  The more religious the lower the I.Q. .  I didn't make this up.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> I do have one more question for you and I don't mean this the way it's going to sound, so forgive me.



No need I can handle it.



> Do you think it hypocritical to have allowed that dedication or to have even participate in it (assuming you don't consider yourself the leader of your house)?



Wow. Good one appeal to my man hood.  I don't consider myself the supreme leader of my household.  My wife is strong willed, thats why I love her.  I make tuogh decisions when I have too and appease when I have too.  It's called compromise.  Thats what make marriages last.  It would only be hypocritical if I didn't beleive in what I was doing.  _I was appeasing my wife and that is all._



> Does that bother you at any level?  Do you think that helps to contribute to your children respecting you?  You verbally made vows that you have no intention of keeping.  Do you think that makes your children inclined to respect?



Yes it bothers me a little.  One, my wife clings to her childhood beliefs, it makes her happy and I can live with it.  She never has thought on my level so I do not expect her to change, agian I can live with it.

Its a meaningless ritual, that I compromised to allow my wife to do, even though I did not like it.  My kids though to young to understand, or even remember, will hopefully look at it like this: In a relationship you have do things you do not like, or beleive, to make them work.  My wife knows I do not beleive, but wants me to participate any ways.  I comply becuase I love her. I believe they would have respected that more than making her stand in front of the congregation without her husband.


----------



## Huntinfool

So two more questions. 

Do you think that a three year old will consistently obey you because he respects you?  

What do you thinkyour kids will think when you make a vow to them (let's just assume they were old enough to understand what you did Sunday)?  Will they assume you're serious about the vow you made or will they think you were just appeasing them...because you love them. 

Did you tell your wife that you didn't mean what you said?

Ok three questions. My bad.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Do you think that a three year old will consistently obey you because he respects you?



No matter what you do a three year old does not do anything consistenly.  But I do not want them to fear me. 



> What do you thinkyour kids will think when you make a vow to them (let's just assume they were old enough to understand what you did Sunday)?  Will they assume you're serious about the vow you made or will they think you were just appeasing them...because you love them.



Thats where the whole love, trust, and respect comes into play. I did not beak any vow to anyone I loved or respected.  Not adhereing to the ritual holds no water for them determining wether they can trust me.  I'll let the years of raising them be a foundation for that. 



> Did you tell your wife that you didn't mean what you said?



She knew before she asked. But then again if read my post you would see I already answered those.


----------



## JFS

TheBishop said:


> Its a meaningless ritual, that I compromised to allow my wife to do, even though I did not like it.  My kids though to young to understand, or even remember, will hopefully look at it like this: In a relationship you have do things you do not like, or beleive, to make them work.  My wife knows I do not beleive, but wants me to participate any ways.  I comply becuase I love her. I believe they would have respected that more than making her stand in front of the congregation without her husband.



I'm right there with you.   At least I was.  I did the same things you did, but now my daughter is 13 and wants to get confirmed in the church my wife has been taking her.   Which I guess would be OK if I thought she had really thought it through and decided things for herself, but like 90%+ of kids that go through that I think she is just going the way her bible thumping relatives have been pushing her for years.   So at this point I have to ask myself about conciliation and compromise versus what I view as my obligation as a parent to educate my child.  At what point do I risk jeopardizing family harmony and in fact totally alienating the in-laws by pushing for some reason and making sure she has the opportunity to think about these issues in a framework that doesn't assume one (wrong) answer.


----------



## TheBishop

JFS said:


> I'm right there with you.   At least I was.  I did the same things you did, but now my daughter is 13 and wants to get confirmed in the church my wife has been taking her.   Which I guess would be OK if I thought she had really thought it through and decided things for herself, but like 90%+ of kids that go through that I think she is just going the way her bible thumping relatives have been pushing her for years.   So at this point I have to ask myself about conciliation and compromise versus what I view as my obligation as a parent to educate my child.  At what point do I risk jeopardizing family harmony and in fact totally alienating the in-laws by pushing for some reason and making sure she has the opportunity to think about these issues in a framework that doesn't assume one (wrong) answer.




Let her do it.  She is young like you were once. Hopefully she will wake up one day and go...really?  Like you did.  I got confirmed and all that but reason opened my eyes.  I think you might do more harm holding her back from something she wants to do.   She is not yet old enough to have the mindset to choose for herself, but she is young enough her mind will change again.   Hopefully wioth your guidance you can let her "go" and she will come back to reason and you don't alienate anyone.


----------



## ambush80

TheBishop said:


> My children are young so I demand very little of them,  obedience is not amongst them nor will it be.  As a matter of fact I will not demand anything of my children .  Hopefully I will _earn_ their love, respect, and trust. I hope they will do as I say for the fact they love and respect me and trust me to steer them in the right direction. If I have those bonds I will not need obedience.  Obedience is what you teach your dog that cannot think for itself, agian more slave than follower.   Obedience requires no thought, or rational, therefore is useless when preparing a child for the real world.  Any good parent would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot trust something that is willing to let those suffer just for the sake of suffering. If he was all powerful, all knowing, and all loving and still allowed the suffering he is not worthy of my worship.
> 
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence that supports the link between intelligence and religious belief.



A profoundly different position than "Fear is the beginning of wisdom".  My dad was pretty quick with the strap and I obeyed out of fear.  We have issues now.



TheBishop said:


> Let her do it.  She is young like you were once. Hopefully she will wake up one day and go...really?  Like you did.  I got confirmed and all that but reason opened my eyes.  I think you might do more harm holding her back from something she wants to do.   She is not yet old enough to have the mindset to choose for herself, but she is young enough her mind will change again.   Hopefully with your guidance you can let her "go" and she will come back to reason and you don't alienate anyone.



That's the big one.  Teach them how to think.  


I don't think I could approve of my wife taking our daughter to church.


----------



## Huntinfool

So the message is "I'll break vows.  But don't worry...not the ones I make to you."

Do you raise your voice if they are blatantly disobeying?  What emotion do you think you're trying to evoke in that moment?


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> My children will be taught to question everything and seek their own answers.



That is what really matters. If you can manage to impart to them critical thinking skills everything else will take care of itself.


----------



## ted_BSR

Bishop - wether you intend to or not, you lead by example. The example you have set is dangerous. If this discussion is about religion, or changing the oil in your car, you are setting the example that it is acceptable to lie, to take an oath in front of many people, and then explain why you won't stand by it.

Again I will say, religion aside, this is a dangerous example.


----------



## vowell462

Dr. Strangelove said:


> This is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent posts I've read on this forum.  Sounds like you're raising them right!



Im going to have to agree. The Bishop sounds like his situation is very similar to mine.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> So the message is "I'll break vows.  But don't worry...not the ones I make to you."
> 
> Do you raise your voice if they are blatantly disobeying?  What emotion do you think you're trying to evoke in that moment?



No thats not the message.  Your reading comprehension is not so good.  Again the message is: SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO OR DONT BELEIVE TO APPEASE THE ONES YOU CARE ABOUT.  Is that clear enough to you? Or would you prefer to make it something its not?

Yes sometimes I raise my voice but its something I am working hard not to do.  It is a trained reaction from the way my father ruled the house. He demanded obedience.  It caused my rebellion early in life. My wife with a specialty in early childhood development corrects me everytime.  Raising your voice according to her is not the best approach.  She is absolutely awsome with children, and their development. When she speaks on the subject I listen.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - wether you intend to or not, you lead by example. The example you have set is dangerous. If this discussion is about religion, or changing the oil in your car, you are setting the example that it is acceptable to lie, to take an oath in front of many people, and then explain why you won't stand by it.
> 
> Again I will say, religion aside, this is a dangerous example.



Yeagh I'm gonna have to say no to that mmmkay.....

My choices were limited.  The choice I made was the right one. Dangerous? Only if I didn't go through with it.  

1. I could have said No to my wife.  Destroying her mothers day and causing a stress in our very good relationship.  Upsetting the good relation I have with my inlaws.   How would it have looked with her by herself standing infront of the church?

2.  I could have stood up there and scoughed at their ritual.  Option 1 would have been better with less severe consequences.

3.  I could have just gone through the motions, did my duty as a husband, make everybody happy and understand my vows were to a church whose beliefs I do not share.  

I'll take option 3


----------



## TripleXBullies

I took my wife to see the vampire movies and Dear John... Does that make me a bad dad?


----------



## johnnylightnin

Everyone is a slave.  The question is, who will be your master? ("Me" is a great thought, but not a real option).


----------



## vowell462

johnnylightnin said:


> Everyone is a slave.  The question is, who will be your master? ("Me" is a great thought, but not a real option).



This reminds me of that cheesy 80s movie The Last Dragon. " Whos you Master!    Shonuff! Kiss my converse sucker!"


----------



## stringmusic

johnnylightnin said:


> Everyone is a slave.  The question is, who will be your master? ("Me" is a great thought, but not a real option).



very true!


----------



## stringmusic

Dr. Strangelove said:


> This is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent posts I've read on this forum.  *Sounds like you're raising them right*!



What exactly is "right"?


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> No thats not the message.  Your reading comprehension is not so good.  Again the message is: SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO OR DONT BELEIVE TO APPEASE THE ONES YOU CARE ABOUT.  Is that clear enough to you? Or would you prefer to make it something its not?
> 
> Yes sometimes I raise my voice but its something I am working hard not to do.  It is a trained reaction from the way my father ruled the house. He demanded obedience.  It caused my rebellion early in life. My wife with a specialty in early childhood development corrects me everytime.  Raising your voice according to her is not the best approach.  She is absolutely awsome with children, and their development. When she speaks on the subject I listen.



My reading comprehension is just fine.  Interestingly enough....my wife also has a specialist degree in early childhood development.  So I'll see you that and raise you.

I was thinking about this on the way into work today and I'll just be honest, my intention is not to argue on this thread.  I don't mean this in a condensending way, but my heart breaks for you and for your kids when I read your posts. 

I know, I know...you don't need me to feel sorry for you.  You've got everything under control, etc etc etc.  You're just fine.  Great...I'm happy for you.  I'm just telling where I'm coming from on this.

Here's yet another question/observation from what you've posted.  You seem to approach "fear" from the negative side at all times.  It's as if "fear" itself is always a bad thing.  

I get that your dad lorded over you and so you are (quite honestly) still rebelling against that in the way you choose to parent.  But does fear always have to be a bad thing?

Are there not HEALTHY fears?  I'm afraid of a hot stove.  Would you let your kids touch it because they "make their own choices"?  No?  You would protect them from that because you know they should fear it in a healthy way?

My kids fear me as their father.  But it's not an unhealthy "I'm scared of my dad all the time" kind of fear.  They know very clearly that dad is in charge, that he loves them beyond comprehension and that he will ALWAYS do what's best for them even if it means telling them "no". 

They ALSO know very clearly that when dad says something, he means it.  If dad tells me he's going to do something, it's done...that's the end of it.  If dad makes a vow, regardless of who it's to, it's done...that's the end of it.  They can count on me.

*Yes, they fear me as the authority in their lives.  But in no way does that imply that they are afraid of me.*

That's the point.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> My reading comprehension is just fine.  Interestingly enough....my wife also has a specialist degree in early childhood development.  So I'll see you that and raise you.



Whats the raise? I need to know so I can either call or fold.  I got a good hand so its gonna be hard to scare me out of the pot. 



> I was thinking about this on the way into work today and I'll just be honest, my intention is not to argue on this thread.  I don't mean this in a condensending way, but my heart breaks for you and for your kids when I read your posts.
> 
> I know, I know...you don't need me to feel sorry for you.  You've got everything under control, etc etc etc.  You're just fine.  Great...I'm happy for you.  I'm just telling where I'm coming from on this.



Yeagh I know, I know. Take pity on the guy whos gonna teach his kids to think for themselves, and not blindly adhere to some mystical belief in fairy tales. Oh the horror.



> Here's yet another question/observation from what you've posted.  You seem to approach "fear" from the negative side at all times.  It's as if "fear" itself is always a bad thing.



Not according to the webster's.



> I get that your dad lorded over you and so you are (quite honestly) still rebelling against that in the way you choose to parent.  But does fear always have to be a bad thing?



Not quite Dr. Phil.  Is choosing to do something better   rebellious?  No, I dont think so. I love my father he comes from a different age and time than me.  He raised me better than he was raised (He came from an abusive alcoholic atmosphere) becuase he wanted to do better.  he always told me "Don't be me, be better than me." So I'm actually listening to his advice.  



> Are there not HEALTHY fears?  I'm afraid of a hot stove.  Would you let your kids touch it because they "make their own choices"?  No?  You would protect them from that because you know they should fear it in a healthy way?



I suppose.  I fear alot of thing that are a danger too me but it is a matter of self preservation.  Your afraid of a stove?  Think what you mean is you respect that a stove gets hot.  I'm afraid of snakes they give me the heebeegeebees but a stove?  Are you afraid of that scatter gun you holding in your avatar? NO you respect it. 



> My kids fear me as their father.  But it's not an unhealthy "I'm scared of my dad all the time" kind of fear.  They know very clearly that dad is in charge, that he loves them beyond comprehension and that he will ALWAYS do what's best for them even if it means telling them "no".
> 
> They ALSO know very clearly that when dad says something, he means it.  If dad tells me he's going to do something, it's done...that's the end of it.  If dad makes a vow, regardless of who it's to, it's done...that's the end of it.  They can count on me.
> 
> *Yes, they fear me as the authority in their lives.  But in no way does that imply that they are afraid of me.*
> 
> That's the point.



Fear 
a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid. 
2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights. 
3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety. 

I hope they respect your authority, not fear it.  If you really want your kids to fear you, you sir are the one deserving of pity not me.


----------



## TheBishop

johnnylightnin said:


> Everyone is a slave.  The question is, who will be your master? ("Me" is a great thought, but not a real option).



hmmmmmm.....Negative ghostrider the pattern is full.


----------



## JFS

TheBishop said:


> 3.  I could have just gone through the motions, did my duty as a husband, make everybody happy and understand my vows were to a church whose beliefs I do not share.



I'm willing to bet this applies to a pretty good number of the folks who go through it.   Enough that maybe there is something of a free pass on the technical misinformation, kind of like every husband who has to answer when his wife asks "does my butt look fat in this dress?"


----------



## dawg2

TheBishop said:


> So I dedicated my daughter yesterday, not willingly, but it was her mothers wish, and it was mothers day.  I did the same thing last year with my son, agian mothers day. I went through the motions saying "I will", ever meaning "Not as long as there is breath in my lungs".  .





TheBishop said:


> ..., and ask of the parent/guardians a promise to raise them according to the churchs beliefs.   I have no such desire to do so.  ....



If you felt that strongly, then you should not have taken the oath IMO.  Even if it made your wife mad, then you should have stood your ground.



TheBishop said:


> .... the preacher was talking about mother Mary (of course).    The underlining message was when god was looking for a suitable mother for Jesus, he chose Mary, becuase she was a completely obedient servant.   He goes on to say that we should all strive to be this way.   ....



I think the preacher's message was lost on semantics.  I believe it had more to do with her being a good person and "obedient" being that she led a holy life, but not as  a slave.  No different than your wife "choosing" you as a spouse because of the way you treat her.


----------



## Huntinfool

I see you've selectively chosen to NOT include part of Webster's definition.  Here's what I'm talking about:



> Fear:
> 
> 3: to have a reverential awe of (fear God)




You left that one out.  There is nothing negative in that part of the definition.  Again, I will say....fear is not always a bad thing.  Fear, in the parent/child (and often God/created) relationship SHOULD be a good thing.  It SHOULD have the conotation of reverence and respect as you put it.  

They are not afraid of me...


You assume they will respect you if you let them go about their own way.  You assume that if you direct them, then you are somehow indoctrinating them and short-changing them.  I'm afraid you will find differently when they get older.  But I'll leave that to you to determine as they grow.

I'll be honest.  I'm actually shocked that your wife hasn't explained to you how a child's brain develops and what they need from their parents as they develop....regardless of religion.  They do not have the capacity to make proper decisions for themselves for many many years.  They don't even have the ability to follow out of "respect".  Until they are able to make good decisions, they must obey whether you admit it or not.  

I'm guessing that you do require obedience of your children.  

If you tell them to do something.  Do they have options?  What if they don't do it?  You just chalk it up to their free will and respect?  

"Sit down Johnny."...."Nope!"...."Ok, well, hopefully next time I ask I will have earned enough respect from a CHILD that you'll do it."

Is that how conversations go in your house?



> Obedience requires no thought, or rational, therefore is useless when preparing a child for the real world. Any good parent would know that.



This statement is what I'm getting at.  Children don't have "rational" abilities.  They aren't able to think for themselves.  Study after study after study (both religious and secular) confirm that.  

You require obedience.  Not for a lifetime.  For the time that it is required for their good.  When they are able, they are given the ability to start making decisions for themselves.  

Again, for some reason I keep being compelled to respond.  I am not under the dilusion that I'll change your mind with a biblical view on parenting.  I fear you'll learn what I'm talking about sooner rather than later.  That's all.  But you are a grown man.  You're capable of making decisions without having to obey me!


BAAA BAAAA Says the sheep.


----------



## HawgJawl

Huntinfool said:


> Does that bother you at any level?  Do you think that helps to contribute to your children respecting you?  You verbally made vows that you have no intention of keeping.  Do you think that makes your children inclined to respect?




I looked directly into my childrens' eyes and lied to them when I told them about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc.  Later in life they learned that I had lied to them.  They got over it.  They actually considered the reason behind the lie.   You earn the respect of your children when you don't even know they're looking, with the little things you do every day.  Your children watch you and learn who you really are, not who you say you are.


----------



## TheBishop

HawgJawl said:


> I looked directly into my childrens' eyes and lied to them when I told them about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc.  Later in life they learned that I had lied to them.  They got over it.  They actually considered the reason behind the lie.   You earn the respect of your children when you don't even know they're looking, with the little things you do every day.  Your children watch you and learn who you really are, not who you say you are.


----------



## Huntinfool

So dad, you lied to mom and all those people because you didn't want to deal with the hassle of standing up for what you believe in and you just wanted to appease mom even though you think shes a lunatic for believing this crap?

Cool!  I respect that. 


You absolutely do earn your children's respect when you think they aren't looking...and when you know they are looking right at you.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> I see you've selectively chosen to NOT include part of Webster's definition.  Here's what I'm talking about:



Touche but thats not the context your or I were talking about.  If that is the message you were trying to portray then I concede. Your children can fear you, and that is ok.  Mine will trust and respect me.  I was using the widely popular definition of fear.  In that definition using fear as motivater for obedience does not usually work out well.  




> You left that one out.  There is nothing negative in that part of the definition.  Again, I will say....fear is not always a bad thing.  Fear, in the parent/child (and often God/created[/I]) relationship SHOULD be a good thing.  It SHOULD have the conotation of reverence and respect as you put it.
> 
> 
> They are not afraid of me...



Using that definition agian I concede your point. If your using that definition (and I doubt you were) then were are essentially argueing the same thing. But god has nothing to with it.



> You assume they will respect you if you let them go about their own way.  You assume that if you direct them, then you are somehow indoctrinating them and short-changing them.  I'm afraid you will find differently when they get older.  But I'll leave that to you to determine as they grow.




Your assuming an awful lot in that statement. Never said anything remotely like what your claiming I assume.  You should be with your child offering guidance and wisdom everystep of the way.  There are things that you will teach them and many more they will learn on their own.  And indoctrinating them does short change them.  They are individuals of their own free will. Constricting their choice wether by force, or exposure, of fear (afraid kind not respect kind) serves them no good when they no longer have you as a shelter.  Your job as a parent is to guide them to be able to survive _without _ you.  



> I'll be honest.  I'm actually shocked that your wife hasn't explained to you how a child's brain develops and what they need from their parents as they develop....regardless of religion.  They do not have the capacity to make proper decisions for themselves for many many years.  They don't even have the ability to follow out of "respect".  Until they are able to make good decisions, they must obey whether you admit it or not.
> 
> This statement is what I'm getting at.  Children don't have "rational" abilities.  They aren't able to think for themselves.  Study after study after study (both religious and secular) confirm that.



Wow....The fastest human growth both cognitive and physical is in the first fews years of life.  Where are these studies saying children can't rationalize? I could not find one.  I did find this though...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88195.php


I don't think you give children enough credit.  My son is almost 2 and I know he already reasons. I have seen it.  
Again I want them to listen becuase of love, respect, and trust.  Not to blindly obey.  I want them to trust me when I tell them not to do something, and eventual they will reason that daddy telling them no is for there own benefit.  Is it 100% effective? NO! Nothing is.  There is no formula for raising a perfect child.  There are some bad things you can do that ill prepares them for adulthood.  Blind obedience and indoctrination, are two of them.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> So dad, you lied to mom and all those people because you didn't want to deal with the hassle of standing up for what you believe in and you just wanted to appease mom even though you think shes a lunatic for believing this crap?
> 
> Cool!  I respect that.
> 
> 
> You absolutely do earn your children's respect when you think they aren't looking...and when you know they are looking right at you.



Dude, your reading comphrehension is terrible.  MY WIFE KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD THE ENTIRE TIME.  SHE WANTED ME THERE DESPITE MY VIEWS.

Is that better? We clear now?  She insisted and was it darn near mandatory.  Are you married? You catch my drift here? She had no quams about me standing infront of her parents, friends, siblings, and church and saying something she _knew_ I didn't beleive in.  As a matter of fact my inlaws knew too.  Should they have stopped me? Or did they realize that me supporting her in this instance made her happy and thats ok?

I don't think my wife is a lunatic.  I love her even though she does not have the cognitive will power, brazen by logic, to break free from confort of naivety.


----------



## Michael F. Gray

I can understand how difficult it may be to participate in a baptist baby dedication when raised catholic. Catholic tradition is completely differant. In a Protestant, baptist or otherwise the dedication is not about the baby so much as the parents who are covenenting together, before the body of Christ,[witnesses], and the Almighty pledging to raise the child you've been Blessed with in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. This follows the example of Hannah dedicating her child to the service of God. Baby dedication isn't about the child making a decision to accept Christ as Savior and Lord. It's about the parents pledging to raise their child in such a way the decision to serve Christ will come naturally as the child grows and reaches the age of accountability. I truely hope you take that Mother's Day Vow seriously. Read Leviticus 27 and you will learn the Lord takes a Vow made seriously, and expects it to be honored. It's better not to make a vow than to make it and not keep it.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Huntinfool... does that mean you have reverential awe of a hot stove?? You have gone back and forth with your meaning of the word fear if not.


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> Dude, your reading comphrehension is terrible.  MY WIFE KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD THE ENTIRE TIME.  SHE WANTED ME THERE DESPITE MY VIEWS.
> 
> Is that better? We clear now?  She insisted and was it darn near mandatory.  Are you married? You catch my drift here? She had no quams about me standing infront of her parents, friends, siblings, and church and saying something she  I didn't beleive in.  As a matter of fact my inlaws knew too.  Should they have stopped me? Or did they relize that me supporting her in this instance made her happy and thats ok?
> 
> I don't think my wife is a lunatic.  I love her even though she does not have the cognitive will power, brazen by logic, to break free from confort of naivety.




So then, what you're saying is that neither of you really believe that crap.  She's just more afraid of what other people think than you are, right?


----------



## TripleXBullies

I guess you read nothing but the first couple of sentences?



Michael F. Gray said:


> I can understand how difficult it may be to participate in a baptist baby dedication when raised catholic. Catholic tradition is completely differant. In a Protestant, baptist or otherwise the dedication is not about the baby so much as the parents who are covenenting together, before the body of Christ,[witnesses], and the Almighty pledging to raise the child you've been Blessed with in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. This follows the example of Hannah dedicating her child to the service of God. Baby dedication isn't about the child making a decision to accept Christ as Savior and Lord. It's about the parents pledging to raise their child in such a way the decision to serve Christ will come naturally as the child grows and reaches the age of accountability. I truely hope you take that Mother's Day Vow seriously. Read Leviticus 27 and you will learn the Lord takes a Vow made seriously, and expects it to be honored. It's better not to make a vow than to make it and not keep it.


----------



## Huntinfool

TripleXBullies said:


> Huntinfool... does that mean you have reverential awe of a hot stove?? You have gone back and forth with your meaning of the word fear if not.



I see your point.  

But I was using the stove as an example of letting your children learn lessons without your guidance.  I was using that example of a "good" kind of fear, not necessarily saying that is the same kind of fear that children should feel regarding parents.  The point of the example was that fear is not always a bad thing...make sense?  I had made that point prior and was backing it up with an example.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Yes, but like Bishop said, I really think the stove is much more respect than fear. I'd be fearful of a lion in my kitchen, not a stove.


----------



## TheBishop

Michael F. Gray said:


> I can understand how difficult it may be to participate in a baptist baby dedication when raised catholic. Catholic tradition is completely differant. In a Protestant, baptist or otherwise the dedication is not about the baby so much as the parents who are covenenting together, before the body of Christ,[witnesses], and the Almighty pledging to raise the child you've been Blessed with in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. This follows the example of Hannah dedicating her child to the service of God. Baby dedication isn't about the child making a decision to accept Christ as Savior and Lord. It's about the parents pledging to raise their child in such a way the decision to serve Christ will come naturally as the child grows and reaches the age of accountability. I truely hope you take that Mother's Day Vow seriously. Read Leviticus 27 and you will learn the Lord takes a Vow made seriously, and expects it to be honored. It's better not to make a vow than to make it and not keep it.



I don't beleive in the bible or a lord that would care about any vow. I believe its better to honor my wifes request than to take any such silly ritual seriously and make her unhappy by not attending. She had a good mothers day becuase I did something for her.  That to me, is worth more than sitting through something I feel strongly against.


----------



## dawg2

TripleXBullies said:


> Yes, but like Bishop said, I really think the stove is much more respect than fear. I'd be fearful of a lion in my kitchen, not a stove.



Fear the burn from the heat, not the stove.


----------



## Huntinfool

> I love her even though she does not have the cognitive will power, brazen by logic, to break free from confort of naivety.



What's her email address again?  I'd like to forward this to her and see what she thinks about it.


----------



## atlashunter

Michael F. Gray said:


> It's about the parents pledging to raise their child in such a way the decision to serve Christ will come naturally as the child grows and reaches the age of accountability. I truely hope you take that Mother's Day Vow seriously. Read Leviticus 27 and you will learn the Lord takes a Vow made seriously, and expects it to be honored. It's better not to make a vow than to make it and not keep it.



Therein lies the real objection our resident theists have with The Bishop. They would rather see him keep his promise to brainwash his kids with religious indoctrination than teach them to think for themselves. Sounds to me like his kids are rather fortunate to have him for a dad.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> So then, what you're saying is that neither of you really believe that crap.  She's just more afraid of what other people think than you are, right?



I think she struggles with her beliefs.  But I believe its more following what her family traditions are than 
anything. I bet you couldn't guess we don't talk religion much. Though intelligent, my wife does not think as deeply as I do, nor does she question much.  I blame it soley on her devout southern baptist upbringing.  I'm trying to prevent that in my children.


----------



## stringmusic

So if a person thinks for themselves, does that mean automatic atheism? Is that the only road in which thinking for oneself lead?


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> I'm trying to prevent that in my children.



I thought you were trying to let them think for themselves.  


Kidding.  It's a sad statement you make.  I suppose that's the last I have on the matter.  I know I won't change you mind.  But I hope I've made you question...even just a little.


----------



## atlashunter

There are few certainties in life stringmusic. But teach a kid to think and question and you'll greatly increase the odds they will recognize the bull squeeze when they smell it.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> I thought you were trying to let them think for themselves.



Taken out of context but ok.




> Kidding.  It's a sad statement you make.  I suppose that's the last I have on the matter.  I know I won't change you mind.  But I hope I've made you question...even just a little.



On the contrary. You've strengthen my resolve.  By the way were are those studies that children can't rationalize?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> There are few certainties in life stringmusic. But teach a kid to think and question and you'll greatly increase the odds they will recognize the bull squeeze when they smell it.



I agree!


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> By the way were are those studies that children can't rationalize?



On the internet.


----------



## TripleXBullies

EXACTLY... Mine too.



TheBishop said:


> Taken out of context but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary. You've strengthen my resolve.  By the way were are those studies that children can't rationalize?


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> On the internet.



link?


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> On the internet.



I used google and all I can find suggest they have the  ability to rationalize and it comes at an early age. Is my search engine broken or are you just making stuff up?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> link?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Say_the_Darndest_Things


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Say_the_Darndest_Things



That doesn't help his case, string.


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> link?



It was a joke man.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> It was a joke man.



So you cannot find anything that suppports your assertion and you were just making stuff up as you go along?


----------



## Huntinfool

Yes.....yes that's exactly what I was doing.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> This statement is what I'm getting at.  Children don't have "rational" abilities.  They aren't able to think for themselves.  Study after study after study (both religious and secular) confirm that.




Were are the studies that confirm this?


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Yes.....yes that's exactly what I was doing.



So you flip flop on definitions and make stuff up to validate your point.  Sounds pretty christian to me.


----------



## Huntinfool

Here are a couple...and I'm not the one in my family that has an advanced degree regarding this.  Like you, I listen very carefully to what my wife has to say about these issues.  She's much more well versed than I am.  I'm simply telling you what she's told me.  These links seem to verify it....but again, the all knowing internet is not typically my go to source of reliable info.  

You asked.  So I accomodated.





http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/piaget.shtml



> Children are not little adults. *Until they reach the age of 15 or so they are not capable of reasoning as an adult*. The following information is based on the work of Jean Piaget. He was not a psychologist. He was a developmental biologist who devoted his life to closely observing and recording the intellectual abilities of infants, children and adolescents.
> 
> The stages of intellectual development formulated by Piaget appear to be related to major developments in brain growth. *The human brain is not fully developed until late adolescence or in the case of males sometimes early adulthood. We often expect children to think like adults when they are not yet capable of doing so*. It is important that parents know what to expect from their child as they develop and to be sure that the expectations they may have for their child at a given age are realistic.



http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/info/growth/well/cognitive.htm



> Adolescence marks the beginning development of more complex thinking processes (also called formal logical operations) including abstract thinking (thinking about possibilities),* the ability to reason *from known principles (form own new ideas or questions), the ability to consider many points of view according to varying criteria (compare or debate ideas or opinions), *and the ability to consider the process of thinking*.


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> So you flip flop on definitions and make stuff up to validate your point.  Sounds pretty christian to me.



Good one!  The classic athiest/agnostic zinger!

"Sounds pretty Christian to me!"

Excellent work my friend.  Excellent work.



I pretty clearly made my point on the definitions and you pretty clearly don't read sarcasm very well.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Good one!  The classic athiest/agnostic zinger!
> 
> "Sounds pretty Christian to me!"
> 
> Excellent work my friend.  Excellent work.
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty clearly made my point on the definitions and you pretty clearly don't read sarcasm very well.



No you didn't you were pretty abstract. Again the websites do not support your position.  They support the position that children cannot _reason_ as adults can. Not that they can't, just not at the depth and level as adults. But you said children have no "rational" abilities which is not the same thing and is simply not true.


----------



## TheBishop

By the way I apologize for the christian remark it was uncalled for.


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> No you didn't you were pretty abstract. Again the websites do not support your position.  They support the position that children cannot _reason_ as adults can. Not that they can't, just not at the depth and level as adults. But you said children have no "rational" abilities which is not the same thing and is simply not true.



Semantics....and you're making yourself look silly now.

I conceded that I won't convince you.  I'm ok with knowing I'm right and letting you think otherwise.  I'll go back to my "Christian" area and leave you guys alone now.  I just missed the old days when we could all sit around and argue till our faces got red!


----------



## TheBishop

I look silly highlighting the fallacies in your arguement?


----------



## TheBishop

I'm ok letting you think your right and me knowing otherwise.


----------



## atlashunter

Huntinfool said:


> Semantics....and you're making yourself look silly now.
> 
> I conceded that I won't convince you.  I'm ok with knowing I'm right and letting you think otherwise.  I'll go back to my "Christian" area and leave you guys alone now.  I just missed the old days when we could all sit around and argue till our faces got red!



You claimed "study after study" supported your claim and then when challenged to cite those studies you couldn't. Calling the other guy silly when you're caught speaking out of ignorance just reflects even worse on you.

"I stand corrected." It's really not that hard to say and would warrant more respect than "You're making yourself look silly now.".


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh I'm gonna have to say no to that mmmkay.....
> 
> My choices were limited.  The choice I made was the right one. Dangerous? Only if I didn't go through with it.
> 
> 1. I could have said No to my wife.  Destroying her mothers day and causing a stress in our very good relationship.  Upsetting the good relation I have with my inlaws.   How would it have looked with her by herself standing infront of the church? The truth, albeit painful
> 
> 2.  I could have stood up there and scoughed at their ritual.  Option 1 would have been better with less severe consequences.childish and thoughtless
> 
> 3.  I could have just gone through the motions, did my duty as a husband, make everybody happy and understand my vows were to a church whose beliefs I do not share.  Just lie
> I'll take option 3



Only one of these is the right answer.


----------



## Long2010

I find it sad that in a place where everyone has plenty of common ground to talk upon that a debated topic such as spiritual beliefs is not only being allowed but also being entertained by the users.  I have always had a deep amount of respect for hunters as I was raised in an environment where my fellow hunters were considered family and it has grown to a very large family over the years.  With that said since you guys are arguing over this I will add my side of this debate.....

First of all I feel that the labels placed on Christian beliefs have been taken so far out of context that it is ridiculous and what I mean by that is I am a "Christian" not a southern baptist, methodist, catholic, holiness...etc.  

The only point regarding religion I would like to make on this post it that I have found a very nice and comfortable place in religion where I belong.  With that I believe that to believe in god I am promised eternal salvation and heaven. Now with that said if my beliefs are right I win.  

Now my question for you is If I am wrong and there is no superior being what will I loose for believing or what will I gain for not believing? 

As far as raising children I believe in discipline as well as a little healthy fear not fear of me but, of the consequences of their actions.  As you claim to do I also explain my side and the every detail of the consequences for what they are wanting to do as I am trying to build not only my children's trust and respect but, I am also attempting to teach them how to rationalize for themselves.  Most of the time they will concede and see my point of view.  Unfortunately children also tend to barrel into things and never think twice they tend to occasionally never ask for your advice and this is where the fear and discipline has to come into play.  I have to ensure that they will think twice before they do it again and if a pop on the butt or restriction is the only means to make them think twice I will do so.  If I see my children playing in the middle of the road they will probably get a spanking because we were lucky this time but, if the consequence does not meet that action and they do it again whose to say the semi want be there to meet them in the middle.  There are situations where you can not trust them to rationalize on there own and when you find out you have to teach them by any means possible to ensure it doesn't happen again.  My spouse works for our local Sheriff's Department and I can assure you I would much rather teach my children now than have the State of Georgia attempt to teach them later.  Furthermore I will say that in beginning to discipline my children at a very young age I now most of the time only have to reason with them.

There are some things in life that if we cross that line we may not be given a second chance......religion and raising children are two of those things so I would rather have my bases covered and know in my heart that I will have as little regrets as possible when it's all over because there are no do-overs.


----------



## vowell462

Long2010 said:


> I find it sad that in a place where everyone has plenty of common ground to talk upon that a debated topic such as spiritual beliefs is not only being allowed but also being entertained by the users.  I have always had a deep amount of respect for hunters as I was raised in an environment where my fellow hunters were considered family and it has grown to a very large family over the years.  With that said since you guys are arguing over this I will add my side of this debate.....
> 
> First of all I feel that the labels placed on Christian beliefs have been taken so far out of context that it is ridiculous and what I mean by that is I am a "Christian" not a southern baptist, methodist, catholic, holiness...etc.
> 
> The only point regarding religion I would like to make on this post it that I have found a very nice and comfortable place in religion where I belong.  With that I believe that to believe in god I am promised eternal salvation and heaven. Now with that said if my beliefs are right I win.
> 
> Now my question for you is If I am wrong and there is no superior being what will I loose for believing or what will I gain for not believing?
> 
> As far as raising children I believe in discipline as well as a little healthy fear not fear of me but, of the consequences of their actions.  As you claim to do I also explain my side and the every detail of the consequences for what they are wanting to do as I am trying to build not only my children's trust and respect but, I am also attempting to teach them how to rationalize for themselves.  Most of the time they will concede and see my point of view.  Unfortunately children also tend to barrel into things and never think twice they tend to occasionally never ask for your advice and this is where the fear and discipline has to come into play.  I have to ensure that they will think twice before they do it again and if a pop on the butt or restriction is the only means to make them think twice I will do so.  If I see my children playing in the middle of the road they will probably get a spanking because we were lucky this time but, if the consequence does not meet that action and they do it again whose to say the semi want be there to meet them in the middle.  There are situations where you can not trust them to rationalize on there own and when you find out you have to teach them by any means possible to ensure it doesn't happen again.  My spouse works for our local Sheriff's Department and I can assure you I would much rather teach my children now than have the State of Georgia attempt to teach them later.  Furthermore I will say that in beginning to discipline my children at a very young age I now most of the time only have to reason with them.
> 
> There are some things in life that if we cross that line we may not be given a second chance......religion and raising children are two of those things so I would rather have my bases covered and know in my heart that I will have as little regrets as possible when it's all over because there are no do-overs.



Why is it sad that spiritual beliefs are being discussed? Is it sad that people come to my front door and push there beliefs on me? Is it sad that christians are allowed to picket in front of tailgaters at a Braves game screaming that "Jesus saves and your ruining your life"? I think its very healthy to have these discussions. It educates and makes the brain think. Thats a good thing. As far as your question you asked, I dont know how to answer that. It seems to me you are a " just in case" believer. You wrote with the attitude of " Im gonna believe because I have lost nothing if I dont". 
Im not the smartest peanut in the Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, but i dont believe thats the way it works. According to your religion, you have to believe at all times, without a doubt. As far as losing anything? Maybe just a lifetime of beautiful sunday mornings that the turkeys are gobbling. I dont know.


----------



## Long2010

As a matter of fact I do find it sad that Christian's are allowed to picket tailgater's at Braves games as well as showing up at someones front door.  That is exactly what I mean by our beliefs being taken out of context.  know where in my bible have I found where it says that I must go door to door or form a picket line it merely says I should lead by example and live my life accordingly.  I don't live my life out of fear of God I simply live by what morals and standards I feel at ease and peace with and with that I would hope that the people that I am associated with will sought out that inner peace that I have.  

As far as me believing because I have lost nothing if I don't NO SIR I believe to the depths of my soul that was merely a question for the non-believer to ponder merely a stepping stone in what I believe to be the right direction.  

A healthy debate is always a good thing BUT, some of what I have read on this particular thread is not a healthy debate but instead a means to attack.


----------



## TripleXBullies

This forum has a lot of that actually... 

And I think not believing in god or religion has it's inner peace for those that feel that way. It IS inner peace. Just not for you or everyone else. And that's fine. 

You have your inner peace with what you believe and for that I am glad. I don't agree that it's right, just that it seems to be what you want. The way you have shortly described your beliefs aren't what I was taught and believed myself for years as a baptist though.


----------



## vowell462

In spiritual discussion, you will always find attacks from both sides. Religion is a very touchy subject. 

I could only assume what your beliefs are based on what you wrote. Please dont be offended. I can say however, we see the same question asked time and time again on this forum. And you will see the same answer as well.

I think for the most part, we all enjoy this forum and should respect everyones opinion. No one has the answer. I have a hard time with the stories of the bible and cant get over it. Hard for me to just give in and believe. I cant say you or anyone else is wrong, but I can say it doesnt make any logical sense to me.


----------



## WTM45

Bishop,
Doing the things which makes your spouse happy is a good thing.  It promotes a good home life, keeps stress and strife to a minimium, and without speaking a word tells your children you are truly living what you wish for them to do.  That is to listen, learn, be respectful, be tolerant and investigate everything.
Kudos.


----------



## stringmusic

vowell462 said:


> Why is it sad that spiritual beliefs are being discussed? Is it sad that people come to my front door and push there beliefs on me? Is it sad that christians are allowed to picket in front of tailgaters at a Braves game screaming that "Jesus saves and your ruining your life"? I think its very healthy to have these discussions. It educates and makes the brain think. Thats a good thing. As far as your question you asked, I dont know how to answer that. It seems to me you are a " just in case" believer. You wrote with the attitude of " Im gonna believe because I have lost nothing if I dont".
> Im not the smartest peanut in the Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, but i dont believe thats the way it works. *According to your religion, you have to believe at all times, without a doubt.* As far as losing anything? Maybe just a lifetime of beautiful sunday mornings that the turkeys are gobbling. I dont know.



I dont believe that at all.


----------



## Long2010

TripleXBullies said:


> This forum has a lot of that actually...
> 
> And I think not believing in god or religion has it's inner peace for those that feel that way. It IS inner peace. Just not for you or everyone else. And that's fine.
> 
> You have your inner peace with what you believe and for that I am glad. I don't agree that it's right, just that it seems to be what you want. The way you have shortly described your beliefs aren't what I was taught and believed myself for years as a baptist though.



As I stated before I am simply a Christian with out the labels of Baptist, Methodist, Jewish, Catholic...etc.


----------



## TripleXBullies

short and sweet



WTM45 said:


> Bishop,
> Doing the things which makes your spouse happy is a good thing.  It promotes a good home life, keeps stress and strife to a minimium, and without speaking a word tells your children you are truly living what you wish for them to do.  That is to listen, learn, be respectful, be tolerant and investigate everything.
> Kudos.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> and without speaking a word tells your children you are truly living what you wish for them to do.



That is very very true....though I differ on the implications.


Welcome back, BTW buddy.  Haven't seen you in a while.  I've been absent for a while myself.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I know. I was just saying because it's what I know.



Long2010 said:


> As I stated before I am simply a Christian with out the labels of Baptist, Methodist, Jewish, Catholic...etc.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> Welcome back, BTW buddy.  Haven't seen you in a while.  I've been absent for a while myself.



Life sure catches up fast when one is not looking!  Takes some effort just to keep up.
Hope all is well with you also.


----------



## vowell462

stringmusic said:


> I dont believe that at all.



So you cannot believe or have doubts and still make it to Heaven?


----------



## stringmusic

vowell462 said:


> So you cannot believe or have doubts and still make it to Heaven?



I think one has to believe, but doubts will not keep anyone from heaven, if that were the case, there would not be anyone going there. IMO


----------



## TripleXBullies

String, from my training, I believe would probably correct. How could a doubt not get you in, because it seems SO MANY have at least some kind of doubt.. 

Yet from what I remember Jesus wasn't happy with Thomas.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> I think one has to believe, but doubts will not keep anyone from heaven, if that were the case, there would not be anyone going there. IMO





TripleXBullies said:


> String, from my training, I believe would probably correct. How could a doubt not get you in, because it seems SO MANY have at least some kind of doubt..
> 
> Yet from what I remember Jesus wasn't happy with Thomas.



That sound reasonable...kind of.  

You don't KNOW for sure but you've made the best guess with the information available to you.  Is that right?

See, the thing is, I'm not sure most people take into account where they were born and the culture they grew up in when they made the decision about which God to believe in.


----------



## ted_BSR

Seems to have drifted a little off topic, but I don't mind.

I was thinking, maybe Bishop's unfelt pledge is God's way of allowing Bishop's wife to witness to him? Maybe God will hold him to it?

Just a thought.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> String, from my training, I believe would probably correct. How could a doubt not get you in,* because it seems SO MANY have at least some kind of doubt..
> *
> Yet from what I remember Jesus wasn't happy with Thomas.



That was my point, I have doubt, it's just not very much.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> That sound reasonable...kind of.
> 
> You don't KNOW for sure but you've made the best guess with the information available to you.  Is that right?
> 
> *See, the thing is, I'm not sure most people take into account where they were born and the culture they grew up in when they made the decision about which God to believe in.*



I agree, most people dont take it very seriously.


----------



## stringmusic

ted_BSR said:


> *Seems to have drifted a little off topic, but I don't mind.*
> 
> I was thinking, maybe Bishop's unfelt pledge is God's way of allowing Bishop's wife to witness to him? Maybe God will hold him to it?
> 
> Just a thought.



I agree, and I'm part of it, it seems after 99 posts every thread seems to go in some other direction. I also hope your thoughts about Bishop are true.


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> That was my point, I have doubt, it's just not very much.



That is introducing some logic in to it though. If all of the stuff is true, how can a little doubt lose your salvation? I was taught a little differently... that Thomas sinned doubting Jesus. But when you "truly" believe that he died for your sins, you are allowed to sin because you are forgiven.. But doubt would not be truly believing I don't think. I don't know..


----------



## ambush80

TripleXBullies said:


> That is introducing some logic in to it though. If all of the stuff is true, how can a little doubt lose your salvation? I was taught a little differently... that Thomas sinned doubting Jesus. But when you "truly" believe that he died for your sins, you are allowed to sin because you are forgiven.. But doubt would not be truly believing I don't think. I don't know..



That is painfully honest.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> That is introducing some logic in to it though. If all of the stuff is true, how can a little doubt lose your salvation? I was taught a little differently... that Thomas sinned doubting Jesus. But when you "truly" believe that he died for your sins, you are allowed to sin because you are forgiven.. But doubt would not be truly believing I don't think. I don't know..



I have sat back and asked myself "Is everything I believe really true?" just like I'm sure most of you guys have. My doubt is small because I _truely_ choose to believe, I think that is the key. The Holy Spirit comforts me in my times of doubt.

As far as "being allowed to  sin", having a relationship with Jesus Christ is not a free ticket to live a life full of sin.(even though many people think it is) I try everyday to sin as little as possible, I know that I am going to sin, but through my relationship with Christ, I am completely forgiven and washed clean by His blood alone. With that relationship comes the _want_ not to sin.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Not painful for me.. 



ambush80 said:


> That is painfully honest.


----------



## TheBishop

After re-reading those who objected to my decision posts, I have come to the conclusion the objectors reasoning for faulting me. It  is soley becuase I refuse to let my children be indoctrinated as they have been and not becuase I chose to participate in a ritual that made my wife happy. Some are so infruriated that I choose to steer my children away from their delusions, they contort the situation, use misinformation,  and just make stuff up to perpetrate me as the wrong doer.  That is simply not the case.  

I think after re-reading this thread I understand why I have been viewed in such negativity by the believers.  It's becuase they are looking at it throught the eyes of a believer and cannot fathom how I  see it.  If I were a believer and was against god, what I did world have been unforgiveable, but I am not.   So I do not believe in the church, the god, or jesus the preacher was asking me and the others to dedicates our children too.  So essentially to me, I was performing a ritual for show and nothing more. My wife knew, and persisted on me to ACT the part, I complied.  Becuase I believe the ideals of the church are more fantasy than fact it was quite easy.  The more I attend, the more I listen, the more acts my wife asks me to do (their will be more children I am told), the more resolve I have for making my children understand the fantasy part.   

When my children grow up, I hope they will see how _silly_ the church's fantasy is, how it just _silly_ to make stuff up you obviously have no clue about (then find sources that actually validate your cluelessness), and that sometimes its ok to sit through something you find _silly _ ot appease someone you love.


----------



## atlashunter

Well said. You're right on the money with their motives.


----------



## WTM45

TheBishop said:


> I think after re-reading this thread I understand why I have been viewed in such negativity by the believers.  It's becuase they are looking at it throught the eyes of a believer and cannot fathom how I  see it.



This thread has not even scratched the surface of the intolerance of believers, regardless of the belief system followed.
Negativity towards anything other than their interpretation, their denomination, their version of the Bible, their doctrines and their rituals is status quo.

Hard to have discussions without the venom flowing.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> After re-reading those who objected to my decision posts, I have come to the conclusion the objectors reasoning for faulting me. It  is soley becuase I refuse to let my children be indoctrinated as they have been and not becuase I chose to participate in a ritual that made my wife happy. Some are so infruriated that I choose to steer my children away from their delusions, they contort the situation, use misinformation,  and just make stuff up to perpetrate me as the wrong doer.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> I think after re-reading this thread I understand why I have been viewed in such negativity by the believers.  It's becuase they are looking at it throught the eyes of a believer and cannot fathom how I  see it.  If I were a believer and was against god, what I did world have been unforgiveable, but I am not.   So I do not believe in the church, the god, or jesus the preacher was asking me and the others to dedicates their children too.  So essentially to me, I was performing a ritual for show and nothing more. My wife knew, and persisted on me to ACT the part, I complied.  Becuase I believe the ideals of the church are more fantasy than fact it was quite easy.  The more I attend, the more I listen, the more acts my wife asks me to do (their will be more children I am told), the more resolve I have for making my children understand the fantasy part.
> 
> When my children grow up, I hope they will see how _silly_ the church's fantasy is, how it just _silly_ to make stuff up you obviously have no clue about (then find sources that actually validate your cluelessness), and that sometimes its ok to sit through something you find _silly _ ot appease someone you love.



Just for kicks, I dont view you negatively, you dont believe the same things I/other believers in here do, what you did is to be expected of your position. Why would you actually try to raise your children with Biblical morals or through a church body? You dont believe in the doctrines of Christianity in the first place. Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## atlashunter

You got that right wtm. I was accused of working for Satan on my once saved always saved thread. Sheesh!


----------



## TripleXBullies

If satan himself, in a form I recognized as satan himself (like a talking, legged snake or a demon like thing from a movie), came to me to get me to work for him and put me on his payroll, I might have a better chance of believing in god.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> After re-reading those who objected to my decision posts, I have come to the conclusion the objectors reasoning for faulting me. It  is soley becuase I refuse to let my children be indoctrinated as they have been and not becuase I chose to participate in a ritual that made my wife happy. Some are so infruriated that I choose to steer my children away from their delusions, they contort the situation, use misinformation,  and just make stuff up to perpetrate me as the wrong doer.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> I think after re-reading this thread I understand why I have been viewed in such negativity by the believers.  It's becuase they are looking at it throught the eyes of a believer and cannot fathom how I  see it.  If I were a believer and was against god, what I did world have been unforgiveable, but I am not.   So I do not believe in the church, the god, or jesus the preacher was asking me and the others to dedicates our children too.  So essentially to me, I was performing a ritual for show and nothing more. My wife knew, and persisted on me to ACT the part, I complied.  Becuase I believe the ideals of the church are more fantasy than fact it was quite easy.  The more I attend, the more I listen, the more acts my wife asks me to do (their will be more children I am told), the more resolve I have for making my children understand the fantasy part.
> 
> When my children grow up, I hope they will see how _silly_ the church's fantasy is, how it just _silly_ to make stuff up you obviously have no clue about (then find sources that actually validate your cluelessness), and that sometimes its ok to sit through something you find _silly _ ot appease someone you love.



Bishop - my responses were predicated with religion not being part of the issue. Many are probably guilty of what you have said, but honestly, my concern is not for religion, but for the actions you are teaching your children, and your wife. Appeasing your wife is a good idea, but not when it comprimises your core beliefs. I would rather you stand up for your core beliefs than pretend that you believe something you don't. I would rather you believe or not believe something, and make no bones about it.

This is difficult to say, and more difficult to do.

I feel for your predicament.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - my responses were predicated with religion not being part of the issue. Many are probably guilty of what you have said, but honestly, my concern is not for religion, but for the actions you are teaching your children, and your wife. Appeasing your wife is a good idea, but not when it comprimises your core beliefs. I would rather you stand up for your core beliefs than pretend that you believe something you don't. I would rather you believe or not believe something, and make no bones about it.
> 
> This is difficult to say, and more difficult to do.
> 
> I feel for your predicament.



The problem you do not understand is I haven't compromised anything.  Especially my core beliefs.  As a matter of fact I believe I upheld them.  It is more important to me to make my wife happy and suffer through a meaningless ritual, than make her unhappy by not doing something I find insignificant.


----------



## atlashunter

At least you aren't lying to them by claiming to know things that you don't.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> The problem you do not understand is I haven't compromised anything.  Especially my core beliefs.  As a matter of fact I believe I upheld them.  It is more important to me to make my wife happy and suffer through a meaningless ritual, than make her unhappy by not doing something I find insignificant.



Bishop - it is not my place to judge, and I do not mean to be offensive. You laid this all out in your OP, so at the risk of saying to much, I will say this. You stood up in front of a bunch of people and pledged an oath to a God you do not believe exists, with no intention of following through with it. From an outsider looking in, this seems like a compromise of beliefs, no matter what your motivation was. With respect.


----------



## TheBishop

I do not know how to put this more plainly.  I pledged to nothing about nothing,  therefore I compromised nothing. I did what I actually beleived is right, appeasing a loved one. Now if allowed my children to get indoctrinated, and assisted in such, then I would be compromising in my beliefs.  But since I have no such intention, there is no such compromise.


----------



## WTM45

ted_BSR said:


> You stood up in front of a bunch of people and pledged an oath to a God you do not believe exists, with no intention of following through with it.



I'll bet ten thousand "believers" do that every Sunday morning in churches across America.


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> I'll bet ten thousand "believers" do that every Sunday morning in churches across America.



Quite possible...what bearing would that have on the moral status of the action?


----------



## WTM45

Better than quite possible, highly probable.
Even more folks will cheat on their score on the golf course the same morning.
And I don't care.  It's their morning to spend however they wish.

Bishop has been quite clear in his reasonings.  To condemn him is the real hypocrisy.


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> Better than quite possible, highly probable.
> Even more folks will cheat on their score on the golf course the same morning.
> And I don't care.  It's their morning to spend however they wish.
> 
> Bishop has been quite clear in his reasonings.  To condemn him is the real hypocrisy.



So none at all?  Just like pointing out a person as a hypocrite really has no bearing on the moral standing of what the hypocrite is praising/condemning.


----------



## Long2010

WTM45 said:


> I'll bet ten thousand "believers" do that every Sunday morning in churches across America.



I find it interesting how you "athiests" continue to lump lump all of us "believers" into one big group of niave hypocrits.  That is like says all "Doctors" are arrogant Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- or all "women" are Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----s or all "men" are jerks.


----------



## gtparts

TheBishop said:


> The problem you do not understand is I haven't compromised anything.  Especially my core beliefs.  As a matter of fact I believe I upheld them.  It is more important to me to make my wife happy and suffer through a meaningless ritual, than make her unhappy by not doing something I find insignificant.



And what of your wife's beliefs and principles? Does she take seriously the vow that she made concerning the Christian "education" of your children? How will you deal with that as it arises? I am afraid there are difficult times ahead if both of you are unmovable. Will you vie for the very souls of your children and will they be better off if you have your way?


From your statement above, because you love your wife, you will allow her to engage the children in her faith (meaningless ritual). Such a value is noble, shows caring, a love for your wife, and a desire for family peace.

On the other hand, you seem quite committed to keeping your children from being indoctrinated.

Which is it going to be?


----------



## vowell462

Long2010 said:


> I find it interesting how you "athiests" continue to lump lump all of us "believers" into one big group of niave hypocrits.  That is like says all "Doctors" are arrogant Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- or all "women" are Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----s or all "men" are jerks.



This is funny. Because your doing the exact same thing in this statement. Lumping atheist together.


----------



## bad0351

TheBishop said:


> So I dedicated my daughter yesterday, not willingly, but it was her mothers wish, and it was mothers day.  I did the same thing last year with my son, agian mothers day. I went through the motions saying "I will", ever meaning "Not as long as there is breath in my lungs".
> 
> Growing up catholic I'd say dedication and catholic baptism are very similar.  They both involve a child that is too young to understand (most of the time), and ask of the parent/guardians a promise to raise them according to the churchs beliefs.   I have no such desire to do so.  My children will be taught to question everything and seek their own answers.  If that leads them to the church so be it.
> 
> Again sitting through a baptist sermon is a trial of any logical answer seeking individual.   If you listen, and can't help ask why, how come, what for, to what end, and so on it will drive you mad.  For example, what little I heard of the sermon yesterday (my son got restless and I got to excuse myself and go outside and play ) the preacher was talking about mother Mary (of course).    The underlining message was when god was looking for a suitable mother for Jesus, he chose Mary, becuase she was a completely obedient servant.   He goes on to say that we should all strive to be this way.   Now I do not claim to be a genius scholar or anything but I do know one word that easily describes a completly obedient and submissive person that never questions their master.  SLAVE.  So why would an all powerful, all loving, and all knowing individual, that gave us the ability to question, and the free will to do so, want only slaves to worship it?  Or better yet, find the most submissive of slaves the most suitable servants?
> 
> The more I listen, the more I promise to raise my children without the influences of a religious institution.



Hi Bishop.....I did the same thing when I got married 36 years ago....My wifes family wanted to have the ceremony in a church so to keep my wife and everyone else happy, I agreed to "do what the church said" I had to to be married....really kind of foolish but we do what we have to to keep tranquility .....whatever anyone says, you did the honorable thing.

Dale

PS....My kids have looked at religeon from every angle as they grew up and never could see the point in putting ones faith in a fairy tale....they became wonderful, caring and loving people all on there own....with help from good parents....as will yours too.


----------



## WTM45

Long2010 said:


> I find it interesting how you "athiests" continue to lump lump all of us "believers" into one big group of niave hypocrits.  That is like says all "Doctors" are arrogant Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- or all "women" are Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----s or all "men" are jerks.



Please show me where I did what you are claiming?
I felt I was pretty dog gone clear in my statement involving a specific subset.  
First, I'm not an Atheist.  Not even defacto.  
Second, I identified only those who would condemn him as being hypocritical.  They are not following the teachings of their own leadership. 

My apology if you felt insulted by my statements.

JL, whether or not there is to be found any "morality" (good or bad) in TB's actions or decisions is subject to individual interpretation, and upon what the interpreter bases their decision.  
According to the laws of our country, no problem found.  According to a holy book, there could be dependant upon interpretation. 
He probably cares very little what others "think" of his "morals."


----------



## bigreddwon

He did what he had to do to keep a happy home. I do not think he compromised his moral's one bit. As far as how he stated he and his wife are raising their kids, I wish all parents were in the same boat. My goal is to make my daughter a good adult. I talk to her about 200% more than my folks talked to me. I got a smack instead of having a discussion. Not yelling or making her afraid of me are very important to me as a parent. The more I'm able to teach her to THINK now, the better equipped she will be as an adult and a parent when her time comes. At a bit under 4 years old her ability to reason blows me away almost everyday. I've read every post in this thread and TB is right on point.


----------



## CAL

Havana Dude said:


> Prayers for your wife and children......and you as well.



And all God's children said...AMEN!Read Matthew 18;1-6 just in case you just might be wrong Bishop in your performance Mothers Day with your little children.

I got more to answer for on judgement day than most and some things I ain't to proud of but a "millstone around my neck in the depths of the ocean is not one of them"thank goodness.Good luck to ya Brother!


----------



## TripleXBullies

....


----------



## Huntinfool

atlashunter said:


> At least you aren't lying to them by claiming to know things that you don't.



Nope....he's certainly not lieing to them about that.




However...since we're quoting Webster.



> I went through the motions *saying "I will", *ever *meaning "Not as long as there is breath in my lungs". *






> Definition of HYPOCRITE (Webster)
> 1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
> 2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings




Hypocrisy is what it is.


----------



## bullethead

Bishop, you did/do what you think is the best choice for you and YOUR family. That is ALL that matters.

To everyone else that thinks these vows are SO sacred, There are VOWS made in church every day of the week from wedding vows( yeah NOBODY breaks those!!) to personal vows while praying( like if you let my team win, I'll do this or that) and everything in between but they all get broken too. Everybody, take a look around in church at who is there. Look hard who is in each pew. You know who is sleeping with who, who is ripping who off, who beats their spouse/kids(man or woman take your pick), who is dishonest, who is a thief, who lies day in and day out for a living,.....etc, etc,etc, yet somehow they think going to church shines a different light on who they really are. There is an entire building filled with people acting like someone they are really not while in church. Those vows are only as good as the people making them, including the ones in the mirror.


----------



## Long2010

vowell462 said:


> This is funny. Because your doing the exact same thing in this statement. Lumping atheist together.



Your absolutely right...trying to prove a point...thanks for noticing.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> Bishop, you did/do what you think is the best choice for you and YOUR family. That is ALL that matters.
> 
> To everyone else that thinks these vows are SO sacred, There are VOWS made in church every day of the week from wedding vows( yeah NOBODY breaks those!!) to personal vows while praying( like if you let my team win, I'll do this or that) and everything in between but they all get broken too. Everybody, take a look around in church at who is there. Look hard who is in each pew. You know who is sleeping with who, who is ripping who off, who beats their spouse/kids(man or woman take your pick), who is dishonest, who is a thief, who lies day in and day out for a living,.....etc, etc,etc, yet somehow they think going to church shines a different light on who they really are. There is an entire building filled with people acting like someone they are really not while in church. Those vows are only as good as the people making them, including the ones in the mirror.



Just for the record, anybody who enters a vow intending to break it is a hypocrite.  I'm not singling him out in that regard.  

I suppose that's the big difference though.  I can say with a high degree of confidence that almost none of those people enter into the vows with the FULL UPFRONT INTENT of not fullfilling them.

Very few people (if any) enter marriage vows with the express purpose and intent of breaking them.  That is a significant difference.

I'm not arguing about how sacred those vows were that he took....only the FACT that taking them with the express intent to break them makes him a hypocrite.

The "well everybody else does it" argument does not justify anything.  Your parents should have taught you that.  Or perhaps they were too busy trying to get you to respect them?


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Just for the record, anybody who enters a vow intending to break it is a hypocrite.  I'm not singling him out in that regard.
> 
> I suppose that's the big difference though.  I can say with a high degree of confidence that almost none of those people enter into the vows with the FULL UPFRONT INTENT of not fullfilling them.
> 
> Very few people (if any) enter marriage vows with the express purpose and intent of breaking them.  That is a significant difference.
> 
> I'm not arguing about how sacred those vows were that he took....only the FACT that taking them with the express intent to break them makes him a hypocrite.
> 
> The "well everybody else does it" argument does not justify anything.  Your parents should have taught you that.  Or perhaps they were too busy trying to get you to respect them?



A VOW is a VOW no matter how you break it. I am sure they all have their reasons as does Bishop. As a parent little white lies to keep the peace is common when children are young. When his children are old enough to decide what is right for themselves I am sure he will have an in depth talk with them and explain it to them. Meanwhile ya gotta do what ya gotta do to please the masses. 
Honestly, I was no different in my children's  religious upbringing. As a parent I had to to sit through all the pomp and circumstance just to get through the show. At 15,21 and 23 my boys each have their own views.

The "everybody else does it" was NOT the point I was making. I was not condoning it because everyone else does it, I was showing what a bunch of hypocrites fill the pews and services. It is so full of phonies that no one should throw rocks in glass churches.


----------



## Huntinfool

i.e. everyone else does it, right?


I suppose we simply differ on whether intentionally breaking a vow is a "little white lie".

What, just for giggles, would you consider a significant lie (one worth not doing in order to keep the peace)?


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> i.e. everyone else does it, right?
> 
> 
> I suppose we simply differ on whether intentionally breaking a vow is a "little white lie".
> 
> What, just for giggles, would you consider a significant lie (one worth not doing in order to keep the peace)?



No, not ie, everyone else does it.

ie, those vows like many others are not taken seriously by the majority that attend those services. For anyone in attendance were to look down upon Bishop while they are breaking other vows is the pot calling the kettle black. Vows are a symbol in a ritual. He does not have to pledge out loud to be a good Dad. It is only required in some hokey religious ceremony to get through the hokey ceremony. If he does not believe in God, surely the vows to him are moot.
Remember the days when "Santa was watching" when the kiddies acted up a bit? Oh THAT straightened em out right quick, not to mention that you saw Santa and talked to him about their behavior..... That stretched the truth a bit to keep the peace huh?



Huntinfool said:


> What, just for giggles, would you consider a significant lie (one worth not doing in order to keep the peace)?



Ok, I would not lie and cover up Men of God(ie, pastors and priests) that abused children, in order to keep the peace. I would turn them in and expect jail time, not hide them somewhere else within the system.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Vows are a symbol in a ritual




Once again....



> Definition of VOW
> : a solemn promise or assertion; specifically : one by which a person is bound to an act, service, or condition




...we have to disagree.  A vow is not a symbol.  It's a solemn promise.  Please stop making up definitions to suit your purpose.  

I'm not bothered by the fact that you guys don't think you should keep vows.  That's your call.  I'm bothered by the fact that you want to change the definition of what a vow is.


----------



## TheBishop

Again Huntinfool, your reading comp skills are just frightening.  Again you try to use something to support your argument and agian you fail.  I know you have hard time admitting your wrong and you'll probably resort to name calling but you should reread your definition of hypocrit. I did not put on appearence of virtue or religion, nor do I have any intention to act contradictory of my beliefs.  I intend to raise my children to question, that coinsides with my beliefs.  Now if I upheld this meaningless ritual that I don't believe in then you could call me a hypocrit.  You can call me a lier but I don't care.  I intend tell my kids there is a santa clause dont you? 

Hypocrit is what it is and Im sorry I dont fit, or do you intend to change the wording like you did earlier?


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Please stop making up definitions to suit your purpose.



Why not you do.


----------



## WTM45

TheBishop said:


> I know you have hard time admitting your wrong and you'll probably resort to name calling but you should reread your definition of hypocrit.



I can state with all confidence HF will never resort to such.
He holds a differeing opinion here, but he is of the utmost character and is most respectful of others.
He does not debate in such a fashon at all.

I have to make that known, as he is a pure gentleman who has always shown respect here.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Again you try to use something to support your argument I did not put on appearence of virtue or religion, nor do I have any intention to act contradictory of my beliefs.



Now, let me clarify, since we must both have reading comprehension issues.



> Definition of HYPOCRITE (Webster)
> 1: a person who puts on a false *appearance* of virtue or religion
> 2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her *stated* beliefs or feelings



Please note the two key words in those definitions (in red).  If that dedication was anything at all like every dedication that I've ever seen, then you most certainly did put on the "appearance" of religion and you absolutely did act in contradiction to what you stated as your beliefs.  Perhaps not the beliefs that your wife already knew about, but the beliefs that you represented in front of that group of people.

Something to the effect of...

"Do you believe that this child is a gift from God?"
"Do you promise to raise this child in the Christian faith?"
"Do you claim Christ as your personal savior?

etc. etc.

I'm posting all of this under the assumption that you were asked similar questions to these (or at least in the same vain) and I'm basing that on the fact that you said something to the effect of "not while there is breath in me" in your very first post, which indicates that what you promised on that stage was in DIRECT contradiction to the core beliefs that you hold.

If you were asked questions similar to these and you answered "yes", then you very much stated that you believe them (and are acting in contradiction to them) and you very much put on the appearance of religion.  The fact that you don't care what you represented in front of those people is irrelevant to the definition.

I can keep proving you wrong as many times as you'd like to respond.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> he is a pure gentleman who has always shown respect here.



Well....most of the time.  I think the participants in this discussion probably disagree with your opinion!

Thanks for the vote of confidence WTM.  You and I very rarely agree on anything.  But I will return the sentiment.  You are always very even handed in your discussion....even if you're wrong most of the time .


----------



## WTM45




----------



## Huntinfool

By the way, let me say...I'm not really mad at ya and I think you're probably about as good a guy as there is out there.  I'm sure we'd enjoy a beer around a fire if we were in the woods in camp.

I am simply enjoying the debate.  I do think that what you did what hypocitical.  But I am aware that I can make that bother you and don't expect it to.


Turkey season is over and I am not much of a fisherman....I'm bored.  If you pray, pray for March to come soon and I'll be out of your hair for two months.


----------



## rjcruiser

Huntinfool said:


> By the way, let me say...I'm not really mad at ya and I think you're probably about as good a guy as there is out there.  I'm sure we'd enjoy a beer around a fire if we were in the woods in camp.
> 
> I am simply enjoying the debate.  I do think that what you did what hypocitical.  But I am aware that I can make that bother you and don't expect it to.
> 
> 
> Turkey season is over and I am not much of a fisherman....I'm bored.  If you pray, pray for March to come soon and I'll be out of your hair for two months.



Time to start the bow shooting challenge


----------



## johnnylightnin

bullethead said:


> I was not condoning it because everyone else does it, I was showing what a bunch of hypocrites fill the pews and services. It is so full of phonies that no one should throw rocks in glass churches.



Couldn't you say the same thing for almost any group?  I think the "Christians are hypocrites" crowd has extremely selective discernment...usually stemming from some personal issue or interaction with a "christian" which could hardly logically be used to paint all Christians one way or another (JMO).


----------



## bullethead

johnnylightnin said:


> Couldn't you say the same thing for almost any group?  I think the "Christians are hypocrites" crowd has extremely selective discernment...usually stemming from some personal issue or interaction with a "christian" which could hardly logically be used to paint all Christians one way or another (JMO).



No where did I limit it to Christians, it just so happens that the A/A/A forum is loaded with them and think everything is personal. Since we were talking about a christian ritual here and most believer here are Christians it happens to fit.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I think the issue with hypocracy here isn't what you're making it out to be HF... He didn't do it to appear to anyone to have virtue or anything like that. Had he done it for those reasons, maybe. He did it SPECIFICALLY to appease his wife. 

He also didn't act in contrary to his stated beliefs. His belief here was that he was making his wife happy, and not vowing this vow did that.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Once again....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...we have to disagree.  A vow is not a symbol.  It's a solemn promise.  Please stop making up definitions to suit your purpose.
> 
> I'm not bothered by the fact that you guys don't think you should keep vows.  That's your call.  I'm bothered by the fact that you want to change the definition of what a vow is.



I know we both understand what a vow is and I am not making up a definition to suit myself. From what I have witnessed people in general make hollow vows. They go through the motions of the ceremony but the words are meaningless.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Now, let me clarify, since we must both have reading comprehension issues.



No I read your definition and I do not fit.





> Please note the two key words in those definitions (in red). If that dedication was anything at all like every dedication that I've ever seen, then you most certainly did put on the "appearance" of religion and you absolutely did act in contradiction to what you stated as your beliefs.  Perhaps not the beliefs that your wife already knew about, but the beliefs that you represented in front of that group of people.



Putting letters in red does not put the definiton in context.  again I have not acted contridictory to my beleifs nor to I pretend to act religious.  You can accuse me of lying nothing more.




> I'm posting all of this under the assumption that you were asked similar questions to these (or at least in the same vain) and I'm basing that on the fact that you said something to the effect of "not while there is breath in me" in your very first post, which indicates that what you promised on that stage was in DIRECT contradiction to the core beliefs that you hold.
> 
> If you were asked questions similar to these and you answered "yes", then you very much stated that you believe them (and are acting in contradiction to them) and you very much put on the appearance of religion.  The fact that you don't care what you represented in front of those people is irrelevant to the definition.



Yes I stated something that contradicts my beliefwith no intention of following through with them. That means I lied.  I never stated I beleive were you get that I do not know.  A hypocrit ACTS in contradiction to his beleifs. You can change the definition according to your need and call me a hypocrit if it makes you feel better. I'm ok with it,  I know I'm not. 



> I can keep proving you wrong as many times as you'd like to respond.



I'm still waiting for you do it once.  Unlike you I have the ability to admit I'm wrong. Care to do that yet?  Ever ask you wife if children have rational abilities? Still waiting for those studies after studies.....but I wouldn't want to make you look silly.


----------



## rjcruiser

TheBishop said:


> Yes I stated something that contradicts my beliefwith no intention of following through with them. That means I lied.  I never stated I beleive were you get that I do not know.  A hypocrit ACTS in contradiction to his beleifs. You can change the definition according to your need and call me a hypocrit if it makes you feel better. I'm ok with it,  I know I'm not.



Umm...hmm...still trying to see the difference between a hypocrit and a liar.

But...in the end....it appears that you lack integrity and somehow you seem fine with it.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Wow...


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Umm...hmm...still trying to see the difference between a hypocrit and a liar.
> 
> But...in the end....it appears that you lack integrity and somehow you seem fine with it.




He is genuine and honest just for posting his story on here knowing what a thrashing he would get from the do as I say, not as I do crowd.

Look deep enough and although the situation might be different, the hypocrisy and lies are not.


----------



## TripleXBullies

"You lack integrity"

When I was in High School and early in to College and I went to church on a regular basis, we talked about being "persecuted" by non-believers or those without relationships at least. Like you'd get made fun of and people would talk down to you because you were doing what you felt to be right.

I see the people, probably similar people to the leaders I had, "persecuting" for themselves. Nice job..


----------



## TheBishop

rjcruiser said:


> Umm...hmm...still trying to see the difference between a hypocrit and a liar.
> 
> But...in the end....it appears that you lack integrity and somehow you seem fine with it.



Coming from someone who can't understand the difference between a liar and a hypocrit, how can not help but think you don't know what means to have integrity.  

But in the end...see post #104


----------



## Huntinfool

> Unlike you I have the ability to admit I'm wrong.



It seems we both suffer from the same debilitating disease my man.


----------



## johnnylightnin

bullethead said:


> The "everybody else does it" was NOT the point I was making. I was not condoning it because everyone else does it, I was showing what a bunch of hypocrites fill the pews and services. It is so full of phonies that no one should throw rocks in glass churches.





johnnylightnin said:


> Couldn't you say the same thing for almost any group?  I think the "Christians are hypocrites" crowd has extremely selective discernment...usually stemming from some personal issue or interaction with a "christian" which could hardly logically be used to paint all Christians one way or another (JMO).





bullethead said:


> No where did I limit it to Christians, it just so happens that the A/A/A forum is loaded with them and think everything is personal. Since we were talking about a christian ritual here and most believer here are Christians it happens to fit.



So...the answer is yes, you could.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool,

Would you consider it a hypocritical act when an atheist bows his head during grace at a Deist's dinner table?  Would a Christian be a hypocrite for participating in a food blessing at a Wiccan's house?  Would it be better if either of them just started eating?  For myself, I don't consider it hypocritical when I go through the motions at my father's dinner table.


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> Huntinfool,
> 
> Would you consider it a hypocritical act when an atheist bows his head during grace at a Deist's dinner table?  Would a Christian be a hypocrite for participating in a food blessing at a Wiccan's house?  Would it be better if either of them just started eating?  For myself, I don't consider it hypocritical when I go through the motions at my father's dinner table.



I used blue because apparantly red letters get people all fired up.

Yes, Yes, and Yes. It seems fairly plain to see that all these examples are hypocritical.


----------



## ted_BSR

WTM45 said:


> I'll bet ten thousand "believers" do that every Sunday morning in churches across America.



That is probably an underestimate. It ain't about 10,000 other people though. It is about the guy who posted it here, and is rationalizing it to death.


----------



## ted_BSR

WTM45 said:


> Better than quite possible, highly probable.
> Even more folks will cheat on their score on the golf course the same morning.
> And I don't care.  It's their morning to spend however they wish.
> 
> Bishop has been quite clear in his reasonings.  To condemn him is the real hypocrisy.



It is not my place nor in my power to condemn him.


----------



## TripleXBullies

When I was in baptist training, I went to a catholic church and kneeled and said, "and I with him," and what not... out of respect. I would still tip my head down and stay quiet during a blessing of a meal.. 



ambush80 said:


> Huntinfool,
> 
> Would you consider it a hypocritical act when an atheist bows his head during grace at a Deist's dinner table?  Would a Christian be a hypocrite for participating in a food blessing at a Wiccan's house?  Would it be better if either of them just started eating?  For myself, I don't consider it hypocritical when I go through the motions at my father's dinner table.


----------



## WTM45

Some just flat refuse to believe an Atheist can be tolerant and respectful of other's beliefs.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> He is genuine and honest just for posting his story on here knowing what a thrashing he would get from the do as I say, not as I do crowd.
> 
> Look deep enough and although the situation might be different, the hypocrisy and lies are not.



Okay...he admits that he lied in saying what he did.  Or at least, that is how I read his post that I quoted.  See below.



TheBishop said:


> That means I lied.





WTM45 said:


> Some just flat refuse to believe an Atheist can be tolerant and respectful of other's beliefs.



WTM...I guess it just shows the level of your convictions on holding to what you (dis)believe.  There's a difference between respect and participation.


Bishop, I re-read your post 104...and again, I don't understand how you can think that what you did was not disingenuous.  Maybe your wife understands that, maybe not.  

So...since it doesn't seem that we are going to agree on the definition of integrity, hypocrisy or lying...

How much did you get out of the event?  Did you at least get a week long hunting trip out of state?

After all, we are all outdoorsmen that love to hunt/fish


----------



## WTM45

rjcruiser said:


> WTM...I guess it just shows the level of your convictions on holding to what you (dis)believe.  There's a difference between respect and participation.



Seems more to me what occured was more a simple respectful attendance than a participation.  Like the man in the dress shop with his wife, and she asks... "Honey, do you like this dress?"
"Mmmm... yep."
Might be his American Express Card getting a work out, but he ain't buying a dress.

Strong convictions/beliefs does not automatically mean a believer will be a fundamentalist evangelical 24/7 does it?
Same goes for the Atheist/Agnostic.


----------



## TheBishop

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...he admits that he lied in saying what he did.  Or at least, that is how I read his post that I quoted.  See below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTM...I guess it just shows the level of your convictions on holding to what you (dis)believe.  There's a difference between respect and participation.
> 
> 
> Bishop, I re-read your post 104...and again, I don't understand how you can think that what you did was not disingenuous.  Maybe your wife understands that, maybe not.



I don't think it was disingenuous, because what everyone doesn't seem to understand.  It was a close as mandatory as it could have been.  My participation wasn't really a choice. Yes I could have fought my wife but it was easier to make her happy.  If doing a what she asked makes me a hypocrit or disingenuous so be it, no skin off my back.  I live for my family,  I would also kill, steal, or die for them if need be. 

My wife knows what I did and loves me more for it.  She also knows I have no intention of letting her indoctrinate our children.  She understands that I will teach them to question and seek their own views. When they get them I will respect them as I do hers.  

The bottom line is she knows I love them, and want nothing but the best for all of them.  And I will do anything for them including be labeled a hypocrit.



> So...since it doesn't seem that we are going to agree on the definition of integrity, hypocrisy or lying...
> 
> How much did you get out of the event?  Did you at least get a week long hunting trip out of state?
> 
> After all, we are all outdoorsmen that love to hunt/fish



I got a really happy mother on mothers day, and a very happy husband mothers day night.


----------



## TheBishop

WTM45 said:


> Like the man in the dress shop with his wife, and she asks... "Honey, do you like this dress?"
> "Mmmm... yep."



O.K. thats were I draw the line but She knows better than to ask me to go shopping.


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> I used blue because apparantly red letters get people all fired up.
> 
> Yes, Yes, and Yes. It seems fairly plain to see that all these examples are hypocritical.



How about if the atheist is humming _Paint it Black_ in his head during the grace?


----------



## TripleXBullies

To ALL of this... WHAT WHAT.. She agrees with it to some extent and also loves me for it.. Call or label it what you will. I did have a choice, and my wife knows it. And she's ok with that, so that tells me something... It is WHAT I FEEL AND BELIEVE.. Till I ROT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.



TheBishop said:


> I don't think it was disingenuous, because what everyone doesn't seem to understand.  It was a close as mandatory as it could have been.  My participation wasn't really a choice. Yes I could have fought my wife but it was easier to make her happy.  If doing a what she asked makes me a hypocrit or disingenuous so be it, no skin off my back.  I live for my family,  I would also kill, steal, or die for them if need be.
> 
> My wife knows what I did and loves me more for it.  She also knows I have no intention of letting her indoctrinate our children.  She understands that I will teach them to question and seek their own views. When they get them I will respect them as I do hers.
> 
> The bottom line is she knows I love them, and want nothing but the best for all of them.  And I will do anything for them including be labeled a hypocrit.
> 
> 
> 
> I got a really happy mother on mothers day, and a very happy husband mothers day night.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> Huntinfool,
> 
> Would you consider it a hypocritical act when an atheist bows his head during grace at a Deist's dinner table?  Would a Christian be a hypocrite for participating in a food blessing at a Wiccan's house?  Would it be better if either of them just started eating?  For myself, I don't consider it hypocritical when I go through the motions at my father's dinner table.



It would be better if they both sat there quietly and didn't participate.

Going through the motions at your father's blessing and answering yes to very specific questions about belief in God and intent to raise a child in a christian home are two very different things.  You know that man.

He answered affirmatively to those very specific questions.  He's yet to tell me what those questions were exactly.  So I'm just going on what I've experienced in the past.  Most dedications require parents answer yes to questions about their faith and their acknowledgement that the child is a gift from God.


----------



## TheBishop

They were questions like you stated earlier. Probably the same ones.  To tell you the truth I really didn't listen all that well my son was squirmin around and I was trying to contain him. I just said yes I will when everyone else did.


----------



## Huntinfool

10-4


----------



## Havana Dude

The part I don't  understand is why your wife would want you to participate in this christian ritual in the first place. I am not picking on her, just a question. I am sure there are a ton of answers like you stated, she did not want to stand alone in front of her church friends with ya'lls child, etc., and I get that. But why she would not just avoid the whole ordeal, make a quiet commitment to God herself, and let it be. I can say with no doubt, that if I were in her shoes, I would never ask my spouse to put their self in this situation.
I get the whole thing about wanting to appease her, and I understand. That is what marriage is, give and take. I won't join the argument about whether you are a hypocrit or not. I personally believe we are all guilty of this to some degree, at some point in our lives. All I will say is this.......until you have teenagers, I would be very careful saying how you will do this and how you will do that. Trust me, they change. Good luck to you however you choose to rear your children, you will need it, just like everyone else who has done it, and all the ones who will do it. It is one of the toughest jobs in the world.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Kudos to "TheBishop" (kind of an ironic name, isn't it) for keeping the peace in the family and raising his children in a responsible manner.  

I don't believe he ever said he was going to prohibit them from going to church, just that he was not going to let them get brainwashed by Southern Baptists.

I was raised in the Presbyterian Church; until, when I was about twelve, I told my parents I didn't want to go to church anymore and why.  To their credit, they allowed me to make my own choice, hoping I would return to the church later in life.

I'm thirty-seven now and still haven't returned to the church.  I've been to midnight masses with a Catholic girlfriend, Sunday service with my grandmother occasionally while she was alive, Baptist church with another girlfriend (not at the same time) and her children, it doesn't kill me to go to church every now and then, I just don't attach anything spiritual to it.  If it makes someone else happy, it's just not that big a deal for me.

As far as taking the kids to church, it's a not a bad way to live, and a good history lesson, just don't let them get to thinking that's the only way...


----------



## Huntinfool

Havana Dude said:


> The part I don't  understand is why your wife would want you to participate in this christian ritual in the first place. I am not picking on her, just a question. I am sure there are a ton of answers like you stated, she did not want to stand alone in front of her church friends with ya'lls child, etc., and I get that. But why she would not just avoid the whole ordeal, make a quiet commitment to God herself, and let it be. I can say with no doubt, that if I were in her shoes, I would never ask my spouse to put their self in this situation.
> I get the whole thing about wanting to appease her, and I understand. That is what marriage is, give and take. I won't join the argument about whether you are a hypocrit or not. I personally believe we are all guilty of this to some degree, at some point in our lives. All I will say is this.......until you have teenagers, I would be very careful saying how you will do this and how you will do that. Trust me, they change. Good luck to you however you choose to rear your children, you will need it, just like everyone else who has done it, and all the ones who will do it. It is one of the toughest jobs in the world.



You missed the part about her not really caring about it either.  For her it was more of an appearance thing.  It was the way she was raised, so she felt like she should do it.  

Nothing to do with her commitment to Christ (or the lack thereof).

At least, that's what I gathered from Bishops explanation.


----------



## bad0351

This whole coversation brings to mind the witch trials of Salem long ago....The church goers here want the Bishop to admit he sinned in doing what he did...when in fact, he did what was right and honorable for him and his family.
But since he won't...you all tie him to a stake and  threaten to ignite the wood around it.
If I had a child and had to choose someone from this talk to raise him/her the best way possible it would be the bishop....I can tell this guy loves his wife and children more than life itself and would never do anything to harm them in any way...including force feeding them scripture and unproven fairy tales that say if they eat meat on friday they will go straight to he11 and burn for eternity.
Please...all he did was make his wife happy here, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## bullethead




----------



## stringmusic

bad0351 said:


> This whole coversation brings to mind the witch trials of Salem long ago....The church goers here want the Bishop to admit he sinned in doing what he did...when in fact, he did what was right and honorable for him and his family.
> But since he won't...you all tie him to a stake and  threaten to ignite the wood around it.
> If I had a child and had to choose someone from this talk to raise him/her the best way possible it would be the bishop....I can tell this guy loves his wife and children more than life itself and would never do anything to harm them in any way...including force feeding them scripture and unproven fairy tales that say if they eat meat on friday they will go straight to he11 and burn for eternity.
> Please...all he did was make his wife happy here, nothing more and nothing less.



Well first off...... nevermind, just


----------



## Nicodemus

I`ll not attempt to tell another man how to raise his own child.


----------



## ted_BSR

bad0351 said:


> This whole coversation brings to mind the witch trials of Salem long ago....The church goers here want the Bishop to admit he sinned in doing what he did...when in fact, he did what was right and honorable for him and his family.
> But since he won't...you all tie him to a stake and  threaten to ignite the wood around it.
> If I had a child and had to choose someone from this talk to raise him/her the best way possible it would be the bishop....I can tell this guy loves his wife and children more than life itself and would never do anything to harm them in any way...including force feeding them scripture and unproven fairy tales that say if they eat meat on friday they will go straight to he11 and burn for eternity.
> Please...all he did was make his wife happy here, nothing more and nothing less.



No one is trying to burn Bishop at the stake. He volunteered this story (courageously I might add), and he is getting comments from people who both agree and disagree with him. No one doubts his love for his family, and no one is suggesting he force feed his children religion. You made all that up.


----------



## ted_BSR

Nicodemus said:


> I`ll not attempt to tell another man how to raise his own child.



You are very wise Nic.


----------



## stringmusic

First off, I see perfectly clear what you did, and I personally think it is in complete line with your beliefs. As an agnostic, you get to pick and choose morals based on whatever you feel like that particular day and have nothing or nobody to answer to(except maybe the law). You could have blown the building up with everyone in it and as long as you though it was ok, in your mind it would have been. So in light of that, I have a question, if your wife was, lets say, pro homosexual, obviously not homosexual herself, but had a really good gay friend, guy or girl. If she wanted to take your kids to a gay only organization and stand in front everyone and state that both of you would raise your kids to be homosexual, would you have gone through with that? My guess is probably yes, but I really have no idea, just curious.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> First off, I see perfectly clear what you did, and I personally think it is in complete line with your beliefs. As an agnostic, you get to pick and choose morals based on whatever you feel like that particular day and have nothing or nobody to answer to(except maybe the law). You could have blown the building up with everyone in it and as long as you though it was ok, in your mind it would have been. So in light of that, I have a question, if your wife was, lets say, pro homosexual, obviously not homosexual herself, but had a really good gay friend, guy or girl. If she wanted to take your kids to a gay only organization and stand in front everyone and state that both of you would raise your kids to be homosexual, would you have gone through with that? My guess is probably yes, but I really have no idea, just curious.



Well first off my being moral and agnostic have absolutely nothing to do with each other. To suggest what you have is preposterous.  I have morals, some better than most christians and they don't change.    It is almost laughable (if it wasn't so scary) that you could even have such a convoluted notion that one has to be religious to be moral. 

To answer your question we are both ok with gays.  We dont care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. I work and have worked with many gay males and females  (openly) and it does not bother me.  I truly believe its something they cannot help.  Would I attend a gay event? I probably would, and I can you tell they would be more tolerant of me being straight than most southern baptist would be, of me being agnostic in their church.   

Liberty my friend, does not care if your gay or striaght, christian, jewish, agnostic or atheist, black,white,latino,or asian. They just care if your tolerant and responsible. 

Oh yeagh you can be gay and have morals too.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Stringmusic said:
			
		

> As an agnostic, you get to pick and choose morals based on whatever you feel like that particular day and have nothing or nobody to answer to(except maybe the law). You could have blown the building up with everyone in it and as long as you though it was OK, in your mind it would have been.



How is this different from the fact that Christians have blown up buildings, burned whole cities, tortured folks, and launched crusades for the last 2000 years?  You've chosen your standards of what and wrong.  In your mind, it's OK?

Simply because someone doesn't choose the same religion you do does not make them morally suspect.  Like TheBishop, I live my life in a very moral way.  I don't pick and choose my standards for the day or the occasion, I live my life to my own moral standards and if there is a time when I come before "The Pearly Gates", I'll be happy happy to have my life laid bare and examined. 

Not at anyone in particular, but what really bothers me about the Southern Baptist offshoot of the protestant faith is that the vast majority of it's members are closed minded and refuse to educate themselves about other religions or admit that there are other valid religious beliefs in the world.


----------



## bad0351

ted_BSR said:


> No one is trying to burn Bishop at the stake. He volunteered this story (courageously I might add), and he is getting comments from people who both agree and disagree with him. No one doubts his love for his family, and no one is suggesting he force feed his children religion. You made all that up.



Please elaborate on the parts I made up?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Well first off my being moral and agnostic have absolutely nothing to do with each other. To suggest what you have is preposterous.  I have morals, some better than most christians and they don't change.    It is almost laughable (if it wasn't so scary) that you could even have such a convoluted notion that one has to be religious to be moral.


When did I say that you had to be religious to have morals?? I simply implied that you choose not to answer to anyone (agian, except for the laws we have) for the morals you choose, whatever they maybe. You seem to think this was some kind of attack at you, not sure why 



> To answer your question we are both ok with gays.  We dont care what people do in the privacy of their own homes.


This was not my question. Would you stand in front of a community of gays and pledge to raise your children to be gay?



> I truly believe its something they cannot help.


This statement seems to imply that gays have a problem but there is nothing to help. Your position is you dont have a problem with gays but they have a problem?



> Would I attend a gay event? I probably would, and I can you tell they would be more tolerant of me being straight than most southern baptist would be


Why would a southern Baptist not tolerate you being straight?



> Oh yeagh you can be gay and have morals too.


Very profound sir, I never stated otherwise.


----------



## stringmusic

Dr. Strangelove said:


> How is this different from the fact that Christians have blown up buildings, burned whole cities, tortured folks, and launched crusades for the last 2000 years?  You've chosen your standards of what and wrong.  In your mind, it's OK?


This has been talked about alot in here and the spiritual forum as well. Alot of folks can answer this question alot better than I can, one thing I will say is the examples you gave go directly against Jesus and His teachings.



> Simply because someone doesn't choose the same religion you do does not make them morally suspect.


I went back a re-read my post, I dont understand how both yourself and the Bishop came to the conclusion that this was my position.



> Like TheBishop, I live my life in a very moral way.  I don't pick and choose my standards for the day or the occasion, *I live my life to my own moral standards *and if there is a time when I come before "The Pearly Gates", I'll be happy happy to have my life laid bare and examined.


Right, you chose your own morals. Whatever you deem good or bad is whatever you come up with.



> Not at anyone in particular, but what really bothers me about the Southern Baptist offshoot of the protestant faith is that the vast majority of it's members are closed minded and refuse to educate themselves about other religions


I agree.


> or admit that there are other valid religious beliefs in the world.


All religions claim truth, truth is exclusive, there is only one.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> When did I say that you had to be religious to have morals?? I simply implied that you choose not to answer to anyone (agian, except for the laws we have) for the morals you choose, whatever they maybe. You seem to think this was some kind of attack at you, not sure why



No your right, you simply stated thate becuase we don't adhere to a religious philosophy that our morals are some how more whimsical.  That is sipmle not true, we still have a sense of what is right and wrong.  Good is good, bad is bad, no matter what religion you adhere(except maybe satanism?).



> This was not my question. Would you stand in front of a community of gays and pledge to raise your children to be gay?



Just as much as I would pledge to raise them southern baptist.



> This statement seems to imply that gays have a problem but there is nothing to help. Your position is you dont have a problem with gays but they have a problem?



You ASSUME I implied problem.  I did not.  They have as much a problem of being gay than I do me being straight. They are the way they are becuase they are. 



> Why would a southern Baptist not tolerate you being straight?



Conviently left out the other part of the statement.  Not being straight but agnostic.



> Very profound sir, I never stated otherwise.



No I assumed like you that if you thought agnostics had some perverted sense of morallity gays would as well.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> This has been talked about alot in here and the spiritual forum as well. Alot of folks can answer this question alot better than I can, one thing I will say is the examples you gave go directly against Jesus and His teachings.
> 
> 
> I went back a re-read my post, I dont understand how both yourself and the Bishop came to the conclusion that this was my position.
> 
> 
> Right, you chose your own morals. Whatever you deem good or bad is whatever you come up with.
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> All religions claim truth, truth is exclusive, there is only one.


----------



## TripleXBullies

String, you deem good and bad based on a book or what some guy in a suit tells you. Believe the book to be anything, it's still a book.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Not at anyone in particular, but what really bothers me about the Southern Baptist offshoot of the protestant faith is that the vast majority of it's members are closed minded and refuse to educate themselves about other religions or admit that there are other valid religious beliefs in the world.



The southern baptist church I went to actually had a study on 5 or 10 different religions and cults... So that we knew enough about them to prove them wrong basically in an argument so we could save them from death. They were wrong because their books are different than the bible. Prove that by using scripture.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> No your right, you simply stated thate becuase we don't adhere to a religious philosophy that our morals are some how more whimsical.  That is sipmle not true, we still have a sense of what is right and wrong.  Good is good, bad is bad, no matter what religion you adhere(except maybe satanism?).
> 
> 
> 
> *Just as much as I would pledge to raise them southern baptist.*
> 
> 
> You ASSUME I implied problem.  I did not.  They have as much a problem of being gay than I do me being straight. They are the way they are becuase they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Conviently left out the other part of the statement.  Not being straight but agnostic.
> 
> 
> 
> No I assumed like you that if you thought agnostics had some perverted sense of morallity gays would as well.



I got the answer to my question, thank you.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


>



Your gonna give yourself a headache.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> String, you deem good and bad based on a book or what some guy in a suit tells you. Believe the book to be anything, it's still a book.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I was doing the same thing.


----------



## ted_BSR

bad0351 said:


> Please elaborate on the parts I made up?



You quoted my post, did you read it?


----------



## bad0351

ted_BSR said:


> You quoted my post, did you read it?



Still waiting for you to enlighten me on how my opinion "made up" anything?


----------



## Huntinfool

I'll do it....

Not a single post is concerned with whether he sinned or not (at least I don't see one). I know for sure I didn't pound him for sinning. 

I said he is either a hypocrite or a liar based on his actions. Were he to have raised his right hand in court and done the same thing he did in that sanctuary, he'd be in jail and we would ALL be condemning him. We asked him to admit he lied or was hypocritical. Nobody asked him to admit he sinned. As Tedbsr posted...you made that up. 

Nobody tied him to a stake. He defended himself well enough and I don't recall him complaining of burn wounds. 

You have a great disdain for Christ and Christians. Fair enough. All we ask is that you leave the hyperbole at home and post useful thoughts. 

Been stewing for a couple of days that nobody could point it out?  Hope this post helps you sleep more soundly.


----------



## bad0351

Thats correct...you called him a hypocrite or a liar....both sins as far as I know..and by the way...very christianlike of you.
And no, he didnt do anything in a court of law, Sooo??

And its my opinion that the christians here would love to tie him to a stake until he admits hes wrong.
And because someone calls you out on your christian like...or unchristianlike behavior, dont get angry...And you would do well to take YOUR hyperbole elsewhere also.
And no...I wasn't "stewing" at home waiting for more christianlike accusations to fly


----------



## TheBishop

Its Ok Bad I'm not offended by their actions.  I started this thread knowing full and well the ridicule I would face.  It does not bother me, I rather enjoy the debate. I appreciate your empathy, But I don't think think they would like my burning as much as they would like to see me cave and convert.  Tell you the truth I thinkI'd rather burn.   

Huntifool bad analogy on the whole court thing.  I _believe_ in the court of law, and the church is not a sactuary to me. I am no more a liar than you are, and no more a hypocrit.  I stand firm in my beleifs, and act upon them. Do I lie? I am human (and a fisherman), I told my son about santa, so yeagh.  Pathologically? Not so much.


----------



## bullethead

Sin? Sinner? Words to do with religion and the religious. 

Lies, taxpayers tell them and they go to jail, politicians tell them and it is just politics. Stretching the truth either way.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Its Ok Bad I'm not offended by their actions.  I started this thread knowing full and well the ridicule I would face.  It does not bother me, I rather enjoy the debate. I appreciate your empathy, But I don't think think they would like my burning as much as they would like to see me cave and convert.  Tell you the truth I thinkI'd rather burn.
> 
> Huntifool bad analogy on the whole court thing.  I _believe_ in the court of law, and the church is not a sactuary to me. I am no more a liar than you are, and no more a hypocrit.  I stand firm in my beleifs, and act upon them. Do I lie? I am human *(and a fisherman*), I told my son about santa, so yeagh.  Pathologically? Not so much.




By the way, how much did that beast in your avatar weigh?


----------



## Huntinfool

bad0351 said:


> Thats correct...you called him a hypocrite or a liar....both sins as far as I know..and by the way...very christianlike of you.
> And no, he didnt do anything in a court of law, Sooo??
> 
> And its my opinion that the christians here would love to tie him to a stake until he admits hes wrong.
> And because someone calls you out on your christian like...or unchristianlike behavior, dont get angry...And you would do well to take YOUR hyperbole elsewhere also.
> And no...I wasn't "stewing" at home waiting for more christianlike accusations to fly



Yes you were....


You didn't say it was your opinion that christians would love to tie him to a stake...you said:



> you all tie him to a stake and threaten to ignite the wood around it.



Both tedbsr and I correctly pointed out that you made that up.  You asked us to point out what you made up....we obliged.

Do you know what hyperbole means?


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> Its Ok Bad I'm not offended by their actions.  I started this thread knowing full and well the ridicule I would face.  It does not bother me, I rather enjoy the debate. I appreciate your empathy, But I don't think think they would like my burning as much as they would like to see me cave and convert.  Tell you the truth I thinkI'd rather burn.
> 
> Huntifool bad analogy on the whole court thing (it's a fantastic analogy...you just won't admit it because it's that good and it weakens your case).  I _believe_ in the court of law, and the church is not a sactuary to me. I am no more a liar than you are, and no more a hypocrit.  I stand firm in my beleifs, and act upon them. Do I lie? I am human (and a fisherman), I told my son about santa, so yeagh.  Pathologically? Not so much.



I didn't make a comparison between the two of us.  I have certainly lied in my day (you have no idea!...I've been the King at times in my life.) and I'm sure I have been hypocritical as well.

This thread, however was not about my actions.  It was about yours.  I didn't imply at any point that you were pathological...just that in this instance you were either one or the other.

I know you can handle it.  That's why I pushed so hard.

(BTW...good move distancing from bad...he's not going to help your cause much )


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> I didn't make a comparison between the two of us.  I have certainly lied in my day (you have no idea!...I've been the King at times in my life.) and I'm sure I have been hypocritical as well.
> 
> This thread, however was not about my actions.  It was about yours.  I didn't imply at any point that you were pathological...just that in this instance you were either one or the other.
> 
> I know you can handle it.  That's why I pushed so hard.
> 
> (BTW...good move distancing from bad...he's not going to help your cause much )




I can handle that. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the whole analogy thing.


----------



## Huntinfool

Fair enough my man.  Fair enough.


----------



## bad0351

Huntinfool,
Come on now, without looking up the def. with google....tell me what hyperbole means to you.
And as for Bishop distancing himself from me....not sure he did but, if you say so.

And I wasn't under the impression you ran this board and were able to tell folks when to and when not to use opinion or "hyperbole"Huntinfool.
I'll be sure and check with you before I post next time.


----------



## Huntinfool

Hyperbole means great embelishment or exageration in my mind (without using Google)....which is what you did.

Tieing him to a stake and burning him?  Seriously?  Yes, that's hyperbole.  Google definition, Webster definition or mine.

I certainly don't run this board.  That's been greatly proven.  If you want to run your posts by me for approval, I can agree to that.  Though you probably won't like my edits.


----------



## TripleXBullies

He was trying to use something he figured you'd understand.. speaking in riddles and not meaning what you say. 

Seriously, do you think he really meant you wanted to burn him alive? 



Huntinfool said:


> Yes you were....
> 
> 
> You didn't say it was your opinion that christians would love to tie him to a stake...you said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both tedbsr and I correctly pointed out that you made that up.  You asked us to point out what you made up....we obliged.
> 
> Do you know what hyperbole means?


----------



## bad0351

We could argue all day about hyperbole vs. just an analogy...
But calling the man a liar??....how do you know it wasnt.."do you promise to raise the kids as christians"
Answer- yes...(under my breath...NOT)
Very harsh calling someone a liar when you have no idea what exactly went on.
I may run a couple by you....we'll see


----------



## rjcruiser

bad0351 said:


> We could argue all day about hyperbole vs. just an analogy...
> But calling the man a liar??....how do you know it wasnt.."do you promise to raise the kids as christians"
> Answer- yes...(under my breath...NOT)
> Very harsh calling someone a liar when you have no idea what exactly went on.
> I may run a couple by you....we'll see



You should re-read the thread...might help you not look so foolish.

The Bishop has already admitted to lying.


----------



## bad0351

rjcruiser said:


> You should re-read the thread...might help you not look so foolish.
> 
> The Bishop has already admitted to lying.



Maybe you should worry about your posts


----------



## Nicodemus

All of you need to take a break, before tempers flare.


----------



## rjcruiser

bad0351 said:


> Maybe you should worry about your posts





Um....okay.


----------



## Long2010

bad0351 said:


> We could argue all day about hyperbole vs. just an analogy...
> But calling the man a liar??....how do you know it wasnt.."do you promise to raise the kids as christians"
> Answer- yes...(under my breath...NOT)
> Very harsh calling someone a liar when you have no idea what exactly went on.
> I may run a couple by you....we'll see



So are you saying that as long as I utter the truth under my breath it's not a lie? If that be the case I shore got my tail tore up many times as a kid for telling the truth.


----------



## Huntinfool

bad0351 said:


> We could argue all day about hyperbole vs. just an analogy...
> But calling the man a liar??....how do you know it wasnt.."do you promise to raise the kids as christians"
> Answer- yes...(under my breath...NOT)
> Very harsh calling someone a liar when you have no idea what exactly went on.
> I may run a couple by you....we'll see



I don't know what else you would like me to call it.  I gave him the option of "hypocrite".  

I said "either/or".  When you promise out loud to do something knowing full well that you're not going to, you're either....

"under my breath" has absolutely no bearing.  Are you also a big fan of crossing your fingers when you take an oath so that it doesn't count?  Cross your toes or eyes....it is what it is.  Not liking it won't change it.

Would you prefer I start referring to him as Honest Abe?


----------



## Huntinfool

TripleXBullies said:


> He was trying to use something he figured you'd understand.. speaking in riddles and not meaning what you say.



Ouch!

Throw in the "well that's very Christian of you.." and you have the trifecta.


Actually....aren't we discussing the fact that Bishop says things he doesn't mean?  You've been VERY understanding of the fact that HE did it.  Why is it ok for him to and not me?  It is because I'm fat?


----------



## bad0351

Huntinfool said:


> I don't know what else you would like me to call it.  I gave him the option of "hypocrite".
> 
> I said "either/or".  When you promise out loud to do something knowing full well that you're not going to, you're either....
> 
> "under my breath" has absolutely no bearing.  Are you also a big fan of crossing your fingers when you take an oath so that it doesn't count?  Cross your toes or eyes....it is what it is.  Not liking it won't change it.
> 
> Would you prefer I start referring to him as Honest Abe?



No....Thats ok...
Just seems a little harsh calling those names for what he did...thats all


----------



## bad0351

rjcruiser said:


> You should re-read the thread...might help you not look so foolish.
> 
> The Bishop has already admitted to lying.



And if I want to look foolish I can just start believing there is an allmighty god that runs things here.


----------



## rjcruiser

bad0351 said:


> No....Thats ok...
> Just seems a little harsh calling those names for what he did...thats all



So...a man likes to go fishing.  We call him a fisherman.

A man goes hunting...we call him a hunter.

A man lies...we call him a lyer.

Why is that somehow harsh and unchristianlike?


----------



## rjcruiser

bad0351 said:


> And if I want to look foolish I can just start believing there is an allmighty god that runs things here.



That is exactly what I'd expect you to say. 


I Cor 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.


----------



## bullethead

All 3 of my boys were baptized in church. 2 were confirmed.I went through the same motions as every parent must do in those ceremonies. The parents participation is required and although my opinions and beliefs differ from my wife's, I did my part in the ceremonies. At the time of my wedding I felt the same way as I do now about organized religion. Although I would have been fine getting married outside of a church, it took place inside including the religious ceremony. ALL that mattered to me in each case was that I was there for my sons and wife. My commitment to them far outweighs the pomp and circumstance and ritual I had to include myself in to get it done.

If I am a hypocrite and or liar, so be it. In everyday life you say or do things to carry on without drama. You bite your lip because the customer is always right. You give and take.


----------



## TheBishop

bad0351 said:


> No....Thats ok...
> Just seems a little harsh calling those names for what he did...thats all



Again I appreciate the sentiment.  I have always gone by the mantra "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt you."  We won't have a problem until some calls me a liberal. I got to drawn the line somewhere.


----------



## rjcruiser

TheBishop said:


> We won't have a problem until some calls me a liberal. I got to drawn the line somewhere.



Now that would be un Christ like.


----------



## TheBishop

rjcruiser said:


> So...a man likes to go fishing.  We call him a fisherman.
> 
> A man goes hunting...we call him a hunter.
> 
> A man lies...we call him a lyer.
> 
> Why is that somehow harsh and unchristianlike?



A man kills a deer does not make him a hunter.

A man catches a fish does not make him a fisherman.

A man groes a vegetable does not make him a farmer.

A man tells a lie does not make him a lyer.

Did you tell your children about santa? If you did your in the same boat as I.


----------



## TheBishop

bullethead said:


> All 3 of my boys were baptized in church. 2 were confirmed.I went through the same motions as every parent must do in those ceremonies. The parents participation is required and although my opinions and beliefs differ from my wife's, I did my part in the ceremonies. At the time of my wedding I felt the same way as I do now about organized religion. Although I would have been fine getting married outside of a church, it took place inside including the religious ceremony. ALL that mattered to me in each case was that I was there for my sons and wife. My commitment to them far outweighs the pomp and circumstance and ritual I had to include myself in to get it done.
> 
> If I am a hypocrite and or liar, so be it. In everyday life you say or do things to carry on without drama. You bite your lip because the customer is always right. You give and take.



Your want to join the club? I'm not only a memeber but......


----------



## rjcruiser

TheBishop said:


> Did you tell your children about santa? If you did your in the same boat as I.



Interesting you bring that up.  On the way to dropping my 6 yo daughter off at school just this past week....out of the blue, she asks me..."Daddy, is the Tooth Fairy real?"  I asked her if she wanted to really know or to make believe know.  She said she really wanted to know.  So I told her the truth...nope...the Tooth Fairy is make believe but is fun to pretend.

But in all honesty, I'm not perfect.  If I was, I wouldn't have any use for forgiveness.


----------



## TheBishop

rjcruiser said:


> Interesting you bring that up.  On the way to dropping my 6 yo daughter off at school just this past week....out of the blue, she asks me..."Daddy, is the Tooth Fairy real?"  I asked her if she wanted to really know or to make believe know.  She said she really wanted to know.  So I told her the truth...nope...the Tooth Fairy is make believe but is fun to pretend.
> 
> But in all honesty, I'm not perfect.  If I was, I wouldn't have any use for forgiveness.



And Santa?


----------



## TripleXBullies

Sorry, I needed a smiley after the jab.   

Some things though, are obviously not literal.



Huntinfool said:


> Ouch!
> 
> Throw in the "well that's very Christian of you.." and you have the trifecta.
> 
> 
> Actually....aren't we discussing the fact that Bishop says things he doesn't mean?  You've been VERY understanding of the fact that HE did it.  Why is it ok for him to and not me?  It is because I'm fat?


----------



## rjcruiser

TheBishop said:


> And Santa?



Same thing....only she figured that one out at the age of 4.  She's a smart little cookie.


----------



## TripleXBullies

TheBishop said:


> Your want to join the club? I'm not only a memeber but......



.... You're bald?


----------



## TheBishop

TripleXBullies said:


> .... You're bald?


----------



## bullethead

Although smart, someone led her to believe in Santa up until that age.


----------



## bullethead

TheBishop said:


> Your want to join the club? I'm not only a memeber but......



I'm in!


----------



## TripleXBullies

TheBishop said:


>



You know I was kidding right?


----------



## TheBishop

TripleXBullies said:


> You know I was kidding right?


----------



## TheBishop

So Huntingfool the next time I have to go through this (there will be a next time I'm told, even though I'm still trying to pay for the first two...they get cheaper right?) If I just go and don't say anything is that ok?  What if I just mouth the words? How about I say "I willn't"? I know it's not a contraction but it should be. What say you?


----------



## TripleXBullies

I wouldn't think either of those would make a difference. We'll see what others' opinions are.


----------



## bad0351

My final word on this subject is Bishop....you just keep raising that family the way you have been...with love, caring and honor and you and yours will be just fine.


----------



## Thanatos

bad0351 said:


> And if I want to look foolish I can just start believing there is an allmighty god that runs things here.



Now you look foolish for downing those that do believe.


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> So Huntingfool the next time I have to go through this (there will be a next time I'm told, even though I'm still trying to pay for the first two...they get cheaper right?) If I just go and don't say anything is that ok?  What if I just mouth the words? How about I say "I willn't"? I know it's not a contraction but it should be. What say you?



No....they definitely don't get cheaper....OR easier 


"willn't" I think would work.  You should definitely do that.  I agree...it should be a contraction.

BTW...you'll never be done paying for the first two.  They make you pay every day!


----------



## rjcruiser

TheBishop said:


> So Huntingfool the next time I have to go through this (there will be a next time I'm told, even though I'm still trying to pay for the first two...they get cheaper right?) If I just go and don't say anything is that ok?  What if I just mouth the words? How about I say "I willn't"? I know it's not a contraction but it should be. What say you?



If you have to go, I probably wouldn't say anything.  If I was so against Christianity, I probably wouldn't go at all.  But hey, that is why I married someone who had the same beliefs as I did.  Didn't want to have to deal with issues like this later on.


----------



## Huntinfool

I guess that's my point.  I can't imagine that, if my wife were wicken, that I'd stand in front of a gathering like that and commit my child to be raised in that tradition (whether I meant it or not).  

It does not matter that my wife wants it or not.  My convictions are too strong and my beliefs so firm that I would not dare step foot in that arena with my child.

I am the leader of my house.  If I don't stand for my convictions, I cannot expect anyone else to follow me in doing so (i.e. respect).

Bishop, you are willing to lay your convictions aside for the sake of "peace" in your home.  I would argue that you've simply sown seeds for discord later in life.

I can see where you're coming from though.  If you believe in nothing, then giving up nothing is pretty easy.  Martyrs don't die for nothing.  They don't stand firm for something they don't believe in.  

I can't say that I've every heard of an athiest martyr...and for good reason I suppose.

I suppose we will see who's right in a while.  In any case, it's been a very interesting discussion.  My eyes have been opened a bit more to how others think.  I'll be honest and admit that I'm shocked by it.


----------



## TheBishop

You see me and my wife don't believe in the whole house leader thing.  We are a team and a darn good one.  We love each other and work together extremely well.  We have been together 10 years and have very little problems.  We don't hardly ever fight or argue and can tell you we have a better relationship than most of the people we know (as a matter of fact I could not think of any with better) even those with compatible beliefs.  Really she believes like I do: Good people are good people regardless of what they _believe_ will happen when they die.

I honestly don't see what you find so shocking.  The reactions in this thread were not all that revealing.  The believers acted the way I knew they would and so did the none believers.  People see things differently.  The world looks rosey looking through rose colored lenses. 

And please refrain from saying I believe in nothing, that is simply not the case.


----------



## Huntinfool

People stand up for things they believe in...


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> People stand up for things they believe in...



I always have.


----------



## rjcruiser

TheBishop said:


> You see me and my wife don't believe in the whole house leader thing.  We are a team and a darn good one.  We love each other and work together extremely well.  We have been together 10 years and have very little problems.  We don't hardly ever fight or argue and can tell you we have a better relationship than most of the people we know (as a matter of fact I could not think of any with better) even those with compatible beliefs.  Really she believes like I do: Good people are good people regardless of what they _believe_ will happen when they die.
> 
> I honestly don't see what you find so shocking.  The reactions in this thread were not all that revealing.  The believers acted the way I knew they would and so did the none believers.  People see things differently.  The world looks rosey looking through rose colored lenses.
> 
> And please refrain from saying I believe in nothing, that is simply not the case.



This says more about what your wife believes than that of what you believe.  



TheBishop said:


> I always have.



Except when it comes to keeping peace in the house.


----------



## Huntinfool

I see.



Actually....no, I don't see.  But ok, I guess.


----------



## TheBishop

rjcruiser said:


> This says more about what your wife believes than that of what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Except when it comes to keeping peace in the house.



Uhmmm okay you make no sense here.  Keeping he peace in the house is exactly what I did.  Making her happy is exactly what I did so?


----------



## Huntinfool

I think he means you always have stood up for what you believe....except when it comes to keeping the peace in your house.  Then you're willing to cave.

I think that's what he was trying to say.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> I see.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually....no, I don't see.  But ok, I guess.



It's ok I understad your difficulties with reading comprehension. If you would like to be enlightened to how I never compromised beliefs as I stated many times in this thread feel free to go back and review.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> I think he means you always have stood up for what you believe....except when it comes to keeping the peace in your house.  Then you're willing to cave.
> 
> I think that's what he was trying to say.



Again I did not cave.  I in no way went agianst my beleifs.  I beleive what I did in keeping the peace upheld my beliefs.  I understand you may think differently, but you error in saying I layed down my beliefs.  

I beleive I can go to church, particpate in the ceremonies and it does not affect me.  I would put akin to going to a lecture on marxism.  Becuase I go and listen does not mean I lay down my beliefs in capitalism.  No, on the contrary.  Going to church and these ceremonies actually affirm what I believe.  The more I listen and participate the more I find appalling.


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> I would put akin to going to a lecture on marxism.  Becuase I go and listen does not mean I lay down my beliefs in capitalism.  .



Stand up in front of that gathering and swear allegiance to Mr. Marx and his ideas and we'll talk.  Promise you'll raise your child to believe Mr. Marx was right.  Then you have a good analogy.

I didn't say you caved because you went to church and listened and neither did anybody else.


----------



## bullethead

Each individual has a different opinion of what is important. In my mind church and Marxism are far apart. Huntinfool you are trying hard to associate those church rituals with things that most likely will never happen in the Bishops life.
Flatly, the Bishop and others do not take the vows made in church seriously at all. He, we, they don't believe in them. Get over it. To him and others they are not important and do not rank to the level where he/we feel our morals are compromised by flubbing through a few lines. We don't need those words to be good parents. It is futile to try to keep picking another "what if" to trump your last one. What if he were on the witness stand in a murder trial and was asked to put his hand on the Bible and tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. I BET he would tell the truth bible or no bible.


----------



## Huntinfool

I actually already pointed that court of law thing out....


I didn't pose that "what if", Bishop did (The Marxism thing).  I just pointed out the weakness in the argument.


----------



## bullethead

Well then the heck with it. Lets Turkey Hunt


----------



## Huntinfool

Find me an open season and a tag and I'm with ya my man.  Shooting a turkey in the face is indeed a religious experience.


----------



## bullethead

Two weeks left here in Pa!


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Stand up in front of that gathering and swear allegiance to Mr. Marx and his ideas and we'll talk.  Promise you'll raise your child to believe Mr. Marx was right.  Then you have a good analogy.
> 
> I didn't say you caved because you went to church and listened and neither did anybody else.



The difference in this argument is that I know marx's principals are real. If I could know the god this vow was to, was real, my tone obviously would be quite different. Swearing alligiance to fake god, to me is fake, so the ritual to me, was fake.


----------



## bad0351

1-I am the leader of my house..........Thats a shock

2-Bishop, you are willing to lay your convictions aside for the sake of "peace" in your home.......Where did he say he put aside his convictions?

3- If you believe in nothing, then giving up nothing is pretty easy...........Unbelievably cheap shot..again, christianlike

4-My eyes have been opened a bit more to how others think. I'll be honest and admit that I'm shocked by it. ...........Shocked why?  because there are folks that just plain don't believe in a "god almighty"?

I tried to get out but this dragged me back in....Let me tell you what I'm not shocked at....the way some religeous zealots here are treating this man all because he went to church with his wife and child.....not shocked at all.....


----------



## rjcruiser

Huntinfool said:


> I think he means you always have stood up for what you believe....except when it comes to keeping the peace in your house.  Then you're willing to cave.
> 
> I think that's what he was trying to say.



Thanks HF.  That is what I was saying.



bad0351 said:


> Let me tell you what I'm not shocked at....the way some religeous zealots here are treating this man all because he went to church with his wife and child.....not shocked at all.....



Okay.  Read it how you want.  Sounds to me like you've got negative feelings towards anything religious and no matter what they say and do, you wouldn't be pleased.

Again...we're not condemning Bishop to burn at the stake.  I don't think anyone is condemning him for going to church.  I think the part that we as Christians think is somewhat humorous is that Bishop and you and other A&As love to point out the hypocrisy of Christians (it is your way of justifying your own lifestyle and lack of faith) and all the while can be hypocritical themselves and it is somehow justified or okay.  Why?  Because you are so open-minded or diversified that you do it out of respect or do it to keep the peace.

Seems like a cop out to me.  But hey...hold Christians to a higher standard than you do yourself.  We should be held to a higher standard.  But remember....we're not perfect.


----------



## bad0351

"it is your way of justifying your own lifestyle and lack of faith"

I'm not trying to justify my lifestyle......and I am certainly not holding you or your religeous buds to a higher standard than anyone.
And just by reading this thread....I can absolutly see your not anything close to perfect, in fact, your just exactly what I knew you were.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> The difference in this argument is that I know marx's principals are real. If I could know the god this vow was to, was real, my tone obviously would be quite different. Swearing alligiance to fake god, to me is fake, so the ritual to me, was fake.



So, you are a faker.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I think that might be pretty accurate.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bad0351 said:


> 3- If you believe in nothing, then giving up nothing is pretty easy...........Unbelievably cheap shot..again, christianlike



Why is that a cheap shot? Maybe I'm reading it differently, but that kind of sounds close. Bishop said himself that he didn't give anything up to do what he did... Because there was nothing to give up in order to perform the actions he did. I think it pertains more to the actions specifically but it goes both ways.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> So, you are a faker.



Now you're catching on.


----------



## Nicodemus

Bishop, I have to say that you have exhibited a great amount of patience and understandin` in this thread, all the while bein` criticized, called names, and havin` folks poke their noses into your business. 

I commend you for that.


----------



## TheBishop

Thanks nic.  I'm not easily offended.  People can say what they want about me, they have been for 30+ years. Besides its all in good fun. One who has been around these forums for any amount of time and starts a thread like this must understand they are putting themselves in the crosshairs.


----------



## ted_BSR

Nicodemus said:


> Bishop, I have to say that you have exhibited a great amount of patience and understandin` in this thread, all the while bein` criticized, called names, and havin` folks poke their noses into your business.
> 
> I commend you for that.



I agree, I mentioned in a previous post the courage that Bishop has to lay it all out like he did.


----------



## ambush80

In the spirit of hypocrisy and duplicity:

Tomorrow, if we live through the Rapture, I will attend Baptist church wearing a Wiccan talisman, A Che Guevara T-shirt and Star spangled boxers.  If there is communion, I'll take the cracker and pocket it.


----------



## bullethead

Nicodemus said:


> Bishop, I have to say that you have exhibited a great amount of patience and understandin` in this thread, all the while bein` criticized, called names, and havin` folks poke their noses into your business.
> 
> I commend you for that.



This thread has shown what he is truly made of by the way he has handled himself. Kudos to Bishop


----------



## Thanatos

TheBishop said:


> The difference in this argument is that I know marx's principals are real. If I could know the god this vow was to, was real, my tone obviously would be quite different. Swearing alligiance to fake god, to me is fake, so the ritual to me, was fake.



Just because you refuse to seek more knowledge about God does not mean he is fake. In your perception he may not be real. That does not make him disappear though. 

Bishop when is the last time you had an idea, or assumption that you KNEW was right. It could have been simple or complex. Then, someone close to you pointed out that you were wrong. You did not believe them and as time went on you found out you were indeed incorrect in your assumptions. When was the last time this happened to you?


----------



## TheBishop

Thanatos said:


> Just because you refuse to seek more knowledge about God does not mean he is fake. In your perception he may not be real.



Who says I refuse to seek more knowledge about god?  I have been looking for proof for as long as I can remember.  I haven't found any, nor can anyone point to any I find concrete or credible. Until then the entity the preacher is talking about is, to me, make believe, fantasy, or fake.  



> That does not make him disappear though.



No the fact that he has never appeared makes it kinda of hard for him/her/it to disappear.



> Bishop when is the last time you had an idea, or assumption that you KNEW was right. It could have been simple or complex. Then, someone close to you pointed out that you were wrong. You did not believe them and as time went on you found out you were indeed incorrect in your assumptions. When was the last time this happened to you?



According to my wife all the time.  But hey I like the challenge, go ahead and proove me wrong about God.  I want hard, concrete, without a doubt, non faith bias proof.  You do that I will concede. I have the ability to admit when I'm wrong, when and only when the error in my ways has been shown.  



<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/angi1vwUkQc?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/angi1vwUkQc?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


----------



## bullethead

Thanatos said:


> Just because you refuse to seek more knowledge about God does not mean he is fake. In your perception he may not be real. That does not make him disappear though.
> 
> Bishop when is the last time you had an idea, or assumption that you KNEW was right. It could have been simple or complex. Then, someone close to you pointed out that you were wrong. You did not believe them and as time went on you found out you were indeed incorrect in your assumptions. When was the last time this happened to you?



When can we expect an appearance? When has he appeared?

How long is a reasonable expectation to wait for Bishop's/our incorrect assumptions? Is 2000+ plus years not enough? How about the 20,30,40,50+ plus years some of us are on earth? Another 20,30,40,50+ years? All you have to show is proof and you and others have failed to do that. Some of us have looked for many years and continue to do so, yet still nothing. Looking up into the stars, across the valley at the trees and on a beach gazing into the ocean does not prove God.


----------



## Thanatos

TheBishop said:


> Who says I refuse to seek more knowledge about god?  I have been looking for proof for as long as I can remember.  I haven't found any, nor can anyone point to any I find concrete or credible. Until then the entity the preacher is talking about is, to me, make believe, fantasy, or fake.
> 
> 
> 
> No the fact that he has never appeared makes it kinda of hard for him/her/it to disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> According to my wife all the time.  But hey I like the challenge, go ahead and proove me wrong about God.  I want hard, concrete, without a doubt, non faith bias proof.  You do that I will concede. I have the ability to admit when I'm wrong, when and only when the error in my ways has been shown.



So why did you think you were right in those certain situations? It was because with the knowledge you had at the time your mind told you that was the correct answer. But, as time went and you brain assimilated the new data on the situations you found your old beliefs to be wrong and your mind corrected its response to what was reality. 

So if you can be wrong about a silly disagreement with your wife (im in the same boat as you and my wife shows me the "truth" all the time)...I submit to you that if you seek more knowledge in this matter you will find God is there and He wants you to love him and He very much loves you.


----------



## bullethead

Thanatos said:


> So why did you think you were right in those certain situations? It was because with the knowledge you had at the time your mind told you that was the correct answer. But, as time went and you brain assimilated the new data on the situations you found your old beliefs to be wrong and your mind corrected its response to what was reality.
> 
> So if you can be wrong about a silly disagreement with your wife (im in the same boat as you and my wife shows me the "truth" all the time)...I submit to you that if you seek more knowledge in this matter you will find God is there and He wants you to love him and He very much loves you.



Ok, ok , ok, HOW LONG MUST WE WAIT?? Clearly arguing with our wives over a left turn and later agreeing it was supposed to be a right-hander is the same as waiting a few thousand years to find out there is or is no god.

Thanatos you do not want to admit that not everyone gets the same feeling as you do. Whatever brought you to where you are now spiritually might have driven others further from theirs. You tell us to disregard the known and embrace the unknown. Bad advice IMO.


----------



## Thanatos

bullethead said:


> Ok, ok , ok, HOW LONG MUST WE WAIT?? Clearly arguing with our wives over a left turn and later agreeing it was supposed to be a right-hander is the same as waiting a few thousand years to find out there is or is no god.
> 
> Thanatos you do not want to admit that not everyone gets the same feeling as you do. Whatever brought you to where you are now spiritually might have driven others further from theirs. You tell us to disregard the known and embrace the unknown. Bad advice IMO.



I will admit that everyone perceives events that happen to them and others differently. Their perceptions are created by  the environment they were raised in and their genetic make-up. 

There comes a point where you must overcome these obstacles and try to find the truth with out using our preconceived notions and biases that distort our reality.


----------



## bullethead

Thanatos said:


> I will admit that everyone perceives events that happen to them and others differently. Their perceptions are created by  the environment they were raised in and their genetic make-up.
> 
> There comes a point where you must overcome these obstacles and try to find the truth with out using our preconceived notions and biases that distort our reality.



Oh agreed! There was a time where everything in my life was associated with a higher being. I overcame that.


----------



## bullethead

I don't have a problem with anyone believing in something, but when people constantly associate common every day occurrences as if that being specifically singled them out for that experience is borderline ridiculous. 

Examples:
I bought a chance on a shotgun 3 months ago and by the grace of god I WON!! I said a little prayer so I would win that shotgun and it was answered!

Please Lord let the light stay green so I get through the intersection, it was in his hands and I made it!

etc,etc,etc......... I mean really? 'cmon!


----------



## bullethead

I think it has been overused so much that I am numb to the genuine ones.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> Now you're catching on.



So if you and I agree to meet at the Waffle House next Thursday at 4:00 am to go fishing, you may show up, and you may not show up.


----------



## Nicodemus

Huntinfool said:


> Nobody poked their noses into his business....he laid it all out there for the world to look at.





Suit yourself. I can read.


----------



## Huntinfool

I deleted that post because Bishop said the same thing I did.


I will agree though.  Even though I think Bishop is entirely wrong about how he's viewing this issue, he has been patient when dealing with all of this...especially knowing now why he feels the way he feels about it.


I think it's wrong.  But knowing where he's coming from, I think he's been very patient in the thread.


----------



## Nicodemus

I`m not gonna argue, or debate it with you.


----------



## Huntinfool

I'm not debating.  Just explaining why I deleted the post you quoted so folks reading it would understand.

Bishop said that he put it out there and expected to hear about it.  I didn't feel like I needed to re-point it out.


----------



## TheBishop

Thanatos said:


> So why did you think you were right in those certain situations? It was because with the knowledge you had at the time your mind told you that was the correct answer. But, as time went and you brain assimilated the new data on the situations you found your old beliefs to be wrong and your mind corrected its response to what was reality.



Yes this sounds extremely similar to me growing up.  I swore upon the holy trinity, it was all I knew. Then as I got older my mind expanded, my logical abilities grew stronger,  and I began to see the world outside from what I have been taught.  Thats how I got where I am today.  Did I stop looking for other possibilities? Absolutely not, I never will.  If you have something compelling please do tell.  If all you have is speculation, well I'm tired of that kind of rhetoric, so please refrain.   



> So if you can be wrong about a silly disagreement with your wife (im in the same boat as you and my wife shows me the "truth" all the time)...I submit to you that if you seek more knowledge in this matter you will find God is there and He wants you to love him and He very much loves you.



Why would a god so powerful enough to exists without creation and be the sole creator, have such a pety desire to need to feel loved?

Does he have feelings? 
Does he get sad when we don't love him?
Does he get mad?

The problem I have with your definition of a god,  is you make god sound so simple.  A complex being that created such a diverse and complex universe certainly would not have human like feelings. 

But hey thats just my opinion.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> I'm not debating.  Just explaining why I deleted the post you quoted so folks reading it would understand.
> 
> Bishop said that he put it out there and expected to hear about it.  I didn't feel like I needed to re-point it out.



Yeagh huntingfool I learned a long time ago it never pays to debate anything with a bouncer.


----------



## Huntinfool

Yes, he has feelings.  They are on display throughout the Bible.  Anger, pity, love, hate (i.e. righteous), empathy.....




> Yeagh huntingfool I learned a long time ago it never pays to debate anything with a bouncer.



Amen my brotha....amen.  Well...there IS payment.  You get to have a new description line under your user name.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Yes, he has feelings.  They are on display throughout the Bible.  Anger, pity, love, hate (i.e. righteous), empathy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen my brotha....amen.



Human-like when convenient, but beyond human when beyond sensible.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Yes, he has feelings.  They are on display throughout the Bible.  Anger, pity, love, hate (i.e. righteous), empathy.....



And therin lies one of my main logical descrepancies that I find in the bible's god.


----------



## Huntinfool

elaborate?


----------



## TheBishop

Not only what bullethead just said and what I said in post 283.  I just find it a bit suspicious that a such a powerful entity would have such petty emotional issues. An eternal being needs love from an organism that won't be around for very long in the scope of things?  The very fact he loves doesn't seem likely.  Love is a human emotional trait. Then to say he needs/or wants our love, I'm sorry too human for something that created everything.


----------



## Huntinfool

Did you see me say that he needs love from us?  And, just out of curiousity, why are emotions "petty"?  Because, you think they make us look "weak"?


If, indeed, he created us in his image....why would it be so hard to believe that he created us with emotions?


----------



## rjcruiser

TheBishop said:


> An eternal being needs love from an organism that won't be around for very long in the scope of things?  The very fact he loves doesn't seem likely.  Love is a human emotional trait. Then to say he needs/or wants our love, I'm sorry too human for something that created everything.



We are eternal beings....at least our soul is...from the day we are conceived.

Oh..and we are created in his (God's) image.  So we portray many of the same characteristics as he does.


----------



## TheBishop

rjcruiser said:


> We are eternal beings....at least our soul is...from the day we are conceived.
> 
> Oh..and we are created in his (God's) image.  So we portray many of the same characteristics as he does.



Pretty convenient.  The bible written by man in order to make a more compelling story said god created us in his image. It's easier to pursuade folks that way, than if god just doesn't care.

Does god have all human emotional traits or just the good ones?


----------



## Huntinfool

I listed hate and anger....which "bad" ones are you referring to?

I'll argue that no emotions are bad.  How we deal with or react to the emotion is what may be bad or good.  Care to dispute that?


----------



## bullethead

TheBishop said:


> Pretty convenient.  The bible written by man in order to make a more compelling story said god created us in his image. It's easier to pursuade folks that way, than if god just doesn't care.
> 
> Does god have all human emotional traits or just the good ones?



Only his believers seem to have the knowledge of what god has. He is given the same emotions as us when it fits the cause yet when those traits are non-existent he is ABOVE them. I am fairly sure he was created in our image rather than the other way around.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> I listed hate and anger....which "bad" ones are you referring to?
> 
> I'll argue that no emotions are bad.  How we deal with or react to the emotion is what may be bad or good.  Care to dispute that?



Emotions that lead to bad actions are not exactly good. Like anger that leads to murder. I think god has done that a few times.


----------



## rjcruiser

TheBishop said:


> Pretty convenient.  The bible written by man in order to make a more compelling story said god created us in his image. It's easier to pursuade folks that way, than if god just doesn't care.
> 
> Does god have all human emotional traits or just the good ones?



Go ahead and mock....it's alright. 

God has no sin and is not tainted by it.  So...he has all of them, but they are perfect.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> Emotions that lead to bad actions are not exactly good. Like anger that leads to murder. I think god has done that a few times.



Did the person murdered deserve to die?  If that is the case, is it murder? or proper punishment?


----------



## bullethead

Pharaoh wont let the Israelites leave so he kills the first born sons in all of Egypt not Pharaoh.......murder. Heck, even the first born Sons of the other slaves or anyone that did not know to put the sign on their door was killed.......yep, murder.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> Pharaoh wont let the Israelites leave so he kills the first born sons in all of Egypt not Pharaoh.......murder. Heck, even the first born Sons of the other slaves or anyone that did not know to put the sign on their door was killed.......yep, murder.



seems like a pretty simple task...just put some blood of a lamb on your door posts.

but hey...you believe they were perfect and undeserving of death, so according to bullethead 3:16, it was murder.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> Emotions that lead to bad actions are not exactly good. Like anger that leads to murder. I think god has done that a few times.



Bad actions are bad actions.  Emotions are not bad.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> seems like a pretty simple task...just put some blood of a lamb on your door posts.
> 
> but hey...you believe they were perfect and undeserving of death, so according to bullethead 3:16, it was murder.



Simple task if you knew about it don't you think? With over 20 million deaths in the bible to his credit, deserve got 'nuttin to do with it.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> Simple task if you knew about it don't you think? With over 20 million deaths in the bible to his credit, deserve got 'nuttin to do with it.



You don't think the Egyptians knew about it?  Hmm..so...your neighbor paints his doorposts with blood...you wouldn't notice?

And as far as 20 million deaths...how'd you come up with that number?  And how does deserve "got nuttin to do with it?"

Afterall, you wouldn't call the lady in gwinnett county that capped that home invader 9x with a .22 and killed him a murderer now would you?


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Bad actions are bad actions.  Emotions are not bad.



Well you are right emotions themselves are not bad. It is the person who has control of their emotions that keeps them from doing bad things. God obviously does not.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> You don't think the Egyptians knew about it?  Hmm..so...your neighbor paints his doorposts with blood...you wouldn't notice?
> 
> And as far as 20 million deaths...how'd you come up with that number?  And how does deserve "got nuttin to do with it?"
> 
> Afterall, you wouldn't call the lady in gwinnett county that capped that home invader 9x with a .22 and killed him a murderer now would you?



So the slaves lived in among their captors? Hmmmmmm talk about interesting. "Hey there slave, I see you got some goat blood on the doorpost there, whats that all about?"  "Ohhh nuthin, just a little decoration, better give little johnny one last smootch before bedtime though!"

How many people died in the flood? and on and on? Much easier to look here.
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

Self defense is A-OK in my book my only problem is that she should have made it an even 10X for good measure. What she did not do was go to his house and shoot him 9X for invading a different home a week earlier.


----------



## Huntinfool

Righteous anger is righteous.  I won't ask you to understand where I'm coming from.  Just understand that, for the believer, God's anger is always justified and his judgement is just.  

I understand that concept opens up a whole can of worms for you and that you don't buy that it's even possible.

It makes perfect sense to me.  But as someone who demands that God fit into his sense of "logic" at all times, I can understand why that might raise flags for you.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> So the slaves lived in among their captors? Hmmmmmm talk about interesting. "Hey there slave, I see you got some goat blood on the doorpost there, whats that all about?"  "Ohhh nuthin, just a little decoration, better give little johnny one last smootch before bedtime though!"
> 
> How many people died in the flood? and on and on? Much easier to look here.
> http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
> 
> Self defense is A-OK in my book my only problem is that she should have made it an even 10X for good measure. What she did not do was go to his house and shoot him 9X for invading a different home a week earlier.



Sin's penalty is death....or at least that is what I believe.  I understand, you believe something much different.



Huntinfool said:


> Righteous anger is righteous.  I won't ask you to understand where I'm coming from.  Just understand that, for the believer, God's anger is always justified and his judgement is just.
> 
> I understand that concept opens up a whole can of worms for you and that you don't buy that it's even possible.
> 
> It makes perfect sense to me.  But as someone who demands that God fit into his sense of "logic" at all times, I can understand why that might raise flags for you.



x2


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Righteous anger is righteous.  I won't ask you to understand where I'm coming from.  Just understand that, for the believer, God's anger is always justified and his judgement is just.
> 
> I understand that concept opens up a whole can of worms for you and that you don't buy that it's even possible.
> 
> It makes perfect sense to me.  But as someone who demands that God fit into his sense of "logic" at all times, I can understand why that might raise flags for you.



It has to be justified to you or your out of the club. It is a shame that is creatures are held to a higher moral standard than he is.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Sin's penalty is death....or at least that is what I believe.  I understand, you believe something much different.
> 
> 
> 
> x2




Ok, is any Sin equal to all Sin( ie: sin is sin no matter the infraction) and if so then you would have people killed for it?


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> Ok, is any Sin equal to all Sin( ie: sin is sin no matter the infraction) and if so then you would have people killed for it?





I'm not God....so why does it really matter?


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> It has to be justified to you or your out of the club. It is a shame that is creatures are held to a higher moral standard than he is.



As I said....I don't expect you to get it.  But this is a false statement.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> I'm not God....so why does it really matter?




Well you seem to know his thoughts and speak for him in every other thread, but since you posted this: "Sin's penalty is death....or at least that is what I believe." I am asking you directly.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> Righteous anger is righteous.  I won't ask you to understand where I'm coming from.  Just understand that, for the believer, God's anger is always justified and his judgement is just.



That concept is something I refuse to accept.  It totally supports a stance of deity disbelief to many.


----------



## Huntinfool

Sin's penalty is death.  That does not mean that sin's penalty is execution.

"eat of the fruit and you will surely die"

They were not summarily executed.  Death became an issue at that moment.  The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

Sin's penalty is death and we are all sentenced to the same fate.  Whether we die in a flood or of old age, the penalty is the same and it is not harsher for one person than the other.

Then we can talk about that gift....it's a really really good one.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> That concept is something I refuse to accept.  It totally supports a stance of deity disbelief to many.



Understood and acknowledged.

When you frame it in the concept of eternity and understand the ultimate end goal, it makes it easier to swallow if you ask me.

The problem is that what might seem "good" to me is only good in the scope of what I can see at this moment.

I will tell you this...I have lived through some horrible horrible events in my life (many of them caused by me).  There was absolutely no way they could have been good (that's what I KNEW at the time).  

I will, in fact, tell you that I am convinced that God was angry with me and my behavior and so he allowed me to do things that would cause the ultimate downfall of everything I held dear.

I will also tell you, in fact, that I now know that it was absolutely the most loving act anyone has ever done on my behalf.  THAT was righteous anger and, years ago I would have sworn up and down that is was not and that there was no way good would be the end result.  BOY....was I wrong.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Understood and acknowledged.
> 
> When you frame it in the concept of eternity and understand the ultimate end goal, it makes it easier to swallow if you ask me.
> 
> The problem is that what might seem "good" to me is only good in the scope of what I can see at this moment.
> 
> I will tell you this...I have lived through some horrible horrible events in my life (many of them caused by me).  There was absolutely no way they could have been good (that's what I KNEW at the time).
> 
> I will, in fact, tell you that I am convinced that God was angry with me and my behavior and so he allowed me to do things that would cause the ultimate downfall of everything I held dear.
> 
> I will also tell you, in fact, that I now know that it was absolutely the most loving act anyone has ever done on my behalf.  THAT was righteous anger and, years ago I would have sworn up and down that is was not and that there was no way good would be the end result.  BOY....was I wrong.



Now imagine if very similar events happened to me but I am convinced the Oak Tree out in front of my house is as responsible as you deem god responsible for yours. Can you accept and believe that?


----------



## Huntinfool

I didn't ask you to accept it or believe it.  But I would appreciate you not mocking it.  I explained myself to WTM.  

I'll let your oak tree tell you whatever you like.  



Are any of you willing to admit that what seems "bad" in the present may turn out to be "good"?  You require that God be "good" for you to accept his existence.


----------



## WTM45

Things happen in life, that is for sure.  Most are self controlled or influenced.
That things can be seen as resulting in "good" after first being seen as "bad" is subjective and individual.
And quite personal.  I respect that.

But for me, Odin could be just as responsible as any other deity.  Abrahamic religions reflect many of the same ideals of their monotheistic and polytheistic/pagan predecessors.  Going back to the Bronze Age, man has attempted to find higher meaning for things.  I see anything as possible, sure.  But I also see no need to hang my hat on any one as more probable than another.
Could that change?  I can not say.  There would have to be some strong proofs and evidences found that would influence change.
And a lot of questions answered.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> I didn't ask you to accept it or believe it.  But I would appreciate you not mocking it.  I explained myself to WTM.
> 
> I'll let your oak tree tell you whatever you like.
> 
> 
> 
> Are any of you willing to admit that what seems "bad" in the present may turn out to be "good"?  You require that God be "good" for you to accept his existence.



First of all I do not mock anything or anyone. I am as sincere in these conversations as I am about anything else. I am glad to have a place where both sides can express something and where it can be pointed, counterpointed and discussed with possibly both sides learning a bit in between.

God does not have to be good. Just real for me to accept him.


----------



## bullethead

WTM45 said:


> Things happen in life, that is for sure.  Most are self controlled or influenced.
> That things can be seen as resulting in "good" after first being seen as "bad" is subjective and individual.
> And quite personal.  I respect that.
> 
> But for me, Odin could be just as responsible as any other deity.  Abrahamic religions reflect many of the same ideals of their monotheistic and polytheistic/pagan predecessors.  Going back to the Bronze Age, man has attempted to find higher meaning for things.  I see anything as possible, sure.  But I also see no need to hang my hat on any one as more probable than another.
> Could that change?  I can not say.  There would have to be some strong proofs and evidences found that would influence change.
> And a lot of questions answered.



Well said.


----------



## TheBishop

WTM45 said:


> Things happen in life, that is for sure.  Most are self controlled or influenced.
> That things can be seen as resulting in "good" after first being seen as "bad" is subjective and individual.
> And quite personal.  I respect that.
> 
> But for me, Odin could be just as responsible as any other deity.  Abrahamic religions reflect many of the same ideals of their monotheistic and polytheistic/pagan predecessors.  Going back to the Bronze Age, man has attempted to find higher meaning for things.  I see anything as possible, sure.  But I also see no need to hang my hat on any one as more probable than another.
> Could that change?  I can not say.  There would have to be some strong proofs and evidences found that would influence change.
> And a lot of questions answered.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> Things happen in life, that is for sure.  Most are self controlled or influenced.
> That things can be seen as resulting in "good" after first being seen as "bad" is subjective and individual.
> And quite personal.  I respect that.
> 
> But for me, Odin could be just as responsible as any other deity.  Abrahamic religions reflect many of the same ideals of their monotheistic and polytheistic/pagan predecessors.  Going back to the Bronze Age, man has attempted to find higher meaning for things.  I see anything as possible, sure.  But I also see no need to hang my hat on any one as more probable than another.
> Could that change?  I can not say.  There would have to be some strong proofs and evidences found that would influence change.
> And a lot of questions answered.



So....is a deity responsible for those things or are they self-controlled?  You seem to say they are self-controlled....but then allow for the likelihood that they aren't.


----------



## WTM45

I said "most" things are self controlled or influenced.
Getting electrocuted by a lightning strike even after seeking cover in a lightning shelter is quite outside the realm of self influenced.
Being a safe driver on an interstate and getting crushed from behind by a crashing airplane is outside that realm.

Smoking cigarettes and dying from lung cancer is very self influenced.

Can a deity be "pulling the strings?"  I highly doubt it.  Is it possible?  Maybe.  Is it probable?  Not likely.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> Well you seem to know his thoughts and speak for him in every other thread, but since you posted this: "Sin's penalty is death....or at least that is what I believe." I am asking you directly.



I know much about God...but not everything.  What I have told you about Him and His thoughts are what I know from reading His Word.

But...I'll answer your original question.

The wages of sin is death.



bullethead said:


> First of all I do not mock anything or anyone.



rriiiiigggggghhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttt


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> I know much about God...but not everything.  What I have told you about Him and His thoughts are what I know from reading His Word.
> 
> But...I'll answer your original question.
> 
> The wages of sin is death.
> 
> 
> 
> rriiiiigggggghhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttt



What you believe to be his word. I understand that.

Will you share examples of me mocking anyone? If you mis-interpret me dis-agreeing with someones beliefs as mockery then you are quite mistaken.


----------



## TheBishop

rjcruiser said:


> I know much about God...but not everything.  What I have told you about Him and His thoughts are what I know from reading His Word.
> 
> But...I'll answer your original question.
> 
> The wages of sin is death.
> 
> 
> 
> rriiiiigggggghhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttt



What do you _know_ about god that is factual?  Where did you get your information?  The Bible? Were is this source verifiable?  I wager you _know_ as much as everyone else in the world about god. Nothing.  You know what the bible tells you and there is BIG difference.  You can speculate, but you cannot know.


----------



## Huntinfool

wtm45 said:


> i said "most" things are self controlled or influenced.
> Getting electrocuted by a lightning strike even after seeking cover in a lightning shelter is quite outside the realm of self influenced.
> Being a safe driver on an interstate and getting crushed from behind by a crashing airplane is outside that realm.
> 
> Smoking cigarettes and dying from lung cancer is very self influenced.
> 
> Can a deity be "pulling the strings?"  i highly doubt it.  Is it possible?  Maybe.  Is it probable?  Not likely.



10-4.


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> What do you _know_ about god that is factual?  Where did you get your information?  The Bible? Were is this source verifiable?  I wager you _know_ as much as everyone else in the world about god. Nothing.  You know what the bible tells you and there is BIG difference.  You can speculate, but you cannot know.



ding ding ding!  We have a winner for the most ridiculous post of the day ladies and gentlemen!  Congratulations Bishop.

Johnny...tell him what he's won!!!! 




You ask questions to Christians about God and his nature.  Where would you expect they get their information?


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> What you believe to be his word. I understand that.
> 
> Will you share examples of me mocking anyone? If you mis-interpret me dis-agreeing with someones beliefs as mockery then you are quite mistaken.



Check post #296.  Maybe it is just coincedence that two different people accuse you of the same thing.



TheBishop said:


> What do you _know_ about god that is factual?  Where did you get your information?  The Bible? Were is this source verifiable?  I wager you _know_ as much as everyone else in the world about god. Nothing.  You know what the bible tells you and there is BIG difference.  You can speculate, but you cannot know.



Not true.  You can tell me I know nothing....but that is completely false.  I know plenty and am learning more everyday.

You can also say that the Bible is not verifiable....but to believe that is to discount many archeological finds.  Archeology continues to prove dates and prophecies that were written 100s of years before actual events took place.

Nope....I know God....and He knows me too.


----------



## rjcruiser

Huntinfool said:


> Johnny...tell him what he's won!!!!



A brand new CARRRRRRRRR


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Check post #296.  Maybe it is just coincedence that two different people accuse you of the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  You can tell me I know nothing....but that is completely false.  I know plenty and am learning more everyday.
> 
> You can also say that the Bible is not verifiable....but to believe that is to discount many archeological finds.  Archeology continues to prove dates and prophecies that were written 100s of years before actual events took place.
> 
> Nope....I know God....and He knows me too.



Post # 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBishop View Post
Pretty convenient. The bible written by man in order to make a more compelling story said god created us in his image. It's easier to pursuade folks that way, than if god just doesn't care.

Does god have all human emotional traits or just the good ones?

YOUR REPLY:
Go ahead and mock....it's alright.

God has no sin and is not tainted by it. So...he has all of them, but they are perfect.


Are you confused?


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> ding ding ding!  We have a winner for the most ridiculous post of the day ladies and gentlemen!  Congratulations Bishop.
> 
> Johnny...tell him what he's won!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ask questions to Christians about God and his nature.  Where would you expect they get their information?



For most christians, they have never taken the time to see what else is out there or check to see if what they are reading is true.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> Are you confused?



Yes I am

Bishop...Bullethead...Bishop...Bullethead...

Ummmm....they both start with "B."

lo siento mi amigo.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> For most christians, they have never taken the time to see what else is out there or check to see if what they are reading is true.



That's a nice assumption.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> That's a nice assumption.



Do you know they have?


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> Do you know they have?





Are you serious?


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Yes I am
> 
> Bishop...Bullethead...Bishop...Bullethead...
> 
> Ummmm....they both start with "B."
> 
> lo siento mi amigo.




No hay problema


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Are you serious?



I have talked to many people of different faiths and denominations over the years. So let me put it this way, I have found that the majority of christians I have been in deep discussion with about their religion have not taken the time to look outside of their teachings in order to expand or back up their beliefs. What they have been told from early on is taken at face value and never questioned.

And yes, I am serious.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> I have talked to many people of different faiths and denominations over the years. So let me put it this way, I have found that the majority of christians I have been in deep discussion with about their religion have not taken the time to look outside of their teachings in order to expand or back up their beliefs. What they have been told from early on is taken at face value and never questioned.
> 
> And yes, I am serious.



Okay...then I'll say your handful is a flawed population

I believe it to be a stereotype that is propogated by many to somehow prove stupidity or ignorance.  Kinda like what the media/hollywood does with people from the South.

We should question our faith.  The book of I John was written for that exact reason.  If we don't, we can become complacent.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...then I'll say your handful is a flawed population
> 
> I believe it to be a stereotype that is propogated by many to somehow prove stupidity or ignorance.  Kinda like what the media/hollywood does with people from the South.
> 
> We should question our faith.  The book of I John was written for that exact reason.  If we don't, we can become complacent.



If anyone has not looked to the point where their faith has been rocked, then they have not looked deep enough. It is at that point that their faith is either strengthened or broken. I do not know many that have been willing to go to that extreme.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> If anyone has not looked to the point where their faith has been rocked, then they have not looked deep enough. It is at that point that their faith is either strengthened or broken. I do not know many that have been willing to go to that extreme.



Another truth according to who?  bullethead?

Geez...this is ridiculous.  Why do you have to look to where your faith is rocked?


----------



## vowell462

bullethead said:


> I have talked to many people of different faiths and denominations over the years. So let me put it this way, I have found that the majority of christians I have been in deep discussion with about their religion have not taken the time to look outside of their teachings in order to expand or back up their beliefs. What they have been told from early on is taken at face value and never questioned.
> 
> And yes, I am serious.



This has been my experience as well.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Another truth according to who?  bullethead?
> 
> Geez...this is ridiculous.  Why do you have to look to where your faith is rocked?



It is as true to me as your beliefs are to you. For the reasons you dismiss mine, I dismiss yours or we can accept that each other believes in different things and carry on.

If you think mine sound ridiculous you should hear things from where I am standing.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> ding ding ding!  We have a winner for the most ridiculous post of the day ladies and gentlemen!  Congratulations Bishop.
> 
> Johnny...tell him what he's won!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ask questions to Christians about God and his nature.  Where would you expect they get their information?



hmmmmm....everytime I say something factual you mock me...interesting tactic.  How is it ridiculous that I say its impossible to know something without having any shred of evidence to support it?  

How about this I know you're wrong becuase I know there is no god. I know becuase I read it on  a fortune cookie.


----------



## TheBishop

bullethead said:


> It is as true to me as your beliefs are to you. For the reasons you dismiss mine, I dismiss yours or we can accept that each other believes in different things and carry on.
> 
> If you think mine sound ridiculous you should hear things from where I am standing.



 x2.


----------



## atlashunter

rjcruiser said:


> I'm not God....so why does it really matter?



Your reluctance to answer speaks volumes.


----------



## bad0351

rjcruiser said:


> Go ahead and mock....it's alright.
> 
> God has no sin and is not tainted by it.  So...he has all of them, but they are perfect.



Niether does a baby born today.....


----------



## Huntinfool

TheBishop said:


> hmmmmm....everytime I say something factual you mock me...interesting tactic.  How is it ridiculous that I say its impossible to know something without having any shred of evidence to support it?
> 
> How about this I know you're wrong becuase I know there is no god. I know becuase I read it on  a fortune cookie.




You missed my point....again.  You ask me to prove something and then dismiss my primary piece of evidence.  You believe it's false.  I believe it's true.  That's the impass.  I will no allow you to dismiss God's Word as part of my evidence whether you want to or not.  I cannot discuss things of God without using the very thing that reveals what I know about him.

"Your honor, we have the murder weapon with fingerprints on it that proves the defendant's guilt."

"You may not use that to prove his guilt....it's not a real gun."


----------



## Huntinfool

bad0351 said:


> Niether does a baby born today.....



Wanna bet?


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> I have talked to many people of different faiths and denominations over the years. So let me put it this way, I have found that the majority of christians I have been in deep discussion with about their religion have not taken the time to look outside of their teachings in order to expand or back up their beliefs. What they have been told from early on is taken at face value and never questioned.
> 
> And yes, I am serious.






vowell462 said:


> This has been my experience as well.


----------



## rjcruiser

atlashunter said:


> Your reluctance to answer speaks volumes.



You should go back and re-read post #323.  I answered it.



bullethead said:


> It is as true to me as your beliefs are to you. For the reasons you dismiss mine, I dismiss yours or we can accept that each other believes in different things and carry on.
> 
> If you think mine sound ridiculous you should hear things from where I am standing.





TheBishop said:


> x2.



Okay....so, you demand proof for Christians about God, but when it comes to your own beliefs, then it's okay to just make them up based on your own life experience.

Love the double standard guys.  Love it.


----------



## applejuice

rjcruiser said:


> Okay....so, you demand proof for Christians about God, but when it comes to your own beliefs, then it's okay to just make them up based on your own life experience.
> 
> Love the double standard guys.  Love it.



I do not need proof to live my life as I deem fit. Christians do .I do not follow ancient text as a lifeline, Christians do.
My life is based and made up of my experiences and tribulations that I have encountered and moved beyond. Tomorrow will come for me, and I can believe that because that is the world in which I live. In reality, we make choices everyday that lead us to where we end up tomorrow.  
This life is mine and I control my own destiny. If you want to have your destiny dictated, that is your choice.


----------



## TheBishop

It is not a double standard.  I don't need proof your god for you to believe.  But when you claim to_ know_ and have the _truth_  your darn right I want evidence.  I don't make up my beliefs nor do I claim to know the truth as you do.  I hypothesis, speculate and form logical conclusion base on what I can verify and _KNOW_.  I do not blindly accept what a book says without question.   It would only be a double standard if we told you we know the truth and it had no validity as well.




> You missed my point....again. You ask me to prove something and then dismiss my primary piece of evidence. You believe it's false. I believe it's true. That's the impass. I will no allow you to dismiss God's Word as part of my evidence whether you want to or not. I cannot discuss things of God without using the very thing that reveals what I know about him.
> 
> "Your honor, we have the murder weapon with fingerprints on it that proves the defendant's guilt."
> 
> "You may not use that to prove his guilt....it's not a real gun."




Never said he couldn't use the bible I just don't consider it a credible source.  I know as christians it is the only weapon you have (kinda sad I think).   What I can't stand is for you to claim to _KNOW_ that is impossible to _KNOW_.  If you replace the word know with believe, speculate, theorize, have faith, then I would not have an issue.


----------



## Huntinfool

I know that I believe.  I believe because I know.  


I have faith because I believe.


----------



## WTM45

I have to accept that others can state they know.  And I do.
They simply have to accept that I don't know.

It's really that simple.


----------



## rjcruiser

TheBishop said:


> It is not a double standard.  I don't need proof your god for you to believe.  But when you claim to_ know_ and have the _truth_  your darn right I want evidence.  I don't make up my beliefs nor do I claim to know the truth as you do.  I hypothesis, speculate and form logical conclusion base on what I can verify and _KNOW_.  I do not blindly accept what a book says without question.   It would only be a double standard if we told you we know the truth and it had no validity as well.



Really?  You don't claim to know the truth as I do?  Here's what bullethead posted to which you quoted and put x2.



bullethead said:


> It is as true to me as your beliefs are to you. For the reasons you dismiss mine, I dismiss yours or we can accept that each other believes in different things and carry on.
> 
> If you think mine sound ridiculous you should hear things from where I am standing.




Again...I'm fine with you having your beliefs based on your experiences and research.  But you say above that Christians "blindly accept what a book says without question" which just isn't the case.  And that somehow, your personal experiences in your quest for truth are somehow more correct than mine because you question everything and your beliefs have more "validity."



Double standard.  



WTM45 said:


> I have to accept that others can state they know.  And I do.
> They simply have to accept that I don't know.
> 
> It's really that simple.



Right....but you know what...I won't accept it   I won't beat you over the head, but I will continue to pray for you


----------



## TheBishop

> Again...I'm fine with you having your beliefs based on your experiences and research. But you say above that Christians "blindly accept what a book says without question" which just isn't the case. And that somehow, your personal experiences in your quest for truth are somehow more correct than mine because you question everything and your beliefs have more "validity."




My beliefs have no more validty than yours. Never said they did, if I did then it would be a double standard.  I never said mine are more correct either. But I will not tell you I _KNOW_  unless it can be proven. I cannot prove anything I _believe_ therefore I do not claim to know. I theorize.



> I believe because I know.



What do you know?


----------



## atlashunter

rjcruiser said:


> You should go back and re-read post #323.  I answered it.



Not really. You just quoted the bible instead of saying what you would do and saying whether one sin equaled all sin in your view. Why dodge the question to begin with?


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> My beliefs have no more validty than yours. Never said they did, if I did then it would be a double standard.  I never said mine are more correct either. But I will not tell you I _KNOW_  unless it can be proven. I cannot prove anything I _believe_ therefore I do not claim to know. I theorize.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you know?



That's being too generous IMO. Would you say that your belief that leprechauns are mythical has no more validity than someone who claims to know they are real?


----------



## rjcruiser

atlashunter said:


> Not really. You just quoted the bible instead of saying what you would do and saying whether one sin equaled all sin in your view. Why dodge the question to begin with?



Wasn't dodging....and the question wasn't asking what I would do.  It was asking if all sin is the same.

I gave the answer...does it matter than my answer matches what the Bible says on the subject?  What do you expect...afterall, I am a professing Bible believing Christian.


----------



## atlashunter

rjcruiser said:


> Wasn't dodging....and the question wasn't asking what I would do.  It was asking if all sin is the same.
> 
> I gave the answer...does it matter than my answer matches what the Bible says on the subject?  What do you expect...afterall, I am a professing Bible believing Christian.



Which part of the term "you" is difficult to understand?



bullethead said:


> Ok, is any Sin equal to all Sin( ie: sin is sin no matter the infraction) and if so then you would have people killed for it?


----------



## rjcruiser

atlashunter said:


> Which part of the term "you" is difficult to understand?





I'll try and go through this again.  

Here's Bullethead's original question.




bullethead said:


> Ok, is any Sin equal to all Sin( ie: sin is sin no matter the infraction) and if so then you would have people killed for it?



To which I answered in post #323....see below



rjcruiser said:


> The wages of sin is death.






Maybe I just excel at reading comprehension...maybe you don't.  Not sure which it is....but to me, I'd say I answered the question.  All sin has the same penalty--Death.  That is my viewpoint.  That is the viewpoint of the Bible.  They are one in the same.


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> That's being too generous IMO. Would you say that your belief that leprechauns are mythical has no more validity than someone who claims to know they are real?



I would be just as hesitant to tell them I know leprechauns don't exist, as I would that I know god does not exsist.  I can't prove either.  I would however suggest that there is enough evidence to speculate that neither is real.  I will not commit the same folly they do.  I will not profess knowledge of something that cannot be validated.


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> I would be just as hesitant to tell them I know leprechauns don't exist, as I would that I know god does not exsist.  I can't prove either.  I would however suggest that there is enough evidence to speculate that neither is real.  I will not commit the same folly they do.  I will not profess knowledge of something that cannot be validated.



Yes but would you say that it is equally valid to believe they do exist as it is to say they don't absent any evidence?

It sounds like you're taking Russell's teapot and saying it's just as well to say it exists as it is to say it doesn't because you can't prove that it doesn't.


----------



## atlashunter

rjcruiser said:


> I'll try and go through this again.
> 
> Here's Bullethead's original question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To which I answered in post #323....see below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I just excel at reading comprehension...maybe you don't.  Not sure which it is....but to me, I'd say I answered the question.  All sin has the same penalty--Death.  That is my viewpoint.  That is the viewpoint of the Bible.  They are one in the same.



He asked if "you would have them killed" and your reading of that is that he wasn't asking what you would do. No rj that isn't good reading comprehension.

So based on your regurgitation of what the bible says, (and yes how else could you answer unfortunately for you) it sounds as if your concept of justice lacks any sense of proportionality. You're in agreement with serial killer Robert Fry who says it's no worse to murder someone than it is to steal a cracker. You commit one sin you've committed all sin. This guy is a christian by the way. This is what people are supposed to believe comes from a just God?


----------



## WTM45

rjcruiser said:


> Right....but you know what...I won't accept it   I won't beat you over the head, but I will continue to pray for you



Thank you, my friend!


----------



## rjcruiser

atlashunter said:


> So based on your regurgitation of what the bible says, (and yes how else could you answer unfortunately for you) it sounds as if your concept of justice lacks any sense of proportionality. You're in agreement with serial killer Robert Fry who says it's no worse to murder someone than it is to steal a cracker. You commit one sin you've committed all sin. This guy is a christian by the way. This is what people are supposed to believe comes from a just God?



Please don't imply my agreement with Robert Fry.  It just simply isn't there.

When it comes to eternal punishment, all sins are the same.  When it comes to earthly punishment, there are many different levels.  You don't have to read much of the Bible to understand that...I'm sure you already know that....you seem to know some of what the Bible says....but you're trying to corner me on something that just isn't there.

Keep trying though   I don't mind the challenge.


----------



## TheBishop

I wouldn't say equally.  Using what I gather I could say its more likely that they don't exist.  I just won't claim to know either way.  I think it only just to do so.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> You should go back and re-read post #323.  I answered it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....so, you demand proof for Christians about God, but when it comes to your own beliefs, then it's okay to just make them up based on your own life experience.
> 
> Love the double standard guys.  Love it.



Sorry, no double standards here. Nothing make believe or imaginary on my end. When I said "it is as true to me as your beliefs are to you" I was talking about having one's faith rocked so you can be better tested to make up your mind. I based it off of personal experience. It is sort of like hitting rock bottom and then choosing your path. Through experiences in my life with real lives and events I am confident in making that statement. That is no where near believing in an imaginary being and claiming to KNOW the being and his actions are true, like you claim.


----------



## bad0351

Huntinfool said:


> Wanna bet?



You'll lose.......


----------



## Nicodemus

Huntinfool said:


> Amen my brotha....amen.  Well...there IS payment.  You get to have a new description line under your user name.





That was a cheap shot, Andrew, and you know it. Thank you.


----------



## atlashunter

rjcruiser said:


> Please don't imply my agreement with Robert Fry.  It just simply isn't there.
> 
> When it comes to eternal punishment, all sins are the same.



You deny agreement with Robert Fry and then you proceed to agree with him. Classic.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> You deny agreement with Robert Fry and then you proceed to agree with him. Classic.



Robert Fry is not in the position to delve out _eternal _punishments. I dont see where the agreement is?


----------



## atlashunter

Nor is RJ in such a position. They agree that you get the same punishment from God for theft of a cracker as for murder, to God it's all sin.


----------



## Huntinfool

bad0351 said:


> You'll lose.......



Wanna bet?


----------



## Huntinfool

Nicodemus said:


> That was a cheap shot, Andrew, and you know it. Thank you.



Oh man!  I was kidding Nic!  It was a joke.


----------



## Nicodemus

Huntinfool said:


> Oh man!  I was kidding Nic!  It was a joke.





No problem then. Got a lot on my mind.

Not tryin` to get ya`lls thread off topic. Carry on.


----------



## Huntinfool

Sorry buddy.  I think I need to make better use of the smilies.  I seriously was kidding.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Nor is RJ in such a position. They agree that you get the same punishment from God for theft of a cracker as for murder, to God it's all sin.



IMO, RJ didnt put himself in that position. About the "its all sin" that talk has been had many times before on here, it goes back to the, God is Holy and apart from sin, no matter what the sin may be. It is hard for you/me/us to really get past it because we put sin in catagories and levels, which I believe is ok on a human/earth level.

Lets say God is a pure white piece of paper, and sin is any mark made on that paper, whether it be the smallest pen head mark you could possibly make or taking a sharpie and coloring the whole sheet, its not _fully_ white any more.


----------



## rjcruiser

atlashunter said:


> You deny agreement with Robert Fry and then you proceed to agree with him. Classic.







atlashunter said:


> Nor is RJ in such a position. They agree that you get the same punishment from God for theft of a cracker as for murder, to God it's all sin.







stringmusic said:


> IMO, RJ didnt put himself in that position. About the "its all sin" that talk has been had many times before on here, it goes back to the, God is Holy and apart from sin, no matter what the sin may be. It is hard for you/me/us to really get past it because we put sin in catagories and levels, which I believe is ok on a human/earth level.
> 
> Lets say God is a pure white piece of paper, and sin is any mark made on that paper, whether it be the smallest pen head mark you could possibly make or taking a sharpie and coloring the whole sheet, its not _fully_ white any more.



Well put.  



Atlas...it is obvious that you are biased in your view.  You can't read a post of mine without that bias affecting the meaning of what I post.  It is as if you have made up your mind as to what I am saying and only get what you want out of the post.  It is a waste of time to answer your questions.


----------



## bullethead

So RJ, I understand that you agree with god in that when your time comes you will be judged for you sin no matter the infraction.

What about here on earth? Do you hold all sin to the same level in that someone who steals deserves death as much as someone who murders? In other words if you were the deciding judge in the court room and your word was final, would you sentence each sinner to death as long as a sin was committed?


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> So RJ, I understand that you agree with god in that when your time comes you will be judged for you sin no matter the infraction.



Yes.  Fortunately for me, I have someone who has taken the punishment for me.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> What about here on earth? Do you hold all sin to the same level in that someone who steals deserves death as much as someone who murders? In other words if you were the deciding judge in the court room and your word was final, would you sentence each sinner to death as long as a sin was committed?



As I put above, earthly sin and punishment differ based upon the crime.  So, no, someone who steals does not deserve the same punishment as someone murders.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Yes.  Fortunately for me, I have someone who has taken the punishment for me.
> 
> 
> 
> As I put above, earthly sin and punishment differ based upon the crime.  So, no, someone who steals does not deserve the same punishment as someone murders.



That is an awesome deal, act as you wish cause someone already paid the price for you. Not saying that is what YOU personally do, but I am sure there are some that take advantage of it.

Gotcha on the earthly and heavenly sin. Here we must answer to the judge, there we are judged.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> That is an awesome deal, act as you wish cause someone already paid the price for you. Not saying that is what YOU personally do, but I am *sure there are some that take advantage of it.*
> Gotcha on the earthly and heavenly sin. Here we must answer to the judge, there we are judged.



Without a doubt!


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> That is an awesome deal, act as you wish cause someone already paid the price for you. Not saying that is what YOU personally do, but I am sure there are some that take advantage of it.



I'm sure there are plenty who do that.  

Read Romans 6...really, just the first couple of verses and you'll see that that reasoning just isn't Biblical.


----------



## bullethead

It's in the bible so it is biblical.

That sin deal goes back to a post where I asked people to really look who is in church with them. They do as they darn well please outside of church but every Sunday they go in like they are the holiest of the holy. Sickening.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> IMO, RJ didnt put himself in that position. About the "its all sin" that talk has been had many times before on here, it goes back to the, God is Holy and apart from sin, no matter what the sin may be. It is hard for you/me/us to really get past it because we put sin in catagories and levels, which I believe is ok on a human/earth level.
> 
> Lets say God is a pure white piece of paper, and sin is any mark made on that paper, whether it be the smallest pen head mark you could possibly make or taking a sharpie and coloring the whole sheet, its not _fully_ white any more.



Make all the excuses for the position you want. Doesn't change what that position is or the fact that Mr Fry and RJ share it.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> It's in the bible so it is biblical.
> 
> That sin deal goes back to a post where I asked people to really look who is in church with them. They do as they darn well please outside of church but every Sunday they go in like they are the holiest of the holy. Sickening.



Hypocrisy is what Christ fought in his day with the Jewish religious system and it is what we as Christians fight today as well.  We always will fight sin.  No one is perfect.  



atlashunter said:


> Make all the excuses for the position you want. Doesn't change what that position is or the fact that Mr Fry and RJ share it.



Okay...atlas says we agree....it must be the truth.


----------



## atlashunter

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...atlas says we agree....it must be the truth.



Assuming one is not saved, is there any difference in the punishment God hands out to the cracker thief and the punishment he hands out to a serial killer?


----------



## rjcruiser

atlashunter said:


> Assuming one is not saved, is there any difference in the punishment God hands out to the cracker thief and the punishment he hands out to a serial killer?



On this earth?  Of course.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Assuming one is not saved, is there any difference in the punishment *God* hands out to the cracker thief and the punishment he hands out to a serial killer?



There is your key word.


----------



## atlashunter

rjcruiser said:


> On this earth?  Of course.



On this earth men are left to their own devices what with free will and all. Had men not intervened and taken Robert Fry into custody, God would be content to sit back and watch him hack more people to death. But he'll take care of it all in the end right? That is what we are talking about here. I take Robert Fry's statement to be in the eternal punishment sense. But you already knew that. Funny how you weren't dancing around this distinction when you half answered bullet's original question.

Where does Robert Fry have it wrong?


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> There is your key word.



Thank you. That's exactly what Robert Fry was saying in his Lockup interview.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> On this earth men are left to their own devices what with free will and all. Had men not intervened and taken Robert Fry into custody, God would be content to sit back and watch him hack more people to death. But he'll take care of it all in the end right? That is what we are talking about here. I take Robert Fry's statement to be in the eternal punishment sense. But you already knew that. Funny how you weren't dancing around this distinction when you half answered bullet's original question.
> 
> Where does Robert Fry have it wrong?



I know this question was not for me, but I'll throw my answer out there....




stringmusic said:


> Robert Fry is not in the position to delve out _eternal _punishments. I dont see where the agreement is?


----------



## rjcruiser

atlashunter said:


> On this earth men are left to their own devices what with free will and all.



Wrong.  You can see the innovational inspiration thread for my views on that.



			
				atlashunter said:
			
		

> Had men not intervened and taken Robert Fry into custody, God would be content to sit back and watch him hack more people to death.



How do you know God would be content to sit back and watch?  I for one know God is not content to allow sin to just go on like that.  I believe God used those men to intervene.



			
				atlashunter said:
			
		

> I take Robert Fry's statement to be in the eternal punishment sense.
> 
> Where does Robert Fry have it wrong?



That is where you have it wrong.  Robert Fry was not talking from an eternal punishment sense.  He was speaking of God's eternal justice and trying to sync it to his earthly actions.  He is trying to justify his own actions with that of a just God.  He is not God.  He can not justify his own actions by comparing his actions to God's.  No one can.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> How do you know God would be content to sit back and watch?  I for one know God is not content to allow sin to just go on like that.  I believe God used those men to intervene.



You may want to take a look at what is going on around the globe. If it is as you say, your god is failing miserably at taking a hands on approach to ending sin.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> You may want to take a look at what is going on around the globe. If it is as you say, your god is failing miserably at taking a hands on approach to ending sin.



You have a finite view of an infinite and eternal God.


----------



## bullethead

Ohhhhhhh. We need to replace the word god with the word Time.


----------



## bad0351

" I for one know God is not content to allow sin to just go on like that"


But this god of yours is perfectly happy to let a sweet innocent child die a horrible, painful death of cancer?
Right RJ??


----------



## rjcruiser

bad0351 said:


> " I for one know God is not content to allow sin to just go on like that"
> 
> 
> But this god of yours is perfectly happy to let a sweet innocent child die a horrible, painful death of cancer?
> Right RJ??



What makes you think that this makes God happy?

Nope...your fantasy god is much different than the true God.


----------



## bullethead

He either can, can't or won't do anything about it. Seems like if we were created it was to make excuses for the simple things he could do and either can't or won't. It is in our minds to make a being that can do the things we are incapable of or give credit to the things we cannot comprehend but the reality of it is outside of our minds none of it ever happens.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> I would be just as hesitant to tell them I know leprechauns don't exist, as I would that I know god does not exsist.  I can't prove either.  I would however suggest that there is enough evidence to speculate that neither is real.  I will not commit the same folly they do.  I will not profess knowledge of something that cannot be validated.



But you would swear to it?


----------



## atlashunter

rjcruiser said:


> Wrong.  You can see the innovational inspiration thread for my views on that.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know God would be content to sit back and watch?  I for one know God is not content to allow sin to just go on like that.  I believe God used those men to intervene.



Too bad for Fry's victims God didn't see fit to intervene sooner. What was he waiting for with Joseph Fritzl?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case





rjcruiser said:


> That is where you have it wrong.  Robert Fry was not talking from an eternal punishment sense.  He was speaking of God's eternal justice and trying to sync it to his earthly actions.  He is trying to justify his own actions with that of a just God.  He is not God.  He can not justify his own actions by comparing his actions to God's.  No one can.



No he said he's asked for God's forgiveness for his sins. Like you he thinks the wages of sin is death no matter what the sin. Like you he thinks the cracker thief goes to the hot place the same as a child rapist. Like you he thinks he's covered by the blood of a man killed 2,000 years ago.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> But you would swear to it?



I'm sorry I don't understand. Swear to what?


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Too bad for Fry's victims God didn't see fit to intervene sooner. What was he waiting for with Joseph Fritzl?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he said he's asked for God's forgiveness for his sins. Like you he thinks the wages of sin is death no matter what the sin. Like you he thinks the cracker thief goes to the hot place the same as a child rapist. Like you he thinks he's covered by the blood of a man killed 2,000 years ago.



We are all victims of the Fall From Grace.  It's all our fault.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> I'm sorry I don't understand. Swear to what?



A god you do not believe is real.


----------



## ted_BSR

I am curious Bishop. Have you and your wife discussed this further? Has she read this thread?


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> A god you do not believe is real.




I would swear on a Koran, Bible, Wiccan (what ever they use) and it would mean less to me than my word alone.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> A god you do not believe is real.



Really man your question doesn't make much sense.  Swearing to a god that I believe is fake carries as much weight as swearing to big foot who I also beleive is fake.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> I am curious Bishop. Have you and your wife discussed this further? Has she read this thread?



All the time.  No she hasn't read this thread, but we've talked about this thread.  She generally avoids religious discussion with me.  She is quite passionate, but like all the religious proponents, her logic falls quite short.


----------



## Thanatos

TheBishop said:


> The problem I have with your definition of a god,  is you make god sound so simple.  A complex being that created such a diverse and complex universe certainly would not have human like feelings.
> 
> But hey thats just my opinion.



The reason I continue to debate and deal with you and the other non-believer's hubris is _*to make the point you just made. *_ God is not a person. His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. He is a complex "being". 

I thought the same way you while I was in college. My pride is still my weakness in knowing God to this day. He understands this. I continue to pray and work on it every day. You could learn to humble yourself before God if you wanted to, but it is not easy. Especially if you have relied on nothing but yourself to accomplish your goals during your life. It is a great burden to overcome.


----------



## Thanatos

TheBishop said:


> The problem I have with your definition of a god,  is you make god sound so simple.  A complex being that created such a diverse and complex universe certainly would not have human like feelings.
> 
> But hey thats just my opinion.



Secondly! 

For you to admit this is what "you" want your definition of God to be PROVES 100% that you never had ANY type of relationship with him...BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES US. If you had the slightest understanding of Judeo Christianity you would know this. Yet, you sit on this internet fishing/hunting forum and cast doubt because that's your ignorant opinion. You might have known of God, but you never knew God. You never had that personal relationship with him. Or, if you did have that type of relationship when you were younger you have disconnected yourself from that relationship with emotions of pride and arrogance that I speak of above this post. Feelings that I have had to overcome and still fight with  every day. That is my sack of rocks to tote, and it looks like He made it your's too.


----------



## bad0351

"you have relied on nothing but yourself to accomplish your goals during your life. It is a great burden to overcome."

I find nothing but great admiration for folks that do exactly that...take care of themselves and the family they have.
Some people just don't feel they need an imaginary force to guide them through lifes difficultys....the goodness and and morality instilled in them by the mothers and fathers is all they need to make it.
Folks that don't believe in the things you do are not "ignorant".
Our pride in ourselves is not a weakness....it is something you all should strive towards....take some responsibility for your own life instead of always "praying" for someone or something to do it for you.
since I have been here reading this forum...I have become more and more convinced that religion is nothing more than a crutch for the weak among us.

Just my opinion


----------



## Thanatos

bad0351 said:


> Our pride in ourselves is not a weakness....it is something you all should strive towards....take some responsibility for your own life instead of always "praying" for someone or something to do it for you.
> since I have been here reading this forum...I have become more and more convinced that religion is nothing more than a crutch for the weak among us.
> 
> Just my opinion



You must have pride in everything you do. You must be personally accountable for your actions and God will hold you to that. As I stated earlier the hubris that is on display with your beliefs is a huge weakness and a crutch that you hobble on as well.


----------



## Thanatos

bad0351 said:


> I find nothing but great admiration for folks that do exactly that...take care of themselves and the family they have.
> Some people just don't feel they need an imaginary force to guide them through lifes difficultys....the goodness and and morality instilled in them by the mothers and fathers is all they need to make it.
> Folks that don't believe in the things you do are not "ignorant".



Again, if you had spent anytime in the Word you would know God teaches man to be accountable for themselves AND every other man. 

From the example you are giving it seems you are sitting on an extreme view of Christians. It seems you see us all as Bubba and Bettie Sue sitting on their knees praying while their child dies of some treatable disease. That is not what the Word teaches us. Not even close. You can scale this example to any problem big or small that Christians face.


----------



## bad0351

Thanatos said:


> Again, if you had spent anytime in the Word you would know God teaches man to be accountable for themselves AND every other man.
> 
> From the example you are giving it seems you are sitting on an extreme view of Christians. It seems you see us all as Bubba and Bettie Sue sitting on their knees praying while their child dies of some treatable disease. That is not what the Word teaches us. Not even close. You can scale this example to any problem big or small that Christians face.



I don't see where you get that my view is you are all "bubbas??"......praying while a child dies?
All I know is no god taught me anything about being accountable for myself and my actions...I don't see how I am accountable for anyone else or the actions of them....aside from my own children and family, and I don't use the way I believe as a crutch at all....I know what I believe to be true, just as you believe you are right.
I just don't need to pray for something that may or may not happen.
I could take my child to the best medical facility in the world and hope that science and the skill of doctors will make him/ her well.
I wont put my faith in a being that has proven time and time again that it won't help with incurable sickness....but will take credit (through some) for simple healing of someone that with time and care would have healed in time through science and medicine.


----------



## WTM45

To even think one understands any god is to reflect hubris at its highest level.  That's the whole point of inventing them.


----------



## atlashunter

bad0351 said:


> I don't see where you get that my view is you are all "bubbas??"......praying while a child dies?
> All I know is no god taught me anything about being accountable for myself and my actions...I don't see how I am accountable for anyone else or the actions of them....aside from my own children and family, and I don't use the way I believe as a crutch at all....I know what I believe to be true, just as you believe you are right.
> I just don't need to pray for something that may or may not happen.
> I could take my child to the best medical facility in the world and hope that science and the skill of doctors will make him/ her well.
> I wont put my faith in a being that has proven time and time again that it won't help with incurable sickness....but will take credit (through some) for simple healing of someone that with time and care would have healed in time through science and medicine.



Absolutely. I think Mark Twain said it best in Thoughts of God.




> We hear much about His patience and forbearance and long-suffering; we hear nothing about our own, which much exceeds it. We hear much about His mercy and kindness and goodness - in words - the words of His Book and of His pulpit - and the meek multitude is content with this evidence, such as it is, seeking no further; but whoso searcheth after a concreted sample of it will in time acquire fatigue. There being no instances of it. For what are gilded as mercies are not in any recorded case more than mere common justices, and due - due without thanks or compliment. To rescue without personal risk a cripple from a burning house is not a mercy, it is a mere commonplace duty; anybody would do it that could. And not by proxy, either - delegating the work but confiscating the credit for it. If men neglected “God’s poor” and “God’s stricken and helpless ones” as He does, what would become of them? The answer is to be found in those dark lands where man follows His example and turns his indifferent back upon them: they get no help at all; they cry, and plead and pray in vain, they linger and suffer, and miserably die. If you will look at the matter rationally and without prejudice, the proper place to hunt for the facts of His mercy, is not where man does the mercies and He collects the praise, but in those regions where He has the field to Himself.
> 
> It is plain that there is one moral law for heaven and another for the earth. The pulpit assures us that wherever we see suffering and sorrow which we can relieve and do not do it, we sin, heavily. There was never yet a case of suffering or sorrow which God could not relieve. Does He sin, then? If He is the Source of Morals He does - certainly nothing can be plainer than that, you will admit. Surely the Source of law cannot violate law and stand unsmirched; surely the judge upon the bench cannot forbid crime and then revel in it himself unreproached. Nevertheless we have this curious spectacle: daily the trained parrot in the pulpit gravely delivers himself of these ironies, which he has acquired at second-hand and adopted without examination, to a trained congregation which accepts them without examination, and neither the speaker nor the hearer laughs at himself. It does seem as if we ought to be humble when we are at a bench-show, and not put on airs of intellectual superiority there.


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> I would swear on a Koran, Bible, Wiccan (what ever they use) and it would mean less to me than my word alone.



That makes you a faker too, and your word, well, worthless.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> All the time.  No she hasn't read this thread, but we've talked about this thread.  She generally avoids religious discussion with me.  She is quite passionate, but like all the religious proponents, her logic falls quite short.



It is good that you discuss it. I would encourage you to have more religious discussions with her.  Not to start disagreements, or convert you or her, but to gain understanding about each others position. I know you say you understand perfectly that she has been convinced by her upbringing, but try clearing your mind of all of your preconcieved ideas, and really listening to and trying to understand what she is saying.

Remeber that logic has little to do with religion, so your wife has the right idea. It is not a logical discussion.

I wish you and your family the best! Ted


----------



## bad0351

but try clearing your mind of all of your preconcieved ideas, and really listening to and trying to understand 

Great advice.....think you could do that as well?


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> To even think one understands any god is to reflect hubris at its highest level.  That's the whole point of inventing them.



Again, I have been screaming the same thing on these threads for awhile now.


----------



## Thanatos

bad0351 said:


> I don't see where you get that my view is you are all "bubbas??"......praying while a child dies?
> All I know is no god taught me anything about being accountable for myself and my actions...I don't see how I am accountable for anyone else or the actions of them....aside from my own children and family, and I don't use the way I believe as a crutch at all....I know what I believe to be true, just as you believe you are right.
> I just don't need to pray for something that may or may not happen.
> I could take my child to the best medical facility in the world and hope that science and the skill of doctors will make him/ her well.
> I wont put my faith in a being that has proven time and time again that it won't help with incurable sickness....but will take credit (through some) for simple healing of someone that with time and care would have healed in time through science and medicine.



Lets have a pretend play session for you. If an omniscient, omnipresent God did exist would it make sense for you to place yourself in his chair with your limited knowledge and intellect and decide that fate your peer inhabitants of this world? Would you want another man of your same limited knowledge and intellect making these choices about you and your family?


----------



## bad0351

Thanatos said:


> Lets have a pretend play session for you. If an omniscient, omnipresent God did exist would it make sense for you to place yourself in his chair with your limited knowledge and intellect and decide that fate your peer inhabitants of this world? Would you want another man of your same limited knowledge and intellect making these choices about you and your family?



Been drinking this long weekend have we???


----------



## Thanatos

bad0351 said:


> Been drinking this long weekend have we???



Actually I have been drinking all week in Jamaica. Yea mon! 

Now answer the question if you would.


----------



## bad0351

"If an omniscient, omnipresent God did exist"

But one doesn't.........making your question hypothetical......
And I only deal with reality


----------



## Thanatos

bad0351 said:


> "If an omniscient, omnipresent God did exist"
> 
> But one doesn't.........making your question hypothetical......
> And I only deal with reality



Okay...and you KNOW without a shadow of doubt he is not there?


----------



## ted_BSR

bad0351 said:


> but try clearing your mind of all of your preconcieved ideas, and really listening to and trying to understand
> 
> Great advice.....think you could do that as well?



Absolutely.


----------



## ted_BSR

bad0351 said:


> "If an omniscient, omnipresent God did exist"
> 
> But one doesn't.........making your question hypothetical......
> And I only deal with reality



That is a matter of opinion, not reality.

The reality is that no one in their own mind really knows. 

Reality is subjective.


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> That makes you a faker too, and your word, well, worthless.



"..less to me than my word alone."

Would you swear on a Koran?  Would it mean anything to you if you did?


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> That is a matter of opinion, not reality.
> 
> The reality is that no one in their own mind really knows.
> 
> Reality is subjective.



Including the reality that you have constructed in your mind where God exists?


----------



## bad0351

Thanatos said:


> Okay...and you KNOW without a shadow of doubt he is not there?



Yes, I do


----------



## Thanatos

bad0351 said:


> Yes, I do



Your telling me that with 100% certainty there is no God, yet if I asked you to solve a simple Calculus equation you would fumble around solving it unless you asked for help?


----------



## atlashunter

What level of certainty do you have that Zeus doesn't exist?


----------



## bad0351

Thanatos said:


> Your telling me that with 100% certainty there is no God, yet if I asked you to solve a simple Calculus equation you would fumble around solving it unless you asked for help?



Yes...that is exactly what I'm telling you....and as far as a calculus problem, yes, I would find a mathmatics major to help me solve it through logic and reason.


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> "..less to me than my word alone."
> 
> Would you swear on a Koran?  Would it mean anything to you if you did?



I wouldn't do it under any circumstance.


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> Including the reality that you have constructed in your mind where God exists?



Yes, and the reality that you have constructed in your mind where He does not exist.


----------



## ted_BSR

bad0351 said:


> Yes...that is exactly what I'm telling you....and as far as a calculus problem, yes, I would find a mathmatics major to help me solve it through logic and reason.



I am pretty sure Calculus defies logic and reason!


----------



## bad0351

ted_BSR said:


> I am pretty sure Calculus defies logic and reason!



so do you believing in fairytales


----------



## Thanatos

bad0351 said:


> so do you believing in fairytales



Your my favorite of the atheist. At least the rest are some what logical in their disbelief.


----------



## TheBishop

Thanatos said:


> Secondly!
> 
> For you to admit this is what "you" want your definition of God to be PROVES 100% that you never had ANY type of relationship with him...BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES US. If you had the slightest understanding of Judeo Christianity you would know this. Yet, you sit on this internet fishing/hunting forum and cast doubt because that's your ignorant opinion. You might have known of God, but you never knew God. You never had that personal relationship with him. Or, if you did have that type of relationship when you were younger you have disconnected yourself from that relationship with emotions of pride and arrogance that I speak of above this post. Feelings that I have had to overcome and still fight with  every day. That is my sack of rocks to tote, and it looks like He made it your's too.



This is the most asinine statement I think I have read in this entire thread.  Proves 100%? Come on man you can't prove anything about your god 100% not even 10%?  You call my opinion ignorant.  Based on what? Your bible? Please sir do not insult common sense. When did I ever claim to have a relationship with a god? That would be a silly thing since I am now an agnostic.  I might at one time had a belief in a religion, but no relations.  Relation would assume some counter actions.   Never had it, never seen it, hence the reason I'm agnostic.  Can you show me anything that would even hint you have relations? Didn't think so.

Thantos, for an individual who writes with some degree of learning, I find your posts more and more insulting to thought.  Either you lack the intelligence or the willpower to see through your faulty logic.


----------



## Havana Dude

I have read durn near all the posts in this thread. Some are just too draining. 

Bishop, it is a simple matter of faith. Some have it, others don't. I have no physical proof to try and convince you or anyone else that God exists. What you have encountered in this thread from individual believers, is a true passion for you(and others) to know Christ. Some have stated their case eloqently, others, not so much. No one here can provide you with proof. I know you don't understand when I or someone says things like "we will pray for you", or "I sure wish you would come around to believe what we believe" etc.. It is just passion to share what we believe God has to offer. I cannot enter an an argument over this issue. You either believe or you don't. Word has been spread. I'll put it to you this way. The passion a christian has to see others accept Christ, is 100 fold, the passion we all have to see our children grow up, and be successful. Thats all it is. Time wasted arguing this issue is simply wasted for both sides. I truly truly truly wish you and others would accept what we have our faith in. But, it is not up to us, it is up to you. 

Take care of them kiddies, however you choose to raise them. I have a differing opinion from you, but would never tell another man how to raise his younguns. Enjoy them every minute you can. My oldest graduated Friday night from HS, and me and the wife swear we just brought him home from the hospital


----------



## TheBishop

Havana Dude said:


> I have read durn near all the posts in this thread. Some are just too draining.
> 
> Bishop, it is a simple matter of faith. Some have it, others don't. I have no physical proof to try and convince you or anyone else that God exists. What you have encountered in this thread from individual believers, is a true passion for you(and others) to know Christ. Some have stated their case eloqently, others, not so much. No one here can provide you with proof. I know you don't understand when I or someone says things like "we will pray for you", or "I sure wish you would come around to believe what we believe" etc.. It is just passion to share what we believe God has to offer. I cannot enter an an argument over this issue. You either believe or you don't. Word has been spread. I'll put it to you this way. The passion a christian has to see others accept Christ, is 100 fold, the passion we all have to see our children grow up, and be successful. Thats all it is. Time wasted arguing this issue is simply wasted for both sides. I truly truly truly wish you and others would accept what we have our faith in. But, it is not up to us, it is up to you.
> 
> Take care of them kiddies, however you choose to raise them. I have a differing opinion from you, but would never tell another man how to raise his younguns. Enjoy them every minute you can. My oldest graduated Friday night from HS, and me and the wife swear we just brought him home from the hospital



Havana, I have no beef with individuals who have faith, or  believe.  It is their own prerogative. They can tell me their veiws and beliefs, and I will accept them without proof. One does not have to prove, or validate, a belief or opinion. 

What I find truly aggravating are individuals that tell me they _know_, and claim exclusivity to the unknowable.  For that I demand proof.  I will not claim to _know_ anything that I cannot proove.  Go back and read my posts.  I will not tell you I know there is no god.  I _believe_ there is no god (as in the bible).  I expect the same.  If you tell me: I know god, I have a relationship, with him, and I know this is the way he is,  then I demand proof.  If you cannot provide such, then you have no credibility to such a claim.

P.S. Congrats, on the Grad, Now the real work begins!!


----------



## Havana Dude

World English Dictionary 
faith  (feɪθ)  

— n   
1.  strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence  
2.  a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith   
3.  Christianity  trust in God and in his actions and promises  
4.  a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason  
5.  complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc  
6.  any set of firmly held principles or beliefs  
7.  allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith , break faith )  
8.  bad faith  insincerity or dishonesty  
9.  good faith  honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith )  

— interj   
10.  archaic  indeed; really (also in the phrases by my faith , in faith )  

[C12: from Anglo-French feid , from Latin fidēs  trust, confidence]  

This is it for me. As I said, I cannot PROVE in a physical way that God exists. As long as I have my faith, I need no proof. I'm not entering the discussion, just stating where I stand. I guess I am one of the ones that would aggravate you, because I know beyond a shadow of doubt that he exists. I see God in all things he created. But thats just me. I however, do not claim "exclusivity" to what you say is the unknowable. Simple faith my friend, simple faith.........thats all I can say.

I do want to ask this though. Do you believe me when I say believers have a genuine passion for you and others to accept Christ? I mean a real passion, as in how you would sit your child down and explain to him/her why he/she should not run out in front of a car? That kind of passion.

And then, do you believe that a believers heart gets heavy when you/others reject Christ? And by that I mean a sadness as if that child you taught to not run out in front of that car, did so, and got killed? That kind of sadness. I'm not being pushy here, I am just curious if you understand how a believer feels when someone rejects Christ. It just saddens us to know that folks reject what we believe to be the way to eternal life.

You may wonder if I know how you feel, and that would be a valid point.


----------



## atlashunter

Can't speak for anyone else havana but I can tell you it saddens me to see good people so completely duped live their life believing a pack of lies and thinking so ill of others that don't share their beliefs as to think not only that they will burn for eternity but that they actually _deserve_ to burn for eternity. That truly saddens me.


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> Can't speak for anyone else havana but I can tell you it saddens me to see good people so completely duped live their life believing a pack of lies and thinking so ill of others that don't share their beliefs as to think not only that they will burn for eternity but that they actually _deserve_ to burn for eternity. That truly saddens me.



x2 atlas.

Entering a logical debate with faith and belief as your only means of rebuttal, is like entering a gunfight with water ballons and spitballs as your only means of defending yourself.  Your only chance of winning is if the other guy shoots himself.


----------



## TheBishop

Havana Dude said:


> I see God in all things he created.



What does he look like so I can see him too?


----------



## bad0351

Thanatos said:


> Your my favorite of the atheist. At least the rest are some what logical in their disbelief.



Thankyou.....and you are my favorite kind of christian.....your the one that just cannot BELIEVE anyone could have the audacity to believe there is no god and never has been a god as fervantly as you say there is.
Really, we are the same in many ways.


----------



## vowell462

I just want to say, this has been a great thread. Thanks Bishop!


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> x2 atlas.
> 
> Entering a logical debate with faith and belief as your only means of rebuttal, is like entering a gunfight with water ballons and spitballs as your only means of defending yourself.  Your only chance of winning is if the other guy shoots himself.



What if I shot a spitball in your eye and then broke a water balloon over your head and you fell to the ground and shot yourself?


----------



## ted_BSR

atlashunter said:


> Can't speak for anyone else havana but I can tell you it saddens me to see good people so completely duped live their life believing a pack of lies and thinking so ill of others that don't share their beliefs as to think not only that they will burn for eternity but that they actually _deserve_ to burn for eternity. That truly saddens me.



Atlas, I don't think ill of you because you do not share my beliefs. If I do think ill of you (which isn't likely, I don't think about you very often), it would be because of how you treat people who don't have the same beliefs as you on this forum.

As for the "deserving" part, I believe we all (believers and non-believers) fall into that category.

Curious, why does it make you sad?


----------



## TripleXBullies

I have been out of town without internet for over the last week... I can't believe this thread is still going on... When I left, I thought everyone had agreed to disagree.. Interesting stuff since I left.


----------



## Thanatos

TheBishop said:


> This is the most asinine statement I think I have read in this entire thread.  Proves 100%? Come on man you can't prove anything about your god 100% not even 10%?  You call my opinion ignorant.  Based on what? Your bible? Please sir do not insult common sense. When did I ever claim to have a relationship with a god? That would be a silly thing since I am now an agnostic.  I might at one time had a belief in a religion, but no relations.  Relation would assume some counter actions.   Never had it, never seen it, hence the reason I'm agnostic.  Can you show me anything that would even hint you have relations? Didn't think so.
> 
> Thantos, for an individual who writes with some degree of learning, I find your posts more and more insulting to thought.  Either you lack the intelligence or the willpower to see through your faulty logic.



"Proves 100%" was a dramatic statement to make a point on my part. I have said many times in the past nothing is verifiable 100%. 

This is the response I wanted from you though. I wanted you to make it clear that you never had any relationship with God and do not claim to understand the Bible. From your previous post it seemed to me that you were creating the impression that you had a through knowledge of the Bible and God. Just glad we cleared that up.

I over stepped my bounds some what, but my point still stands that you have rejected something that you have little knowledge of. I wish that you would take the time to research these topics of belief instead of sitting on an internet forum trying to pretend like you know what you are talking about. I am speaking of our theological discussions. 

Tell me this, "Has your wife ever cheated on you?" Before you give your answer I need you to find proof before you respond. *I do not want your opinion*. I need hard palpable evidence that your wife has never cheated on you.


----------



## bullethead

Thanatos, by using your own criteria, how much do you know, have read, or have studied about the possibility that what is in the bible and about god is not the truth? How much research have you done about possibilities other than the bible or christianity?
Have you taken the time to gather as much information both pro and con and then make an informed opinion, or are you just going going by what you have learned on the "pro" side?


----------



## Thanatos

bullethead said:


> Thanatos, by using your own criteria, how much do you know, have read, or have studied about the possibility that what is in the bible and about god is not the truth? How much research have you done about possibilities other than the bible or christianity?
> Have you taken the time to gather as much information both pro and con and then make an informed opinion, or are you just going going by what you have learned on the "pro" side?



That is the journey that I am on now. Constantly challenging my beliefs. Why do you think I hang out in the Atheist forums with you guys.


----------



## stringmusic

thanatos said:


> that is the journey that i am on now. Constantly challenging my beliefs. Why do you think i hang out in the atheist forums with you guys.



x 2


----------



## ambush80

Thanatos said:


> That is the journey that I am on now. Constantly challenging my beliefs. Why do you think I hang out in the Atheist forums with you guys.





stringmusic said:


> x 2


----------



## TheBishop

Thanatos said:


> "Proves 100%" was a dramatic statement to make a point on my part. I have said many times in the past nothing is verifiable 100%


. 

Nice cover up.



> This is the response I wanted from you though. I wanted you to make it clear that you never had any relationship with God and do not claim to understand the Bible. From your previous post it seemed to me that you were creating the impression that you had a through knowledge of the Bible and God. Just glad we cleared that up.



Never claimed to be a theist.  But I do claim to be a logical, rational, being, and have reached the conclusion you have a relationship with an imaginary friend. I understand what the bible is, a book written by men, formed possibly  as a spiritual guide and moral handbook, but used more as tool to manipulate the dumb masses. 



> I over stepped my bounds some what, but my point still stands that you have rejected something that you have little knowledge of. I wish that you would take the time to research these topics of belief instead of sitting on an internet forum trying to pretend like you know what you are talking about. I am speaking of our theological discussions.



Thank you for proving my point.  You understand the way I _BELIEVE_  you could study nothing but the bible and god for your entire life, and I could study for ten minutes and we would have the same level of _KNOWLEDGE_, NONE! There is absolutely no way to_ know_ This is fact. We can speculate, theorize, hypothesis, or just plain old guess, and it all has the same amount of validatity. This much I _KNOW_.  So I have as much knowledge to discuss with you here, as the pope does.  So stop pretending you _know_ what you are talking about becuase you absolutely 100% don't.  All You have is faith and beliefs, just as I do, no more, no less. 



> Tell me this, "Has your wife ever cheated on you?" Before you give your answer I need you to find proof before you respond. *I do not want your opinion*. I need hard palpable evidence that your wife has never cheated on you.



No she hasn't I heard voices in my head that I know is god and he told me no.  He also said all the judeo-christians got it wrong.  That satan wrote the bible as a ruse, and any body who bought into that nonsense was going to haites for claiming knowledge of the unknowable.  He thinks its stupid that people claim a heavenly pass just becuase they are "christians".  He told me the only people going to heaven is tournament bass fisherman, becuase anyone crazy enough to fish at night in a thunderstorm, belongs in such a blessed place.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Tell me this, "Has your wife ever cheated on you?" Before you give your answer I need you to find proof before you respond. I do not want your opinion. I need hard palpable evidence that your wife has never cheated on you.







> No she hasn't I heard voices in my head that I know is god and he told me no. He also said all the judeo-christians got it wrong. That satan wrote the bible as a ruse, and any body who bought into that nonsense was going to haites for claiming knowledge of the unknowable. He thinks its stupid that people claim a heavenly pass just becuase they are "christians". He told me the only people going to heaven is tournament bass fisherman, becuase anyone crazy enough to fish at night in a thunderstorm, belongs in such a blessed place.






> Nice cover up.





Hello, Pot?  This is Kettle.....


----------



## Spotlite

TheBishop said:


> 1. So I dedicated my daughter yesterday, not willingly, but it was her mothers wish, and it was mothers day.  I did the same thing last year with my son, agian mothers day. I went through the motions saying "I will", ever meaning "Not as long as there is breath in my lungs".
> 
> 
> 2. The more I listen, the more I promise to raise my children without the influences of a religious institution.



1. I saw two dedication services this weekend. In niether service was the child baptised, saved etc..........It was merely a promise by the church to the child and God to look out for its welfare, make sure he has a way to church if the parents stop coming, make sure the well-being of that child is there as far as food, clothes and anything else it needs. Its a pretty admirable thing within the church itself to promise to look out for each others kids In hopes that one day, the child may make its own decision

2. Theres a difference between a religious institution and a church......................just ask Jim Jones.....................


----------



## Spotlite

TheBishop said:


> You do not need obedience to get respect, but you can use discipline to get respect



Theres hundreds of children today in juvi or on probation that have no repect for anyone.................it all started with their disobedience and the lack of discipline by those in charge of the child. It takes both to make you or break you

You cant respect anything that you do not obey, and theres is no need for discipline if there is nothing there to obey or not obey...................what are you basing discipline on then?

Even in the work place, you respect your leaders and obey their instructions. The lack of obeying those instructions gets you disciplined.

If they fail to discipline you for not obeying something, you loose your respect for them and see just how much you get away with.


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Hello, Pot?  This is Kettle.....



Oh yeagh god also had a special message for you huntinfool.  Turkey hunters will be stuck in the most heinous of pergatory's.  It will be a forrest full of vocal birds that you can only get close enough to hear not see. There will be different seasons.  During deer, you will see nothing but turkey's, and during turkey you will see nothing but deer.


----------



## TheBishop

Spotlite said:


> Theres hundreds of children today in juvi or on probation that have no repect for anyone.................it all started with their disobedience and the lack of discipline by those in charge of the child. It takes both to make you or break you
> 
> You cant respect anything that you do not obey, and theres is no need for discipline if there is nothing there to obey or not obey...................what are you basing discipline on then?
> 
> Even in the work place, you respect your leaders and obey their instructions. The lack of obeying those instructions gets you disciplined.
> 
> If they fail to discipline you for not obeying something, you loose your respect for them and see just how much you get away with.



There are also hundred of children in juvi and adults in jail becuase of the way their parents disciplined them.


----------



## stringmusic

Huntinfool said:


> Hello, Pot?  This is Kettle.....


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Oh yeagh god also had a special message for you huntinfool.  Turkey hunters will be stuck in the most heinous of pergatory's.  It will be a forrest full of vocal birds that you can only get close enough to hear not see. There will be different seasons.  During deer, you will see nothing but turkey's, and during turkey you will see nothing but deer.



I thought you were neither a theist or a Christian?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I thought you were neither a theist or a Christian?



I talked to god. I know he doesn't like theist or christians.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> I talked to god. I know he doesn't like theist or christians.



He doesnt like people that believe in Him? I'm confuzzed

Now that you have spoken with God, what do you consider yourself? You can no longer be one of the question mark people, or atheist.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> He doesnt like people that believe in Him? I'm confuzzed
> 
> Now that you have spoken with God, what do you consider yourself? You can no longer be one of the question mark people, or atheist.



I justed talked to god again.  He said your not catching on.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> I justed talked to god again.  He said your not catching on.



I get it, I just have a very dry and sometimes very strange sense of humor.


----------



## Thanatos

TheBishop said:


> .
> 
> No she hasn't I heard voices in my head that I know is god and he told me no.  He also said all the judeo-christians got it wrong.  That satan wrote the bible as a ruse, and any body who bought into that nonsense was going to haites for claiming knowledge of the unknowable.  He thinks its stupid that people claim a heavenly pass just becuase they are "christians".  He told me the only people going to heaven is tournament bass fisherman, becuase anyone crazy enough to fish at night in a thunderstorm, belongs in such a blessed place.



I wish you would have posted this response first as to not have to read the rest of that.

It is to bad you did not use your willpower or superior intellect that you have shown in the past to answer this question.


----------



## Thanatos

TheBishop said:


> Oh yeagh god also had a special message for you huntinfool.  Turkey hunters will be stuck in the most heinous of pergatory's.  It will be a forrest full of vocal birds that you can only get close enough to hear not see. There will be different seasons.  During deer, you will see nothing but turkey's, and during turkey you will see nothing but deer.



Hahaha! That is not purgatory. That is the ninth level of H E L L


----------



## TripleXBullies

Is that not really the same thing??




Thanatos said:


> Hahaha! That is not purgatory. That is the ninth level of H E L L


----------



## TheBishop

Thanatos said:


> I wish you would have posted this response first as to not have to read the rest of that.
> 
> It is to bad you did not use your willpower or superior intellect that you have shown in the past to answer this question.



Sounds pretty stupid huh? Well thats _EXACTLY_ how you sound to me.


----------



## Thanatos

TheBishop said:


> Sounds pretty stupid huh? Well thats _EXACTLY_ how you sound to me.



Nice! Why don't you tell your wife your answer of how  you know she has never cheated on you. I am sure she would love your answer. 

Since you will not explore this with me let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if your wife asked you every day,  "Have you cheated on me"? Every day she ask you and you always tell her no "Trust me". Everyday she gets more enraged and depressed because you can not come up with the hard proof you have not cheated on her. How miserable would that be for you? 

Instead, i bet your wife is an intelligent woman and has "faith" in you. She "trust" you without the hard evidence of your loyalty.


----------



## TripleXBullies

There's 1000% more to see, feel and understand with a person standing in front of you saying things... Those kinds of things are much easier to have faith in and trust.

I am married to a manic depressive.. Enraged and depressed are opposites. So are you talking about swings? Would you like me to write a book about it? I've considered it actually.


----------



## Thanatos

TripleXBullies said:


> There's 1000% more to see, feel and understand with a person standing in front of you saying things... Those kinds of things are much easier to have faith in and trust.
> 
> I am married to a manic depressive.. Enraged and depressed are opposites. So are you talking about swings? Would you like me to write a book about it? I've considered it actually.



My mother suffers from that as well. Why do you think I typed it that way? 

Holding hands, kissing, sharing special moments together, having kids, etc. are independent actions from someone cheating. Just because you do these actions together does not mean you are faithful to each other. Unless you keep your spouse locked in a dungeon all day you have to have faith in them. 

There is a reason that God makes monogamous marriage so important in the Bible. You use the same belief in each other that you use to believe in Him.


----------



## Thanatos

TripleXBullies said:


> Is that not really the same thing??



Purgatory is said to be where you go right after you die. Kind of like a state of limbo. The 9th level of H E L L is the lowest level of H E L L according to Milton's Paradise Lost.


----------



## TheBishop

Thanatos said:


> Nice! Why don't you tell your wife your answer of how  you know she has never cheated on you. I am sure she would love your answer.
> 
> Since you will not explore this with me let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if your wife asked you every day,  "Have you cheated on me"? Every day she ask you and you always tell her no "Trust me". Everyday she gets more enraged and depressed because you can not come up with the hard proof you have not cheated on her. How miserable would that be for you?
> 
> Instead, i bet your wife is an intelligent woman and has "faith" in you. She "trust" you without the hard evidence of your loyalty.



My wife is not a godess (well to me she is), she is an emotional human being.  She is also something I know exsists, and easy to put faith in.  I have seen her actions, and she has seen mine.  They are no doubt they are our actions.  There is a big differenc in something you can see, taste and feel, then something you have to imagine.


----------



## Thanatos

TheBishop said:


> My wife is not a godess (well to me she is), she is an emotional human being.  She is also something I know exsists, and easy to put faith in.  I have seen her actions, and she has seen mine.  They are no doubt they are our actions.  There is a big differenc in something you can see, taste and feel, then something you have to imagine.



Again, spouses actions are each independent of each other.  If you are using your Atheist logic you should not trust her because you have no proof of her faithfulness no matter how she treats you when you are together.


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> My wife is not a godess (well to me she is), she is an emotional human being.  She is also something I know exsists, and easy to put faith in.  I have seen her actions, and she has seen mine.  They are no doubt they are our actions.  There is a big differenc in something you can see, taste and feel, then something you have to imagine.



In other words you have a reasonable expectation based on what you know. Not quite in the same category as having faith in a mythical figure.


----------



## Thanatos

atlashunter said:


> In other words you have a reasonable expectation based on what you know.



Having an expectation is different in believing an action/event does not happen. 

Would you tell your wife/girlfriend, "I expect you to not cheat on me, but I dont know if you will." Or what if she said that to you all the time? The relationship would be strained because of it.


----------



## atlashunter

Thanatos said:


> Having an expectation is different in believing an action/event does not happen.
> 
> Would you tell your wife/girlfriend, "I expect you to not cheat on me, but I dont know if you will." Or what if she said that to you all the time? The relationship would be strained because of it.



Why not? It's an honest statement. Trust is earned but it can always be betrayed. You're really grasping at straws trying to compare that to blind faith.


----------



## Thanatos

atlashunter said:


> Why not? It's an honest statement. Trust is earned but it can always be betrayed. You're really grasping at straws trying to compare that to blind faith.



It comes down to your opinion versus my opinion. The same evidence we see in our partners to trust them, I  see evidence in our space and time that God is there. Starting with cosmological to biological and all the way down to quantum mechanics the evidence is there to be consumed. Then...all you need is faith. Something you use every day in relationships with fallible creatures.

There is a reason why marriage is so important in the Bible. God wants us to have the same relationship with each other that we have in Him...agape.


----------



## atlashunter

No more evidence in your examples for Yaweh than for Poseidon. But whatever makes you feel good and helps you get through the day...


----------



## Thanatos

atlashunter said:


> No more evidence in your examples for Yaweh than for Poseidon. But whatever makes you feel good and helps you get through the day...



Agreed. Just glad I was born in America and not Japan...if you know what i mean. Even though I would love to have some of their technology and cars at my disposal.


----------



## HawgJawl

Thanatos said:


> Nice! Why don't you tell your wife your answer of how  you know she has never cheated on you. I am sure she would love your answer.
> 
> Since you will not explore this with me let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if your wife asked you every day,  "Have you cheated on me"? Every day she ask you and you always tell her no "Trust me". Everyday she gets more enraged and depressed because you can not come up with the hard proof you have not cheated on her. How miserable would that be for you?
> 
> Instead, i bet your wife is an intelligent woman and has "faith" in you. She "trust" you without the hard evidence of your loyalty.



Body language and tone of voice carry more weight than the words spoken when it comes to conveying emotion.  It's easier to trust someone's words when you speak to them face-to-face.


----------



## Thanatos

HawgJawl said:


> Body language and tone of voice carry more weight than the words spoken when it comes to conveying emotion.  It's easier to trust someone's words when you speak to them face-to-face.



I agree, but, again the body language and words spoken are not variables that lead to 100% physical faithfulness of a spouse.


----------



## HawgJawl

Thanatos said:


> I agree, but, again the body language and words spoken are not variables that lead to 100% physical faithfulness of a spouse.



I agree. The context of what I'm saying is when a person is evaluating the credibility of a promise to do something in the future, it helps to see and hear the person making the promise face-to-face.


----------



## Thanatos

HawgJawl said:


> I agree. The context of what I'm saying is when a person is evaluating the credibility of a promise to do something in the future, it helps to see and hear the person making the promise face-to-face.



What every Christian strives for is that relationship with God and to one day see His face.


----------



## Spotlite

HawgJawl said:


> I agree. The context of what I'm saying is when a person is evaluating the credibility of a promise to do something in the future, it helps to _*see*_ and hear the person making the promise face-to-face.



look up the biblical definition for FAITH.


----------



## Spotlite

TheBishop said:


> There are also hundred of children in juvi and adults in jail becuase of the way their parents disciplined them.



True, but at some point someone failed to teach and guide, or else those parents would have known how to discipline...............

Reckon why a wild horse is.....................wild


----------

