[Wondergirl]

Wondergirl, these were the very first responses to my question

But they were NOT the only ones you received. You got some good ones, even logical ones. I still don't know what you want to hear.

Are you really having that much trouble understanding why these answers do NOT pertain to the question at hand, dear?

Please don't patronize me. It doesn't help your quest for truth at all.

There are people who would love nothing more than to cut off your head, because you don't believe what they do.

If you read history, it has been this way since the beginning of time and people who don't agree with each other. Read OT stories, read about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the religio-ethnic wars that have taken place and still are taking place all over the world.

speak out against the irrational thought of religion

Religion isn't the problem. The interpretation of religion and religions' holy books is the problem. The men who attacked the WTC towers were Muslim FUNDAMENTALISTS. They twisted the teachings of Islam. The men who lynched blacks in the South were often Christian FUNDAMENDALISTS. They twisted the teachings of the Bible.

The problem I have with this is, where do you draw the line?

Neither you nor anyone else can draw any line. People believe what they believe based on their upbringing, the influences in their lives, their country of origin, their family situation, their personal experiences.

And these people are asking we elect them to deal with the problems of another powerful ideology with members who are every bit as convinced God is on their side.

That has always been the case with war. God is claimed by each side.

it becomes much harder for people like us to call them out on their most ridiculous and dellusional beliefs.

And how do you propose to "call them out"? You (or anyone else) can't control how anyone in the world thinks. You (or anyone else) can't control how Bush or Bin Laden or Obama or even your own child thinks.

All I got was attacked, and no one was very helpful.

That's not true. The posters who responded did their darnest to understand what you were asking, answered in light of their experiences and knowledge, and did their level best to be helpful.

[lobrobster]

If you were raised a Catholic, you already know how the "religious mind works", so that is just a load of dog poop.

Obviously I don't know how a religious mind works, because I was raised Catholic and I'm still not religious!? :confused:

I seriously wonder if some of you think at all before you write something.

[lobrobster]

I actually agree with a lot of what you wrote here Wondergirl.

Religion isn't the problem. The interpretation of religion and religions' holy books is the problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but isn't the interpretation of holy books EXACTLY WHAT RELIGION IS? And if so, wouldn't that make religion the problem?

The men who attacked the WTC towers were Muslim FUNDAMENTALISTS. They twisted the teachings of Islam

.

Are you SURE they *twisted* the teachings, and didn't just take them literally? I honestly don't know. Are you familiar with the Koran and what it has to say about jihad and/or those who commit apostacy?

I'm sure you and most everyone else STILL don't see why I asked my question. I want to know HOW you believe moderately. If the book says something and you believe it to be true, what's stopping you from being fundamental about it? If I read in the bible that I must kill my fiancé upon learning she's not a virgin, what' supposed to stop me from doing it? I know you're going to say, don't be silly! But I really want to know what makes one a moderate, and the other a fundamentalist.

The men who lynched blacks in the South were often Christian FUNDAMENDALISTS. They twisted the teachings of the Bible.

Even I wouldn't single out Chirstianity when it comes to racism. I know the bible condones slavery and even the occasional selling of one's daughter into prostitution, but I'm not familiar with anything it has to say concerning blacks. You can correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm sure you will).

Neither you nor anyone else can draw any line. People believe what they believe based on their upbringing, the influences in their lives, their country of origin, their family situation, their personal experiences.

Now this is the most insightful thing you've said in this whole thread and I couldn't agree more. Religious beliefs have little to do with TRUTH and everything to do with where one was born, where they were brought up, what their parents told them to believe.

And how do you propose to "call them out"? You (or anyone else) can't control how anyone in the world thinks. You (or anyone else) can't control how Bush or Bin Laden or Obama or even your own child thinks.

You're right again, but this is why I see moderates being just as much of the problem. If we were to call them out on their more irrational beliefs, then the fundamentalists surely wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

So I agree with almost everything you wrote here, but I'm positive we see it altogether differently.

[NowWhat]

If the Mom wants to save the souls of her children and ensure that they go to heaven - the answer isn't to kill them while they are innocent. The answer is to get them into church and let them get educated. Lead them to Christ. Only Christ can save our souls.
I accepted Christ at the age of 8. My daughter accepted Christ at the age of 6. I do not need to kill her to make sure she is going to heaven. She made sure of that on her own.

[sylvester71]

Suppose a Christian mother is very religious. She firmly believes in heaven and hell and the fate of the eternal soul. She has two children ages 7 and 5 who are very good Christian kids. She has every reason to think that if they were to die tomorrow, God would certainly accept them into heaven.

But as we know, kids grow up and become influenced by the world. If they both live to be 90, there is always the very real chance that one of them will commit a mortal sin at some point in their lives. So here's my question:

Can you provide a reason why this mother shouldn't kill her two kids now and lock in their eternal fate? I mean, the difference between spending eternity in heaven or hell is not a little thing. It's EVERYTHING! If she kills them now, their souls have a 100% chance of going to heaven. If she lets them live, there will always be some chance greater than zero they will go to hell. So why should she take ANY chance when she doesn't have to?

Now before you say it... I realize this mother would be committing a mortal sin herself by killing them. But suppose her love for her two kids is so great that she's willing to sacrifice her soul for theirs?

It seems to me that if you have any loved ones who are currently worthy of heaven, it would be an incredible act of heroic selflessness to kill them now and guarantee their eternal soul. So why don't more Christians do this? Is it because they place their own eternal fate above that of their loved ones?

Once again, I'm not trying to be cute. This is a serious question. If I truly believed that my kids were either going to heaven or hell when they die, I'm sure I love them enough to where I'd sacrifice my own soul and do whatever it takes to make sure they don't suffer for eternity. So I guess it's a real good thing people like me don't believe this stuff, huh?

I suggest that you ask that question to amazonfacts.com they are very knowledgeable about these kind of things. Of course your question is shocking. Number one there are three places the bible speaks of hell,heaven and non existence. You judge from without God judges from within. God alone determine who goes to heaven or hell. Your children may be sweet and God may choose to let them remain sleep forever. As for you. You could end up being very bitter and lost. True Love allows a person to grow just as you have grown. People will not be in heaven because someone killed them but because they have been chosen by God not you. Sister love your children,teach them,pray for them, and leave it up to God. Jesus have a purpose for them and don't you dare cheat them out of fulfilling it. Yours in Christ sylvester 71

[ordinaryguy]

isn't the interpretation of holy books EXACTLY WHAT RELIGION IS?

There are some, maybe even many people for whom religion really is nothing more than the interpretation of holy books. But wouldn't you allow that it CAN be more than that, and that for some, it IS more than that?

Are you SURE they *twisted* the teachings, and didn't just take them literally?

That is the real question here, isn't it? Whether a literal, absolutist interpretation of the teachings is twisted, or is it the TRUE teaching and all the versions that deal in shades of gray and degrees of uncertainty are apostasy?

I'm sure you and most everyone else STILL don't see why I asked my question. I want to know HOW you believe moderately.

Now that, my friend is a question worth asking. If you had asked it that way in the beginning, it would have saved a lot of heat.

If the book says something and you believe it to be true, what's stopping you from being fundamental about it?

A sense of proportion and moderation, maybe. An appreciation for the fact that every distinction is fuzzy if you look closely enough. The realization that a strictly mathematical logic will only get you so far along the road to spiritual maturity.

I really want to know what makes one a moderate, and the other a fundamentalist.

Moderates are more tolerant of fuzzy distinctions and more respectful of the limitations of strict logic in moral reasoning.

True Love allows a person to grow just as you have grown.

This is a gem.

[RubyPitbull]

Note*edited post*

Obviously I don't know how a religious mind works, because I was raised Catholic and I'm still not religious! ??? :confused:

I seriously wonder if some of you think at all before you write something.

Up until you started this thread lobr, I thought you were a pretty astute guy. This kind of logic and response, which appears throughout this thread, is uncalled for, and comes under the definition of disparaging others. A no-no under the rules of this site. Up until your most recent posts, you were acting very much the troll from the get go here. So, the responses you have received have a direct correlation to that little factoid. No one is a mind reader my dear. You should have explained what you were concerned about to start with, then asked your initial question. So, please refrain from stooping to derogatory comments like this when it is apparent that YOU are the one having trouble thinking before you write something. Make your intentions clear to people from the start and you won't have the problem you are currently encountering.

I was not raised Catholic. I wasn't raised in Atheism, but a very lax version of my religion. I understand how the religious mind works. Why? Because I read. I read everything. I wanted to understand and went out of my way to research. Once I read something, if I had questions, I asked the religious people that I knew to clarify.

I'm sure you and most everyone else STILL don't see why I asked my question.

Of course people STILL don't see why you asked your question. Sheesh! It has taken you up until post #85 to get to the heart of your concerns and to get to the actual question for crying out loud.

Religious beliefs have little to do with TRUTH and everything to do with where one was born, where they were brought up, what their parents told them to believe.

This goes to the heart of your recent question and it is very much a part of the answer you are looking for. Children are a reflection of their parents beliefs. When you are talking about religious genocide through the centuries, the parents who are so strong in their convictions cut themselves off as completely as possible from anyone with ideas different from their own. While the rest of the world has made strides in understanding and tolerance, they don't.

I want to know HOW you believe moderately. If the book says something and you believe it to be true, what's stopping you from being fundamental about it? If I read in the bible that I must kill my fiance upon learning she's not a virgin, what' supposed to stop me from doing it? I know you're gonna say, don't be silly! But I really want to know what makes one a moderate, and the other a fundamentalist.
You're right again, but this is why I see moderates being just as much of the problem. If we were to call them out on their more irrational beliefs, then the fundamentalists surely wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Do you seriously believe that if you understand the mind of the "moderates" as you call them, that you are going to be able to get more insight into how to deal with the erratic fundamentalist mindset and be able to flummox them through logical discourse?
If you are simply looking to understand how they become so hard boiled in their convictions enough to commit murder for their faith, you are not looking in the right place. No "moderate" here will ever be able to come up with a response that will satify you. They don't believe in killing in the name of their religion and that is what keeps them from being an erratic fundamentalist. As I said earlier, it is what they have been taught by their parents, in addition to the teachings of the church and community they were raised/live in. You are making a grave tactical error in thinking you will get any closer to the answers you are looking for here on this site. I suggest you start with reading about the Fundamentalist mindset. Doing that should bring you closer to the understanding that you are looking for rather than wasting your time asking questions of the regular members here. Once you have a better understanding, and you still have some lingering questions, come back and ask for the clarifications you need.

Here is an extensive list of books that should help you:
Fundamentalism

Here are two that talk about the fundamentalist mindset outside of the U.S.
Understanding Terror Networks | Sageman, Marc

Foreign Affairs - The Great Revival: Understanding Religious "Fundamentalism" - David Aikman

[phil_stl]

The Scripture vs. killing our children

There's no end to the list of questions I think Christians should be made to answer to. Not because I think they are bad people. But because even they wouldn't carry out their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Yet many of my Christian friends ask me to come back to faith! What I"m really asking with a question like this is, why when you don't believe it yourself?

Can a Christian believe only 1 passage from the bible?
As you've read my other mini essay, I've shown to you that what you mentioned is not the logical conclusion that you believe it to be, because you've taken 1 message out of the Bible and based EVERYTHING on that message. A true Christian believes the Bible in its entirety not one or a couple messages that they themselves decide on! As I said if they are going to pick pieces from the Bible and apply their own logic so they can come to their own conclusions they might as well start their own cult!

The person you describe is not a Christian I'm sorry to say this, but you have misunderstood what it takes to be a Christian; because whether a person is Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican or Protestant every Christian believes in the Bible in its entirety. You can't cut out a passage from the Bible, throw the rest of the Bible in the garbage, then apply your own logic and come to your own conclusions based on this one passage… wow, I continue to repeat myself on this point… so I'm sure by now you understand that anyone that only believes in only one (or a couple) Bible passages CAN NOT call themselves a Christian!

So the only thing you've proven is that the person that you've described is deeply confused about what her religion truly is… because it sure can't be Christianity!

The equation
I think it's funny that you turn the Bible message regarding entry into heaven and hell into some mathematical equation (the percent chance the children will have to go to heaven if their mother kills them now). So since you like to think of things that way and because math for you is logical, then that's fine and I'll answer your question using this same method of logic – mathematical equation.

My basic argument here is that this mother is not God and therefore will never be able to understand all the figures that go into the full mathematical equation regarding entry into heaven vs. entry into hell for her children.

I'm sure you know what happens in math when we have only one figure (as her beliefs are based on one message in the Bible) in the whole equation that we are trying to solve? That's right, we can't solve that equation! Impossible! So why would this mother think she has the answer; wait no; the “logical answer” to a question she can't even solve because she doesn't have all the figures to solve it?! My only explanation is she is confused about the religion and not educated enough about it.

Here are a few examples of figures in this equation she doesn't have which render her ability to solve the equation impossible (or at least render her ability to solve it logically, impossible):

1. What her kids are like behind closed doors? Are they bad? Bad enough to grant them eternity in hell? A mother would only hope not, but a mother will never know!

2. Another figure is whether her children have been taught the correct truths. Considering she is not even a Christian herself (which I have already proved and spoken about many times; but if you see logic in the idea that the Bible can be only 1-2 sentences long and based solely on 1 message, then I will be glad to debate this with you as long as you would like) then I can probably guarantee that if she was the one that had a role in teaching her children about this belief system (or cult as I would call it) that she herself created, then not only is she herself NOT a Christian but neither are her children... and I think that tells you were her kids will end up if she were to kill them! Hell.

3. Finally let's pretend the mother even though she only believes in 1 message from the Bible and has based the idea of killing her kids on this single message… let's also pretend that God accepts the idea of her going to heaven even though she has ignored 99.9999% of everything he tells us in the scripture… Let's just say everything would go according to plan regarding the logistics of salvation that defines the entry into heaven.

Even still the fact is that the mother will never know the depth of the relationship her children have with God; are they actually saved? Will they actually go to heaven? This fact (or the figure that this mother is missing) is similar to the 1st point (1st missing figure), but it just goes to show there are plenty of figures that would come into play that this mother doesn't have knowledge of and will never have knowledge of. Therefore without the knowledge of these figures (and others like them) it is absolutely impossible to come to a logical decision (or in mathematical terms: to solve this equation logically)!

Conclusion
The only answers that will make this mother understand why she shouldn't kill her children lie directly in the 99.9999% of the Bible that she either: hasn't read, didn't understand, decided to ignore, forgot about etc. I suggest she reads at least another few pages in the “book of life” and she will find scriptures such as the ones I've mentioned in the last mini essay I wrote and many more that explain perfectly how God has a much bigger plan for her and her children's lives. So if she can't accept the other scriptures to be true then she is not a Christian and considering that her only true belief in Christianity is that non-Christians will go to hell this means I have just proved logically that this mother would be going to hell (as she is not a Christian)! Thus if she has trained her kids up through this single set of beliefs of hers, that also means her kids logically would be going to hell as well and therefore it wouldn't matter whether she killed them now or let them die later, she has not saved their souls from eternal damnation either way!

____________
Can a Christian believe in what lobrobster calls “the logical conclusion”?
Well let's say the mother reads the Bible and accepts the scriptures and the things that God says in the Bible, well then it is impossible for her to continue to believe that killing her children is the logical thing to do so that they can go to heaven. But why?

Because these two ideas blatantly contradict each other, if she believes in the one she can't believe in the other. It's a very simple concept, but know I must still elaborate: if she continued to believe it is logical to kill her children then she can't believe that God is the creator of “a lot” of “very complex” things and he can handle our simple situations, that he provides to the birds of the air and the fish of the sea and can provide for us, that he doesn't give us more than we can handle, he answer our prayers, he is there for those that love him and he has given us the skills to accomplish our destiny and our desires.

Because if you take any one of these underlined points and relate any of them to the ultimate goal of this mother (which is having her kids live in heaven for eternity) but you still believes it is logical to kill your children for that goal to be achieved. Then it refutes the rest of the scripture which would be showing that this person doesn't trust in the rest of the Bible, thus they don't trust in God's promises, which means they aren't trusting in God… and so they are not even a Christian (and therefore are going to hell anyway, and if their children were taught the same way, then they are going to hell too).

Moreover if a mother believes in the scriptures then they are trusting that God has a plan for her life and her children's lives, and if a mother believes that God has a plan for her children's lives than the mother wouldn't even think of killing her children because if she did that would mean she is not trusting God.

And there we have the full circle… so for someone to believe in one logic means they cannot believe the other (either believing in the Scripture or the idea of killing our children), which means for a real Christian (not someone that thinks they are a Christian by following one scripture passage) then it is un-logical and even inconceivable to kill their own children to guarantee their salvation because as said it refutes the rest of the scripture which would be showing that they don't trust in the rest of the Bible, thus don't trust in God's promises, thus they do not trust in God… and so they are not even a Christian themselves!

This essay has given you two detailed reasons as to why killing our children is un-logical. You mentioned you had questions for me after I wrote my last mini essay based on the topic at hand so I look forward to hearing them and if you don't understand something in this response, then feel free to ask as well.

Phillip

[lobrobster]

Thank you phil for another insightful post. The reason I called it a math problem was because I assumed a). God assured heaven to baptized kids and infants, and b). The mother was 100% SURE of this, and that her child was worthy of heaven right then. It's math problem, because clearly when you weigh an eternal life with that of 80 or so years, it becomes a no-brainer.

But as you eloquently explain, it might not be as simple as all that. There are other things to consider and you'ven given me food for thought. Thank you again.

[lobrobster]

RubyPitbull

Look, whether you consider me astute or a blithering idiot, is none of my concern and I couldn't care less.

The fact is, it's a question that I thought cried out for an answer. There are a myriad of logical answers that could've been put forth, which I would've accepted quite readily.

For instance, an argument could be made for a belief that how one lives out their life and what they do on earth is of eternal significance. That right there, answers the question satisfactorily and requires no further follow up by me.

Another argument could've been made by comparing other risk associated events a parent is willing to take with her child. For instance, you could make the case that similar logic is used every time you allow a child to go swimming. Preventing him from ever swimming would mean 100% certainty he won't drown in a swimming pool accident, but it does not make logical sense to do so. The risk of death and foregoing the next 70 years of his life does not outweigh the important experiences he gains by taking these calculated risks in life. In the same vein, so should a mother also be willing to tale a calculated risk concerning her child's eternal life as well.

There are many, many legitimate answers that coud've been proposed. You are taking issue with me, because I called out the ones that made no sense and were nothing more than shortcuts to thinking. I wasn't polite. That's your choice. But to stick up for nonsensical answers just to earn browny points with your peers on here is inexcusable to me. So you've lost your respect for my astuteness, and I lost respect for you having any kind of a backbone. So it goes...

[RubyPitbull]

Interesting response Lobr. I know most of these people as well as I know you, so brownie points have nothing to do with it. Instead of focusing on my upbraiding you (which does require a backbone btw) did you bother to read the rest of my response? Do you think it would be a waste of your time reading up on the fundamentalist mindset to achieve a better understanding?

Why don't we focus on the logical responses and get off the topic of the ones that annoyed you. I am glad Phil was able to give you more input on your original question. I think DeMaria also gave you a very good and concise answer:

Because we can't secure their eternal soul. God judges the soul, we don't.

If I could be certain that by killing my children right now, they would go to heaven, I would do it. But I can't be certain. So why risk my soul for a gamble?


1 Corinthians 4
1 Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. 2 Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful. 3 But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man's day; but neither do I judge my own self. 4 For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.

I wouldn't classify him as a "moderate" but rather, a devout Christian. Along with Wondergirl, OrdinaryGuy, mafiaangel, and some other good responses you have received along the way, Inthebox provided another excellent one:

I'm sure you know John 3:16,

God gave His only Son....... so you would not have to sacrifice your own soul for your children.;)

I think when you are considering the original question you proposed, you can't dismiss or ignore scripture. If you want to understand how the religious mind works, scripture is such an integral part of the why they believe what they do and how they deal with the issues in their lives.

This is important so I would like you to focus on it:

I'm of the opinion that wishy-washy believers (of all religions) pave the way for hard line fundamentalists. I want to understand how the religious mind works. That's why I ask questions.

When you say that you believe "moderates" pave the way for hard line fundamentalists, what you are suggesting is a theory that you have. So, taking that theory, you have to consider that it really does come down to interpretation of scripture along with outside influences. How do some people come up with different interpretations? One person sees love thy neighbor, another person sees destroy thy enemy. As I stated in my last post, if you look at the life of an extreme fundamentalist, they surround themselves with like-minded people. They completely cut themselves off from any outside influences. Their children grow up in that atmosphere.

You have some people who have faith (moderates) but they are struggling with it or are having a problem finding their purpose in life. That can be the result of social issues, economic ones, or a myriad of things. Those moderates can find their way into an extreme fundamentalist movement because they are susceptible and open to someone, anyone, telling them what their purpose in life is. They want and need to have someone giving them direction. If you look at Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Charles Manson, they were able to take people and bend them to their will. Why? Because these people were looking for something and/or unable to function on their own.

But, those cases really are fewer and far between than your average "moderate" or even your average devout follower. These people are not about to join an extreme fundamentalist movement because they are surrounded by their family, friends, co-workers,. For the most part, they have found the proper balance in their lives, and (of crucial importance) interact with people of other faiths or non-faiths. They don't cut themselves off from the world. I think the interaction with others plays a very vital role in whether they can be "turned" into an extreme fundamentalist.

Am I getting closer to what you are trying to understand or the purpose of why you posted in the first place? This thread has taken so many twists and turns that I might have missed something.

[lobrobster]

Do you think it would be a waste of your time reading up on the fundamentalist mindset to achieve a better understanding?

Not at all. I was unaware there were even books on this. Thanks for the info. I will definitely be reading up on this.

Why don't we focus on the logical responses and get off the topic of the ones that annoyed you.

Because I was overwhelmed with criticism for the question and my reaction to the first few answers. All I had time to do was deal with those. The pile-on was so fast and furious I didn't even notice (and still haven't seen) De Maria was even in this thread!

This is important so I would like you to focus on it:
When you say that you believe "moderates" pave the way for hard line fundamentalists, what you are suggesting is a theory that you have. So, taking that theory, you have to consider that it really does come down to interpretation of scripture along with outside influences. How do some people come up with different interpretations? One person sees love thy neighbor, another person sees destroy thy enemy. As I stated in my last post, if you look at the life of an extreme fundamentalist, they surround themselves with like-minded people. They completely cut themselves off from any outside influences. Their children grow up in that atmosphere.

Perhaps... But I think it's more because we must take reason off the table when dealing with ANY kind of religious belief (or at least most of them). We (or rather people like yourself), are afraid of offending a religious person's sensibilities. To be frank, I think the way you treat religious people is so much more condescending than anything I could say. You know as well as I do that many of their beliefs are ludricrous. Yet your attitude seems to be, "Let's just leave them to their dellusions. They're not hurting anyone and it makes them feel better". Whereas, I think people should be made to account for preposterous claims.

Am I getting closer to what you are trying to understand or the purpose of why you posted in the first place? This thread has taken so many twists and turns that I might have missed something.

You've definitely given me some food for thought and even new directions to turn for reading material. I have a lot more to say on moderate Vs. fundamental beliefs. But yes.. This thread has become a complete mess and I think we all should just let it die. Thanks for the suggestions.

[RubyPitbull]

Perhaps... But I think it's more due to the fact that we must take reason off the table when dealing with ANY kind of religious belief (or at least most of them). We (or rather people like yourself), are afraid of offending a religious person's sensibilities. To be frank, I think the way you treat religious people is so much more condescending than anything I could say. You know as well as I do that many of their beliefs are ludricrous. Yet your attitude seems to be, "Let's just leave them to their dellusions. They're not hurting anyone and it makes them feel better". Whereas, I think people should be made to account for preposterous claims.
This thread has become a complete mess and I think we all should just let it die. Thanks for the suggestions.

If you want to let the thread die, that is your choice. But, I think you are reading my posts wrong. Although you may think I am being condescending to religious people, I can assure you I am not. I don't believe their beliefs are "ludricrous" nor do I think they are "delusional". I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. I honestly don't see the point in beating someone up who has a different belief structure from my own, and ultimately creating a hostile environment. To each his own, live and let live,. Where I draw the line is when someone proselytizes or tries to convince me I am wrong in my beliefs, how I live my life, or simply assuming too much. ;)

[lobrobster]

Where I draw the line is when someone proselytizes or tries to convince me I am wrong in my beliefs, how I live my life, or simply assuming too much. ;)

I just had to comment on this...

Why? What's wrong with being convinced you have a wrong belief, if it's... WRONG!

Do you deny that it's possible for you to hold an incorrect belief? Do you really think that you live every aspect of your life in the best possible way? That must be nice.

I don't know about you, but when someone points out that I'm believing or thinking about something wrong, I'm grateful. In fact, I'm even MORE grateful the harder they had to argue with me to convince me of it! But I recognize there are many like yourself who are not interested in being shown where they are wrong. But then, I'm not sure why you post what you think in the first place.

[NowWhat]

I don't know about you, but when someone points out that I'm believing or thinking about something wrong, I'm grateful. In fact, I'm even MORE grateful the harder they had to argue with me to convince me of it! But I recognize there are many like yourself who are not interested in being shown where they are wrong. But then, I'm not sure why you post what you think in the first place.

So, when I, a Christian, tell you that your non belief in God is just plain wrong and that the way you live your life is wrong. And everything else is just WRONG - would you thank me or just call me a bigot or intolerant for not accepting others beliefs?

[lobrobster]

So, when I, a Christian, tell you that your non belief in God is just plain wrong and that the way you live your life is wrong. And everything else is just WRONG - would you thank me or just call me a bigot or intolerant for not accepting others beliefs?

Of course, I don't agree with these claims now, but I absolutey welcome any of your arguments to show I do in fact live or believe wrong. I wouldn't think this intolerant of you at all. But expect a rigrous counter-debate on my part. In the end, if you make the better argument I'm not above conceding. I wonder if you could say the same?