For Those Who Do Believe In God...

[Avatar4321]

Do you not understand the difference between religious views which purport to be fact and cannot be proven vs. just plain political opinion?

Saying we should force everyone to do something because God wants it that way has always been a piss poor reason.

Oh and political opinion is provable?

If you needed a good reason for a political position, liberalism wouldnt exist.

Contrary to your opinion, religious people have every right to have their say in politics. This society belongs to religious people as well as non-religious people. You have no problem forcing your views on others, but the second someone speaks out against you, you pretend you're a victim.

This a Republic. Your voice isnt the only one that's going to be heard. And if you think you can force your view points on people, their will be bloodshed. And it will have nothing to do wih religion. it will have everything to do with the fact that your a totalitarian.

 

[LOki]

I did not misunderstand it at all--but I note that you fail to point out the precise nature of this "misunderstanding" when you have every opportunity to do so

I'd rather not discuss it in detail here - it's off-topic. There's already a thread about it.

I think you were just avoiding discussion.

Asserting that whole of the universe had a beginning because it's pieces had beginnings is subject to compositional error, which is really secondary to the contentious presumption that there is some existence [where a personal creator exists] outside of the universe within which the universe should begin. Contentious in the presumtion that there is existence outside of the universe, and then question begging in that the existence outside of the universe is the personal creator who created the universe.

The claim made was not that the universe had a beginning "because its pieces had beginnings."

OH REALLY? Then what does this really mean?

"Moreover, actual infinites do not exist in nature; that's the point that the KCA makes. The universe absolutely had a beginning."​

That the universe had a beginning is indisputable.

It ceratinly is disputable, in fact, IT'S IN DISPUTE!!!

As I mentioned on the other thread, a universe with an existence stretching into negative infinity would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. Moreover, actual infinites do not exist in nature; that's the point that the KCA makes. The universe absolutely had a beginning.

Fine. Then so did your "personal creator", otherwise PETITIO PRINCIPII.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh and political opinion is provable?

If you needed a good reason for a political position, liberalism wouldnt exist.

Contrary to your opinion, religious people have every right to have their say in politics. This society belongs to religious people as well as non-religious people. You have no problem forcing your views on others, but the second someone speaks out against you, you pretend you're a victim.

This a Republic. Your voice isnt the only one that's going to be heard. And if you think you can force your view points on people, their will be bloodshed. And it will have nothing to do wih religion. it will have everything to do with the fact that your a totalitarian.

Vacuous argument. You are arguing tangible vs intangible. You have no proof god exists. I have proof that forcing my kid to pray in school is detrimental to his health...

Voice your opinions, but please don't FORCE me to carry out your political opinion. If you believe Jesus is the son of God, good for you, just don't use my tax dollars to put it on a public building. If you don't believe in abortion because you believe all potential humans are god's children, don't have an abortion if the occasion arises where you have to make such a choice.

 

[Dr Grump]

So your point of view is that it's OK for people to have faith so long as...

1) They recognize and accept that faith is a personal thing that should not be forced on others.
2) They don't try to insist that their beliefs are factual.
3) They don't try to lobby for laws to be built on religious foundations.

Would that be a reasonable summation? Feel free to disagree - I'm not trying to entrap or put words in your mouth, just to compartmentalize they key aspects of your position for my own ease of understanding.

If so, I think that's an entirely reasonable position.

Don't think for one second if the likes of Avatar, -cp, dmp, allie and the other religious wingnuts had their way they WOULDN'T add Christian riders to statutes they wouldn't do it. They'd do it in a NY minute if they got the chance...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Do you not understand the difference between religious views which purport to be fact and cannot be proven vs. just plain political opinion?

Saying we should force everyone to do something because God wants it that way has always been a piss poor reason.

Oh and political opinion is provable?

If you needed a good reason for a political position, liberalism wouldnt exist.

Contrary to your opinion, religious people have every right to have their say in politics. This society belongs to religious people as well as non-religious people. You have no problem forcing your views on others, but the second someone speaks out against you, you pretend you're a victim.

This a Republic. Your voice isnt the only one that's going to be heard. And if you think you can force your view points on people, their will be bloodshed. And it will have nothing to do wih religion. it will have everything to do with the fact that your a totalitarian.

Dude, neither is provable, both are however, measurable. Political opinion, in and of itself is as varied as religious opinion. That is why we have elections... to measure it.

In November, 52.9% of Americans said they would prefer to see Obama at the helm of the nation for the next 4 years and the other 47.1% are simply stuck with the decision, if we are to be a nation of laws and not mobs. Forced, if you will, to live in a 'liberal' nation until at least the next election.

What a sad country we would would be if 52% of of the population could force the rest of us to live a Catholic lifestyle...

That is the difference between religious opinion and political opinion.

That is why some pretty smart dudes proposed the idea that the state should never establish or adopt, as official policy, any lifestyle choice in particular, but be tolerant of all lifestyle choices. At least in theory...

-Joe

 

[tigerbob]

So your point of view is that it's OK for people to have faith so long as...

1) They recognize and accept that faith is a personal thing that should not be forced on others.
2) They don't try to insist that their beliefs are factual.
3) They don't try to lobby for laws to be built on religious foundations.

Would that be a reasonable summation? Feel free to disagree - I'm not trying to entrap or put words in your mouth, just to compartmentalize they key aspects of your position for my own ease of understanding.

If so, I think that's an entirely reasonable position.

Don't think for one second if the likes of Avatar, -cp, dmp, allie and the other religious wingnuts had their way they WOULDN'T add Christian riders to statutes they wouldn't do it. They'd do it in a NY minute if they got the chance...

Maybe so, maybe not (although I suspect you're right about Allie), but not everyone who believes in God - in whatever form they believe God takes - is cut from that cloth. Some of us believe that separation of church and state is critical in a democracy. As with any kind of intolerance, religious fundamentalism is dangerous irrespective of the religion in question.

 

[tigerbob]

Pick the one definition you can post-rationalize and change words round?

There's no "post-rationalization" going on--you just got punked.

Is that a serious attempt to validate your point??? You're grasping at straws.

No grasping necessary, no attempt to validate made--my point is valid, you validated it.

Somebody throw Mr Smug a life preserver.

Somebody get tigerbob a diaper.

You do realize, don't you, that your entire response is essentially the same as saying "I know you are, but what am I"? Clearly if I need a diaper, I now know where to get it.

 

[LOki]

Pick the one definition you can post-rationalize and change words round?

There's no "post-rationalization" going on--you just got punked.

No grasping necessary, no attempt to validate made--my point is valid, you validated it.

Somebody throw Mr Smug a life preserver.

Somebody get tigerbob a diaper.

You do realize, don't you, that your entire response is essentially the same as saying "I know you are, but what am I"?

You do realize, don't you, that this lacks arguentaitve validity for the same reasons your "post-rationalization" accusation lacks validity.

You see pumpkin, using a precise valid definition is not "post-rationalization" or "grasping at straws" at all; but willfully ignoring the precise valid definition used, for the express purpose of attempting to invalidate a point, is arguably "post-rationalization" and "grasping at straws."

Clearly if I need a diaper, I now know where to get it.

But you don't know you need it, or how to put it on--go get your mommy.

 

[tigerbob]

There's no "post-rationalization" going on--you just got punked.

No grasping necessary, no attempt to validate made--my point is valid, you validated it.

Somebody get tigerbob a diaper.

You do realize, don't you, that your entire response is essentially the same as saying "I know you are, but what am I"?

You do realize, don't you, that this lacks arguentaitve validity for the same reasons your "post-rationalization" accusation lacks validity.

You see pumpkin, using a precise valid definition is not "post-rationalization" or "grasping at straws" at all; but willfully ignoring the precise valid definition used, for the express purpose of attempting to invalidate a point, is arguably "post-rationalization" and "grasping at straws."

Clearly if I need a diaper, I now know where to get it.

But you don't know you need it, or how to put it on--go get your mommy.

You appear to want to change the subject to word usage (the final resting place of all posters who find the original subject too tough), so I'll humor you. Please learn and remember the meaning of this word:

Lokify   [loh-ki-fahy]
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy⋅ing.
To construct a sentence of ridiculous pomposity with the aim of appearing intelligent.

You are clearly a troll. I always thought trolls lived under bridges but, on the other hand, you are a piece of shit as well which explains your preoccupation and familiarity with diapers, and the "get mommy" reference which I presume is from personal experience.

The only way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, which is what I now propose to do with you.

 

[tigerbob]

BTW, it is at this point that trolls usually post something about "running away", though you may manage to conceal the predictability by Lokifying. Good luck with that.

 

[LOki]

You do realize, don't you, that your entire response is essentially the same as saying "I know you are, but what am I"?

You do realize, don't you, that this lacks arguentaitve validity for the same reasons your "post-rationalization" accusation lacks validity.

You see pumpkin, using a precise valid definition is not "post-rationalization" or "grasping at straws" at all; but willfully ignoring the precise valid definition used, for the express purpose of attempting to invalidate a point, is arguably "post-rationalization" and "grasping at straws."

Clearly if I need a diaper, I now know where to get it.

But you don't know you need it, or how to put it on--go get your mommy.

You appear to want to change the subject to word usage (the final resting place of all posters who find the original subject too tough), so I'll humor you. Please learn and remember the meaning of this word:

Lokify   [loh-ki-fahy]
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy⋅ing.
To construct a sentence of ridiculous pomposity with the aim of appearing intelligent.

Funny, it is you who appears to want to "change the subject to word usage," not only whith this terminology fabrication of yours, but with this very post of yours as well:

"You keep coming back to this "demand" word and your definition of what is a demand. Let's look at that.

–verb (used with object)
1. to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.
2. to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.
3. to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary: This task demands patience. Justice demands objectivity.
4. Law.
a. to lay formal legal claim to.
b. to summon, as to court."​

You are clearly a troll. I always thought trolls lived under bridges but, on the other hand, you are a piece of shit as well which explains your preoccupation and familiarity with diapers, and the "get mommy" reference which I presume is from personal experience.

You are clearly a disingenous and hypocritical retard; you bring references that refute your claims, then you "post-rationalize" and "grasp at straws" all as defined by your own very criteria--add to that your admission of presumptuousness as evidence enough to establish that.

So, a disingenous, hypocritical and presumtive retard--I think I have you covered pretty well.

The only way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, which is what I now propose to do with you.

Obviously--and by "obiviously" I mean to say that you will only propose to do so. Really. Baseless accusation, and uninspired name calling is all you have (otherwise you'd have brought some game)--ignoring me, directly undermines your bullshit strategy to invalidate my point.

BTW, it is at this point that trolls usually post something about "running away", . . .

What some trolls have in common with thoughtful folks, is that they can recognize an intellectual coward when they see one--oh, you won't be "running away" perse--otherwise you can't engage in diversionary "word usage" games, diversionary baseless accuations, and diversionary name-calling as your only strategy to invalidate arguments that punk yours--no, you'll stick in there for *that*, but you will certainly continue to run away from the beating your taking in the realm of legitimate argument.

. . . though you may manage to conceal the predictability by Lokifying. Good luck with that.

You prediction that your glaringly evident intellectual cowardice will be recognized and pointed out, points only to your personal experience with the ubiquitous population of those capable of recognizing the patently evident nature of your cowardice; and it's a recipe for utter fail. Good luck with that.

 

[tigerbob]

You do realize, don't you, that this lacks arguentaitve validity for the same reasons your "post-rationalization" accusation lacks validity.

You see pumpkin, using a precise valid definition is not "post-rationalization" or "grasping at straws" at all; but willfully ignoring the precise valid definition used, for the express purpose of attempting to invalidate a point, is arguably "post-rationalization" and "grasping at straws."

But you don't know you need it, or how to put it on--go get your mommy.

You appear to want to change the subject to word usage (the final resting place of all posters who find the original subject too tough), so I'll humor you. Please learn and remember the meaning of this word:

Lokify   [loh-ki-fahy]
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy⋅ing.
To construct a sentence of ridiculous pomposity with the aim of appearing intelligent.

Funny, it is you who appears to want to "change the subject to word usage," not only whith this terminology fabrication of yours, but with this very post of yours as well:

"You keep coming back to this "demand" word and your definition of what is a demand. Let's look at that.

–verb (used with object)
1. to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.
2. to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.
3. to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary: This task demands patience. Justice demands objectivity.
4. Law.
a. to lay formal legal claim to.
b. to summon, as to court."​

You are clearly a disingenous and hypocritical retard; you bring references that refute your claims, then you "post-rationalize" and "grasp at straws" all as defined by your own very criteria--add to that your admission of presumptuousness as evidence enough to establish that.

So, a disingenous, hypocritical and presumtive retard--I think I have you covered pretty well.

Obviously--and by "obiviously" I mean to say that you will only propose to do so. Really. Baseless accusation, and uninspired name calling is all you have (otherwise you'd have brought some game)--ignoring me, directly undermines your bullshit strategy to invalidate my point.

BTW, it is at this point that trolls usually post something about "running away", . . .

What some trolls have in common with thoughtful folks, is that they can recognize an intellectual coward when they see one--oh, you won't be "running away" perse--otherwise you can't engage in diversionary "word usage" games, diversionary baseless accuations, and diversionary name-calling as your only strategy to invalidate arguments that punk yours--no, you'll stick in there for *that*, but you will certainly continue to run away from the beating your taking in the realm of legitimate argument.

. . . though you may manage to conceal the predictability by Lokifying. Good luck with that.

You prediction that your glaringly evident intellectual cowardice will be recognized and pointed out, points only to your personal experience with the ubiquitous population of those capable of recognizing the patently evident nature of your cowardice; and it's a recipe for utter fail. Good luck with that.

Too long to bother reading, and probably all bollocks anyway. Ever heard the phrase "Sorry for writing such a long letter, I didn't have time to write a short one"? Substitute 'wit' or 'intelligence' for 'time' and hey presto you've written your autobiography.

 

[Father Time]

Do you not understand the difference between religious views which purport to be fact and cannot be proven vs. just plain political opinion?

Saying we should force everyone to do something because God wants it that way has always been a piss poor reason.

Oh and political opinion is provable?

Did I say it was?

If you needed a good reason for a political position, liberalism wouldnt exist.

And if you needed a good reason to belong to a religion Scientology wouldn't exist, what's your point?

Contrary to your opinion, religious people have every right to have their say in politics. This society belongs to religious people as well as non-religious people. You have no problem forcing your views on others, but the second someone speaks out against you, you pretend you're a victim.

But I DO have a problem forcing my views on others but other people want to put their own religious views as public policies, forced prayer, blue laws, and of course forcing our government and our tax dollars to cheerlead (for lack of a better word) their religion.

Although please do tell me how the hell I'm forcing my beliefs onto you. This oughta be good for a laugh.

This a Republic. Your voice isnt the only one that's going to be heard. And if you think you can force your view points on people, their will be bloodshed. And it will have nothing to do wih religion. it will have everything to do with the fact that your a totalitarian.

How am I a totalitarian? Geesh you remind me of that one line in Ywn's sig.

 

[LOki]

You appear to want to change the subject to word usage (the final resting place of all posters who find the original subject too tough), so I'll humor you. Please learn and remember the meaning of this word:

Lokify   [loh-ki-fahy]
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy⋅ing.
To construct a sentence of ridiculous pomposity with the aim of appearing intelligent.

Funny, it is you who appears to want to "change the subject to word usage," not only whith this terminology fabrication of yours, but with this very post of yours as well:

"You keep coming back to this "demand" word and your definition of what is a demand. Let's look at that.

–verb (used with object)
1. to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.
2. to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.
3. to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary: This task demands patience. Justice demands objectivity.
4. Law.
a. to lay formal legal claim to.
b. to summon, as to court."​

You are clearly a disingenous and hypocritical retard; you bring references that refute your claims, then you "post-rationalize" and "grasp at straws" all as defined by your own very criteria--add to that your admission of presumptuousness as evidence enough to establish that.

So, a disingenous, hypocritical and presumtive retard--I think I have you covered pretty well.

Obviously--and by "obiviously" I mean to say that you will only propose to do so. Really. Baseless accusation, and uninspired name calling is all you have (otherwise you'd have brought some game)--ignoring me, directly undermines your bullshit strategy to invalidate my point.

What some trolls have in common with thoughtful folks, is that they can recognize an intellectual coward when they see one--oh, you won't be "running away" perse--otherwise you can't engage in diversionary "word usage" games, diversionary baseless accuations, and diversionary name-calling as your only strategy to invalidate arguments that punk yours--no, you'll stick in there for *that*, but you will certainly continue to run away from the beating your taking in the realm of legitimate argument.

. . . though you may manage to conceal the predictability by Lokifying. Good luck with that.

You prediction that your glaringly evident intellectual cowardice will be recognized and pointed out, points only to your personal experience with the ubiquitous population of those capable of recognizing the patently evident nature of your cowardice; and it's a recipe for utter fail. Good luck with that.

Too long to bother reading, and probably all bollocks anyway. Ever heard the phrase "Sorry for writing such a long letter, I didn't have time to write a short one"? Substitute 'wit' or 'intelligence' for 'time' and hey presto you've written your autobiography.

Sorry to hear about your disability--too bad you lack the intellectual honesty and courage to admit you've reached the limits of your postage stamp sized limits.

 

[tigerbob]

Funny, it is you who appears to want to "change the subject to word usage," not only whith this terminology fabrication of yours, but with this very post of yours as well:

"You keep coming back to this "demand" word and your definition of what is a demand. Let's look at that.

–verb (used with object)
1. to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.
2. to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.
3. to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary: This task demands patience. Justice demands objectivity.
4. Law.
a. to lay formal legal claim to.
b. to summon, as to court."​

You are clearly a disingenous and hypocritical retard; you bring references that refute your claims, then you "post-rationalize" and "grasp at straws" all as defined by your own very criteria--add to that your admission of presumptuousness as evidence enough to establish that.

So, a disingenous, hypocritical and presumtive retard--I think I have you covered pretty well.

Obviously--and by "obiviously" I mean to say that you will only propose to do so. Really. Baseless accusation, and uninspired name calling is all you have (otherwise you'd have brought some game)--ignoring me, directly undermines your bullshit strategy to invalidate my point.

What some trolls have in common with thoughtful folks, is that they can recognize an intellectual coward when they see one--oh, you won't be "running away" perse--otherwise you can't engage in diversionary "word usage" games, diversionary baseless accuations, and diversionary name-calling as your only strategy to invalidate arguments that punk yours--no, you'll stick in there for *that*, but you will certainly continue to run away from the beating your taking in the realm of legitimate argument.

You prediction that your glaringly evident intellectual cowardice will be recognized and pointed out, points only to your personal experience with the ubiquitous population of those capable of recognizing the patently evident nature of your cowardice; and it's a recipe for utter fail. Good luck with that.

Too long to bother reading, and probably all bollocks anyway. Ever heard the phrase "Sorry for writing such a long letter, I didn't have time to write a short one"? Substitute 'wit' or 'intelligence' for 'time' and hey presto you've written your autobiography.

Sorry to hear about your disability--too bad you lack the intellectual honesty and courage to admit you've reached the limits of your postage stamp sized limits.

The limits of my limits? Yes, I confess I've never reached the limits of my limits before. I shall limit myself to my limits in future. Thanks for the intellectual pointer.

 

[Againsheila]

Oh and political opinion is provable?

If you needed a good reason for a political position, liberalism wouldnt exist.

Contrary to your opinion, religious people have every right to have their say in politics. This society belongs to religious people as well as non-religious people. You have no problem forcing your views on others, but the second someone speaks out against you, you pretend you're a victim.

This a Republic. Your voice isnt the only one that's going to be heard. And if you think you can force your view points on people, their will be bloodshed. And it will have nothing to do wih religion. it will have everything to do with the fact that your a totalitarian.

Vacuous argument. You are arguing tangible vs intangible. You have no proof god exists. I have proof that forcing my kid to pray in school is detrimental to his health...

Voice your opinions, but please don't FORCE me to carry out your political opinion. If you believe Jesus is the son of God, good for you, just don't use my tax dollars to put it on a public building. If you don't believe in abortion because you believe all potential humans are god's children, don't have an abortion if the occasion arises where you have to make such a choice.

Just came from volunteering at a church to give out lunches to the homeless. They were talking about a well attended funeral last weekend at the church for a young girl who died in a head on collision, she was going the wrong way on the freeway having taken the off ramp to get on instead of the on ramp.

Most of these people attending this funeral were young. Most of them had never been to a church or a funeral before. They were loud, they were rude, a funeral that should have taken and hour to an hour and a 1/2 (not including the reception afterward) took 2 and 1/2 hours.

I'm so sorry that you think a prayer to Jesus in some way "harms" you child, but I think not teaching him how to act appropriately in church or at a funeral harms him AND society.

Oh, and BTW, you will notice that everyone in favor of abortion has ALREADY BEEN BORN!!!! Kind of selfish, don't ya think?

 

[Amanda]

Oh and political opinion is provable?

If you needed a good reason for a political position, liberalism wouldnt exist.

Contrary to your opinion, religious people have every right to have their say in politics. This society belongs to religious people as well as non-religious people. You have no problem forcing your views on others, but the second someone speaks out against you, you pretend you're a victim.

This a Republic. Your voice isnt the only one that's going to be heard. And if you think you can force your view points on people, their will be bloodshed. And it will have nothing to do wih religion. it will have everything to do with the fact that your a totalitarian.

Vacuous argument. You are arguing tangible vs intangible. You have no proof god exists. I have proof that forcing my kid to pray in school is detrimental to his health...

Voice your opinions, but please don't FORCE me to carry out your political opinion. If you believe Jesus is the son of God, good for you, just don't use my tax dollars to put it on a public building. If you don't believe in abortion because you believe all potential humans are god's children, don't have an abortion if the occasion arises where you have to make such a choice.

Just came from volunteering at a church to give out lunches to the homeless. They were talking about a well attended funeral last weekend at the church for a young girl who died in a head on collision, she was going the wrong way on the freeway having taken the off ramp to get on instead of the on ramp.

Most of these people attending this funeral were young. Most of them had never been to a church or a funeral before. They were loud, they were rude, a funeral that should have taken and hour to an hour and a 1/2 (not including the reception afterward) took 2 and 1/2 hours.

I'm so sorry that you think a prayer to Jesus in some way "harms" you child, but I think not teaching him how to act appropriately in church or at a funeral harms him AND society.

Oh, and BTW, you will notice that everyone in favor of abortion has ALREADY BEEN BORN!!!! Kind of selfish, don't ya think?

I've seen the rude funeral people before.... it's very disappointing.

Good on you for your volunteering.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Just came from volunteering at a church to give out lunches to the homeless. They were talking about a well attended funeral last weekend at the church for a young girl who died in a head on collision, she was going the wrong way on the freeway having taken the off ramp to get on instead of the on ramp.

Most of these people attending this funeral were young. Most of them had never been to a church or a funeral before. They were loud, they were rude, a funeral that should have taken and hour to an hour and a 1/2 (not including the reception afterward) took 2 and 1/2hours.

I'm so sorry that you think a prayer to Jesus in some way "harms" you child, but I think not teaching him how to act appropriately in church or at a funeral harms him AND society.

Oh, and BTW, you will notice that everyone in favor of abortion has ALREADY BEEN BORN!!!! Kind of selfish, don't ya think?

I think I can find some quotes related to what you have to say here, Againsheila. Here they are:

I can't take all your points in one post...it's just too much. She thinks she is someone mourning the loss of a loved one and expressing it in the way that makes her feel best.

When my little brother died, I cried, and cried and cried...I couldn't stop crying at his funeral, but when they asked us to come up and talk about him, I stepped up and I don't remember everything, but I stopped crying while up there and my sharing about my brother had everyone laughing. I then sat down and started crying again. Everyone grieves in their own way.

The fact that you condemn her for that says a lot more about you than it does about her.

Fear causes hate... the Nazi's feared the Jews and that turned into hate and that turned into the holocaust. Congrats, you're a short step away from starting your own.

I feel for your sister in law, being related to someone that fears and hates her the way you do.

Open minded? This same person who attacked his sister in law for saying a prayer at his mother's funeral?

However someone deals with their grief is their business. If someone is stupid enough to pray to Satan at a funeral I attend, I will not stop them, nor will I denigrate them for doing so. It's a funeral for goodness sake. Everyone is suppose to grieve in their own way.

It's a shame that you don't feel people should be able to grieve as they feel best. Glad you're not in my family, and FYI, many members of my family are not Christian. Some are Buddist, some are athiest, etc.

Hopefully these quotes will help give you some comfort when it comes to how people behave at a celebration for the memory of someone now gone.

 

[Againsheila]

Just came from volunteering at a church to give out lunches to the homeless. They were talking about a well attended funeral last weekend at the church for a young girl who died in a head on collision, she was going the wrong way on the freeway having taken the off ramp to get on instead of the on ramp.

Most of these people attending this funeral were young. Most of them had never been to a church or a funeral before. They were loud, they were rude, a funeral that should have taken and hour to an hour and a 1/2 (not including the reception afterward) took 2 and 1/2hours.

I'm so sorry that you think a prayer to Jesus in some way "harms" you child, but I think not teaching him how to act appropriately in church or at a funeral harms him AND society.

Oh, and BTW, you will notice that everyone in favor of abortion has ALREADY BEEN BORN!!!! Kind of selfish, don't ya think?

I think I can find some quotes related to what you have to say here, Againsheila. Here they are:

I can't take all your points in one post...it's just too much. She thinks she is someone mourning the loss of a loved one and expressing it in the way that makes her feel best.

When my little brother died, I cried, and cried and cried...I couldn't stop crying at his funeral, but when they asked us to come up and talk about him, I stepped up and I don't remember everything, but I stopped crying while up there and my sharing about my brother had everyone laughing. I then sat down and started crying again. Everyone grieves in their own way.

The fact that you condemn her for that says a lot more about you than it does about her.

Fear causes hate... the Nazi's feared the Jews and that turned into hate and that turned into the holocaust. Congrats, you're a short step away from starting your own.

I feel for your sister in law, being related to someone that fears and hates her the way you do.

However someone deals with their grief is their business. If someone is stupid enough to pray to Satan at a funeral I attend, I will not stop them, nor will I denigrate them for doing so. It's a funeral for goodness sake. Everyone is suppose to grieve in their own way.

It's a shame that you don't feel people should be able to grieve as they feel best. Glad you're not in my family, and FYI, many members of my family are not Christian. Some are Buddist, some are athiest, etc.

Hopefully these quotes will help give you some comfort when it comes to how people behave at a celebration for the memory of someone now gone.

There is a big difference between mourning in your own way and disrupting a funeral. Yes, DISRUPTING, as in having conversations with one another, loudly, while the funeral is in process. Most of these kids come from homes like yours and have never been to a funeral or in a church in their lives and were never taught the proper manners for such a thing. How would you like it if I came to your grandmother's funeral and chatted with my friend so loud YOU couldn't hear the eulogy? That's not grieving, that's just being RUDE!!!!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

There is a big difference between mourning in your own way and disrupting a funeral. Yes, DISRUPTING, as in having conversations with one another, loudly, while the funeral is in process. Most of these kids come from homes like yours and have never been to a funeral or in a church in their lives and were never taught the proper manners for such a thing. How would you like it if I came to your grandmother's funeral and chatted with my friend so loud YOU couldn't hear the eulogy? That's not grieving, that's just being RUDE!!!!

There isn't a big difference. I think you just feel you have to defend anyone of the Christian faith or be an appeaser of their bad behavior, even if its disrespectful and rude.
I would say that someone praying outloud at an agnostic funeral isn't grieving and that its just being rude.

By the way, I went to church most of my childhood. I didn't learn to be polite or respectful at church. Especially when those other church-goers told me that homosexuals were going to burn forever in Hell, same with the unbelievers. I didn't think that was very polite. I just learned that people fear God and, you know, that whole fire and brimstone thing for being different.