In article <lcrrc0tfq25hnnd1igilkgadkn1eb16ei9@4ax.com>, Spooked says...

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:

In article <vukrc0ltm3n2uj2rd9srd1fs974sja7odi@4ax.com>, Spooked says...

The_Sage <theeSage@azrmci.net> wrote:

I threw a hairbrush at her and mockingly told her, "I rebuke you
Satan in the name of Jesus Christ!". Looking back on that, it was hilarious, but
at the time it was a very hurtful thing to do to someone, even someone as
occasionally mean as she was.

The ex wife never told me anything like that, but a preacher's
daughter that I was involved with for three years did! Of course my
time with her was during the transition from theist to atheist. After
a heated discussion concerning her religion [that she happened to be
reacquainting herself with] she said "GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!!".

After that was done, another temporary partner said "I can see the
devil in your eyes."

It wasn't so hurtful though and still a source for laughter.

That's right up there with "I have to stop seeing you because I'm not right with
god".

A month or so before she left, she declared: "God is giving me
convictions that I must separate myself from you, unless you're
willing to reconsider your faith and start going to church with me and
unite us in marriage". I hated to lose the subordinate service that
she gave me, but refused to pretend under any circumstances.

Good for you! After my beau gave me that pathetic "not right with god" litany,
I laid into him with everyone I knew about witchcraft and Satanism - Not to
mention, "You sure didn't have a problem with your god the other night!" ;)

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard ;)

<whimper> you don't have to be so crude about it...

Forgive me, I'm a bit of a Miss Crankypants today ;)

Reply to article by:

He told us that folk in this NG should be proud of him for laying
into his mother until he reduced her to tears,

He said no such thing.

Can't help you then. I was summarizing what he told us in his post.

The normal reaction to being offended is not to cry, but to become
irate or angry. You are adding your own take of his story instead of
taking his story at face value.

No, pedant. For a real mother to be deeply offended by what her son
says to her she is likely to be upset and cry. Saying the same thing
to his teacher is likely to result in irate anger. I suspect all this
hair splitting means you have lost your argument. Keep going . . .

attacking her "insane religious nonsense" and the ***** he was
brought up with.

He did not say those were the words he used with his mother.

Yep, more hair-splitting. He told us he reduced his mother to tears
and "So maybe she will stop trying to get me to go along with her
insane religious nonsense. I was brought up in this *****". Whether he
used those exact words to her or not is irrelevant. Maybe its relevant
to you because you have lost any real point you had.

That sounds like a kid who doesn't understand how to confront
deeply held beliefs held by those close to him.

Even if we were to pretend that was true, maybe the reason he
supposedly wasn't diplomatic was because his mother never taught
him how to be diplomatic,

Maybe she beat him as a child. Maybe she left him on his own for days
on end. Maybe, maybe . . .
I guess you are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

maybe because she herself isn't diplomatic because of her
undiplomatic religious beliefs?

Maybe . . .maybe . . .

Children learn what they live you know.

If that's what you mean by 'speaking out' then I guess that explains
why you support him. All I was saying was that he would get a
lot further when he is able to act a bit more grown up.

How much "further" could he have gotten if he had been 100%
diplomatic in *this* instance?

By his own admission, a lot further. In response to my post he admits
he was mad at the time and said some hurtful things he wishes he
hadn't. He has now gone out of his way to make up for what he said.

The talk now is of him questioning things, which she seems happy with.

Looks like he may have matured a bit.

Either way, he would have been rid of a religion he didn't want to be
forced to be a part of, so what's the difference in this case?

For people who have a grain of intelligence, the difference is that if
you learn to be a bit mature when confronting the deeply held beliefs
of those close to you, you will get a lot further than if you don't.
Most grown-ups know that.

Well that's a different side of the issue. Most people stick with
their own belief system even if they know of others.

That's called "intolerance".

So, if you know of other belief systems it would be intolerant to
stick with your own?

It is just possible that most people stick with
their own belief system because they genuinely think they are the
right ones and that the other ones are not.

And if they are genuine beliefs then they are likely to feel they would
be best for their children too.

Since when does *anyone* have a belief that they do not consider
genuine?

So you accept that people's beliefs are genuinely held. That might
explain why they prefer them to other beliefs.

It seems to me that parents are entitled to use different degrees of
persuasion depending how important they think the beliefs are.

Persuasion that cannot be backed up with logic and facts amounts to
nothing more than begging. Begging for someone to remain in their
belief would be pathetic.

Please show where this mother could not back up her persuasion with
logic and facts. Or shut up.

If you believe parents should not have the right to plead with their
children (even young adults) to observe something they believe to be
vitally important then I guess that is your view of freedom. The case
in point is a mother pleading with her adolescent son not to give up
religion, but it could just as well be a mother pleading with her son
not to take up hard drugs or not to have unprotected sex.

I never said that there was anything wrong with pleading, but one needs
to judge the validity of a belief on more than just the begging or pleading
from someone close to you.

And your evidence that she has never done more than 'plead' is?

You've lost your silly argument and are now wasting my time and yours.

If James' mother was a member of some evil cult, and she
begged/pleaded/persuaded her son to stay, should James remain a part of his
mother's evil cult until his mother gives him permission to leave? Is that
freedom?

Try and stick to the facts. Nowhere does he say he was unable to leave
until his mother gave him permission.

The whole point is that she was
reduced to tears when he rejected her plea.

Seems to me true freedom would mean that if someone wanted to have
unprotected sex or find another religion, they should be free to make
that choice, right?

And would true freedom include a parent being free to try and persuade
their adolescent son against something they feel might be harmful to
him?

Notice that his mother didn't force him to do anything.

Sounds to me like persuasion and the art of counter argument may be
going out of fashion.

They have been going out of fashion ever since Christians started the
Crusades and Inquisitions.

In other words you have lost your argument and are now thrashing
around trying to think of some other diversion.

Thanks for wasting my time.