Coach, your expression of love and caring for a child, is when they respect and understand you. If you have to use “rules, and be forceful”, or they “don't respond”, in bringing up your child. Then you have failed, as the need for enforcement is the result of bad loving, caring and example.

You lack tolerance so your example and expression, is intolerance. Children are unencumbered by indoctrination, so tolerate life well. Then their parents expressed beleifs, begin to enforce their indoctrination upon the child, until they have the example or fear of that belief. Then you add the example of the parents, compared to their expressed beleifs and you either have a child who rebels, or becomes totally submissive.

If you can be tolerant towards the child's growing understandings and not enforce or express your own, then you show love. The child will listen to what you say and act through respect, love and trust. If you express as you believe, that installs confidence and more trust, until the child understands the value of thinking, investigating and them deciding, before acting. Having to enforce rules, means you have lost their trust and become intolerant.

Monotheistic religion is intolerant and untrustworthy, by its expression in society. To be tolerant is to be passively resistant. Thats means you accept everyones reality. But you don't let it overrun you, nor change what you believe, just enhance it. Keeping your beleifs to yourself and allowing the example of your life to show what you are, is an act of love and tolerance. You need more than religion to do that, you have to be able to evolve your acceptance of whats reality and work with it. Not against all other realities, as with intolerant monothiestic religions.

Alchemist, well put on child rearing. Studies by child psychologists show that children are generally unconcerned by difference until age 9 or 10, most then "learn" to discriminate because discrimination, insider-outsider aproaches, predominate in society. If you don't play the insider-outsider game, then the insiders - those who hold or gain power through such nonsense - will close ranks against you. It takes strength of character to remain non-discriminatory in those circumstances, it often comes at some cost.

Hi PK ..glad you brought up those points, it enables some clarification.

"I presume you will also accept examples involving God Himself. So: The flood of Noah, The mass murder of the first-born sons of Egypt, Joshua's destruction of Jericho, the slaughter of the Canaanites by the Israelites"

We cannot use the specific 'judgements' of God (on the Midianites, and the Canaanites or the flood) as grounds to act likewise. This should be plain as the nose on our faces. These things happened in direct response to a direct and specific pronouncement of judgement by God.

They had nothing to do with a generalized call for oppression.

You r welcome to argue with the Almighty if u wish, about why He punished an evil humanity, that's your option.

PK. you seem to have more trouble with the idea of God than with His acts in history. Using acts if divine intervention to feed your unbelief.

Jesus being the fulfillment of the Law is the one who we can look to in order to understand Gods actions in the Old Testament.

Jesus did actually condemn some cities

"you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.[d] If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

But note, he did not call for earthly judgement, military assault, Armed attack, he emphasised their choice, but promised that 'wages' will indeed by paid eventually, when they face God.

So, in summary, there is no call or example for a general violent defence of the Faith. The pattern in the New testament was that when persecution arose, the church was scattered.. and then it procliamed Christ .. and continued to grow.

Boaz_David, you post is obfuscating nonsense that apparently took you days to dream up. These examples I quoted show that God as portrayed in the Bible was/is biased in favour of a chosen racial group and was prepared to use violence to oppress or kill the enemies of the chosen ones and others he wanted to punish. The idea of the Israelites being God's 'chosen race' still poisons Middle East relations, that much is clear. It is also clear that some people do use these biblical examples of "God's judgement'to act violently towards others. I think those simple facts undermine your position in this debate.

Alchemist,
I agree with you for the most part about forceful conversion.
Although i personally don't really consider ads on TV and doorknocking to be that forceful as long as i can turn the TV off or say no thanks and close the door.
Those things you mention about war and destruction are all the works of man, whether God exists or not. So maybe what you really object to is the use of God's name to justify destructive actions, which is basically a definition of blasphemy.

Your statement: "Those that lack evidence of the veracity of their claims, always use force" is fairly insightful. I would qualify it by saying that it is only true if those making the claim are also seeking to garner agreement. One who lacks evidence of the veracity of their claims but is not seeking agreement, has no use for force.
The real question is would one who actually does have evidence of the veracity of their claims have to use force to break through the lies and past the liers that barricade its way?

Donnie, I understand about tv ads and door knocking, for most, their house is their place to escape. Having nutters of any persuasion disturbing your peace, is an invasion of privacy and shouldn't be tolerated. Tv is a forum for advertising, it requires censorship, religion, uses false premises to advertise itself and should be censored.

“war and destruction are all the works of man, whether God exists or not “

You can't have it both ways, either those who believe, represent god or they don't. Choosing according to intent, is a common religious ploy to avoid scrutiny of its veracity.

“what you really object to is the use of God's name to justify destructive actions.”

Sorry, again an attempt to pass blame away from god. If god were true loving and caring for its creation, it would surely direct and guide those that follow it, by using its power over all, the facts show the opposite.

PK has good points, just like to hear Bd, explain the specifics of Noah and the flood. Where all the water came from to flood the world, where it went to. How did Noah get around to picking up all the animals in the southern hemisphere, controlled, fed and housed them in an ark that according to the specifications, would find it hard to hold a millionth of the life of this planet and the variety of foods needed to support them.

If you have veracity of your claims, there is no need to try and change others, your example would suffice. The strength you would have from your verifiable proof, would be sufficient and your god would be there to help and support you. Currently thats not the case, god is nowhere to be seen except within the violence and destruction that permeates the world. Some may point to all the charity work done, but that work is mostly caused by the introduction of monotheistics, that has caused the problems in the first place. A liar is one who tries to deceive, not because of what they truly believe and express.