Ask a question

Why Is Rubin Ashamed To Read Children

Christian parents: Would you be ashamed if your child or children grew up and became atheist or agnostic?

upset, definite. Ashamed, no. however, i might attempt very hard to no longer permit the frustration coach. surely, as long as they remained a tolerant, being concerned person and stored a minimum of a few of their inquisitiveness, i may be relatively mushy with it or perhaps according to threat supportive (to an quantity). The secondary clarification for why I left Christianity replaced into one in all logic and severe thinking, however the conventional reason is by technique of the fact the extra I discovered and experienced, the extra I took challenge with the Bible's and particularly some Christians' sense of ethics. as long because of the fact the religion would not save my newborn from loving and appreciating people who won't share their ideals, i would be happy and supportive of even though course they choose for, supplied that it additionally aids them in turning out to be a extra useful individual.

How could religious people not teach religion to their children? That's like saying you won't teach your kids about things from the oven being hot until they are older and let the truth convince them.For religious people, religion is part of reality. You don't feed kids Soylent until they are old enough to decide what cuisine they will like. You feed them your food, teach them your language, instill in them your values. Religion is not something people can switch off while the kids are watching so they won't catch it.Your kids will see you pray, go to religious services, make offerings, use amulets, live by certain standards, hold certain taboos. You just can't not teach your kid religion.If you are going to argue for some idea of giving truth a chance, it should be about not sheltering them from other ideas. Kids will see your religion but let them learn that other peoples have different religions. Don't try to prevent them from contact with people with other beliefs. When they are old enough put some comparative religion in their formation. Don't frame other religions as the enemy.In fact, if you are serious about your kids staying in your religion, you want them to have all those contacts and references. You don't want them in a bubble to then let them out when they turn 18 and let them face that you hid 2/3 (or more, depending on religion) of the world from them. Then they will truly lose faith in you and run away from your religion.

Would you read these bible verses to your children?

The Bible isn't a book written for children although the essentials of the good news about Jesus can be understood by a child. It's a book that takes an uncompromising look at humanity and tells it like it is. Some passages are not appropriate for small children just like a movie that shows rape and murder and sexual immorality is not appropriate for little children.

Apparently you don't understand what the Bible is all about if you think that God approves of "killing babies raping innocent virgin girls and kidnapping murder for land and selling you daughter as a sex slave".

Maybe if you took a class in correct interpretation of these ancient writings you would understand the difference between God's perfect will, his permissive will, and his long suffering with sinners and the restraints that his grace imposes upon evil deeds that would be much worse without his intervention.

Check out some of the links on the Free Stuff page @ if you want to grow in knowledge instead of anger.

I'm ashamed of america. what do you think?

If you have a problem with the term "Holiday Trees" nothing is stopping you legally from calling them "Christmas Trees".
...that or move from Michigan. I know at least one of your neighbor states isn't doing the "Holiday" tree thing.

I also would like to make a point to your complaint about God being taken out of everything. Not every religion believes in the Christian "God". The only way to be *fair* in the USA at the current time in regards to religion and the public sector is to either remove all obvious traces of religion - OR - it would have to promote ALL religions (not just the Christian faith you are refering to).

There are a few problems with promoting all religions:
-- One is that it would take an exorbitant amount of money to work all the religions into the public - something tax payers will not go for.
-- Two, there are those people of Religion "A" who would not want to hear about Religion "B" or "C", would not want it mixed with the public, and thus would complain (aka they don't care about equal religious representation). For example, there are people out there who would riot if a course was required in high schools to teach all religions.
-- Three, it is difficult to determine WHAT a religion is and/or WHEN something can be called a "religion" by definition of law/political standards. While some organized religious beliefs are widely known as "religions" (ie: Christianity, Buddism, Jainism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, etc), there are a number of other groups that are not recognized for various reasons. (ie: A large number of cults fall under here.)
-- If all religions were actively promoted by the government, there would be shouts from individuals/groups that -their- religion wasn't getting enough attention/money (overall or in comparison to another religion - take your pick). There would never be a time when EVERYONE would agree that all religions had fair representation.

So currently, the easiest choice for the USA governement at the moment is to remove it all in an attempt to be impartial.

Children are still in a stage of developing and registering things on what they perceive, experience, and encounter.They haven’t known what things are embarrassing to the people’s eyes. Although, if they are intervened by these people— giving crucial hints to the young children that what they are doing is embarrassing (ripping self-esteem or confidence)— then the young children will register these in their minds step-by-step growing to teenagehood and adulthood.

Being human, parents will screw up plenty - they will hurt their kids, inadvertently or otherwise, no matter how good their intentions are. They have to struggle to set the best example when they themselves can be immature, incompetent, and foolish. They will struggle with the balance between authority and vulnerability, keeping their temper, drawing the right boundaries.I don't think the downsides to having children are ever enough to warrant not having them, but having kids requires that you be strong, capable, and focused, with your priorities set straight and a sound mind.  People can never be completely prepared for all that comes with having children, but they have to be able to handle whatever comes up as best they can.  If people have kids and don't take on the responsibility of parenthood, then they will have even more to regret.  The toughest part is knowing you'll make mistakes with your kids and have many regrets as a result.  But, this is isn't only a downside, because the value from learning how to raise children should turn you into a better person, even if you're not the great parent you hoped you would be, even if you make mistakes you can't take back, even if your relationship with your child is dysfunctional at best.  How your child turns out is not only a factor of your parenting, but it is a great factor.  To start with, owning that responsibility is a great burden you must be happy to bear, in order to be a better parent.  The saddest thing about it all is that your kids will suffer because you are learning on the job.  You may feel that they have had to put up with things that they shouldn't have had to, that you didn't do your job well enough.  But, if you are stable, financially, emotionally, and mentally, and invested, heart, mind, and soul, in your family and your children, they will sense that love, and no matter what you screw up, they will probably turn out just fine.

Why does god send bears to maul children?

There’s a lot more to the Elisha case than meets the eye. First, they weren’t children in the sense we think of children. There was no classification of ‘teenagers’ way back then. The youths who ganged up against this solitary man were a mob. Forty-two of them at the least. They came from the town that was the royal cult centre of the northern kings, in opposition to Elisha’s mission. Elisha and his predecessor were in the business of confronting the wickedness of the kings who had given the nation over to apostasy and idolatry. So you might view this mob as the Youth Wing of the Cult Party. (2 Kings chapter 2)

The particular phrase of abuse they hurled might have been a reference to how Elisha’s predecessor had been taken away from the scene of the earth, wishing Elisha would disappear just as suddenly, before his ministry could start. Well, God had just ordained Elisha, verifying that with signs, and those hooligans should have known that God was the power behind the ministry. They had clearly identified themselves as being on the side of idolatry and rebellion against Yahweh, so when Elisha called down an UNSPECIFIED curse, the result was two bears coming out of the woods, mauling 42 of them. Notice that it doesn’t say they were all killed? They were MAULED. Some might have died from the mauling, but 2 bears beginning to maul would result in the mob scattering. That 42 were mauled might indicate a much larger mob. It does show that they were taught a mighty lesson in taunting the Lord’s anointed prophet. Elisha’s new ministry was thus proven to his enemies as being something to fear, but for those who stood for Yahweh, it was encouragement to know that the departure of Elijah was not the end of God’s hand of power in the godless land.

Further, when the parents of the mauled youths heard the dreadful news, they would remember the warning God had given them in Leviticus 26:22 - "If you remain hostile towards me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children..." Nobody can ever accuse God of not warning them first, before his patience runs out with them.

At 64years of age I am ashamed to be English, are you?

That you are disturbed by this story means that you cannot accept the bad that is being done - bad that you did not do .... but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater ........ I am not English but as a Scot I consider myself 50% Briitsh and having travelled the world - the UNITED KINGDOM is still on of the more civilised places there is.
It is once again the mindless minority that casts this cloud over us all.
Do not forget the schoolgirl who went to France on a schooltrip and was raped and murdered as she lay in the dormitory with her friends.
Evil happens all over the world.
England is not a place apart.

As long as there are more people like you in England - and there always will be - England will still be a place where the freedom that we have fought for and enjoy - also allows the sick and the evil to walk amongst us.

Let us hope that the British police make a better job of finding the fiend that perpetrated this awful shameful thing - than the Portugese have done trying to find out what happened to Madeleine MacCann.

For your own sake - try to remember the good things about England and the English - or else the beasts have won.

None whatsoever! I don’t understand why anyone would feel ashamed of reading anything. Who is likely to say “tsk-tsk” over my, or any other person’s, reading preferences? That is, who might I care about who’d do that? Some high-minded, secret monitor of library distribution? A slitty-eyed shoulder-peeker in my book-store snooping to see what I like? Or any one of the other oddly-educated who have been taught to sneer at others for their peculiarities when it comes to book choices? I try hard to keep anyone like that out of my personal life. They are probably the purse-lipped, disapproving, loftily sniffing types who believe that everything they believe is right, and everyone who doesn’t view life through their eyes is wrong.I read for enjoyment. I read for entertainment. I read for information. What I read is my business and mine alone.Should I be ashamed to “admit” to disliking most of the Oprah Book Club titles because the few I read (until I vowed never to read another with that seal of approval) have real downer endings. If so, I’m not ashamed to say it. I don’t like books that leave me with a heavy heart and the deep desire never to read another book of that ilk or by that author. Nor am I ashamed to say that I dislike most of the “good, educational” books I was forced to read in high school and the same with the ones my children were burdened with.In all of my nearly eight decades of life, I’ve yet to understand why anyone thinks getting deep, personal satisfaction from what I read might be considered a shameful thing and reading books that leave me feeling sad, a good thing.