Have difficulty believing the Bible.

My experience has been like this so far as court appointed experts goes.
I couldn't have paid anyone to try to support my contact with my child in 1988, under an earlier family law, (one I believe giving fathers like me more protection than the subsequent law afforded in practise).
I believe the court appointed experts who found against me ten years later, under the new family law, sought to protect the " nuclear family", i.e. my ex, her new partner, the man she told them our child saw as her real daddy, and my daughter of course).
Could they be trusted, maybe not, and the woman I mentioned earlier on the thread who compiled reports on fathers/parents, came across as wanting to understand us excluded dads.
However, anyone, and any system basing its arguments upon what they believe is best for the child isn't going to be able to avoid undermining nonresident dads in my view, so the issue starts and ends with the law for me, (whilst that provides weak protection there is no hope!) :(
Not meaning to butt into you guys' argument, but what the heck kind of 'experts' didn't even know what a 'nuclear family' is?!? It doesn't mean 'whomever happens to be there,' and from what you said long ago (unless I missed updates) your ex wasn't even married to the guy!!!

You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask: what was the child's age when this was going on?
 

Not meaning to butt into you guys' argument, but what the heck kind of 'experts' didn't even know what a 'nuclear family' is?!? It doesn't mean 'whomever happens to be there,' and from what you said long ago (unless I missed updates) your ex wasn't even married to the guy!!!
You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask: what was the child's age when this was going on?
Happy enough for you to butt in but I'm struggling to understand your questions!

You say an expert didn't understand what a nuclear family is, (did I say that, where I can't remember doing so?)?

What age of child was "it",(which child and when?)?

However, putting aside those questions for a second, I wish to implant in someone's head the thought that a "child's best interest" is tantamount to something that is "unknowable ", and even if it were knowable I'd argue courts making a decision or call against a decent dad/parent is reaching too far into peoples private lives where there is no question of abuse! :(

Asking a child whether or not they love one of their parents is intrusive, asking a child to publicly attack or criticise a loving parent, "because their views must be listened to and taken seriously" fuels any trouble there might be, and encourages the more manipulative resident parent to play a game where only they are likely to win, (and we know darn well some of these resident parents can truly be, so there's no kidding us here!).

I think I've said enough for now, so back to thread topic whatever that was! :)
 
Happy enough for you to butt in but I'm struggling to understand your questions!

You say an expert didn't understand what a nuclear family is, (did I say that, where I can't remember doing so?)?

What age of child was "it",(which child and when?)?

However, putting aside those questions for a second, I wish to implant in someone's head the thought that a "child's best interest" is tantamount to something that is "unknowable ", and even if it were knowable I'd argue courts making a decision or call against a decent dad/parent is reaching too far into peoples private lives where there is no question of abuse! :(

Asking a child whether or not they love one of their parents is intrusive, asking a child to publicly attack or criticise a loving parent, "because their views must be listened to and taken seriously" fuels any trouble there might be, and encourages the more manipulative resident parent to play a game where only they are likely to win, (and we know darn well some of these resident parents can truly be, so there's no kidding us here!).

I think I've said enough for now, so back to thread topic whatever that was! :)
My experience has been like this so far as court appointed experts goes.
I couldn't have paid anyone to try to support my contact with my child in 1988, under an earlier family law, (one I believe giving fathers like me more protection than the subsequent law afforded in practise).
I believe the court appointed experts who found against me ten years later, under the new family law, sought to protect the " nuclear family", i.e. my ex, her new partner, the man she told them our child saw as her real daddy, and my daughter of course).
Could they be trusted, maybe not, and the woman I mentioned earlier on the thread who compiled reports on fathers/parents, came across as wanting to understand us excluded dads.
However, anyone, and any system basing its arguments upon what they believe is best for the child isn't going to be able to avoid undermining nonresident dads in my view, so the issue starts and ends with the law for me, (whilst that provides weak protection there is no hope!) :(
Not meaning to butt into you guys' argument, but what the heck kind of 'experts' didn't even know what a 'nuclear family' is?!? It doesn't mean 'whomever happens to be there,' and from what you said long ago (unless I missed updates) your ex wasn't even married to the guy!!!

You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask: what was the child's age when this was going on?
 

They get called upon by one or other of the warring parties, so in that case what you think doesn't apply! :)
What does apply ? As noted, 'they' are controlled by the rich/ corporations/ pharmBig and world religion. Just as written.

Government is ruled by big corporate monopolies, so making laws to regulate a products use is determined by the ruthless oligarchs. Without regulation many people are harmed and even die because warnings and regulation is lacking. How can we keep our world safe from these predators?
The world has never been safe from 'these predators', the same rich oligarchs etc who spawned the evil of pharmaBig, world bank, credit debt, corrupted food supply, rampant air pollution 40,000 per day die from, false pandemics for control (the plan for the pand was broadcast several times years ago, years before it was devastating the world) .

Why would you think anyone can or should or would keep the world safe from druglords and oligarchs and so forth ?
 
Not meaning to butt into you guys' argument, but what the heck kind of 'experts' didn't even know what a 'nuclear family' is?!? It doesn't mean 'whomever happens to be there,' and from what you said long ago (unless I missed updates) your ex wasn't even married to the guy!!!

You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask: what was the child's age when this was going on?
Didn't I answer well enough for the purposes of this thread?

Do you wish to see any divisions between loving parents and their child made wider by a court process whatever age they are?

Lack of privacy in close personal relationships is an issue, cleverer people than I have said so, do you disagree?

The other aspect is this, you're endorsing the actions of the bullies who wish to destroy others relationships with their children, why should I or any other father married to the mother when their child was born, and not having let their child down in any way have to hear "the real father" is whoever the mother has chosen, (it occurs similarly when fathers who have custody do the same thing to exclude the mother)?

Then there is all this business of all and sundry claiming they only want what's best for the child whilst sticking their noses in, and I'd feel it was creepy, or the person was "virtue signalling" when claiming they have no selfish interests when destroying the nonresident parents relationship with the child, (wouldn't you find it creepy if I stated I was only concerned about your interests?).

Btw if I'm going at you too hard in this post please accept my apologies, but some of the things above needed saying! :)
 
Didn't I answer well enough for the purposes of this thread?

Do you wish to see any divisions between loving parents and their child made wider by a court process whatever age they are?

Lack of privacy in close personal relationships is an issue, cleverer people than I have said so, do you disagree?

The other aspect is this, you're endorsing the actions of the bullies who wish to destroy others relationships with their children, why should I or any other father married to the mother when their child was born, and not having let their child down in any way have to hear "the real father" is whoever the mother has chosen, (it occurs similarly when fathers who have custody do the same thing to exclude the mother)?

Then there is all this business of all and sundry claiming they only want what's best for the child whilst sticking their noses in, and I'd feel it was creepy, or the person was "virtue signalling" when claiming they have no selfish interests when destroying the nonresident parents relationship with the child, (wouldn't you find it creepy if I stated I was only concerned about your interests?).

Btw if I'm going at you too hard in this post please accept my apologies, but some of the things above needed saying! :)
Somehow you entirely reversed everything I said.. I asked two questions on your topic- specifically from the post I quoted- and have no idea where you came up with anything you said in this last post.
 
Somehow you entirely reversed everything I said.. I asked two questions on your topic- specifically from the post I quoted- and have no idea where you came up with anything you said in this last post.
I know, I know,..., (been having bad day, ready for a holiday, and as luck would have it there's a chance of a getaway to the Yorkshire Dales shortly!)
 
Break
"You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask: what was the child's age when this was going on?"
Age was child, let me see now, I think there was a two and a one, but not three, (2+1=3!), so it could have been twenty one, no, no wait a minute twelve maybe,...., "let's just say somewhere between one and twenty one then we've covered all the possible bases as to when authorities might wish to stick their noses in and start asking whether or no they love their dear old da, (or ma!)"!!!! :)
 
I don't think the Bible is something you believe. To me it's something you read for comfort during trying times. I had some very tough times where no one could say anything that would make me feel less bad. Picking up the Bible and asking God to help me out with a chapter or more gave me great comfort. Very little came from the New Testament though. Most of it came from the Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophets. It spoke to something inside of me that no other human being had the words to describe. I think reading the Bible for proof of God's existence is a fool's errand, you have to let it speak to you personally. I think it's the way it's meant to be understood. Yes I know, other writings can do the same thing. Whatever floats your boat. I'm not here to debate. I hate that. I'm old enough to know what's good for me, so go fly a kite.
 
I don't think the Bible is something you believe. To me it's something you read for comfort during trying times. I had some very tough times where no one could say anything that would make me feel less bad. Picking up the Bible and asking God to help me out with a chapter or more gave me great comfort. Very little came from the New Testament though. Most of it came from the Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophets. It spoke to something inside of me that no other human being had the words to describe. I think reading the Bible for proof of God's existence is a fool's errand, you have to let it speak to you personally. I think it's the way it's meant to be understood. Yes I know, other writings can do the same thing. Whatever floats your boat. I'm not here to debate. I hate that. I'm old enough to know what's good for me, so go fly a kite.
I once heard Saint Luke's gospel recited by a guy who had been an actor of some note once to a group of women prisoners.
The man said he wanted to use, or make the most of his ability to remember lines, and of course his religious beliefs, and allow everyone to feel the benefit in this way!
My feeling I must say was, much as we were all impressed by his ability to remember such a long text, and of course no one had anything negative to say about his effort, the thought had to be considered, "whatever benefit their might be from listening to this gospel", hadn't those women prisoners suffered enough?!! :)
 
Christianity and the Bible are based on faith. Faith makes you think and do things based on belief. The Old Testament is a guide for Jewish laws and customs. New Testament for Gentiles and non-Jewish believers. The bible is referred to as a roadmap for life.
I used to be tormented by memories of dad & church. suffered a lifetime until a few weeks ago I stopped being a Christian and believing in the bible. I actually feel better now.
 
Christianity and the Bible are based on faith. Faith makes you think and do things based on belief. The Old Testament is a guide for Jewish laws and customs. New Testament for Gentiles and non-Jewish believers. The bible is referred to as a roadmap for life.
I used to be tormented by memories of dad & church. suffered a lifetime until a few weeks ago I stopped being a Christian and believing in the bible. I actually feel better now.
Torments are no one's sole preserve obviously, whatever the cause, (I'm sure you'd agree).
My parents were certainly controlling, but didn't go to church often, (though certainly would have described themselves as Christians, even if dad thought religion was for "weak people").
However, "as what you might describe as a weak person myself",(having had a few breakdowns), my parents could be forgiven for being too overprotective couldn't they!
Whether their behaving differently towards me as a child would have made much difference is a mute point, though I'd guess it wouldn't, (even where they capable of doing anything other than they did, especially when saying to each other "I love you", was never uttered in my earshot, in spite of the fact they certainly did! :) ).
 
suffered a lifetime until a few weeks ago I stopped being a Christian and believing in the bible. I actually feel better now.
Really, just a few weeks ago? Granted it took me a long time too. That is the nature of indoctrination. Was this a sudden epiphany, or a slow realization that just rounded a turning point?
 
If you study Egyptian, Roman and Greek mythology, along with Druidism and Paganism, you will find almost all of the same stories you read in the bible, with very little change, and ALL of this was pre-christian.
It is certainly true Christianity grew out of Judaism, no one would argue with that statement would they, (and I'm not arguing with your comments there, just unsure whether I've ever heard scholars say what you have done of either Roman, Greek or Egyptian "mythology", or their "Gods" you could say too, though I've heard it said Christianity coopted pagan festivals before).

The "new" aspect Christianity was said to have brought to religious thinking concerned what happens after death I believe, (but apologies my recollections are very sketchy on this, though more detail may come back to me later).
 
The roots of Christianity were not in Roman, Greek, Egyptian religions as much as they were from more current and little known cults of the time. Rome, Greece, and Egypt were important centers of the world during their time, but but religions come and go over the years, just as civilizations fail. Christianity was a conglomeration of the then current cults, and searches for new vehicles of faith, and pagan religions of the past still influence Christianity to a large extent. Today in America, we see this search for something more meaningful evolving as many spiritual oriented people are drifting away from established churches. They are still religious, but are innovating new approaches to the mystery that are more appealing, and I would speculate, create fewer conflicts with the reality they experience around them in the modern world.
 
The roots of Christianity were not in Roman, Greek, Egyptian religions as much as they were from more current and little known cults of the time. Rome, Greece, and Egypt were important centers of the world during their time, but but religions come and go over the years, just as civilizations fail. Christianity was a conglomeration of the then current cults, and searches for new vehicles of faith, and pagan religions of the past still influence Christianity to a large extent. Today in America, we see this search for something more meaningful evolving as many spiritual oriented people are drifting away from established churches. They are still religious, but are innovating new approaches to the mystery that are more appealing, and I would speculate, create fewer conflicts with the reality they experience around them in the modern world.

I acknowledge the pressure being put on any religious organisation so that as you say, quote: " Today in America, we see this search for something more meaningful evolving as many spiritual oriented people are drifting away from established churches. They are still religious, but are innovating new approaches to the mystery that are more appealing, and I would speculate, create fewer conflicts with the reality they experience around them in the modern world."

I acknowledge too that whoever gets to decide what "the experience around them in the modern world", to use your words, this is nothing new so far as most religions goes I'd suggest, (and believe I'd heard being said this last weekend in a local church near the Yorkshire Dales, UK).

However, what appears to be new is giving way to persecution, (even psychological pressure placed upon folks "in the modern world" is a kind of persecution), and again who indeed gets to decide what it is now okay for anyone interested in any religion at all, should be permitted to believe, without being condemned for thinking as they do?
 
It only matters if the government 'condemns' religion. Other people's opinions have no legal condemnation attached and therefore shouldn't matter to a believer, unless, of course, the believer has doubts or requires universal acceptance in order to feel good about believing.
 
I acknowledge the pressure being put on any religious organisation so that as you say, quote: " Today in America, we see this search for something more meaningful evolving as many spiritual oriented people are drifting away from established churches. They are still religious, but are innovating new approaches to the mystery that are more appealing, and I would speculate, create fewer conflicts with the reality they experience around them in the modern world."

I acknowledge too that whoever gets to decide what "the experience around them in the modern world", to use your words, this is nothing new so far as most religions goes I'd suggest, (and believe I'd heard being said this last weekend in a local church near the Yorkshire Dales, UK).

However, what appears to be new is giving way to persecution, (even psychological pressure placed upon folks "in the modern world" is a kind of persecution), and again who indeed gets to decide what it is now okay for anyone interested in any religion at all, should be permitted to believe, without being condemned for thinking as they do?
Yes. Everyone should be free to experience spirituality in any way they want, free from persecution. However, in recent years Christianity has tried to dictate, and is now experiencing a mini push back, and sometimes reacts as if it is being persecuted. That may have been so in Roman times, but Christianity is NOT the victim today. At least not in America, and it never has been.
 


Back
Top