I'm talking about some non-religious people who think that religious people shouldn't have their views challenged. They think that religious belief should be respected, purely because it's religion and not some other belief.

Edited for accuracy.

I think there's a real case for reporting Kirkstaller to the police in fact. He's just publicly admitted that if he hears voices in his head telling him to kill people he'd happily oblige. He is clearly a danger to the public and in need of psychiatric help.

Seriously.

Have to accept? Or choose to accept?

Who deems what is acceptable or unacceptable? Morals. Ethics. Law. You can choose whether to adhere to, or indeed have any of these.

With regards the OP. People can chose to follow a religion, or a belief and people can chose not to and as has been exercised, some can challenge someone else's beliefs. We are all free thinking individuals.

Yes. And no.

In the case of Kirkstaller, as far as we know, he became religious in adulthood and through choice: although again on the basis of taking what he has told us at face value, that may have been as a result of the stress of severe illness. But in essence, we're talking about an adult making a choice.

However, when children are indoctrinated from birth, it can be very, very difficult to throw off that indoctrination. It is not simply a matter of 'choice'.

And unlike other childhood beliefs – Father Christmas, Tooth Fairy etc – religious belief is supported by earthly authorities, from what we might view as the slight cultural ones (state church in UK, for instance) to the much more immediate and influential, such as teachers and family.

Yep. If he's not trolling, he's probably mentally ill.

There is actually a choice there also to be fair, isn't there. I'm an example of that to a degree. Strict RC background. Grew up with questions. Now not very religious at all, but not disrespectful to any.

I do know know what you mean. Religion can often make no sense to others that don't have the 'faith" that they do. But I'm a lot more laid back about it all. I have a mormon lady in my psychology class. Some of the things she says and despite me being a lapsed, left footer, Carbolic, I think, oh well. I don't think like that, good luck to you if you think that. It's your life and you're totally entitled to think, believe or feel the way you do. I try not to judge her as a person. There was one funny incident though, when she didn't want an alcoholic drink in the pub and proudly mentioned it was part of her faith. As a joke, I pointed out that even Jesus drank wine. He even turned water into it. She sort of laughed.

But not with impunity or immunity from challenge.

If Kirkstaller was expounding classical Nazi ideology on here he would be banned within seconds. He's not, but his God (and by extension he himself) seem to be just as psychopathic and indeed homicidal at times.

You can indeed choose to have such a rotten morality, but don't expect others to accept it, or to challenge your efforts to coerce others into espousing it.

Haha what a complete and utter overreaction.

Go and ring them now and explain the hypothetical and not to mention unlikely scenario and let's see how far we get.

I grew up in a pretty fundamentalist evangelical household. Moving around as much as we did, and with a minister as a father, I never quite got into the relationships with peers that might have hauled me out of it earlier. Church and Sunday school, with Sunshine Corner on a Monday evening; holidays to very religious friends. All sorts of stuff (one bit of the family were Plymouth Brethren).

In my early teens, my parents took me (and my sister) to a series of evangelical crusade meetings over a two-week period (my father was involved in the organisation). In the intensely emotional atmosphere, what my parents wanted to happen didin use[/i expanded massively. It is possibly also no coincidence that, in the years since, I've read more literary fiction than in the entire time since school, and read more non-fiction than in my entire life to that point.

I was angry as all hell for a few years, in particular, feeling – apart from anything else – that my parents had contrived to deny me the chance to have a proper youth (their religiosity was also tied up with great strictness about all manner of thing, including how a 'young lady' was supposed to behave – and, for my mother particularly, how the daughter of a minister was supposed to behave; 'set an example' was, in essence, the answer to that one).

The anger has lifted. As have other things – guilt, believe it or not, at just relaxing. I used to have this deep-seated feeling that, if you went on holiday, you couldn't just stop. You had to Do Things. There's also a residual, secularised version of the religious guilt sometimes: a sense that 'oh god, I'll pay for feeling this happy at some point'. But at least I know and can recognise these things for what they are.

But choice? Nah.

Kirkstaller - this is JC. I've taken over the medium of FA for the minute, as I'm a bit busy and can't make elevenses. (I'm overseeing some really gruesome death and dismemberment to dozens of innocent people in Kandahar). Anyway this one's quite urgent, I require you to boil your head. Immediately, there's a good chap. I know best.

It seems unlikely on the face of it, but we're talking about a person who claims to have actually met a person who, if he ever existed, died around 2000 years ago. It's not a great leap for a person who imagines meeting dead/fictional people to also imagine that those people are giving him instructions.

As old as the hills but still relevanthttps://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/6thsense.jpg" >

Not to mention the rich history of psychopaths and serial killers who all believed that they were following instructions from God. It's almost a classic symptom.