Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

As for catechesis, Christian parents do have a responsibility to teach their children the Christian faith. Acts 2:38 says so, as does Deut 6:7. This is a command to us from God. Children, on the other hand, are completely dependent upon their parents for all of their needs in life, including food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any notion of respect must take into account the fact that children need guidance to make wise decisions, due to their lack of knowledge and experience. For one thing, children need to be taught not to kick ladies in the grocery store checkout, grap pots of hot oil, smoke crack, and all sorts of things like that. In the same way, they also need to be taught their need for God, and what it means to live under his caring provision.

That is why we Lutherans in particular (and all Christians SHOULD) baptizie our children and teach them the catechism. We want them to know our God and to live under his care. And if parents don't take that responsibility, or at the very least act like it is something important, then how in the world can you expect children to get it when they grow up?

So, yes, I do believe Christian parents have a responsibility to teach their children the Christian faith, to the effect that, if they do not, then they fail their children and are doing them a disservice.

You missed the point. I basically ripped a huge gaping hole in your argument that children shouldn't have to learn religion because it might make them uncomfortable. I reiterate the point I made at the top of this thread. And ultimately, I'm more concerned about their eternal destiny than I am about whether they prefer sleeping late on Sundays.

Greater people than you provided that book for me, greater people than you have lived by it, and greater people than you continue to live by it.

I think the way it's best explained, this whole argument over whether or not children are being forced to believe it... they're not being forced, yes. But if religion is taught to them as fact, which is how it's taught, then what real choice does a child have but to believe it? They've been provided no alternative to choose from, they're simply told that this is the truth. And if you tell someone who doesn't have a reason to think you're wrong (you're the parent, and so you're supposed to be right, right?) that you are, indeed, right, then they are going to believe you're right. They'll take it as fact. Yes, you're not forceably forcing your beliefs on them, but you're still forcing the beliefs on them.

So yes, Didy, it's not making them uncomfortable-ONLY because it doesn't conflict with any other belief they have, and that's only because they have no alternative belief yet. If children were told of multiple theories that existed as to explanations of God's existance, and they were taught that Christianity was the right one, they'd be made uncomfortable, because they'd know it was a decision being made for them. But no! They're not uncomfortable! They know no other alternative! There's nothing wrong with teaching my young children to kill small animals, either, then, because they haven't yet been taught otherwise! They're not uncomfortable with it, right? It's the only way of belief they've ever known-I'm not doing this against their will! As such, I'm in the right!

Note that while I'm being somewhat scathingly sarcastic, I'm not suggesting that the Bible teaches children to kill small animals. I'm just providing another example of forced belief vs. formed opinion. I'm also not suggesting that teaching them that Christianity is right is equivalent to teaching them that killing small animals is right-I'm just pointing out the preposterity which only becomes apparent when likened to something completely ridiculous.

You know, Rosalie, I'm getting about sick of your false assumptions and insults. For someone who professes to be so tolerant and unbiased, you sure seem to take great pleasure in belittling the beliefs and practices of other people. I tell you what: you come down here to Faith Lutheran Church in Greenville, MS on Sunday Morning at 9:45, and actually see what we do. Until then, don't you presume the right to accuse us of so-called "systematic programming."

Now, as for him actually forcing -

Well, say a hypothetical situation: You believe that if your children do not get up on Sundays and become good Christians, they will go to hell. Now your children are not outright refusing to go to Sunday School, they just would prefer to sleep in. If your children had told you that they don't believe in your religion and would rather be something else, and you still made them go, then yes, you could do nothing, and making them go would be forcing them against their will. Making them go when they want to sleep and making them go when it's not their religion are two completely different things.

I think the way it's best explained, this whole argument over whether or not children are being forced to believe it... they're not being forced, yes. But if religion is taught to them as fact, which is how it's taught, then what real choice does a child have but to believe it? They've been provided no alternative to choose from, they're simply told that this is the truth. And if you tell someone who doesn't have a reason to think you're wrong (you're the parent, and so you're supposed to be right, right?) that you are, indeed, right, then they are going to believe you're right. They'll take it as fact. Yes, you're not forceably forcing your beliefs on them, but you're still forcing the beliefs on them.

So yes, Didy, it's not making them uncomfortable-ONLY because it doesn't conflict with any other belief they have, and that's only because they have no alternative belief yet. If children were told of multiple theories that existed as to explanations of God's existance, and they were taught that Christianity was the right one, they'd be made uncomfortable, because they'd know it was a decision being made for them. But no! They're not uncomfortable! They know no other alternative! There's nothing wrong with teaching my young children to kill small animals, either, then, because they haven't yet been taught otherwise! They're not uncomfortable with it, right? It's the only way of belief they've ever known-I'm not doing this against their will! As such, I'm in the right!

Note that while I'm being somewhat scathingly sarcastic, I'm not suggesting that the Bible teaches children to kill small animals. I'm just providing another example of forced belief vs. formed opinion. I'm also not suggesting that teaching them that Christianity is right is equivalent to teaching them that killing small animals is right-I'm just pointing out the preposterity which only becomes apparent when likened to something completely ridiculous.

I still didnt understand what thou were all saying but here is what I THINK.
??? If there was no god then how was the bible made? Why do we have all these churches,charites,chapels,funerls.why Why WHYY!!!!!!!!!...

Because there can be only ONE!!!! But you said god corrupts society?Well he dosent and if you think he is evil he will take his hand and smite anyone who sins or does bad things or protests against him. If there wasnt a god how would we be created? No one will exist nothing. It will be all deserted.
Not even tumble weed will pass by.

You keep saying over and over again that teaching our religion as fact is wrong. But here's what you fail to realize. I believe my religion is fact.

You may not like that, but until you can convince me that my religion isn't fact, then you really don't have a leg to stand on.

All of your argumentation essentially boils down to, "I don't like that he believes his religion is true and teaches people that it's true."

And incidentally, greater people than you did provide me with that book that you have so little respect for.

Are you claiming to be equal with St. Paul? Are you claiming to be equal to St. John? Are you claiming to be equal to St. Peter, or St. James?

If you are, you are presuming a great deal. Nevertheless, you have said nothing on this forum to convince me (or anyone else for that matter) that we should trust you more than these great men.

If anything, your abusive behavior to people on this forum would seem to indicate otherwise.

If your telling me what side ill go with ill go with the Holy Church side not science. Nothing can be told about god because he is a mystery we will never fully grasp.But for science they also (I think) said that the jelly things were from God.

Wow, your incredible logical ability outstands me.

Hey, you know what I'm going to do now? I'm going to believe that I just won this argument as fact. Because, I can like do that. And I'm going to believe that spamming your inbox and calling up to your house and spitting on your windows is religious fact, because you know, I believe it is. So it's totally right.

Seriously, that's by far the stupidest thing you've said yet.

What you don't realise is that I don't care. It's yet another pathetic excuse. I believe my religion to be true also. Yet you don't see me forcing you to believe in magick and stone circles.

All your argument boils down to is "I believe it's true therefore I can do what I want". Which is ridiculous.

Why do I need to demonstrate that your religion isn't true? That's not the point. From a *non personal* scale of things, your religion isn't true, it MIGHT be true. If you argue otherwise, you're too far gone and nobody can do anything to help you.

A fine product of modern conservative society.

My "Abusive behaviour" is purely down to frustrating with some of the most ridiculous conservative and religious ideals I've ever encountered on a seemingly "Normal" forum.

You clearly don't understand the argument at all. If you believe something to be true, why on earth would you tell other people that it might be false? That doesn't make any sense. You say that you don't force your religion on others, but if someone asked you what you think the truth about the world is, would your response be anything other than what you believe?
And if you don't care, why are you still here?

More proof that you don't understand what Didymus is saying. His argument actually boils down to, "I believe it's true, therefore I will consider it fact and act accordingly."

And if he truly believes his religion is the only way to salvation, then acting accordingly means helping others to see that fact.

Why should he look at a non-personal scale when engaging in the extremely personal act of teaching his children?

Another point you seem to be missing is this: children grow up. They don't simply intake ideas and keep believing them as fact forever, at least not if they're rational.

You can teach a religion to a child, but eventually they will find out about other religions.

They will be able to weigh what they have been taught against other alternatives and decide on what they believe to be the best way of living.

Wow, for an open-minded person you seem to be pretty narrowminded about conservatives.

I'm sorry, but pure Lunacy. On most messageboards people are expected to distinguish between their personal beliefs and scientifically accepted fact.

You appear to be in favour of blurring this line.

You might tell them it might be false, because from a standpoint, you are one perosn, and other people believe different things. If you don't teach your child that other people believe in different things, you are sheltering them in a manner that is unneccessary and harmful.

If acting accordingly means forcing your beliefs, it's still forcing your beliefs. What you claim your religion says doesn't matter, because it's still forcing, and not every Christian does it, so it's obvious it's not a neccessary part of the "rules".

So why doesn't he try to preach to me here and now and resolve me of my evil ways? Why?

BECUASE HIS CHILDREN ARE OTHER PEOPLE AND NOT HIS PROPERTY. THAT MEANS IT CEASES TO BE PURELY PERSONAL. Why can't people understand this?

But sometimes they do intake ideas. I don't imagine those two Nazi girls giving up their beliefs any time soon.

Most people do "believe" in something purely because their parents tell them to. It happens. And because of that they never pursue a spiritual path

People like Didymus are cutting them off from paths such as mine, so I view it as an act of vicious war on my beliefs, as well as being unfair on the children.

How do you know they will? Most people really, really don't know anything past Christianity, Judaism, Islam(Which is of course, not an option; go prejudice!) and Atheism; and guess who's fault that is?

And why should it have to be eventually?

*huge spiel about conservatism*

So you are a strong hardcore supporter that "children" don't deserve rights? If they're young, they have no right to believe what they want? I'm sorry, if you truly believe that, I find it very hard to respect your view.

Eh? I'm not asking about messageboard etiquette. And please explain properly why what I said is Lunacy with a capital "L", because that answer is not good enough.

The other points - about how beliefs only become fact until proven - I'll just add my perspective (not to disagree with what you said, but just to put it out there).

I believe that just because you can't see God and his/her/its nature, it doesn't mean that it isn't as real as Australia.

It doesn't mean that the Christian God doesn't exist, or your gods, or even my very vague concepts of possible supernaturality. As an agnostic, I don't believe that the true nature of God can ever be seen or understood by Mankind if he/she/it exists.

So does that mean that any of the hundreds of gods aren't fact? I don't think so - it's just that we'll never know.

1. You think it would be better if Christian parents explain that there are other religions other than their own. (Does this mean that you're okay with these parents continuing to believe that Christianity is still the only valid religion - if, from their perspectives and psychological imperitives, Christianity makes sense for them and they can't see any more valid alternatives?)

2. So carrying on from that, you believe that Christians should tolerate other religions.

3. And you want Christians to respect your beliefs (is it okay if they don't agree with your beliefs?).

What can I say...... that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Not a fan of your debating style, but the core ideas are reasonable.

Thank you.

I suggest you now ask Didymus if he would agree with these beliefs without attacking his.

The problem is that my beliefs aren't religious beliefs - it's generally accepted it's not a nice thing to force your beliefs , and I'm not sure why people on this forum don't understand that. He is doing something which, according to reasonable logic and evidence, could be very harmful, and provided no claim to the contrary(The same logic doesn't apply to God existing, partly because of Occams Razor, as much as I hate that term, and lack of convincing scientific evidence).

I don't know about you, but when someone's doing something wrong, and an entire message board rush to his defense and refuse to admit he's doing something bad, that really annoys me and I'm going to continue to make my point until enough people get it.

I don't want people to hate Didymus, or for Didymus to hate himself. I just want people to stop hiding behind their beliefs and own up that something they have every intention of doing is very wrong.



Possibly. I did calm down recently - but it's impossible for me to be calm around Didymus' extremely frustrating "victim" position, not to mention that he ignores almost all my good points, whereas I spend loads of time going over things, quoting them point by point.



This isn't about belief. This is about action.

Though I do hold that some beliefs are wrong. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it right. When the evidence is highly stacked against you, and if your belief were to be harmful if put into practice, I think that belief is wrong and needs reviewing.

Now, for Johnthetinycowboy.



I'm not going to answer this. I've answered this four times at the very least already. Please read my posts before asking questions about them.

Are you purposely trying to win by frustration? Trolling isn't getting angry, it's makeing other people get angry.



This has already been dealth with twice. If you were confident in your own religion, you wouldn't need to be incredibly possessive. Someone confident in their beliefs would be comfortable with accepting those of others to the extent that you acknowledge them around your children instead of pushing your own.



I'm sorry, but you're really getting into frustratingly annoying territory here. I already pointed out that kids are not property and beliefs are only true for the person that holds them. Your side has compltely ignored this as you don't appear to have anything near the ability to counter genuine points. No doubt when you reply to this you'll only get annoyed at me saying you can't counterring points, totally ignoring the rest of the paragraph before it.



One of the aspects of Christianity I don't agree with(obviously) is "No other Gods before me". If you teach that your children, that does deny the existence of Paganism as a valid belief. Not only that, it will harm social interactions with others who do not uphold their belief.

There is nothing wrong with believing that, personally - but when you tell someone else that's how they live their life, it's forcing.



We already went over this more times than we can count. The point is that his religion and how he teaches is cleverly set up so he doesn't HAVE to strap someone to a chair to force his beliefs down their throat. "Teaching" Christianity often involves teaching your children all alternatives are wrong. At a young impressionable age, this programs them into it more effectively than any normal threat would.

And technically, he's threatening them with Hell if they decide to convert, which is worse, but I won't get into that.

I don't have a problem with someone upholding Christian beliefs, they are just not suitable for teaching in the manner that most people do.



No, not too bad. Unlike some people, if I see something genuinely wrong, I'm going to damn well smack it in their face until they admit to it.



I can damn well call them a paedophile for raping them, and I can damn well call them a bad parent for forcing their beliefs on them.



Yes, I'm sorry, Didymus's is another which is apparently far superior to mine.

If that holds true, the rest of your argument falls apart. If there are other correct definitions of right and wrong, Didymus should teach them to his chilren, yet you argue against that. When you include other people it ceases to be personal. You are unable to grasp this fact. Until you do, you shouldn't be debating.



But he doesn't respect his children's right to hold their own beliefs. He may not be able to do anything if they grow up to be Hindu, but that doesn't mean he respects it, otherwise he wouldn't try to do everything legally in his power to stop that from happening.



Thanks for making me loose all respect in you. I went over this a thousand times. I Have shown you indication of not respecting someone else's beliefs, only how they use them. You have absolutely nothing to back up that statement, nor will you even make an attempt to do so. To defend your friend you must force an untrue point of view on me , which you know is false.

Do not do this again.



Prove it. And we're not even talking about a young age, but teen years as well, which are when people develop things like this.
You are making an assumption which is not true. There are people here claiming that they agree with what they were raised with and have done ever since they were young. What should have been a point for them heavily works against your assumption.



Because it's wrong, socially harmful, selfish and vicious towards other points of view.

No, they're not. Try rewriting that without having to fall back on "They might go to hell!!!1" and you'll find it impossible.

Yes. To raise a child you must prepare them for the real world, not for one that might exist. If you teach then any religion as pure fact you are not raising them properly.

Now, it seems like much to ask, but keep in mind because of the very "This is the one truth" nature of Christianity, you need something to weigh that out. You can teach them that you believe it is the one truth, but if you teach them it IS the one truth, you are forcing them into it.



Yes.



What can I say...... that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Not a fan of your debating style, but the core ideas are reasonable.

Thank you.

I suggest you now ask Didymus if he would agree with these beliefs without attacking his.

I'm not going to answer this. I've answered this four times at the very least already. Please read my posts before asking questions about them.

Are you purposely trying to win by frustration? Trolling isn't getting angry, it's makeing other people get angry.

Because it's wrong, socially harmful, selfish and vicious towards other points of view.

Didymus has already shown that he cares more for them "going to hell" than their concerns to leave or skip church.

And how do you know what age they will make up their minds at? Again, you are another person who is violently against children's rights.

Johnny, avid supporter of racist, homophobic and bigotted parents everywhere.

Yeah, because everyone knows the extreme cases aren't real and never happen.

So in other words, they're impressionable and instead of learning to make their own decisions, should have their decisions forced on them? Nice.

And why is there so little chance of that happening? Because they had beliefs forced onto them? Oh dear...

Though I have seen it happen.

The unlikelyness is due to the fact that most little kids have not had the life experience to choose another religion, not because their parents forced them to believe something.

Well, it's impossible because you have to fall back on it. It's your religion, and it's what you believe. Any good parent wants their children to grow up good and get into heaven, so of course you want them to attend Sunday School.

Agnosticism is indeed the belief that it can't be proven - so why then are you allowing Didymus to use his beliefs as fact? A fact is only a fact when proven.

If that's your "belief on beliefs", you have an extreme bias keeping you from seeing actual reality.

I believe that any fact exists independently of whether we can prove it or not. Taking Australia - until the first humans arrived there, no one could prove that it existed, but of course it did, quite independently of us.

Pretty much the same thing with understanding supernaturality, imo, only I don't know if we'll ever reach that hypothetical "Australia" where everything about the nature of God becomes clear to us.

So I can't tell Didymus not to use his beliefs as fact. Even if there's no proof that he should do that, there's nothing I can do to prove him otherwise.

Hey now! You want people to respect your beliefs - don't disrespect mine, even if you don't agree with them. And I know that my beliefs aren't what you want to hear, but that's how it is.

I don't know about you, but when someone's doing something wrong, and an entire message board rush to his defense and refuse to admit he's doing something bad, that really annoys me and I'm going to continue to make my point until enough people get it.

I don't want people to hate Didymus, or for Didymus to hate himself. I just want people to stop hiding behind their beliefs and own up that something they have every intention of doing is very wrong.

You CANNOT take your beliefs as fact for OTHER PEOPLE.

Premise 1: I believe that raising a child to be religious is wrong. (post 1)
Premise 2 : Didymus believes that raising a child to be religious is right. (from the entire argument so far)
Premise 3: Beliefs can only be taken as fact for the person holding the belief. (post 2)
Conclusion 4: My belief that raising a child to be religious is wrong only applies to me. Didymus' belief only applies to him. (from 1, 2, 3)
Conclusion 5: Both positions are equally valid. (from 4)

By your own arguments, you have no right to tell any member of this board that their beliefs are wrong. QED.

And where do your beliefs on human rights originate? And most religious beliefs have many many rules that are meant to be universal.

It's not an accurate comparison, because if people *were* backing their arguments on something so unproven, smart people would laugh at them.

But his beliefs are only fact to him. Why. Do. You. Not. Understand. That.

They are not seen as fact by his children unless they are explicitly told so, or decide to pick them up on their own.

Hey now! You want people to respect your beliefs - don't disrespect mine, even if you don't agree with them. And I know that my beliefs aren't what you want to hear, but that's how it is.

And where do your beliefs on human rights originate?

And weren't their faces red when it turned out there really is an Australia.

I can't argue if people can't make a division between their personal beliefs and what is accepted by people who actually know what they're talking about as fact.

But without having a reason to believe that Australia existed, as no one had found it, the ones who were 'right' were in fact just as wrong as those who said there was no Australia-you don't really, as I've said, have a right to an opinion you can't back up. As was said, the smart people would have been laughing, and they'd have been justified. They didn't have to turn red-they would have been calling people wrong for believing what had no proof behind it. Since when has there been anything wrong with calling it wrong to believe something without proof?

Oh wait. Tee hee, I forgot. Since religion.

If it ever comes to pass that it's revealed that God exists, it won't be able to be said that either side was actually right (except for those supposing they'd truly seen God's hand at work-that's a different matter entirely, one which I won't debate as I couldn't fully appreciate its magnitude, meaning or validity, or have the heart/words to deny it), if both sides believed what they did without proof. That's why there are agnostics-we don't think there's enough to prove or disprove religion.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back the truck up.

*points to the last nine pages of discussion/argument*

Quick, everyone say that you can't differentiate between accepted fact and personal opinion! Quickly, now!

Seriously, though. I think this argument has made about seven circles and a few stray outward lines. Let's not make sweeping generalizations in something as specific as this discussion's boundaries like so many people have; we could save ourselves those extra trips around the circle if we didn't generalize.