Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

This God Fellow (Who is He, and why should I care?)
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5883		 Page 6 of 13
Author:  seamusz [ Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
Actually, if you'll pay attention, I'm assuming it's no more true than any other given religion or world view, including atheism. Didymus is doing the obvious.

Essentially, I'm assuming that nothing is true, but might be.


Ok... Ill just ignore the elementary school insults, and further explain myself.

You are assuming, that was my point. If Christianity is true, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Scriptures were written by his prophets, then we must not only teach our childeren this, but tell as many people who will listen about it and hope and pray they accept Christ and do the same.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
However, throwing them into a world they may feel uncomfortable in or learn to hate is NOT logical behaviour.

The world is by nature a very uncomfortable place, Rosalie, at least in my experience. And parents can't protect their children from every tiny bit of discomfort. All we can do as parents is equip them as best we can to live in this world, and teaching them our faith is one of the ways we can do that. Your argument still does not give me any valid reason to treat my religious faith as any different than any other thing for which I am responsible for teaching my children. If anything, failure to teach them my faith would be a grave disservice to them, despite your arguments to the contrary.

Quote:
So should I give in because the majority is against me? Does that make me biased just because I think differently?

It might help if you ACTED as unbiased and as tolerant as you claim to be. And you might want to avoid the kind of ad hominem attacks I've seen you make on the Texas thread. Since I already pointed that out on that thread, I do not feel obligated to repeat it here. The plain and simple truth is that you're not exactly winning friends and influencing people by calling them dimwitted and small-brained.

Quote:
almost everybody on this forum(that's talking, rather)is christian, conservative, or very close to one of the two on the forum. How many arguments have you gotten into online? Nearly all of them are pretty one sided, because people don't like to get involved for fear of loosing friends, etc.

You obviously have not been on this forum for very long. My experience is that there are plenty more liberal people here than conservative. Maybe you don't remember King Nintendoid, Trog-Dork, Dr. Zaius, or Upsilon. Or even some of the discussions that What's Her Face and I have had very recently.

Quote:
You've listed various things that parents make their kids do that are of value and use, yet failed to link them in any manner as to how instilling your religion in them is productive.

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.

Quote:
So you're not only raising them into christianity, you're using it to restrict their behaviour? Now you ARE most definitely getting into forceful territory.

Please make a halfway decent attempt to understand what someone is trying to say before making such flippant remarks.

As for my book, until you can present me sound reason as to why I should not trust my God and my book, as you put it, then why should I consider your opinion more valid than mine? 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. Your so-called "tolerance" and "less bias" is essentially telling me that I'm wrong for trusting my God and doing what he tells me to do (Deut 6:9, Acts 2:36). In short, you put yourself in a nice little place: prove to me my God is wrong for telling me to teach my children. If you can do that, I'll give credence to your arguments. Until then, you're blowing smoke.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
The world is by nature a very uncomfortable place, Rosalie, at least in my experience.
And parents can't protect their children from every tiny bit of discomfort.


But... this isn't about protection. This is about you creating this discomfort. And because it's uncomfortable, you should make it more uncomfortable?

On a law of averages, most kids brought up by a particular Christian are either going to feel themselves to be not christian, or a different brand of Christian.

Quote:
All we can do as parents is equip them as best we can to live in this world, and teaching them our faith is one of the ways we can do that.


No it isn't. That's nothing to do with it. If you wanted to best equip them, you'd introduce them to all possible faiths, since you apparently know so much about them(Except mine of course, at least it wasn't in the list).

While you may have their best interests at heart, it's at least as much about you as it is about them.

Quote:
Your argument still does not give me any valid reason to treat my religious faith as any different than any other thing for which I am responsible for teaching my children.


I doubt anything would. But you'd still provided no valid reason.

It's also quite evident that you couldn't give a crap about your kids if they disagree with your teachings, as this would make them very uncomfortable, and you honestly don't care about that.

Quote:
If anything, failure to teach them my faith would be a grave disservice to them, despite your arguments to the contrary.


Why? Reasons. Backing. Ones that aren't in the bible, as not all of us believe in that. I'm not using a particular religious text to back up my points.

Quote:
You obviously have not been on this forum for very long. My experience is that there are plenty more liberal people here than conservative. Maybe you don't remember King Nintendoid, Trog-Dork, Dr. Zaius, or Upsilon. Or even some of the discussions that What's Her Face and I have had very recently.


Where are those people now, exactly?

Quote:
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.


Where on earth did you do that? Since you never proved that forcing your faith on them is beneficiary, you have done no such thing, or how teaching them your faith is part of equipping them to deal with the world, when the likelyhood is, they'll reject it to some extent.

Quote:
And ultimately, I'm more concerned about their eternal destiny than I am about whether they prefer sleeping late on Sundays.


Then you are indeed forcing your beliefs on them. Eternal Destiny is part of your beliefs, not necessarily theres. Why don't you preach to me, right here and now, since my eternal destiny is more important than my right to hold a belief? You never did address that point. You seem to enjoy ripping great big imaginary holes in my argument without addressing the onesi n your own.



Quote:
Please make a halfway decent attempt to understand what someone is trying to say before making such flippant remarks.


I really despise that. I've calmed down immensley, but since you're still more "calm" and calling me out on these things, it is an interest leverage for you to use to appear more right in this than you actually are.

Please make no further references to it.

Quote:
As for my book, until you can present me sound reason as to why I should not trust my God and my book, as you put it, then why should I consider your opinion more valid than mine?


You can trust your God and your book as far as it extends to yourself. Your book also tells you to preach unto me the same way you would preach unto your children. Yet you do not do so. Making this an issue of Juvenille rights you won't admit to.

Quote:
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.


So you're better than me? I'm sorry. Or by greater does that mean with a higher position in the world? How does that make anyone better? Or greater by what the bible says, which is entirely recursive? Greater people than you have provided pagan beliefs, greater people than you have lived by it, and greater people than you continue to live by it.

Irrelevant.

If it wasn't for people worshipping you, you'd have gotten lynched for that remark.

Quote:
Your so-called "tolerance" and "less bias" is essentially telling me that I'm wrong for trusting my God and doing what he tells me to do


Way to dodge the issue. I'll give you a 5 for that, since it was almost convincing.

Quote:
(Deut 6:9, Acts 2:36).


No Bible references, please. What if I pulled out a text that told me it was my mission to stop all the preachers in the world from forcing their beliefs unto their children, thus muddying the concept of freedom of sprituality? And you know what, it's damn close to the core of my beliefs, too.

So you can't use that defense.

Since i Don't believe in your bible, and your kids probably/possibly wouldn't believe in the bible if you didn't force it into them, your religious beliefs, as well as mine, are irrelevant, I'm afraid.

Quote:
In short, you put yourself in a nice little place: prove to me my God is wrong for telling me to teach my children.


I can't prove anythign to you as long as you're using your bible as a recursive shield.

Quote:
If you can do that, I'll give credence to your arguments. Until then, you're blowing smoke.


If you can't argue without using your bible in a matter that does not directly concern the contents of Christianity, but rather the application of a generic religion, then you're not only blowing smoke, you're blowing smoke over your argument in an attempt to hide your flaws.
Author:  DeadGaySon [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
And almost everybody on this forum(that's talking, rather)is christian, conservative, or very close to one of the two on the forum.


So not true. I myself lean very much so toward the left in many of my beliefs, ask anyone. I'm not going to bring my religion into this, seeing as I'm not so sure of it at this time, but I can tell you confidently that whatever I do believe wouldn't get in the way of what morals and logic I would possess anyway.

Rosalie wrote:
I understand it's your point of view that they'll burn in hell if they don't, but you have to understand that because of the fact that there are other points of views out there, you are inherently no more right, therefore no religion in particular should be seen as a "Neccessity".


It makes them no more wrong either. And I see a lot of the 'burning in hell' view on christianity, i.e. that it's all about a bribe or a threat. It's not about that.

Rosalie wrote:
"My book says so" isn't a valid argument, as it has no backing that everyone can relate to, regardless of belief. It's entirely self contained and recursive, thus my "trying to fly by pulling up your feet" analogy.


It's not just a book though. Understand that the bible contains a lot of stuff that isn't just the teachings of christianity, but rather the kinds of things that everyone should be practising, and if they did, the world would be a better place.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
So not true. I myself lean very much so toward the left in many of my beliefs, ask anyone. I'm not going to bring my religion into this, seeing as I'm not so sure of it at this time, but I can tell you confidently that whatever I do believe wouldn't get in the way of what morals and logic I would possess anyway.


I meant "Close" as in "socially close" or friends with, as in you'll often defend them without fully thinking, or purely because you may offendthem.

Quote:
It's not just a book though. Understand that the bible contains a lot of stuff that isn't just the teachings of christianity, but rather the kinds of things that everyone should be practising, and if they did, the world would be a better place.


Teaching them values, I've no problem with, as long as you don't try to force too them heavily, and they are not ones which will cause them to discriminate in later life. But it is more than values that's in the bible, and in christianity.
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
Teaching them values, I've no problem with, as long as you don't try to force too them heavily, and they are not ones which will cause them to discriminate in later life. But it is more than values that's in the bible, and in christianity.

Christianity, by its very nature says to love everyone and not judge people.
It tells us that we're not better than anyone else and that we are all held accountable for what we do.
While I agree "forcing" christianity (or judaism, islam,scientology, atheism, or any other system) is a bad idea (a former friend of mine is a prime example of what happens when it backfires), I think that exposing them to the morals and teachings of a religion (or lack thereof) is a good idea.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:37 am ]
Post subject: 
But when it comes down to it, Didymus is talking about forcing. Did you not read what he said about school, and tidying your room and all that?

Introducing people to ideals, I've no problem with. But if you make your kids treat church like a life and death matter when they're not interested, or rear them in such a manner that they will not feel free to accept any alternatives, then you're ultimately harming them.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:30 am ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
Introducing people to ideals, I've no problem with. But if you make your kids treat church like a life and death matter when they're not interested, or rear them in such a manner that they will not feel free to accept any alternatives, then you're ultimately harming them.


you see, this is what my parents did when i was young, i was always forced to go to church as a child, then it went on for a while, then i stopped going, then my sister, then my parents didnt see a reason to go anymore. and now here i am today, livin with my father, mother and sister live somewhere else, my father converted to a Jehovas Witness, my sister has become goth, and here i am in the middle, Choosing between Agnostic, Satanic, Pagan, Christian, Catholic, Cthulhuism, Inteligent Design, Scientology, or just be Atheist. in this sense, i have to Dissagree with you rosalie, you are not harming them because you are just giving some hope and faith to your children incase they ever need it. i aggree that Forcing it down their throats, Mentioning verses from the bible just to show them a lesson or something is bad, but parents can then again teach their children whatever they want, its Free Speach, and Freedom to Pursuit Religion, the government has nothing to do with religion and theyre not gonna touch it, so its a right to teach whoever will listen to it whatever religion you like, they just dont have to listen or try what they suggested.
Author:  Exhibit A [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:04 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm sick and tired of you telling Didymus not to use Biblical references to back up his points, Rosalie. You're the one attacking his beliefs, not the other way around. He is telling you his reasons for teaching our Children our faith, not just whatever will convince you. I'm sorry if it bothers you, but we, as Christians believe the Bible is true. We read the Bible and do what it instructs us to do. By telling him that the Bible shouldn't be used as a reference to back up our beliefs, which are rooted in the Bible, you are, to us, saying that our religion on its own isn't good enough. We don't have to explain ourselves to you, Didymus is backing up his beliefs with what he and I both see as fact. If the Biblical references aren't good enough for you, that's you're problem, not ours.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
you see, this is what my parents did when i was young, i was always forced to go to church as a child, then it went on for a while, then i stopped going, then my sister, then my parents didnt see a reason to go anymore. and now here i am today, livin with my father, mother and sister live somewhere else, my father converted to a Jehovas Witness, my sister has become goth, and here i am in the middle, Choosing between Agnostic, Satanic, Pagan, Christian, Catholic, Cthulhuism, Inteligent Design, Scientology, or just be Atheist. in this sense, i have to Dissagree with you rosalie, you are not harming them because you are just giving some hope and faith to your children incase they ever need it. i aggree that Forcing it down their throats, Mentioning verses from the bible just to show them a lesson or something is bad, but parents can then again teach their children whatever they want, its Free Speach, and Freedom to Pursuit Religion, the government has nothing to do with religion and theyre not gonna touch it, so its a right to teach whoever will listen to it whatever religion you like, they just dont have to listen or try what they suggested.


It's not free speech if they're forcing someone. ANd how the hell is it the freedom to pursue religion when that's the very thing you're damaging in your child? And for every person that's apathetic to it like you, I know about 20 people who are just damn well frustrated with it. One of my friends is 19 and they STILL force him to go to Church on a Sunday. It's against his beliefs, he hates it. But it happens.

Quote:
'm sick and tired of you telling Didymus not to use Biblical references to back up his points, Rosalie. You're the one attacking his beliefs, not the other way around.


But you CAN'T use the Bible in an argument that has nothing to do with the Bible. This is about whether or not it's right to force any beliefs. Just because it says so in his beliefs doesn't make it right. If it says so in my
book of lovely things that it's right to flick you behind the ear 26 times a day, does that mean it's definitely right? No.

Quote:
If the Biblical references aren't good enough for you, that's you're problem, not ours.


Sorry, but Bible quotes have never, and never will stack up in a logical debate against anything of any meaning.

I am not saying your faith is wrong, or bad. I have my own religious ideals that I'm leaving at the door when I get into these kind of debates.

But just because you see it as fact, does not make it so. You can't use religious beliefs to back behaviour. It's nonsensical.

*I* don't see it as fact, so what relevance is it to me? And what about the kids you're teaching who don't see it as fact? Do you give a crap about them?

I just don't claim it to be a part of my faith that it's okay, even neccessary, to force it on others.
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
One of my friends is 19 and they STILL force him to go to Church on a Sunday. It's against his beliefs, he hates it. But it happens.

How do his parents force him to go to Church? He's 19.. Does he still live at home or something?
I mean, if that's the case, I can understand how they would be able to make him (with that whole "my house my rules" thing), but otherwise, I wouldn't think they would have any real power over him.
Author:  Exhibit A [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:25 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
But you CAN'T use the Bible in an argument that has nothing to do with the Bible. This is about whether or not it's right to force any beliefs. Just because it says so in his beliefs doesn't make it right. If it says so in my
book of lovely things that it's right to flick you behind the ear 26 times a day, does that mean it's definitely right? No.

This is not about forcing beliefs. This is about teaching our children our faith. We teach them about our faith because we believe it is fact, and we don't want our kids going to Hell. I'm not going to teach my children other religions because I believe they are wrong.
Quote:
You can't use religious beliefs to back behaviour. It's nonsensical.

I can, and will, use religious beliefs to back my behavior, because I learn right and wrong from my religion. I follow God's rules of behavior, not yours.
Quote:
I have my own religious ideals that I'm leaving at the door when I get into these kind of debates.

That's fine for you, but not for me. I'm defending what I believe in, and what I believe in is God and the Bible.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:45 am ]
Post subject: 
well, you do know your religion Exhibit A, and didymus dont answer this for him, What is gods Real Name?


okay, apart from that question i asked, you can teach your children your belifes, you can force it down there throats and out their backside, you can also say that every other Religion, Including Judaism, is wrong,(Even Though the Prophet Jesus Christ was Jewish), because thats your opinion, but some people say that you shouldnt force anyone to conform to one belife, but then again they are our children and we dont let them have a say in anything, and even if we do, we dont put much thought into it.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
How do his parents force him to go to Church? He's 19.. Does he still live at home or something?
I mean, if that's the case, I can understand how they would be able to make him (with that whole "my house my rules" thing), but otherwise, I wouldn't think they would have any real power over him.


Because he goes home at the weekends. It's pretty much a choice between not seeing his parents and going to church. Pretty nasty of them. And yes, this is commonplace, and this does happen. And I'm most certainly against continuing to teach a belief once the child is old enough to decide for themself, which can happen pretty early on.

Sharing your faith with them when they're younger isn't so bad as long as you don't drive it into them that this is the only way to be and all other ways are wrong. Absolutely no good can come of this(except for the selfish parent, perhaps) and there is no excuse for it.

Quote:
This is not about forcing beliefs. This is about teaching our children our faith. We teach them about our faith because we believe it is fact, and we don't want our kids going to Hell. I'm not going to teach my children other religions because I believe they are wrong.


But they might not believe other religions or wrong. While you don't have to teach them then, it should be your duty as a parent to present those options to them in case one of those may be the path better than them.

This is entirely about forcing your beliefs. If you read that message enough times, the second part equates to "This is about forcing beliefs". You just went about in a more roundabout, less honest and less direct fashion than Didymus even did.

Quote:
I can, and will, use religious beliefs to back my behavior, because I learn right and wrong from my religion.


Then I hate to say it, but you have absolutely no moral convinction whatsoever.

I quote what someone else once said on another forum - "What is better: thinking killing people is wrong because you have reached the innate conclusion that it is, based on your own understanding of the value of human life - or because an old book tells you it is wrong?

How on earth can you consider yourself to be a moral person if all your decisions are made for you by dogmatic decree? That is not morality - it is intellectual slavery. If you require an old book to tell you the difference between right and wrong then you are entirely devoid of morality."

I'm sorry, but you technically have no sense of right and wrong since you didn't decide for yourself, though I severely doubt you take *everything* purely based on what the bible says. Call me a bigot for saying that all you like, but I dare you to prove otherwise.

Quote:
kay, apart from that question i asked, you can teach your children your belifes, you can force it down there throats and out their backside, you can also say that every other Religion, Including Judaism, is wrong,(Even Though the Prophet Jesus Christ was Jewish), because thats your opinion, but some people say that you shouldnt force anyone to conform to one belife, but then again they are our children and we dont let them have a say in anything, and even if we do, we dont put much thought into it.


You can say those, but not (attempt to) force them on anyone, including their own children.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:34 am ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
Quote:
I can, and will, use religious beliefs to back my behavior, because I learn right and wrong from my religion.


Then I hate to say it, but you have absolutely no moral convinction whatsoever.

I quote what someone else once said on another forum - "What is better: thinking killing people is wrong because you have reached the innate conclusion that it is, based on your own understanding of the value of human life - or because an old book tells you it is wrong?

How on earth can you consider yourself to be a moral person if all your decisions are made for you by dogmatic decree? That is not morality - it is intellectual slavery. If you require an old book to tell you the difference between right and wrong then you are entirely devoid of morality."

I'm sorry, but you technically have no sense of right and wrong since you didn't decide for yourself, though I severely doubt you take *everything* purely based on what the bible says. Call me a bigot for saying that all you like, but I dare you to prove otherwise.


I disagree - morality is not innate, it is something that we're conditioned into through upbringing. And most of us here belong to a Christian tradition, going over hundreds of years, where we've been conditioned to taking Christian teachings as general basis of our morality, at least partly. (Whether we eventually abandon Christianity or not.)

Your example of how we realise that killing is wrong - that can be easily attributable to the Christian teaching about that, couldn't it? There are other factors envolved, of course, but our human nature isn't going to tell us it's wrong. I dare you to prove otherwise.

I can't speak for Exhibit A, but I'll guess too that it's unlikely that his morality is solely based on what he read in the Bible - a big part of it would have come from his family, his community, his Church, or whatever.

It maybe that he was taught to take the Bible as a guideline for his behaviour. It doesn't mean that you can't think for yourself by doing that - you can still debate and ask questions about what you're reading.

Quote:
I have my own religious ideals that I'm leaving at the door when I get into these kind of debates.


But this debate is about the nature of God - of course people will bring their religious beliefs into it. Besides, you are bringing your religious ideals in, too - your ideal being that parents share their religion with their children, but not force it down their throats. No?
Author:  Sui [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
What's Her Face wrote:
I disagree - morality is not innate, it is something that we're conditioned into through upbringing. And most of us here belong to a Christian tradition, going over hundreds of years, where we've been conditioned to taking Christian teachings as general basis of our morality, at least partly. (Whether we eventually abandon Christianity or not.)


To share my two cents on the subject. Anyone have any replies? And on your point of whether killing is wrong based on human nature-I point out there that human nature doesn't tell us that it's wrong, but animal nature tells us that it's unwise. And then once humanity created the concept of morals, we equated unwisdom to wrongness. Not to suggest that I think killing's wrong only because of that, mind you. Rather, that's how it came about in humanity's collective consciousness. You see, how I see it is that once we started collecting all these examples in which it was beneficial to the species to help others, we started using it as a decision-making... paradigm. I think I'm using that right. Anyway, we looked to those examples to figure out the common thread, to figure out what we should use to figure out the right way to go in the future. We saw that the common thread was mutual benefit, and using that, made the resolution that all decisions would be made based on whether they helped others or not. Then we dubbed it morality vs. immorality, and oh! didn't we look like saints. We chose the greater good, the high path-yes, we did so mostly because it proved to be the best choice in the past, but we just sort of glossed over that.

What's Her Face wrote:
But this debate is about the nature of God - of course people will bring their religious beliefs into it. Besides, you are bringing your religious ideals in, too - your ideal being that parents share their religion with their children, but not force it down their throats. No?


That's not a religious ideal-that's a belief of the way opinions and beliefs should be taught-i.e. not taught at all. 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.

The problem is, religion is a question of beliefs, and belief should be created based on what one has experienced and what one knows (when I say one, I mean the child, not the parent). Seeing as it's yet to be proven (not that it shall never be, but it hasn't yet), religion is opinion. And since when has it been right for opinion to be taught? Never! Opinion is to be formed, not taught.

And yes, I'm repeating what Rosalie has said, but it seems no one has quite seen the complete point of her argument, so I'm offering a rephrasing.

Please note that I'm not saying I have any problem with a belief in Christianity, or any sort of god-I'm not saying you're wrong. I have no problem with religion, I just don't like how it's taught or for what reasons it's believed.
Author:  Upsilon [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quite some time ago, Rosalie wrote:
Quote:
Yes, but how many parents teach their kids from birth that God does not exist? Very few, I'd wager.


Exactly. Though then again, I don't trust the spagetti monster atheists. Atheism has really been taken a very unfortunately smug turn for the worst, lately.


Just for the record, FSMism or Pastafarianism isn't a satire of theism. It was created for a reductio ad absurdum argument against teaching intelligent design as a science in schools.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
What's her face wrote:
I disagree - morality is not innate, it is something that we're conditioned into through upbringing.


Incorrect. Our moral values may be - but the essence of right and wrong is something which can technically be

Otherwise, the meaning of right and wrong is "What other people say", which isn't a terribly good thing.

Quote:
And most of us here belong to a Christian tradition, going over hundreds of years, where we've been conditioned to taking Christian teachings as general basis of our morality, at least partly. (Whether we eventually abandon Christianity or not.)


But it's not neccessarily the most logical. Technically, many definitions for "Right and Wrong" have aboslutely nothing to back them up because "I said so." That doesn't hold any real weight.

Quote:
Your example of how we realise that killing is wrong - that can be easily attributable to the Christian teaching about that, couldn't it? There are other factors envolved, of course, but our human nature isn't going to tell us it's wrong. I dare you to prove otherwise.


It is most certainly not. Plenty of people have disregarded the Bible in it's entirity still believe killing is wrong, if not more.

Not to mention that a world existed before the bible, too, which some people don't understand. Killing has *always* been frowned upon, even if it is sometiems seen as necessary.

Quote:
I can't speak for Exhibit A, but I'll guess too that it's unlikely that his morality is solely based on what he read in the Bible - a big part of it would have come from his family, his community, his Church, or whatever.


But if you don't make your own mind up about it, how is he either right or wrong, good or bad? You can't say he's a good person purely for following rules. Completely ludicrous.

Sui wrote:
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?


This is EXACTLY my point. People like Didymus are entirely, and completely, and utterly forcing their beliefs on their children - just through means which don't immediately scream "Child abuser", which, in my opinion, makes it sneakier.

The main issue here is that people like him see themselves as righteous and don't want to admit to an honest mistake - and people's worship is only encouraging this crime.

This isn't about what you think. It's about your kids right to think as they want to without them being guilted into being wrong. That serves no purpose.

Quote:
The problem is, religion is a question of beliefs, and belief should be created based on what one has experienced and what one knows (when I say one, I mean the child, not the parent). Seeing as it's yet to be proven (not that it shall never be, but it hasn't yet), religion is opinion. And since when has it been right for opinion to be taught? Never! Opinion is to be formed, not taught.


Didymus, read this. You know so much about religion yet you fail to realise what "Beliefs" are. What you engage in with your children is systematic programming, not "giving your child a sword to face the demons of life".

Upsilon wrote:
Just for the record, FSMism or Pastafarianism isn't a satire of theism. It was created for a reductio ad absurdum argument against teaching intelligent design as a science in schools.


Actually, there is no way that the FSM can just mock Intelligent Design. The concept as a whole pokes at the idea of anyone believing in anyone, as the moral of it is "If you believe in something, why not a Spagetti monster?". I think that FSM-type atheists have their own way of "Forcing but not forcing" like people like Didymus, and that's by mockery and forcing people to argue entirely on their "Scientific" terms, which is why I hate the FSM strawman.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Didymus, read this. You know so much about religion yet you fail to realise what "Beliefs" are. What you engage in with your children is systematic programming, not "giving your child a sword to face the demons of life".

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."
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
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."


I'm sick of you guilting me and making ridiculous accusations about me when I'm only making an utterly valid obersvation backed up by actual logic and damn common sense.

I see what you do as evil, and you'll have to live with it, I'm afraid.

I don't belittle your faith in the least, and quite frankly, you know this: However, since it works against your argument, you choose to ignore this.

It must make you feel so righteous to call a member of several minorities, bigoted, mustn't it? It's so unlikely it MUST be true, eh?

I have a problem with you forcing yoru beliefs on anyone, including your children.

Until you debunk this statement with actual logic and reasoning, and not "OH LOOK A BIBLE QUOTE", to which people respond "WOW DIDYMUS CAN READ, HE IS AWESOME :D", then my pont is entirely valid.

Your persecution complex is completely unfounded. I do not attack your beliefs as a Lutheran. I attack your attempts to program your children in manners that will prove ultimately unnecessary and most likely harmful. Sui explained exactly the difference between introducing your faith to your children, and forcing it on them. You force it on them because you "believe" it's wrong not to. If I believe it's not wrong to fly over there and kick your heiny, does that make it right?

You refuse to address this point. You keep accusing me of attacking your beliefs, instead, a classic tactic used by conservatives when they are unable to defend their beliefs.

Stop the pathetic act. I have a problem with the way in which you force your beliefs- either you deal with it, or defend yourself. But don't you DARE continue to accuse me of bigotry, after all the pathetic prejudice I've had to put up with through the last few years, demeaning, horrible comments, being treated as a sub-human, a joke, and a freak of nature, you who sits comfortable in his Pastor's chair, moulding his children in every aspect he sees fit.

You have not seen true bigtory. Someone disagreeing with the harmful way you raise your children is the epitome of bigotry you have faced, little man? Despite you perhaps have many years on me, you don't know the half of it, by far.

You challenge me to come down? I live 7000 miles away, and what DO you do? And what relevance does this have to you programming your children?

Think twice before you try to use those "cunning reversal" tactics again. My current tone is not unwarranted.
Author:  Mr.KISS [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
It must make you feel so righteous to call a member of several minorities, bigoted, mustn't it?


How come you always say things like this whenever someone gives it to you straight? I Guess It must make YOU feel big to be able to analyze bits and peices of peoples arguments and be able to spit out something totally hypocritical like this...

Quote:
Look at it this way - everyone has a ball which represents their love for tolerance and compassion. Once they attack someone else, they loose that ball.


..And since you dont believe it's hypocricy unless someone spoon feeds it to you, here's why it's hypocritical, GO READ YOUR POSTS.

But, since you wont I'll show you some...


Quote:
I have a problem with the way in which you force your beliefs


So do we.

Quote:
Think twice before you try to use those "cunning reversal" tactics again.


Why not think AT ALL before posting?

Quote:
I see what you do as evil, and you'll have to live with it, I'm afraid.


And yet you can't grasp why people dont accept gays.

Quote:
However, since it works against your argument, you choose to ignore this.


If that's how you see it then why aren't you and Dids freinds? From your point of view you to would have SO much in common.

Quote:
Until you debunk this statement with actual logic and reasoning...


Same deal as above.




Yet again, I will have to say goodbye to this particular thread so as I dont get into trouble (or possibly any more trouble).
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wow.

Guess it's time for me to step in and not attack/challenge anything...

I'm Agnostic. I used to be Christian. I still celebrate Christmas, I still follow many of the Commandments and whatnot, because I believe these to be good practices. However, I do not believe in God or a god, nor do I forsee myself doing so. Actually, my beliefs lean towards Buddhism, but I don't count myself as a Buddhist, as I don't really follow any Buddhist traditions.

I don't see the big deal with people teaching their kids a religion. While I know a fair share of Atheists and Agnostics, I don't think any of them were raised that way. Granted, I don't believe religion of any kind should be "forced" into the child, but it's the job of the parent to teach the child to be successful, and if in the parent's view success equates with a certain religion, then by all means let them do so.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
How come you always say things like this whenever someone gives it to you straight? I Guess It must make YOU feel big to be able to analyze bits and peices of peoples arguments and be able to spit out something totally hypocritical like this...


How is it hypocritical? Hypocrisy is your buzzword, don't have a solid argument, but you sure have a buzzword!

Quote:
So do we.


What, I'm forcing my beliefs now? Please tell me how, exactly?

Quote:
And yet you can't grasp why people dont accept gays.


Wtf?

Quote:
If that's how you see it then why aren't you and Dids freinds? From your point of view you to would have SO much in common.


But you never prove any of these statements. Ever. You just pull things out of your butt and stick to me. That's not an argument. Every single damn post in this reply is a one line "No! U!" approach.

Quote:
Yet again, I will have to say goodbye to this particular thread so as I dont get into trouble (or possibly any more trouble).


I wouldn't mind if people could actually back their opinions up once and a while without something that only applies to their own beliefs rather than something we can all relate to.

Quote:
I don't see the big deal with people teaching their kids a religion. While I know a fair share of Atheists and Agnostics, I don't think any of them were raised that way. Granted, I don't believe religion of any kind should be "forced" into the child, but it's the job of the parent to teach the child to be successful, and if in the parent's view success equates with a certain religion, then by all means let them do so.


I disagree. I don't see how the fact that you were raised christian and are now agnostic prove that forcing beliefs isn't harmful. Real Sui's post above to understand how Didymus and others are indeed forcing their beliefs.
Author:  seamusz [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie, you really need to settle down. You are breaking the forum rules...

forum rules wrote:
6. No foul language. This includes the word 'Hell' (except as used to describe the place), any words containing sexual innuendo, and any words used to describe excrement other than 'crap', 'manure', 'excrement', and any others of its nature that are brought to our attention.


Even though the censors get the words, it still doesn't mean that you can use them.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:04 am ]
Post subject: 
seamusz wrote:
Rosalie, you really need to settle down. You are breaking the forum rules...

forum rules wrote:
6. No foul language. This includes the word 'Hell' (except as used to describe the place), any words containing sexual innuendo, and any words used to describe excrement other than 'crap', 'manure', 'excrement', and any others of its nature that are brought to our attention.


Even though the censors get the words, it still doesn't mean that you can use them.


Are you sure that's not referring to bypassing the filter(which is incredibly easy)?
Author:  Mr.KISS [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:13 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
How is it hypocritical? Hypocrisy is your buzzword, don't have a solid argument, but you sure have a buzzword!



Since we're off topic... Thanks for declaring this, Rosalie (seriously). I got one cool buzzword.

Toastpaint
Author:  seamusz [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
Are you sure that's not referring to bypassing the filter(which is incredibly easy)?


I'm not sure. But I know that I sure like the fact that I don't have to worry about language on this board. Also, there are a lot of youngn's around.

maybe an admin or mod will clear it up?
Author:  Mr.KISS [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Ok... Ya..

Toastpaint



Quote:
I wouldn't mind if people could actually back their opinions up once and a while without something that only applies to their own beliefs rather than something we can all relate to.


But see, that's the beauty of opinions, we all dont have to "relate".


P.S. Why was that in response to me saying I'd stop poting on this thread? Which I should start doing otherwise I'd be a hypocrite!
Author:  Sui [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:46 am ]
Post subject: 
Mr.KISS 66 wrote:
Quote:
I wouldn't mind if people could actually back their opinions up once and a while without something that only applies to their own beliefs rather than something we can all relate to.


But see, that's the beauty of opinions, we all dont have to "relate".


"Well, hey, it's my opinion, I have a right to it, so you can't say it's wrong!"

XD I love that argument. Not trying to take a mean tone here, but I can't help but say that it's amusingly pathetic as a standalone defense.

An opinion isn't right just because it's yours. There is such a thing as a wrong opinion, and that is an opinion with no basis in any kind of fact, logic, or some sort of reasoning. You don't have a right to an opinion just because you threw a metaphorical dart at the metaphorical dartboard of opinions, you gain the right to hold an opinion when you have something to back it up. As such, if you have a right to your opinion, you can back it up, right? And as such, there shouldn't be a problem with people questioning your opinion, as you can back it up, right? ;)

The problem is... people with no valid reasoning behind their argument often take the stance that because they have a right to their opinion, they cannot be called wrong. They don't want to be called wrong because they'd have no way of justifying themselves, so they protect themselves by saying they can't be told they're wrong. If they did the right thing and chose an opinion they could back up, they wouldn't have to pull out the idiot stop, as they could prove they had a right to it. The proof to the right of your opinion is not the phrase 'I have a right to my opinion!' but the proof of your opinion.

Granted, in some cases, this will become iffy, as even opinions on logic can vary. But in this case, you, Mr. KISS, have failed to provide any justification for your arguments, and at present rate, we're in need of a bit of justification before we regard anything you say as valid opinion.

And you can cry, "We don't have to relate!", i.e. I don't have to justify myself to you, yes... That is, you can when you haven't stepped into a forum of debate and started contesting the opinions of others. In that case, yes, you have to try to relate. If we don't see it your way at that point, then yes, it's a difference in opinion, and at THAT point, you can say 'Yes, we don't relate.' But until you back yourself up, you're not even trying to relate.

So either you're a coward who can't back his opinion up and is falling back on an invalid defense, or you're someone with an argument who doesn't want to share his argument. If the former... well, the problem with cowardice is obvious. If the latter... well, if you're so sure of your convictions, as you should be if you declare yourself in possession of an opinion, then what's the harm in telling us?

Note that I'm not telling you you're wrong. Not yet. I'm just telling you that if you're so right, then why can't you tell us why instead of playing games and hiding behind invalid defenses?
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Thanks Sui. I will say one thing though, that more basic spiritual beliefs and down to someone's perception and reality and therefore aren't really down to the "Show me proof of this" that the FSM type atheists demand.

But for any social or political matter, even if it involves your religion, you need to have some kind of backing to have a valid opinion. You can't just say you feel that way because it's a complex matter that doesn't involve your perception or how you feel. Sorry.
Page 6 of 13 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/