|
| Thread: Cloister |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 09, 2009 09:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nope. It has EXCLUSIVELY to do with how much POWER society (not state, even though it may be state practically) allows parents over their children. Remember, children are no THING and nothing OWNED, so it hasn't got to do with the rights of the PARENTS or THEIR freedom of religion, but with the rights of the children not to be violated, physically or mentally as members of society who have a RIGHT on protection, even from their own parents.
This is not against cloisters. As I said, an ADULT may do in that respect whatever they want, and I'm certainly not saying anything against them.
The most basic unit in society is the family. The family predates all government. The family can certainly determine what is best for the family. The parents love the children and look out for their best interests. The parents are in a much better position to judge what is best for their child than some government elitist sitting in Washington.
Children are not experienced enough to know what is best for them. The ADULT who should make the decision for a minor is the PARENT, NOT a beaurocrat. The child is a faceless number to the beaurocrat but the child is the most important thing in life to the parent.
Strangely enough you seem to have a completely different opinion in the Hormone thread.
Anyway, what I see is a helpless assortment of unfounded claims with at best vague connections to what is actually the issue here: The right of a child to be protected from parents NOT acting in th best interest of their children.
It appears you misunderstand my position in the homone discussion. Ask your question in that thread about my position in regard to that matter.
What is unfounded? That the family came before the almighty socialist State? That the family can better determine what is best for the family that the all-knowing socialist State can? Perhps it is unfouded that a parent loves their children more than some beaurocrat of the all-loving Socialst Stae who never met the child?
The child needs to be protected from the government beaurocrat, not from the parent.
I guess the all-knowing socialst beaurocrat, agent of the all-knowing socialist State knows what the proper religious upbringing of the child should be, eh? The State must ensure the child is indoctrinated to not question its authority over ever aspect of his life. All hail Father Stalin!!! Father Stalin know best. Damn all other fathers and mothers!!!!
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 09:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is unfounded? That the family came before the almighty socialist State? That the family can better determine what is best for the family that the all-knowing socialist State can? Perhps it is unfouded that a parent loves their children more than some beaurocrat of the all-loving Socialst Stae who never met the child?
The child needs to be protected from the government beaurocrat, not from the parent.
You still fail to awser my point which points at your problem.
Quote:
Quote:
Children are not experienced enough to know what is best for them. The ADULT who should make the decision for a minor is the PARENT, NOT a beaurocrat. The child is a faceless number to the beaurocrat but the child is the most important thing in life to the parent.
Sadly thats true, but however. Since i am the parent i can dominate my better half to agree with me, then i marry of my childeren to some random rapists. Or similar situation, and that is the case Xerox the swede listed.
Just reply properly, i DEMAND an awser.
Note: i do agree about the state is someting weird that should not be to powerfull with the current way byrocracy works in most cases.
____________
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 10:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And the parents should have no rights to force their child there, that is just terrible.
Parents do NOT have the right to force their children into any ideological (AND stupid) decision. In that case, Child Focus will interviene though.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 10:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
And the parents should have no rights to force their child there, that is just terrible.
Parents do NOT have the right to force their children into any ideological (AND stupid) decision. In that case, Child Focus will interviene though.
This particular example is in violation of child labor laws, but parents have the right to mold the mind of a child any way they wish.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 10:35 PM |
|
|
They should not. Anyway, this is getting Off-topic.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 10:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nope. It has EXCLUSIVELY to do with how much POWER society (not state, even though it may be state practically) allows parents over their children. Remember, children are no THING and nothing OWNED, so it hasn't got to do with the rights of the PARENTS or THEIR freedom of religion, but with the rights of the children not to be violated, physically or mentally as members of society who have a RIGHT on protection, even from their own parents.
This is not against cloisters. As I said, an ADULT may do in that respect whatever they want, and I'm certainly not saying anything against them.
The most basic unit in society is the family. The family predates all government. The family can certainly determine what is best for the family. The parents love the children and look out for their best interests. The parents are in a much better position to judge what is best for their child than some government elitist sitting in Washington.
Children are not experienced enough to know what is best for them. The ADULT who should make the decision for a minor is the PARENT, NOT a beaurocrat. The child is a faceless number to the beaurocrat but the child is the most important thing in life to the parent.
Strangely enough you seem to have a completely different opinion in the Hormone thread.
Anyway, what I see is a helpless assortment of unfounded claims with at best vague connections to what is actually the issue here: The right of a child to be protected from parents NOT acting in th best interest of their children.
It appears you misunderstand my position in the homone discussion. Ask your question in that thread about my position in regard to that matter.
What is unfounded? That the family came before the almighty socialist State? That the family can better determine what is best for the family that the all-knowing socialist State can? Perhps it is unfouded that a parent loves their children more than some beaurocrat of the all-loving Socialst Stae who never met the child?
The child needs to be protected from the government beaurocrat, not from the parent.
I guess the all-knowing socialst beaurocrat, agent of the all-knowing socialist State knows what the proper religious upbringing of the child should be, eh? The State must ensure the child is indoctrinated to not question its authority over ever aspect of his life. All hail Father Stalin!!! Father Stalin know best. Damn all other fathers and mothers!!!!
Yes, thanks for linking the question of children's rights and children's protection with comrade Joe Stalin. While incoherent, it's still quite an eloquent statement - and, by the way, not only from you, but a statement from the religious community you are part of as well.
Oh, and about your position in the other thread - I don't think I misunderstood you.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 11:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Children are not experienced enough to know what is best for them. The ADULT who should make the decision for a minor is the PARENT, NOT a beaurocrat. The child is a faceless number to the beaurocrat but the child is the most important thing in life to the parent.
Sadly thats true, but however. Since i am the parent i can dominate my better half to agree with me, then i marry of my childeren to some random rapists. Or similar situation, and that is the case Xerox the swede listed.
Just reply properly, i DEMAND an awser.
Note: i do agree about the state is someting weird that should not be to powerfull with the current way byrocracy works in most cases.
A normal person will not marry off a child to a rapist. Normal people love their children.
Also, at least in western nations, there are laws that say at what age a child can marry. Although there is a lot of dodging the in the LGBT thread when I ask about why a 13 year old can't marry.
But we were talking about raising a child in the religious tradition of the parents choosing.
Quote:
No but really, that is terrible that people can actually do that to their children. A line should be drawn. Cloisters should be something you can only join if you volunteer to live that way later as an adult. Forcing kids to do that is a crime.
Yes, for only Father Stalin or Father Obama is the appropriate one to chose the religious tradition that all children should be raised in right?
By the way, have you ever been to a cloister?
Quote:
Parents do NOT have the right to force their children into any ideological (AND stupid) decision. In that case, Child Focus will interviene though.
Many chldren think math and history lessons are stupid. Parents must decide what the child will learn.
Quote:
Yes, thanks for linking the question of children's rights and children's protection with comrade Joe Stalin. While incoherent, it's still quite an eloquent statement - and, by the way, not only from you, but a statement from the religious community you are part of as well.
You seem to have a knack for totally ignoring questions and just sluring others.
The state does not have the right to determine the religious tradition the child will be raised in.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 11:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A normal person will not marry off a child to a rapist. Normal people love their children.
Also, at least in western nations, there are laws that say at what age a child can marry. Although there is a lot of dodging the in the LGBT thread when I ask about why a 13 year old can't marry.
But we were talking about raising a child in the religious tradition of the parents choosing.
Sorry to say so but, i can't really se a differnce betwhen forcing my childeren to marry and rapist and forcing them into a cloister. And thats enforced by the familie is it not? So really.......
Its to the extreme directions, but it was still the families choice and so forth.
So its a minor plothole, but i guess you agree with me. I do not object on parents teaching their childeren religion, i do object on forcing them into that. Forcing as in against their will, and not a 6 year olds "want want want!"-will. More like somebody who has matured enogh to understand what and opinions and meanings.
Quote:
Many chldren think math and history lessons are stupid. Parents must decide what the child will learn.
Nah, most of them do not realise what is going on. When they do, their only going to complain on maths they got no use on whatsoever later on. I'l point a finger towards the 6 year olds will too.
Quote:
You seem to have a knack for totally ignoring questions and just sluring others.
The state does not have the right to determine the religious tradition the child will be raised in.
Unless the religios group marries their childeren off to rapists. Which is the bloody point, we don't want that to happen because is not suppose to happen.
____________
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 01:55 AM |
|
|
It's totally not right to raise your child religious or influence them with relgion!'
They must have the right to decide their fate on their own.
Also a cloister is an monastery, but cloister was the first word I came out with since I just read the swedish article and its called Kloster in swedish.
It's sad to see that there are very few monasteries left (in sweden) when all should have been changed to museums long ago.
I think that in 1000 years we will look back on christainty etc and laugh and say "Hahaha how could people actually believe that an old man with an white beard would have created the universe in seconds! Hahaha" like we do to Norse mythology etc now 
Well, atleast in some countries (and some people already does that, but I think religion is an natural physological thing for humans).
Although I have to say that Norse mythology is understandable as it clearly states that in the end the world of gods and mythical creaturs disappears but the essence of the gods are still with us.
Also I like it because most gods (and the world) dies in the end anyway.
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 01:58 AM |
|
Edited by xerdux at 01:59, 10 May 2009.
|
Also I find it completly terrible to marry away someone! It's your own descision and even having an relationship with an 12-18yr old would make you an pedophile!!!
The child would probably not even like the relationship and the only way I would do that was if I got 100 million euro so I could buy myself out (like that girl in hostel, but it was different).
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 03:55 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 03:57, 10 May 2009.
|
Quote:
And why do priests can't have wives? That's so unnatural, humans are made for reproduction aye?
And monkeys were meant to have fur.
We dropped it.
Things change.
Quote:
Why an impotent person can't have a church marriage because he/she can't have children but 'white marriage' where partners choose not to have sex is allowed?
Because choice is far more important than inability? To be honest though I never heard about the "I can't have children so I'm not allowed church marriage" crap.
Quote:
I disagree. There is no difference between raising a child in a religious belief and putting it away into a cloister or marrying it off to someone.
Except that "marrying it off" happens when they are adults so they aren't really children anymore?
Quote:
The right of a child to be protected from parents NOT acting in th best interest of their children.
"best interest" is vaguely defined. And frankly speaking, subjective.
Quote:
It's totally not right to raise your child religious or influence them with relgion!'
What about TV? Media? Fashion? Culture? SKILL? Education? Or 'brainwash' them, ahem I mean, "spark their interests with advertising!". Yeah that must be it. Put them to work on something? What, most children don't want that either.
What makes those right in comparison?
Quote:
I think that in 1000 years we will look back...
We won't, I'll make sure we'll be extinct by then
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 08:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Except that "marrying it off" happens when they are adults so they aren't really children anymore?
Not if there's parental consent. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 10:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You seem to have a knack for totally ignoring questions and just sluring others.
Says the guy who starts raving about Father Stalin, all hail and whatnot, when it's about the children's (or underaged and helpless)right to be protected from ALL kinds of fanatism. That includes religious ones.
Quote:
The state does not have the right to determine the religious tradition the child will be raised in.
No, it hasn't, but that wasn't at issue. At issue was the question, whether THE PARENTS have the right to do whatever they please with their children under the guise of "educating it in the spirit of a religious tradition". Obviously there's a limit for all of these things beyond which a child has to be protected:
Getting a slight spanking once in a while may not be a reason to intervene on a child's behalf. However, a child "falling down the stairs" regularly or seems to be quite vulnerable to "accidents" at home may be reason enough to investigate.
And that's no different with religion, no matter which one.
Whether a child is "falling down stairs" quite regularly or whether it is forced to fast a weekend and spend a couple of hours praying on its knees for to atone for something the parents perceived as a big sin, the result is the same.
Obviously, if the law allows something, but the parents forbid it, the the parents are inhibting the rights of their child.
Just as obviously, if the law forbids something and the parents still do it, they are breaking the law.
All polemics aside - and I said this already - this is a very difficult, delicate area: the rights and duties of parents to educate their children in a certain spirit and the consequences this has.
An obvious example is religious education with a view on attitude to different religions. Most religions, and that include Christian (and even the many different factions there), Muslim and Jewish ones, don't actually encourage "mixing", thereby erecting borders within the heads of their children, manifesting those borders within a society.
There are no foolproof answers to these "delicate areas" where different interests, rights, duties and so on clash. But the main point to keep in mind is this:
Religion doesn't give persons a wild card excuse for everything, nor any extra priviliges or rights, no matter the religion or sect they belong to, except if you live in some religious state like, for example the Vatican. Religion is no taboo, where you are not allowed to investigate its effects because it's sacred or something.
If you don't like that, bad luck.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 11:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Also I find it completly terrible to marry away someone!
Xerox, again, you ave no respect to different cultures whatsoever. In some cultures, a marriage is the affair of the entire community, so the entire community decides it.
Now, this may seem harsh, but you will 9 out of 10 times marry someone who:
- Has the same social status
- Speaks the same language
- Has the same culture altogether
You're already married off to some poor girl, xerox, you just don't know it, yet!
Anyway, it's not wrong to raise a child religiously. It's wrong to coerce it into doing things that break the law, but a child can be moulded by the parents, by society and by the media anyway it wants. If people don't have that freedom anymore, big brother will stand at your doorstep.
Also, xerox, I'm warning you, have a little more respect towards anyculture outside your own.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 04:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Xerox, again, you ave no respect to different cultures whatsoever. In some cultures, a marriage is the affair of the entire community, so the entire community decides it.
And that makes it right?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 07:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry to say so but, i can't really se a differnce betwhen forcing my childeren to marry and rapist and forcing them into a cloister.
I guess you should be raped a few times and then compare that to living a cloisted life. I'll bet you would see the difference then.
Quote:
Nah, most of them do not realise what is going on. When they do, their only going to complain on maths they got no use on whatsoever later on. I'l point a finger towards the 6 year olds will too.
Like I said, children don't know what's best for them or what they need to lean. Many DO hate math or other subjects and have to be made to learn them.
Quote:
It's totally not right to raise your child religious or influence them with relgion!'
They must have the right to decide their fate on their own.
If you think atheists don't teach their children atheist you are pretty naive. Children learn by watching and listening to their parents, not just by formal educations or formal discussions.
For example, from looking at your posts I see that if you have any children they will grow up hating religious people because they will hear all the hate coming out of your mouth about religious people.
Quote:
Says the guy who starts raving about Father Stalin, all hail and whatnot, when it's about the children's (or underaged and helpless)right to be protected from ALL kinds of fanatism. That includes religious ones.
You have stated you are a socialist. You have argued from the point fo view of socialists. I addressed your points whereas you only insulted me.
Parents need to be protected from socialist beaurocrats not from their parents. Parents love their children the Stalinite does not. He has never even met the child. The children need to be protected from the fanatical socialist who wishes to indoctrinate them to bow down to the state.
The Stalinite has no right to determine what religious tradition the child will be raised in. The parents do.
Quote:
At issue was the question, whether THE PARENTS have the right to do whatever they please with their children under the guise of "educating it in the spirit of a religious tradition".
The topic is about raising a child in a monatary. That is raising the child in a particular religious tradition. Parents have the right to determine what religious tradition the child is raised in.
Quote:
Whether a child is "falling down stairs" quite regularly or whether it is forced to fast a weekend and spend a couple of hours praying on its knees for to atone for something the parents perceived as a big sin, the result is the same
It is moronic to say that forcint a child to pray is like pushing him down a flight of stairs. How stupid and bigottedd.
Again, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE RELIGIOUS TRADITION ANY CHILD IS RAISED IN BUT YOUR OWN.
Personally I never forced my children to pray. But I taught them how to pray and we prayed together as a family and as individuals.
Quote:
Obviously, if the law allows something, but the parents forbid it, the the parents are inhibting the rights of their child.
Lol!!!! The law allows you to eat all the chocolate candy you want. So you are saying if a parent prevents a child fromm eating nothing but candy he is "inhibiting the rights" of his child!!!! Lol!
Part of a parent's responsibility is to teach a child to make good choices. Even though it is legal to eat nothing but candy it is not a health lifestyle! The child must learn to eat a balanced diet and to live a balanced life. And it is the PARENTS'S right and responsibility to teach the child what is balanced.
Quote:
An obvious example is religious education with a view on attitude to different religions. Most religions, and that include Christian (and even the many different factions there), Muslim and Jewish ones, don't actually encourage "mixing", thereby erecting borders within the heads of their children, manifesting those borders within a society.
The religion of Christianity teaches one to love all people and to seek the good of all people.
I recall the Freedom from Religion atheist group recently posting signs saying that religious people are hard hearted and mentally enslaved.That errects barriers. I recall attheist tyrants murdering over 250 million people in the past 100 years. That erects barriers. I recall Lenin and Stalin making sure Bibles were outlawed. That erects barriers.
Quote:
Religion doesn't give persons a wild card excuse for everything, nor any extra priviliges or rights, no matter the religion or sect they belong to, except if you live in some religious state like, for example the Vatican. Religion is no taboo, where you are not allowed to investigate its effects because it's sacred or something.
You are right. The religion of atheist should stop trying to supress all other religions.
No beaurocrat has the right to determine what religious beliefs will be taught to a child. That is the determination of the parents.
Quote:
If you don't like that, bad luck.
You are right that I don't like socialism and its twin, atheism, seeking to oppress the rights of parents and their determination to indoctrinate children to bow to the state.
If you don't like the idea of freedom, bad luck. Not everyone worships the state-god like socialists.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 07:54 PM |
|
|
Huh?
Quote:
Quote:
Parents do NOT have the right to force their children into any ideological (AND stupid) decisions. In that case, Child Focus will interviene though.
Many chldren think math and history lessons are stupid. Parents must decide what the child will learn.
Whoa, Elodin, that must be one of the least-sensemaking retorts I've ever witnessed! I was talking about decisions that ARE stupid (And Ideological... ev'ry religion is one on it's own), and not decisions that SEEM stupid to the Children themselves. Get a grip, man.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 08:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Says the guy who starts raving about Father Stalin, all hail and whatnot, when it's about the children's (or underaged and helpless)right to be protected from ALL kinds of fanatism. That includes religious ones.
You have stated you are a socialist. You have argued from the point fo view of socialists. I addressed your points whereas you only insulted me.
Yeah, sure. Show me where I insulted you.
Moderators, please take a look into this. I'm sick and tired of this guy not being able to discuss in a civil way.
Quote:
Parents need to be protected from socialist beaurocrats not from their parents. Parents love their children the Stalinite does not. He has never even met the child. The children need to be protected from the fanatical socialist who wishes to indoctrinate them to bow down to the state.
Are you sure you're still safely ancored in this world? I doubt it.
Quote:
Quote:
At issue was the question, whether THE PARENTS have the right to do whatever they please with their children under the guise of "educating it in the spirit of a religious tradition".
The topic is about raising a child in a monatary. That is raising the child in a particular religious tradition. Parents have the right to determine what religious tradition the child is raised in.
Raising a child in a monastry is a bit more than that. Even someone like you should be able to see that. If you don't - more luck in your next life.
Quote:
Quote:
Whether a child is "falling down stairs" quite regularly or whether it is forced to fast a weekend and spend a couple of hours praying on its knees for to atone for something the parents perceived as a big sin, the result is the same
It is moronic to say that forcint a child to pray is like pushing him down a flight of stairs. How stupid and bigottedd.
Yes, that's moronic to say - which is the reason I didn't. If you are not able to see that I'm sorry for you.
Quote:
Again, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE RELIGIOUS TRADITION ANY CHILD IS RAISED IN BUT YOUR OWN.
Oh, I don't want to - I'd intervene, though, if religious tradition would call for a child being tortured by having to pray and fast a week alne in a room to atone for "sins".
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously, if the law allows something, but the parents forbid it, the the parents are inhibting the rights of their child.
Lol!!!! The law allows you to eat all the chocolate candy you want. So you are saying if a parent prevents a child fromm eating nothing but candy he is "inhibiting the rights" of his child!!!! Lol!
No, actually, since eating candy is something a child can't do - except if it earns money. After all, someone needs to buy the candy. So you should be a bit more thoughtful with your examples.
I'd quoted the rest of your sorry post - but that's just the meaningless blabla of a fanatic.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 08:27 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
If you think atheists don't teach their children atheist you are pretty naive.
Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you talk about it. I am an atheist. My parents are atheists. But I can assure you 100% that they did not "teach" me atheism.
Quote:
It is moronic to say that forcint a child to pray is like pushing him down a flight of stairs.
It can be worse. A child can recover from "falling down the stairs" - but brainwashing is harder to recover from.
Quote:
The religion of Christianity teaches one to love all people and to seek the good of all people.
"If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her." Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Seek the good of people by cutting off peace-loving women's hands. And that's just a sample.
Quote:
The religion of atheist should stop trying to supress all other religions.
Atheism isn't a religion.
Quote:
You are right that I don't like socialism and its twin, atheism
As a libertarian atheist, I object strongly to this statement!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 10, 2009 10:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, sure. Show me where I insulted you.
Ah, your insults were a little more subtle in this thread though you can hardly claim your tone was "civil." Making statements like requiring a child to pray is like pushing them down a flight of stairs is a statment deliberaltely meant to offend religious people.
It is as if I said socialist only want the state to indoctrinate all children because they like to rape them and they don't want the children to know rape is wrong.
And statements like this are surely insults:
Quote:
Are you sure you're still safely ancored in this world? I doubt it.
I didn't have to look too far to show an insult did I?
Quite often rather than addressing an argument you make some such comment as the one above.
Quote:
I'd quoted the rest of your sorry post - but that's just the meaningless blabla of a fanatic.
I am sorry you are unable to come up with a rational arguement to my posts and must resort to insults instead. Better luck next time.
Quote:
Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you talk about it. I am an atheist. My parents are atheists. But I can assure you 100% that they did not "teach" me atheism.
As I said, all children learn by watching and listening to their parents. Not just from a formal "discussion" with the parents or formal schools only.
If your children always hear you say negative things about religious people they will look down on religious people and perhaps hate them even if you did not have a "formal" discussion with them about religion.
It is impossible for parents to "not teach" their children anything about religion.
Quote:
It can be worse. A child can recover from "falling down the stairs" - but brainwashing is harder to recover from.
Yes, it is sad that many people never recovere from the religion of atheism's brainwashing.
Quote:
"If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her." Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Seek the good of people by cutting off peace-loving women's hands. And that's just a sample.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that that is a teaching of Judaism, not Christianity. Christians are under the New Covenant. I know I have already had this discussion with you. The Jewish pepole lived in the physical nation of Israel and all vowed to obey the Law and all knew the consequences for breaking the law. They could have left at any time.
The Jewish nation had civil penalties that are spelled out in the Old Covenant writings.
The church is not a nation. The church has no civil penalties. Jesus never authroized his church to kill anyone or to punish sin in any way beyone disfellowshipping a believer who was living in sin and who refused to repent after several attempts were made to persuade him to stop living in sin.
Quote:
Atheism isn't a religion.
Sure it is. The Supreme Court says so.
Alos, there are things you have to take by faith to be an atheist.
1) You can't prove that there is no God. So you have faith there is not.
You and other atheists are very evangelical in your efforts. You don't simply disbelieve in God. You have faith that there is no God.
2) You have to have faith that the univers appeared from absolute nothing with absoltely no cause even though the law of thermodynamics make it clear that could not have happened.
3) You have to have faith that inanimate matter began to live. No proof.
Quote:
As a libertarian atheist, I object strongly to this statement!
Fortunately, you are free to be wrong. Libertarian atheists are quite rare. Careful that you don't become extinct from the actions of your "brothers."
|
| |
|
|
