|
| Thread: Teaching religon: Heritage of hostility? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted July 06, 2009 05:12 AM |
|
|
Believing in god is an intimate feeling and should never be discussed under a larger point of view. Discussing pro/anti holy bible is also useless, as no one can give a proof it is real or just a mystification.
Bringing examples from the holy book to justify Israel actions also become an hypocrite thing, I hope not having to point you the millions links where Israel is considered a criminal state and the endless resolutions adopted against its actions. It is just too easy to bring the holy bible to justify anything.
In my opinion, the religion is the last flaw which prohibits the world to achieve a highest conscience rank, by centering the problem on the human being, his ability to build him self and alone his destiny and fate.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 05:46 AM |
|
|
@ Salamandre
I agree that belief in God is an intimate thing.
Quoting the Bible should be expected in a religious discussion. I was asked about the early years of Israel and I answered with the Scripture that addressed the question. It is hardly hypocritical to quote the answer from the Bible.
I would disagree that Israel is a criminal state. Now some nations that don't think Israel has a right to exist I am sure do consider Israel a criminal state. But then nations that support terrorism are criminal states.
If you claim religion is the cause of the world's problems, you must consider atheism to be a religion. Over 250 million people died to atheist tyrants in the past 100 years. So I would hardly think that religion is responsible for holding humanity back.
Christianity teaches one to love everyone, pray for them, and to do good to them. If everyone did that the world would be a Utopia.
The problem IS with the human being. The hostilities that arise between men is due to the problems within man.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 06:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Christianity teaches one to love everyone, pray for them, and to do good to them. If everyone did that the world would be a Utopia.
This is the part from the holy book I consider the most hypocritical. And the last humanity flaw. I would prefer to let every human consider for what reason he choose to respect and love the other and take appropriate actions. Based on his experience, morality and generosity. And also on compatibility. We don't have to love anyone, but those who we admire or are connected somehow with us. And ignore those who let us indifferent.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 08:17 AM |
|
|
First I'd like to thank everyone participating here to keep to the rules I've set here. Maybe one or another is seeing the purpose of this (now). If not, have a look into the Wage Slave thread or into the last pages of the draw-the-line thread.
Of course there are always exceptions, are there? So
THE DEATH
you made two contributions and both started with a quote.
Please stop quoting lines from past posts. If you want to say something to what a poster said, simply refer to what they say with your own words. It helps to better understand people's thoughts. 
There are some misunderstandings I'd like to correct plus a couple of comments I'd like to make.
@ Mvass and Elodin
A) I'm NOT against marriage between religions - on the contrary. However IN FACT inter-religious marriages are rare. You can't be a member of two religions - isn't it interesting, by the way, how ridiculous that even sounds? Member of two religions? All part of the problem: there can be only one -, so the marriage ceremony is already a problem. In fact, if people of different religions (or different schools of the same religion) marry, it often happens that one is giving up his own to switch to that of the partner, often in cases where one doesn't care much about religion, but the other does.
If that does NOT happen, the first question asked by everyone with more than being a member in name only is: In what belief will the children be raised?
@ Elodin
B) I'm not saying that religions are equally TRUE. In fact *I* don't say anything about the truth of any religion. I said there is no proof for any religion being right over the others. Some people - you among them - may be certain there is, but I would prefer if each human found out for themselves as an ADULT and not as a child under the helpful guidance of other dead certain adults.
The problem becomes clear, when you look around: MANY are claiming to know what a specific god wants, demands, says, and allows, and many are telling different things.
You are not contradicting me when I say that every member of a serious religious community will teach their children that what they are taught is TRUE. Obviously, every sect, religion, church and temple will teach a DIFFERENT truth. Which is exactly the problem, since they CANNOT all be true if they are contradicting each other (see: I don't say they are equally true; I say there is no proof for any religion being right over the others, and I could add that there is no proof that ANY of them is right; INCLUDING atheism, mind you.
This is the reason why I say that you are not willing to discuss: You claim to KNOW the truth, and for someone who KNOWS the truth there's obviously nothing left to discuss or is there?
You move further and claim that *I* claim to know the truth as well, only a different one, and want that to be taught (that there is no proof that one is right about the other). While it is right that I would want to teach this (the corrected version of what I said), the difference is that I DO NOT claim in any way to know the truth and therefore I demand ONLY that everyone should search for themselves, for their own truth - as an adult, uninfluenced.
See, I don't want to rob anyone of their chance to find out their own very personal truth - I just want to make sure that it's THEIR OWN truth they find and not the truth others promised them as the only valid one.
You have to understand that even if you WERE right (or any other group, for that matter), as long as there is no proof to objectively prove it, there is no way to objectively distinguish THE TRUTH from THE LIE. This is so in the big picture (different religions) as in the smaller picture (different interpretations of the same basic religion, for example greek-orthodox and roman-catholic or schiitic and sunnitic muslimic schools).
About hostility: Are you really denying that there have been religiously motivated wars throughout history and still are? Are you claiming that members of different religions are friendly with each other?
Ok, then, a question:
Imagine a member of any religion that isn't teaching the truth from your point of view. Let's say that member is born deep in other-religion-country, poor neighborhood, no internet, no contact to the great wide world, no opportunity of being taught "the true religion". Instead this person, as a child, is raised in the spirit of that other religion, so it's not believing the right thing. Now, let's say that other person dies age 15 in an accident.
What happens with that person according to your belief after dying?
C) TheDeath mentioned schools and what they ahould teach. My positions here are pretty clear-cut. School should teach religion the same way as politics or sociology: DESCRIPTIVE. As that it would be part of SOCIOLOGY. Religion is a phenomenon of society and should be described in a scientific way. Which there are, their history, their purpose, their roots, their main claims or stances. That should be taught therefore within the curiculum by the sociology classes as part of human society.
School should NOT teach a specific religion (taught by a member of a specific church or a theologist) as mandatory and not before a certain age:
Starting at a certain age - 14 at the earliest - pupils would have the OPTION to take part in religious classes then, where a SPECIFIC religion might be taught then (and taught THEN by a general teacher of that specific religion).
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 08:49 AM |
|
|
Before I throw my two cents in..I want to commend the initiative of this thread and it's participants for what, so far, has been a very interesting and civil debate.
Now...
For the most part I think people confuse religion with the people inside that religion. Like everything from Politics to any other philosophy there are radicals within it. Sometimes even the best meaning of people in the religions can even cause it to be seen in a bad light.
Personally I follow no specific religion, and indeed have my own issues with some of the factions within the established religions. Anybody who will kill because their 'god tells them too', or demands that I believe the way they do..I want no part of. However, I have done some research and studying while trying to figure out exactly what I do believe.
Personally I think that all the religious books out there are just that .. books. They are written by man (even if divinely inspired, which can not be proved either way this is true), and man is a very falible creature. To me Christ is no more holy then Buddha (etc). If they were of the divine or not is another question entirely. However, I will stand up for the groups right to believe whatever they want to, even if I don't agree.
I will also stand up for those who disagree with religion. They have as much right to not believe as a person has to believe. My one thing is, however, when those who don't believe begin to try to dictate what others have to believe.
One side here says "Children should not be taught religion." but if somebody wanted to force their children to learn a certain religion they would be all up in arms. "They have no right to tell me what my kids should learn!" Yet, they seem to have no problem doing exactly the same thing.
Yes there are people out there that believe people should be forced to learn only their own religion, and I would stand against them just as fast. If it isn't about killing, incest, rape, or similar..then you should be free to think and teach your own children what you believe. If we worked on our understanding and acceptance of other people, instead of trying to dictate their lives, we would be a much better society.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 09:46 AM |
|
|
@ Mytical
I don't really want to split hairs, but "teaching" religion is really ambigous.
The way I mean it here, "teaching" means "making a member of with the claim of being the ultimnate truth. As opposed to "teaching about".
I mean, imagine life was a store. A child enters the store. Now your parents (and some others say). "Look at this fine product. It will be the best thing in your life and dearly needed and it is the only right product of it's sort. That you must believe. It's of utmost importance."
For me that's not teaching.
Teaching would be this: "There are a couple of things you may or may not find to be of utmost importance in your life. For us they are. There are certain products that cater for these things. Try to have a good look at them, if you find an interest. For reasons we will explain to you if you have an interest, we prefer a specific product."
As with other things school would inform about the specifics of religion in general and about their differences. Lastly it would be in the responsibility of every person, after reaching a certain maturity, to explore things more deeply.
The problem is, that BY IT'S VERY NATURE religion - specifically, the believers who, positively spoken, have real faith in what they believe - is UNABLE to teach religion with a certain objective distance, aiming to enable children to find their own way. A religion MUST be founded on the assumption that it is true and right, otherwise it makes no sense to believe it, obviously. I mean, there may be this god, but there may be not, is no foundation for faith.
This wouldn't be a problem at all, if religion had the standing of a hobby, but that's not the case. For the believers their respective god is the highest authority in every issue, followed by the officially accepted spokesmen of that god - with not always a clear line of distinction between them -, and most, if not all, gods make demands and want people to act in specific ways. That tends to make social life quite difficult.
Take this example: a young girl of 15 claims to have been raped and is revealed to be pregnant. Depending on the general law situation in her country she may or may not be allowed an abortion - but that is just one side. Depending on how she was raised she may herself have a positive or negative stance to it. The same is true for her parents, friends, parents of friends and neighborhood. For those who strongly believe in god, HE is the highest authority, and for them this question will mean life or death not only for the fetus, but for the girl as well. Which makes it imperative to act on it, or so it seems.
Pressing a child into a reigion (I say this only to make clear what I mean because of the "teaching" ambiguity) has basically similar motives. You love your child. You believe in something. Life is full of pitfalls. You want to make sure that your child don't get lost.
Which is the error, obviously. We should know - and do know from everything else - that children must make their own experiences. That it makes no sense to tell them what is right, but instead give them the instruments and teach them the means to find out for themselves.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 09:54 AM |
|
|
A simple question Jollyjoker before I address your last post. Simply put, if you had a child (again I am not sure if you do or not) and somebody wanted to force you to teach a certain religion to it..what would you think? Yet what you are proposing is exactly the same thing. You are forcing them to teach something they themselves do not believe in. In this case...no religion (in a way). I am pretty confident that if somebody wanted to force you to teach your child something you personally did not believe (like say forcing you to teach your child 1+1 = Hamster) you would not be very happy with that.
I promised only one simple question, so I won't ask why the double standard. Once you answer the above question I will address your last post.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 10:18 AM |
|
|
Yes, that's the problem that I addressed with my last post. If you are CERTAIN that something is right, you want to teach it. However, read the last paragraph of my post. Other things we teach as well - or try it -, but we KNOW that children must make their own experiences. Usually, we don't just say that something IS so, we say WHY as well.
For example, if we think that a certain political direction is right we don't start taking the kids to party assemblies. We wait until they can follow a reasoning, befor we tell them that this or that is nonsense BECAUSE... and this or that is right BECAUSE... (how faulty a reasoning may be). But no matter that and however grudgingly we allow children to make their own experiences - if they find our reasoning faulty we have to accept that.
And if you think about things that we KNOW that are right - let's say it hurts to put the hand onto a hot oven -, we will teach them BUT won't hinder them, IF they do, since we KNOW that first-hand experience will teach a lot more than thousand words.
So it's not about "not teaching what is right" or "teaching what I don't believe" - it is about giving them the right instruments and teaching them the means of how to find out.
There is no reason to teach religion differently: "Read the new testament (when you are old enough to understand it), listen to your heart, then follow it and do what you deem right", is basically all there is to say or teach: everything else should come from the (juvenile at least) child.
Does that answer your question?
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 10:33 AM |
|
|
I think this is not quite accurate.
If I do not teach my child any kind of religion, I do not see anything wrong here. It is not a must to teach your child anything about the bible. Or do I have to teach them a 2nd or 3rd language too?
I already stated it very often: Religion is something personal. Each individual human being should decide by its own if it wants to learn more about it or not. When it is able to understand. A 4 year old child won't understand anything about the bible or God, therefore it will believe everything the parents will say.
There are things which have to be taught to a child, which are not personal and are important for them to get well educated and find a job later on. Religion does NOT belong to those things, same as ART, MUSIC and such. I would never force my daughter to learn playing an instrument. If she loves music and shows interest, then of course. But not the other way around.
If my daughter comes up with questions refering to the bible or God, I will tell her all possible opinions about this topic I have knowledge of, but I will always tell her, that it is the decisison of everybody himself to believe or not to believe. And exactly this is what you will miss by parents who are very religious. They will for sure NEVER tell their kids it is POSSIBLE to NOT believe at all ("Those who do not believe are sinners and will end up in hell!!!"). And how else than anxious will the child react on that? THIS and only THIS is the reason why religion has grown so big imho. FEAR and ANXIETY.
Easy example?
 Santa Claus!
Look how many children believe in Santa Claus, and of course are afraid of Santa's little helper. Who told them about those 2? Who said things like "When you're not have been good the last year, Santa Claus won't bring you a present, and Santa's little helper will put you in a bag and take you away / beat you!".
Exactly the way it is with religion.
And you can be sure, there are people who can live without any kind of religion pretty well, just because they don't care about it (agnostics). I can teach my daughter what is right and what is wrong without mentioning the bible or God at all.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 10:42 AM |
|
|
|
I (obviously) agree with the gist of your post, angelito, but could you clarify your first sentence?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 10:51 AM |
|
|
You answered the question. Now, while I agree there are a lot of people who do the "This is the only right way, and anybody who doesn't agree is wrong/delusional/must die." not only people who believe a certain religion is guilty of that. Also, not every member of a religion does it. What it seems (and please understand it may on seem this way) that you advocating is a type of 'thought police' which to me is the start of a very slippery slope.
We do not know a persons motive. We can not know their motive, so there is no way of determining if they are 'teaching' (ie just explaining their beliefs, letting the child experience a bit of it, and letting the child make up their own mind) or 'brainwashing' (force feeding the child and giving them no options).
Since we can not know their motive, then telling them they can not teach their children anything (of that type) is, to me, a bit hypocritical. It is like saying. "Oh we can teach our kids that you and your religion is delusional and anything else we like, but you can't." Then again there are a lot of double standards out there, what is one more?
Also, it fails to address the matter of where do we then stop. If we limit religion, then how about patriotism? After all, even if somebody is attacking your country, trying to kill everybody, it wouldn't be right to fight back. Just let them kill you and everybody you know. Any type of anger or hate is wrong right? How about sexism? Force the female athletes to compete with the males, even in things like boxing or such.
Then how about people who seem to be against every religion their is. That is discrimination and hate also, so we should probably limit them also. My point being if we try to limit everything a few people are against, there would be nothing left. I don't want any special privilages for religions, but I don't want special limitations either. Simply put, they should have the right to teach their children what they believe, just as you (Jollyjoker) should have the right to teach your children what you believe.
____________
Message received.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:06 AM |
|
|
Religions, I believe, should only be taught to children if they are also taught to respect other religions.
that is all humanity needs, really, Respect and understanding. It's not revolutionary or invading your personal life, its just asking people to be civil.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:20 AM |
|
|
I agree, that it is not practical to forbid parents to teach something. It's simply impossible. You cannot make a law that orders people to say things in a specific way or not at all (even though it might be reasonable).
However, you can ADVISE them to. You can inform society of the problem.
Moreover you CAN legally forbid to make children below a certain age, say 14, officially a member of a certain cult, sect, church or temple, and you CAN control what schools teach: you can allow a specific religion class (that teaches a specific religion) only from a certain age on and make it optional). Moreover you CAN teach ABOUT religion in school befor that.
In other words, society can limit the amount of religious pressure on the children and try to hand them over a couple of means to be able and form an opinion.
That's what I'd call protection of children.
Slightly off-topic, I think as well, that couples on the brink of becoming parents should undergo a mandatory class "How to raise children". I mention this only to say that I'm not betting my money on simple solutions nor on revolution or authority, but more on evolutionary progress. 
If you - anyone - want to discuss this point, either keep it to a one-liner or open a new thread, please.
Edit: The 20-posts limit will probably make it impossible for me to continue a question-answer pattern the way we are doing that now. Keep that in mind, when an answer isn't coming.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:30 AM |
|
|
Well not suprisingly I disagree (to a degree). First I don't think religion should be taught at school (I know that will be a shock to people) let alone only one special religion (I mean who gets to choose which one is 'best'?). Also most of the Churches I have ever visited or know about you don't officially become a member until you have been babtised, and you can not get babtised until at least in the teens. So that would already fall under your idea of 'ok'. Of course I mostly only know about country churches, not sure about any others.
However, in other ways I do agree with you. I think everybody should teach their child to have an open mind about things. To respect other peoples views, and to understand that sometimes it is our differences that make us great.
____________
Message received.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Slightly off-topic, I think as well, that couples on the brink of becoming parents should undergo a mandatory class "How to raise children". I mention this only to say that I'm not betting my money on simple solutions nor on revolution or authority, but more on evolutionary progress.
If you - anyone - want to discuss this point, either keep it to a one-liner or open a new thread, please.
I think thats an excellent idea.
for first time couples, of course, as they would need to know how to take care of a baby.
horray for JJ, our socialist leader!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:47 AM |
|
|
In that case we do not disagree at all: when I see school sshould teach ABOUT religion, I mean the phenomenon as such and the objective and provable facts about them all. I certainly wouldn't find it necessary to teach each specific religion in classes at all, however, if society would deem it necessary to teach children the basics and advanced things of a specific religion (maybe in combination with a certain church), I wouldn't say no, provided it was optional and attainable only from a certain age onwards (the age you could legally become member of a church).
About becoming a member of a church ir cult, currently that depends on the cult. I know, for example, that Roman-Catholic and Greek-Orthodox Christians and Jews will become members shortly after birth by special ritual. I don't know how this is with Muslims, but I'd suspect it will be early as well.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:55 AM |
|
|
You speak of the childhood babtism. Hmm that is and is not true, how to explain. While it is (to them) mandatory to do this, and the entire family are officially members..the babtism really does not mean the person has to be Catholic or such. In fact there are many people who grew up in Catholic homes who are not practicing Catholics.
It is complicated though, I will give you that. Because the family will then take the child to services and it does in a way put a 'claim' on the child...I wish I could explain it better though.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 12:04 PM |
|
|
@Salamandra
I think we have a different definitio of hypocricy.
Quote:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy
hypocrisy-13th century
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not ; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
I don't see how it is hypocritical to say we should love everyone, pray for them, and seek their good. It is quite easy to be nice to and love people who we admire or who are our friends. To seek the good of someone who is mean to us is quite another thing.
@JJ
Now you are saying you are not making any claims about the truth of any religion. But that is not what you appeared to say in "the other thead." You have forbidden quotes to I'll refer to the dates the posts were made on.
-----
You stated bringing up a child in any religion is brainwashing them and that parents should not be allowed to teach their children Judaism, Catholism, or Islam for example (June 27) because that is separating people into different groups. That raising a child in ANY religion is not ok (June 29.) And that teaching that one religion is true is brainwashing (June 29.)
You stated that people belonging to different religious groups, like Catholic, Baptists, ect, is religious racism and the state should not allow children to be raised in a religion and the only way to have world peace is not to allow separation into different religions(June 29.)
You stated that people who are being taught a specific religion are being fed BS by religious leaders and churches (June 29.)
If you call a religious teaching BS it means you are saying they are wrong and that you are right.
You said a certain religion saying it is right is a cult and religious racism and that society must protect itself and children against being raised in a religion (June 30.)
You complained that "religious racism" is protected under the law. Saying that unbeliever are going to hell was one of your examples of religious racism. (June 30.)
How can you think that sometihng is religious racism if you don't think it is wrong. So you are saying there that anyone who says unbelievers are going to hell is wrong.
And you go to describe such "fanatical" teaching as mental rape of children (June 30.) So obviously you are saying that they are wrong and you are right.
-----
Yes, I am certain my beliefs are true. Like I said in the other thread no one can make anyone else become a Christian. Jesus said a person has to be bron of water and of the Spirit. Christianity is a matter of the heart. No one can force another person to become born again.
A parent should be allowed to teach his child his religion. My teaching my child that truth of Christianity does not make the child a Christian. The Christian must have an experience with Christ himself and obey the gospel himself.
Many people claiming to know the truth is NOT a problem in society. Everyone must be free to believe what they want to believe and to express their beliefs.
And you want to forbid me to practice my religion. God said that a parent must teach his child that there is only one God and that he must teach his child the words God has revealed. You want to forbid me to do that.
Quote:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deu 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
-----
Me saying I know the truth does not mean I can't discuss things. Every Christian knows the truth that Jesus is Lord.
I know certain facts about electricity and electrical circuits. That does not mean that I can't discruss electricity.
Now, you don't believe that anyone can know what they believe is true. That is your belief. And saying that teaching a child any religion is brainwashing, mentally raping, and feeding a child BS is certainly saying someone is wrong.
-------
I deny that so called "religious wars" had anything to do with religion for the most part. Wars usually are about land grabs and resource grabs or just power grabs by some egomaniac who wants to expand his "kingdom."
And I know Christ never authroized his church to kill anyone, raise an army, or establish any political kingdom.
I stick by my previous statement that in any religion only a small number are radicals and that most religious people don't hate people of other religins.
In fact, to be a Christian you can't hate anyone.
Quote:
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
----------
Now, your question about salvation appears to be off topic. But I will anwer it with the words of Jesus. If you want to discuss "salvation" furthur perhaps that shoud be a different topic.
Quote:
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Quote:
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
-------
C) I am opposed to relgion beign taught by a public school teacher in a public school. I am in favor of a comparitive religion class only if each religious group is allowed to do its own presentation of its religious bliefs.
I have read many books wher this of that is claimed to be a "cult" and their beliefs were falsely represented.
And no comparative religion class should be mandatory.
_____
@ angelito
No, Christianity is not grown through fear and anxiety. When my spiritual awakening began it had not the slightest thing to do with fear.
-------
@JJ
No, it is not right for the state to forbid a child who wants to obey the gospel of Christ from doing so. In fact if I have a 10 year old child who wanted to obey the gospel and I spoke with them and determined, yes indeed he understands the gospel and wants to obey Christ then you would have to kill me to prevent him from being baptised.
You ant YOUR VERSION of religion enforced. The Bible says God draws people to himself. When the Spirit if drawing the child and the child responds you have no right to forbid the child from responding.
You claim a child younger than 14 can't have the understanding to obey the gospel of Christ. You are wrong.
And as I pointed out earlier, it is a part of Judaism and Christianity for one to teach his children that there is only one God and that we are to obey his Word.
So by telling me I can't teach my child that you are also interfering with my right to practice my religion.
I disagree that people who are going to become parents must take a mandatory parenting class. Who would authorize the teaching material? The government? The government would try to make the parents raise the child in such and such a way to indoctrinate them into how the state wants them to be.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 12:11 PM |
|
|
My family's religious yet they never forced me to do anything related to that.
Sure, I went to church with them, participated in rituals, was baptised etc. but it has always been my choice in the end.
I tend to believe in a higher power and I highly respect Jesus and his teachings, yet I'm neither a fanatic nor has a religious family left any kind of scar on me. Except that I don't like fanatics.
By the way, they constantly kept telling me that Santa exists and I never believed in him, for example, so I don't think Angelito made a valid point here. Of course children choose what to believe. Even if they believe everything their parents tell them by the age of, say, 7 or 8, they start questioning it and reaching their own conclusions quite soon. Unless they are weak willed as persons, and in that case they'll be influenced their entire lives, with anything.
Also bear in mind that religious parents consider religious education at least as important as learning a second language. That's their belief and as long as it doesn't harm the child it is completely morally fine with me. And no, being religious, no matter what some may think about religious people, isn't harmful by itself, doesn't make anyone more stupid and doesn't make you shoot people. Unless you're catholic. Also bananas. Those last two sentences about catholicism and bananas are there just to see if anyone will react (aka if anyone is reading this).
Again, no matter what your parents teach you about religion, you'll come to question that sooner or later. So I don't think it's too bad as it is, or that parents should be banned from teaching their beliefs to kids.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 12:13 PM |
|
|
But Elodin, there are some things that are taught by the state that is absolutely in the best interest of people. The state (government as a whole) teaches that Discrimination in the workplace is wrong. That murder, rape, etc is wrong. Now before you say "But that is from my religion" let me explain that there were other religions before Christianity exsisted that taught the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that people should be able to teach their children their beliefs. I am just saying that teaching the children to keep an open mind about all religions, cultures, and beliefs can't be a BAD thing.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
