|
| Thread: Teaching religon: Heritage of hostility? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:29 PM |
 bonus applied by angelito on 08 Jul 2009. |
Edited by Corribus at 23:58, 06 Jul 2009.
|
This is a topic rife with potential - for redundant insipidity.
Indeed, I got to about the second page, observed Elodin vomiting forth his usual litany of Bible quotes, and thought, "Well, here we go again: Just Another Religion Thread(TM)".
Well, thankfully it has recovered a bit since then, but I'd like to play the role of rudder here for a moment and guide the thread back to where I think JJ intended (well, where I think it belongs, anyway).
But first, let me say that while I inherently dislike the idea of establishing posting rules for a thread, the no-quote rule is a perfectly sensible one, and it's one that should be followed, at least as a general guideline, in ALL threads. I considered for some time posting a How-To thread about quality posting and online debate - never got around to it - and limiting the use of quotes was to be a central aspect of this topic. There's a number of reasons for it, but I think the results are quite evident.
Anyway, moving on.
When I said I wanted to guide the thread, what I meant was the following. If the thread's topic is to be believed, the OP intended for this to be a thread more about education than about religion. Thus there is no need here for a discussion about whether one religion is "truer" than other. That's a stupid discussion anyway. This thread should stay focused on teaching religion, not on the merits of any particular religious viewpoint. (For this reason, I'm not sure if Bible quotes have a place at all here.)
Why education?
That said, let's focus for a second on education without the religious aspect. Can we answer the question: why do we teach our children things? When our children are born, why don't we just toss them out on the street and let them learn everything on their own?
The first plausible answer to this question is that some education is necessary for the survival of progeny. It's an evolutionary instinct. Humans aren't the only ones who do it. Birds teach their chicks how to fly. Lions teach their cubs how to hunt. Deer teach their young how to run (away). And humans teach their children how to walk, eat, talk, use the toilet, etc.
However, in the case of humans, this answer is seemingly unsatisfactory, because we teach our children much more than is apparently needed for their physical survival. Sure, one could say that drawing, reading, counting, mathematics, etc., are necessary skills to "survive" in society. But what about playing? Art? Music? Science? Social studies? Even here, you might be able to stretch the survival explanation - in order to get a job someday, to compete, a child needs a broad knowledge of yada, yada, yada. But it's seemingly more than that. After all, we teach our children our values. We teach them our beliefs. We teach them things we enjoy or care about (such as the value of music, which movies are good, etc.). Why?
I think this thread really needs to pivot from the answer(s) to this question.
Religion for survival?
Before relating religion to the question posed above, let's consider its close cousin: morals/values. Why do we teach our children not to steal, murder, rape, cuss? Of course, we want our children to be productive members of society - to succeed in life, one might say - and thus our values (so we believe) help ensure that this happens in the most efficient way possible. For instance, why do we teach our children the value of love? Some of you might remember that I describe at length the value of love to humanity in my (much underappreciated  ) Love, Sex and Evolved Monkeys thread. I won't bother to rewrite everything I wrote in the opening post of that thread, except to highlight the fact that values (in this case, love) arose as an evolutionary way to forge bonds between humans, which made survival more likely for the species. I went on to describe why religion was an evolutionary necessity as well. If JJ will pardon my quoting of myself:
Quote:
Assume for a moment that sex is the biological force that keeps the population growing, and love is the societal force that ensures that sex happens, encourages parents to stay together and increases the likelihood of progeny survival, and binds humans together into long-lasting collective networks (families and societies) that protect the species against outside pressures. In that case, both law and religion, it might be argued, evolved to ensure that humans understood the importance of morality and love – because humans don’t act only on instinct as other animals appear to do.
Anyway, you can read more about that in the other thread. I highlight it here because I think it should be fairly obvious that the reason we teach morals, values, and, indeed, religion to our children is - again - in the belief that it will enhance our capacity for survival. Not, perhaps, our survival as individuals - but our survival as a species. I don’t think that’s necessarily a conscious motivation, of course.
So I submit that our instinct to teach our children is all driven by survival. Mind you, that does not mean that what we teach our children actually accomplishes this. Right now I just want to establish why we impart our beliefs and knowledge to the people who come after us.
(I'll add that many religious people teach their children morals/values/religious beliefs because they feel it's important for spiritual survival {heaven, whatever} as well.)
Teaching Religion Today
Having laid that groundwork, I can now approach the original topic, which is teaching religion, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.
Let me start by saying that, from an evolutionary "survival" aspect, religion as a whole has outlived its usefulness. I like to think of religion as a sort of vestigial organ - a part of society which probably served some definite purpose in our species' distant past, but which now we haul around with us everywhere we go even though its original function is long-since forgotten. In most people it is innocuous and might even impart some minor if nebulous benefit; but in a few people it has a tendency to become infected, fester and cause great harm, and as a result the people who know it for what it is tend to have a very unflattering opinion of it.
Carrying on that analogy just a bit further so there's no misunderstanding here: I certainly don't have anything against people who still have, for instance, an appendix. It's as much a part of them as their heads, and you can't fault them for having something that their parents essentially gave to them unasked for. Moreover, I don't support some sort of forced-appendix-removal program whereby every person, healthy or otherwise, is obligated to have their appendix removed preemptively just because of the potential for appendicitis. That said, I think it's important for people to be aware of the danger than an appendix could pose if it should become infected, and what the symptoms of appendicitis are. Knowledge is, after all, the key to enlightenment and, as it turns out, survival.
Though I think religion has outlived its original purpose, it clearly brings meaning and joy to a lot of peoples' lives. I certainly plan to teach my own child about things that I care about, and I would never fault - in principle - any Christian (Muslim, Jew, Pastafarian, whatever) for teaching their children about their religion. The problem is, of course, that most people aren't very good teachers, and the things many people teach to their children either aren't very useful or - worse - are downright harmful, both to the child and to society. For many people religion is a divisive force, a politicized entity born as much out of hate as it is out of love. Love thy neighbor, as long as he believes what you believe - otherwise, burn him alive. That sort of thing. Most people don't believe that sort of thing, but many do. Yeah I know what Elodin’s going to say – “they’re no true Christians”. Fine, they’re not true Christians. But there sure are a lot of false Christians out there doing things in the name of Christianity, and they’re teaching their children a lot of bad things about what it means to be a Christian
And believe me, Children pick up a LOT without questioning it, even things you aren't actively "teaching". To young children, parents are like gods. The parents' word is law. The parents know everything. They are the provider of rights, of necessities, they are the giver of punishments. How a parent acts is the right way to act. How a parent speaks is the right way to speak. What a parent says is right is right. What a parent says is wrong is wrong. Children don't question - they imitate. Children of christians become christians. Children of muslims become muslims. Children who are taught to love all people love all people. Children who are taught to hate people of other faiths hate people of other faiths. And it's not just in what a child sees scrawled out on a chalkboard - it's observing what a parent does, what a parent says. If a father impugns “Those damn Jews” every time he get’s ripped off at a drug store, and he does it in front of his kids, that’s passively teaching his kids to hate Jews. Sure, sometimes children outgrow what they learn, especially if they are educated and are encouraged to think for themselves. (And by outgrow, I don't necessarily mean "change their minds". A child of Christians, taught to think for himself, may eventually decide to discard his Christianity, or he may decide that the Christian way is the right one. By outgrow, I mean: move beyond taking what his parents believe as unquestionable gospel.) But what most people learn as Children shapes the course of their entire lives; most people just aren’t taught enough about the available options to form an educated opinion – or, more appropriately, they are not taught enough about the value of coming to one’s own conclusions about the Nature Of Things to want to form an independent opinion. Most people, sadly enough, don’t like to ponder their own place in the universe; they just want to be told what it is.
With that in mind, it is evident that teaching children religion can lead to a heritage of hostility. It doesn't have to. It all depends on what is being taught, and who is teaching it. Note that this isn't reserved just for religion. Nationalism can lead to the same thing, as can (on a much smaller scale) teaching sports fanaticism. JJ's earlier analogy is right on. Example: I am a Redskins fan. My child will most likely be a Redskins fan, at least when she is young. If I teach her (through my actions) to like the NFL for the good things and to respect it as just a game and not take it too seriously, and to treat fans of other teams with respect, then that's probably what she will do as an adult. If I teach her to throw beer bottles at fans of rival teams, call fans of other teams names, and the like, this will probably be her attitude as well. So, if you subscribe to a religion, you essentially control your child's destiny as to how they will approach the religious heritage you bestow upon them. If you teach your children the good parts of your religion, but also teach them that other people may believe other things and that people with other beliefs aren't necessarily evil people, then that's the attitude your children will have. If you teach your children that people of other faiths are to be despised, to be persecuted, to be hated - either formally or just through your own actions - then that's what your children will become: a hater and a persecutor. Teaching religion doesn't HAVE to lead to a heritage of hostility. It CAN. It could also lead to a heritage of benevolence. But peoples' attitudes towards OTHER religions will have to change before that will happen. After all, you can't teach your children something you don't believe in - I'm sure Elodin will agree to that, if nothing else.
Teaching the Truth versus Teaching Respect
Elodin is (either willfully or through honest misunderstanding) is sort of putting words in JJ's mouth when he (Elodin) constantly says that he (Elodin) won't teach his children that other religions are possibly true. That's not what JJ has advocated at all.
{Aside: Personally I think Elodin would be doing his children a disservice by not teaching them the difference between FACT and BELIEF. Of course, it's pretty clear that Elodin's parents never taught him this distinction, so it's understandable that he wouldn't be capable of imparting this knowledge upon his own progeny. We can, after all, only teach what we ourselves know and understand. Which is really half the problem. Most people don't understand this distinction, and they essentially teach their kids that facts and beliefs are the same thing. Shame on them. But, that's really a minor issue.}
Getting back to the point, I can't find anywhere that JJ said that he, in Elodin's words, believes that "All religions are equally true." That's a gross misinterpretation of what JJ said in his opening post. I think JJ makes it pretty clear in his opening post that "absolute truth" isn't really a word that can be applied to any religious belief. Certainly, you can't evaluate levels of truth for two religions and thus say that one is "more or less true" than another. I don't believe JJ is asking Elodin to teach his Children that Islam, for example, is just as true as Christianity. That doesn't even make sense, and I'm not sure why Elodin seems to be stuck on casting down the words that he has put into JJ's mouth.
Here's the crux of the matter. It's important that parents teach their children about religion. Not only for the reasons discussed above. But because religion is, for better or worse, such a major part of society. And frankly, if you're only teaching your kids about ONE religion, you're really handicapping them. That's like only giving your child a purple crayon, or teaching them only to count the odd numbers. You're leaving out absolutely all the context into which your religion is being placed, and you’re keeping from them a lot of valuable information that will help them interact with the rest of the world. You’re hurting their chances of survival, and wasn’t that the point of teaching? I mean, think of it this way. Let's say you're Christian. You teach your children the Christian story/values/whatever. That's fine. But why wouldn’t you want to teach them anything about Islam, or Judaism? Buddhism? There are 1.8 BILLION muslims in the world, and you don't teach your children anything about Islam, just because you believe in something else? Isn't that a little... myopic? How do you expect your children to survive in a world whose politics are driven by a multitude of interacting religious beliefs, and you only teach them about one of them? I mean, even if you believe that Islamic belief is WRONG, the fact that 1.8 BILLION people believe in it means it's still important to understand. To use a rather crude metaphor, if your little boy is going to one day marry and then have sex with a woman, it’s pretty important that you at least teach him some basic female anatomy at some point; if you only teach him about men, he’s likely to stick his ding-dong in her ear, which would, I imagine, lead to a little bit of a misunderstanding. Knowledge is survival, remember – both in relationships and in life.
Anyway, I think Elodin (and those like him) is stuck on the idea that teaching about another religion is the same as advocating the truth behind it. But that's not the way it is at all.
If I was Christian, here's how I would teach my child about religion.
(1) First and foremost, I would teach them about Christianity. I would teach them, as George Costanza put it, "the basic plot", what I believe this story means, why the story is important, and how I should use that story to live a good life.
(2) I would teach my child that many people do not believe in Christianity. I would tell my child that there are also religions A, B and C. I would tell my child the differences between these religions, stressing that I believe Christianity is the truth, but that other people feel otherwise. Most importantly, I would teach my child to respect people who believe different things. Even if we believe they are wrong, and that Christianity is the Truth, everyone has the right to believe what they want, and that we should never hate someone else just because of what we believe in. If I've taught them part (1) very well, this concept should be quite understandable to them. PLEASE NOTE: this is not the same as teaching my child that these other religions are the TRUTH. It's about teaching RESPECT.
(3) I would teach my child the dangers of religion when it is abused, when people violate the principles upon which their religion was founded, and when people do not have respect for the beliefs of others.
(4) I would encourage my child to follow his own heart when selecting a religion. I would teach my child my Christian values, and try to make him understand why I believe Christianity is the "TRUE PATH", but in the end I would want my child to know that being a virtuous person is more important that what label he gives to his or her beliefs, and if he should find another religion that he finds more attractive, it wouldn't change my love for him. A discussion about the differences between FACT and BELIEF would come in here as well.
I think that if every parent approached teaching religion this way, there would be a lot less friction between religions, and thus a great deal fewer problems in the world. Teaching of religion DOES lead to a heritage of hostility, when it's done poorly. The Middle East is a fine portrait of this. What do you expect of parents who hand their children weapons, point their fingers at the Jews/Muslims on the other side of the river, and say, "Point this at them. They're the enemy because they believe X." Teaching is like Xeroxing your own brain. You can only teach what you know. When all you know is that people worshipping the other guy are the enemy, what are you going to pass down to your children? It's a vicious cycle. It's a depressing, vicious cycle. The only way to break out of it is to take the initiative and give yourself an education beyond what your parents give you. Of course, most children aren’t encouraged to do that, because their parents are not very good teachers of how to live – and survive – in this jungle we call Human Society.
Teaching Religion in School
Yeah, that’s obviously a very touchy subject with a lot of people. Many people are against it just on principle. In that case, I don’t really know what they’re afraid of.
I would be for it, provided the curriculum was developed well and that it was taught preferably from a historical perspective. As I’ve outlined above, I think teaching kids the basics about a variety of religions would be useful. For instance, do you think most American Christians know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis? Probably not. But the sad thing is that such differences are important to a lot of the worlds’ current events.
Essentially I think any person calling himself educated should have a basic background in the world’s major religions. Just the basic facts – what people believe, differences between sects, the general history of religion, biographies of major religious thinkers throughout history. A general understanding of how religion and religious thought shaped history and the arts. Etc.
Of course, it will never happen here in the States.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:31 PM |
|
|
Regarding mvass' point.
Thing is, back in the olden days baptisms used to be done at a much later age, but in medieval times, when the idea of hell was ingraved into people's minds, they baptised baies, because of the high child mortality rate and no one wants a small child to go to hell, just becaus eit died too young to be baptised. Some people don't want to change the tradition, I guess as some people fear change.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:38 PM |
|
|
I'd reply to you, MVass, but Corribus, as usual, won the discussion and I respectfully retreat with nothing more sensible to add.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2009 11:51 PM |
|
|
Corribus is entirely correct. 
Although there is the matter of radicalisation. Back in the Middle Ages, the Middle East was a relatively prosperous region - Baghdad was a great centre of culture, and gave significant religious freedoms to both Christians and Jews. And now look at it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 12:01 AM |
|
|
@Salamandre
I don't see how you find it distrubing that I teach my children to love, pray for, and do good to everyone, just as Jesus taught. You said earlier that you think "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."
I disagree that we should only love and seek the good of those who we admire. But of course your are free to do as you wish.
@ del_diablo
Ah, you seem incapable of making a post without insulting those who disagree with you. It is you who are blathering.
Infant baptism is baptism. Child baptism is baptism os children older than infants. I don't believe in infant baptism because infants are incapable of responding to the gospel of Christ. However, young children are capable of responding to the gospel (depending on the particular child in question, of course.)
Your religion/cult should not be able to prevent me from baptising my child when he desires to obey the gospel of Christ. If my child wants to be baptised and he understands and wants to obey the gospel of Christ then your religion/cult will have to kill me to prevent his baptism.
Oh, your religion/cult may indoctrinate children (and judging by your responses I believe it does) but Christianity does not. So, just realize that because your religion/cult indoctrinates children, not everyone does.
I have no idea what you are blathering about in this statement: "And also, do not attempt to lower atheism to your level, the expression is equal to monotheism." Please reword it when you calm yourself.
@ bixie
You have made up statments I have never heard any Christian make. I have never seen anyone treated with a "tangible air of disgust" by Christians because the person was not a Christian.
All Christians were oncet non-Christians.
Now, you DO seem to have an attitutde against Christians.
Saying sin is sin IS NOT being arrogant. Have you ever told a child that something he did was wrong? Was that arrogant? No. Saying, "Johnny, don't hit you sister, that is wrong," is not arrogant.
When did I ever say to beat demons out of a man or girl? I've been in a Pentecostal church for many years and never seen that happen. Demons are cast out by commanding them to go in the name of Jesus (by a Spirit filled person.) No hitting is involved.
The fact is you said that a Christian who casts out demons is not acting like Christ. The fact is you are wrong because Christ cast out demons.
I suggest you actually spend some time reading the Bible before you try to judge Christians and say they are not acting like Christ becasus you made many statments that prove you DON'T know what the New Testament says.
@JJ
Yes, the one true God knows everything.
You object to me saying I know my beliefs are true. Yet in saying I can't know the truth you are saying that you KNOW that I can't know. So you are saying you know your beliefs are true.
You say I can't prove my beliefs. You caln't prove your beliefs. I have all the proof I need to know my beliefs are true.
God gives light to everyone. As you respond to the light more light is given. As you refuse the light that is given light is taken away.
And you want to bring up people who did horrible things "because God told them so." Atheists murdered many people "for the betterment of society/the state." The National Socialist Party member Hitler murdered millions of Jews and Christians and used them in experiments to "create a master race."
The Nicene Council only confirmed what the churches already accepted. Fake books that were written centries after the death of Christ were thrown out.
Oh, and we have many more thousands of documents of the New Testament than of any other ancient document. It is completely historiclaly reliable. There is proof that you reject. If you reject the New Testament you must logically reject every single historically document up to modern times.
My knowledge is also based on the Spirit of God. I am filled with the Spirit of God. I speak in tongues.
A person can't be a Christians and say "Well, maybe Jesus is Lord and maybe he is not" and I would never say something so silly to my children. The government can "advise" me to make such silly statements all it wants but I'll never follow such silly adivse.
No, you say you reject what I said about salvvation. So you are saying I am wrong about salvation. But you object me to saying that I am right about my beliefs.
If someone like you, only a member of anther cult or religion, teaches his children that noone can know that anything religious is true it deters a child from seeking truth since truth can't be attained.
I contend that all children at a certain point in their life will become hungry for God, regardless of what their parents taught them. God draws everyone. We can chose to respond to him or to reject the light he is giving.
By the way, a Christian should maintain his hunger for God throughout his life. We should enter into an ever-deepening walk with God.
You say you have a problem with me teaching my children to love even their enemies. This is what Jesus taught. Love, pray for, and do good even to your enemies.
Quote:
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Yes, children can have "enemies." People who are always mean to them, who lie about them, who bully them, ect.
I reject your view of how a child should be taught religion in school No government beaurocrat or text wrighter shoud have the power to present any religion to a student. Reading these boards is is quite obvious how totally ignorant of the Bible and Christian doctrins that many people are. And some people like to distort the religious teachings of different religions.
So in order to have an actual comparative religion class that is not biased you have to have each religion present their own religion. Otherwise ther will be misrepresentations (whether deliberate or otherwise) about what the religion teaches. I also think that having someone who is actually a member of the religion in the class so the children can interact and ask questions is logical if you actually want children to learn what the religion teaches instead of having a government beaurocrat present his biased view of the religion.
If you want to know what a Catholic believes ask a Catholic, not a Hindu. If you want to know what a Hindu blieves don't ask a Christian.
Otherwise, you are "making comparisons" base on waht the text writer says about the religion rather than learning what the religion actualy teaches.
@smvuy
All parents teach their kids their religious beliefs. If your parents are atheist s and never go to church and never even mention God they are teaching you God is not real. It is impossible for a parent not to influence his child.
@mvassilev
Many people leave the religion they wree raised in. I am not the same denomination as my parents.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 02:28 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:31, 07 Jul 2009.
|
@Corribus
Thank you vomitting out an insult to me in your opening post in the thread. I expected no less based on your pervious behavior towards those you disagree with.
I don't "vomit out" anything. I presented Bible quotes where relevant.
Yes, Bible quotes have a place because this thread is about religion and a person's right to practice his relidion and teach it to his children. Judaism and Christianity have a command as part of their religion to teach their children. So a quote that where that is found is relevant to the discussion.
Why education?
We teach our children because there are things that our children need to know. It is the responsibility of a parent to teach his child and get the child ready to become a responsible member of society and to be the kind of person he should be. Parents are all different and will think there are different things the child should know.
Religion for survival?
i disagree that religion was evollutionarly or about survival except for the spirital survival tht you mentioned.
Teaching Religion Today
I disagree that "religion has outlived its usefulness." That atheistic societies in the USSR AND China did not seem to produce a utopia.
Oh, an appendix is useful. It is a place for useful bacteria. You might want to google that. Duke did the study.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299779,00.html
I reject your statment that religion is born out of hate in any way. Christianity was born from the revelation of Jesus Christ.
I reject your statement that "love your neighbor becomes love him "as long as he believes what you believe - otherwise, burn him alive."
Yes, some people may blieve that. Like some atheist believe human life has no value and have no problem with experimenting on them or killing them if they are in the way. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ect.
And you are right that I am going to say that a murderer is not a true Christian because theat is what the Bible says.
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?
Quote:
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Preditors often claim to be sometihng they are not. Jesus said there would be wolves in sheeps clothing.
May I point out that most people in prison had never been to church or had not been in many years? In other words, religion had no role in their life. They are atheists.
If they had been Christians they would have loved, prayed for, and done good to the person instead of murdering their neighbor.
Yes, I have said many times children learn both by what you do and by what you say. Anti-Christian parents teach their children to hate Christians, even if don't overtly teach them to do that.
Children do not automaticly become a Christina because their parents are Christians by the way. To be a Christian you have to actually be born again vy water and by the Spirit according to Christ.
Furthur, I've known of people who went totally wild even though there parents were Christians.
And many people are not the same religion as their parents.
Quote:
Teaching the Truth versus Teaching Respect
No, I'm not putting words in JJ's mouth. Perhaps you did not read the "Where do we draw the line" thread where this thread broke off from.
He specificly stated the state should not allow parents to teach children that their religion is true and that teaching that is "religious racism" and should not be allowed by society. He said no child should be allowed to be raised in any religion. No child should be alloed to be baptised even if he wants to be baptised.
He is beginning to soften his stance a little in this thread.
My only option for disputing your claim that I am misrepresenting what he said is to give some actual quotes. I will try to keep the quotes short except as require to establish meaning.
-a child should be "protected" from "being brain-washed into separating peolpe into Jews, Catholics, Muslims and so on "
-that raising a child to be "a follower of any religion" is not ok.
- brainwashing is "if you teach ONE and only ONE claiming that one to be right."
-In response to Mystical statment that parents should be allowed to teach their child their religion he said, "Ah. So now you are advocating the right for parents to brainwash their children into everything they deem fit."
- "IF we ever want to have peace in this world, IF we want people to stop bashing in their skulls collectively, we must draw the line at indoctrinating children with "religious racism"." He defines religious racism as saying anyone is going to hell or that one religion is the true religion.
- "children should not be subject to membership [be allowed to join] of religious organisations or "churches".
- "My opinion is that society has to protect the children - and ultimately ITSELF - from all kinds of extremism, especially that of the religious fanatics. Since "real" believers think that THEIRS is the only right way, they necessarily believe that all the others are lost in error and damnation which isn't all too helpful in creating peace and tolerance as history shows."
- "RELIGIOUS "racism" is not only allowed, it's protected as well - every preacher can tell his community that the unbelievers are damned and will burn in hell." "And under the same umbrella it is allowed for adults to poison children with this venom [that one religion is true.]"
- "What I don't want is, if we keep to your example, that people who believe in WHATEVER won't teach their children, that there is only WHATEVER and everyone not believing in WHATEVER will ...[be] LOST.
- "There would be nothing out of the ordinary with laws protecting children from religious fanatism - mental rape is still rape, and rape is forbidden."
- " Protect the rights of religous people? Absolutely as long as they are within the LAWS (*plays broken record*). Is the hateful nonsense in the name of some god or another less then hateful nonsense? Is the hateful nonsense against some religions less then hateful nonsense?" Here is is advocating making it illegal to preach homosexuality is a sin or anyone is "lost" because he considers that as preaching hate.
- "In fact I would even go farther and ask, Don't we have the DUTY to try and make sure than children are raised in a way we approve of as a society, ....I mean, how are we going to change things, if we don't keep the children from being, well, indoctrinated with hate patterns?"
- "Now look at religion - are children taught "religion" as in "history and main 'points' of world religions, their historical relevance and so on and so forth", in a comparative way? Not as far as I know. As far as I know there is no "objective" social counterweight in terms of religion, who teaches children that all religions are equal,"
- " Do you think that would help racial integration, general understanding and so on? Do you think further that it would be helpful, if parents were making their children members of the local "AllWhiteSupremacy" order shortly afzer birth?
I don't think so.
So why is religion treated DIFFERENTLY, what do you think, Mytical?" Here as in other places he calls teaching a child one religion is true as being a racist in a white supremicist organization.
Now, if I am forbidden to teach my child that "one and only one" religion is right then you are forbiding me to teach my religion to my child and are require that I teach your religion to my child instead. It makes no sense for me to teach my child "Well, Jesus might be Lord and he might not be honey. Bob bliefs Allah is God. Suzan thinks Snoopy is God. Buill thinks all relions are born out of hate and evil. Maybe they are right and Daddy is wrong."
Aside:
How do you know that what I believe is not fact? Christians do teach faith, though you seem to be ignorant of that fact. But when i KNOW something I know it. Faith sees spiritual realities.
You think what you belive is fact. You say religion has "outlived its usefulness." That is an opinion, not a fact. Furthur, you seem to think religion has not come by divine revelation. Another opinion, not a fact.
Basicly, I find it quite amusing that those who are objecting to me saying that my beliefs are true say (or imply) that their beliefs are true.
You don't know what i teach my children about faith, belief, and facts. And you have erred by saying my praents did not teach me the difference. It is amazing how some people vomit out claims about other people that are patently false.
But you always follow the pattern of insulting and belitting those you disagee with. It is a common method in debates to try to marginalize one's opponents. Common but dishonest.
There are many things I could infer about your parents from your posts but I will refrain from speculation.
As a matter of fact I did teach my children the basics of what certain other religions believe so they would know where others were coming from. But I did not teach them as truths. Both in this thread and it the "Where do we draw the line" thread (which is where this discussion came from) I said I have no problem with public schools having a comparativve religion class as long as all sidea re able to present the their religion themselves, and not a government beaurocrat doing so.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 09:40 AM |
|
|
Elodin: China is NOT atheists, they are agnostics. They are Buddhists. Thats is a fact.
And what i mean about "And also, do not attempt to lower atheism to your level, the expression is equal to monotheism." I mean that there is a too huge difference to word it like that. Iron is a metal, but you can't call metal an iron. Atheist = godless, monotheist = belives in 1 god. The sub groups of atheists(ex anti-theists) are on the level of monotheists(ex: Jews), not the other way around.
Corribus: Great post 
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 09:51 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:49, 07 Jul 2009.
|
Ok, where to start? ((Going to start with quotes to make sure I cover everything, but when this post is done all quotes will have been removed, also expect multiple edits as I will address each person individually)).
Corribus.
In a thread discussing religion, yes I expect Bible quotes to be presented. Even if that thread is about teaching. If we were discussing the area of a triangle, one could expect that Pythagoras' Theorem would be quoted at least once.
Though I think your post is as normal astonishingly through and prepaired with much thought I do disagree on some points. One of which is that religion is outdated. In fact I think it a bit more relative now then ever before. As we hurtle forward with rapid advancements in technology and ever growing population we are faced with some interesting times. Searching for answers, even to the difficult questions such as about the afterlife (if any) should never be set aside. That is a topic for another debate however I think.
While yes there is a lot of truth that parents do influence the actions of the children, following the parents religion is becoming the exception and not the rule. There is too much information out there readily available, and countering any parental influence is peer influence. While we may not have totally open minds about everything, at least we have open minds about more things. Like that the color of one's skin does not define a person, nor does their preferrences in partners.
Unfortunately it is the extreamist we see, not the average person. Because they make the most noise, and they who make the most noise gets the most attention. ((Which is why shows like Jerry Springer is so popular, but I digress)).
I would get into the whole 'We believe 1+1=2 and not hamster because we are told that' but that is again for another topic I think. When a person who is religious reads their bible they believe it to be true. I think the problem comes on the inturpretation. We are human, and not infallible, so it leads to reason that there is a chance that what we understand might be wrong. Nobody wants to admit that however. So a good lesson or philosophy can be twisted into something horrible.
However, like I said while I disagree on some points (or maybe misunderstand those points) your post is very commendable. If I did misunderstand, just have patience with me I do try to understand.
Elodin.
Here is the inherent problem. There often is no way to distinguish between the 'mouth christians' and Christians. We only have both's word on it which they are. So when somebody does something in the name of Christ, we encounter a problem. If we disbelieve them, why should we not disbelieve the next person who says that they are doing gods will? If they truely believe that god commanded them to wage war on the 'infidels', how do we know that he didn't? Why is your belief that God wouldn't do that more sacrosanct then his/her belief god would?
You can say 'they are not true Christians' and believe me I agree with you wholeheartedly, but that is our BELIEF. It is hard to explain the difference between the two, when professing the absolute truth of god's word. Because their understanding of a passage is different from yours, who can say yours is the right one or this other persons is. They have absolute faith that they are understanding god's truth also.
For every scripture that says god is love and peace, another can be brought up to say that he is vengenful and jealous. Both can also be taken out of context. So bible quoting really does not solve the basic issue. Which is to get people to understand the difference between a Zealot and an ordinary person who is a Christian (or Muslim, or etc).
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 09:53 AM |
|
|
@ Corribus
Fine post, Corribus.
I don't agree with everything, though. 
You say, teaching religion CAN lead to an heritage of hostility, but not necessarily, it may lead to a heritage of benevolence.
That depends on the religion in question.
I think, you will find that as long as there were lots of gods around, religious tolerance was the rule. Everyone their god(s), enough for all, take your pick, no problem.
However, monotheism destroyed that paradise once and for all. Suddenly it went, there's ONE and ONLY one god, and you people out there are all losers (Jewish religion), because your gods are just fakes.
If you read the OT - which is an edited history of the Jewish people - you can read there that intolerance against other religions is a COMMANDMENT of that one and only god. Lots of wars are fought against people who follow other gods, and each victory is taken to be proof for the existance of that one and only god and for his power.
Later the ante was upped considerably by attributing that one and only god not only with power to make and break life, but ETERNAL life, which gave things a whole new dimension. While that wasn't exactly new (think of Egypt), what WAS new was the demand that you had to BELIEVE in it because otherwise it wouldn't come true.
That's devious, isn't it?
Because it ultimately means that you cannot tolerate DOUBT because doubt will lessen your faith, and once faith is small enough the magic doesn't worl anymore.
You might say, if that much is stake and if it DEPENDS on the strength of your belief, teaching relativism will make the religion disappear. You cannot afford doubt, that's why you cannot teach it.
That's ultimately the reason why the monotheistic religions - even if they talk peacefully - are unable to compromise. The fact that there are peaceful believers is just documenting that most "believers" nowadays are agnostics.
Which is what WE want: WE want religion to be taught essentially with the "flaw" of agnosticism around its core. The real believers cannot accept that, though, because agnosticism undermines the foundation of monotheistic religions - absolute, ultimate, unlimited faith.
Which is the problem, really. So, what for us is reason to bring humanity into peaceful line, is a fight for survival for those with true faith. That's why NO "true" believer - of no religion or undercurrent - will EVER teach their children the lore watered by a portion of agnosticism.
If WE - relativistic reason - get our way, faith will vanish, since they are mutually exclusive. You can't really believe in "A is right" when A is defined as "ONLY TRUTH" that B to Z may be right as well - if you do believe that, you automatically don't really believe in A anymore.
Which is A's inherent flaw:
For a lore for which tolerance is akin to self-destruction, preaching peace, tolerance and love is a paradoxon and equals Orwell's Double Think - and if you look at history that's glaringly obvious.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 11:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You have made up statments I have never heard any Christian make. I have never seen anyone treated with a "tangible air of disgust" by Christians because the person was not a Christian.
All Christians were once non-Christians.
maybe so, and by and large, most christians are alright. However, some places, this arrogance still persists. I'm not saying you do, I am saying that I have experienced it.
Quote:
Saying sin is sin IS NOT being arrogant. Have you ever told a child that something he did was wrong? Was that arrogant? No. Saying, "Johnny, don't hit you sister, that is wrong," is not arrogant.
yes it is. Telling someone not to do something, like be homosexual, has a level of false authority and is intrusive on their personal lives. Telling a child off (Which I have never done, I am only 18!) is different from telling someone they are sinful for two reasons.
1. the child is hurting someone else. sins like homosexuality are not hurting anyone.
2. as a parent, you have authority over that child. saying something is a sin is being patronizing, you have no more right to say something as wrong to that person than the next man (assuming that the next man is not linked with military, law, royalty or medical professions and is in fact a sales assistant).
Quote:
When did I ever say to beat demons out of a man or girl? I've been in a Pentecostal church for many years and never seen that happen. Demons are cast out by commanding them to go in the name of Jesus (by a Spirit filled person.) No hitting is involved.
The fact is you said that a Christian who casts out demons is not acting like Christ. The fact is you are wrong because Christ cast out demons.
There have been numerous incidences in the british papers about children being locked inside cuboards and beaten to within an inch of their life, eventually ending up dead, due to their parents belief they were possessed by demons.
that ends up with one dead kid and two delusioned prison inmates.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 12:34 PM |
|
|
The rule in this thread - that everyone posting here followed more or less - has been NO QUOTES.
So I'd like you to edit your post, bixie. Do we really need another quite war? Think about the Wage Slavery thread.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 04:11 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:19, 07 Jul 2009.
|
@Del_Diablo
The official state religion of China is atheism. Oh and I still have no clue about what you are saying in "And also, do not attempt to lower atheism to your level, the expression is equal to monotheism."
Are you saying I can't call your religion a cult even though you called mine a cult?
@Mystical
The Bible defines who a Christian is. I quoted Jesus saying paraphrase "Why do you claim I am your Lord but don't do what I say?" Jesus said MANY times that to be an actual follower of his you have to be "walking the walk."
Quote:
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Quote:
Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
And I quoted the Apostle John who said that anyone how hatss another and claims to know God is a liar. So I disagree that it is just our "belief" that those sorts of people are not Christians. Some passages may be "difficult" to understand but those passages are straight forward.
I disagree that the character of God is open to interpretation based on the Bible. A problem is taking verses out of context. Some people read the Bible a verse here and another one over there. The Bible is a library of books. Each book should be read in its entirity to establish the context of what is being said. God is love but that does not mean that he can't judge. He is also the judge of the world.
As far as the word "zealot", that has a different meaning to many people. I have been called a fanatic on this board becase I know my beliefs and "defend" my faith.
A Christian should have passion for the things of God. A Christian will not go out and kill someone for not being a Christian or blow up some building because some sin is going on there. Christ did not authorize such things and such things specificly go against the teachings of Christ.
@JJ
I disagree that polytheism was tolerant and monotheism is not.
The pagan Romans murdered Christians because Christians would not bow to the Emperor as a god. Jews have been murdered throughout history for refusing to bow to pagan gods.
Also, the world before monotheism was not "a paradise." There have been wars for all of recorded history. Oh, it is patently false to say that the Jews call non-Jews "losers." That is not in the Torrah or Tenach. I know of no Rabbi who says Gentiles are losers. Please stop making things up about other religions.
There is a difference between saying someone's beliefs are not true and calling them a "loser."
It is false to say that the Old Testament is the "edited history of the Jewish people" and you have obviously not read it since you claim the world was a paradise before monotheism came along. The Old Testament gives instances of Jews being murdered for their faith by pagans. Do you also deny the holocaust?
Oh, pagans also engaged in child sacrifice. I would not think that would go on in a "paradise."
It is true that only Judaism was allowed within the borders of Israel, However, your implication that the Jews conducted wars with other nations because they didn't believe in the one true God is a very much untrue. God never said "Go to war with such and such because they don't worship me." Please stop telling untrue things about Jews.
Also, you have a misunderstanding of the phrase "eternal life." Eternal life is life with God. Everyone will live forever in heaven or hell. That comes whether you believe it or not. Only believers will live forever with God. That is eternal life.
Eternal life is a concept is found in the Old Testament by the way. There was nothing devious about the concept.It is a promise of God and God, not some devious plot to control people.
Your statement that monotheists "can't tolerate doubt" is very much false. Like I have said many times, you are free to believe in millions of gods. Just don't insist that I teach my children your beliefs as truths.
If you choose to believe in multiple (or no) gods that will not "lessen my faith," as you falsely claim. Oh, Christianity doesn't believe in magic by the way.
I don't teach relativism because relativism is false, not because "I cannot afford doubt" but because it is untrue. It is impossible for it to be moral to rape a baby in New York but be immoral to rape a baby in London. Raping a baby is always wrong. That is a moral absolute.
What do you mean by "That's ultimately the reason why the monotheistic religions - even if they talk peacefully - are unable to compromise"? That because we always believe raping babies is immoral we can't compromise?
I won't "compromise" my beliefs just because you don't like my beliefs. My beliefs are not up for society's vote. My beliefs are based on what God has revealed, not what some beaurocrat wants me to believe.
And what do you mean by the "even if they talk peacefully" part? That moontheist become violent toward moral relativists? Sorry, but that is untrue.
Quote:
The fact that there are peaceful believers is just documenting that most "believers" nowadays are agnostics.
Yeah, your rule is not quotes, but allow me this one.
Your statment that virtually all religous people are violent is just totally moronic. You've lost it JJ. You've cast aside all reasonable argument and are just in bashing mode. Get yourself together man. I know that you can't possbily really believes that the vast majority of religious people are violent.
Sorry, I won't teach my children as Christianity as being possibly true and possibly untrue. You are right that "real believers" won't teach their children that their believes might or might not be true. That is your belief, not ours.
Your ture colors are coming out now, aren't they?
No, faith will never vanish, JJ. The pagan Romans boiled us in oil, crucified us, burned as us human torches, fed us to lions, ect. Christianity remains. Rome crumbled.
Yes, you are right that I can't believe that both Christianity and atheism is right (although in one of your my quotes of you you said all religion is equal.) 1 is not equal to 2 and never will be. 1 = 1. 2=2. Ect.
You are so intollerant of other religions that you want the State to say what children can and can't be taught. Sorry, I will never teach my kids that 1=2 or 1=6 or 1=5,398 even though you want me to. 1=1.
Christianity is tolerant of other beliefs, JJ. But I will never teach my "children the lore watered by a portion of agnosticism." A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Preaching peace, tolerance and love is not contradictory or self-destructive JJ. Although it is obveious the atheists have never practiced those things in the officially atheist nations like the USSR.
@bixie
The ""tangible air of disgust" that I see is from certain anti-theist people on this board.
Sorry, calling sin sin is no more arrogant that saying hitting your sister is wrong. Sin is what God says is wrong. It is not arrogant for me to say that God says stealing is wrong or for me to say that anything else that God says is wrong is wrong.
First, I doubt that there were "numerous" such events. Second, those are not exorcisms. I already told you how the Bible says Jesus and the apostles cast out demons and there was no violence or locking anyone in closets and such.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 04:31 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
According to the 1993 edition of The Atlas of Religion, the number of atheists in China is between 10 and 14 percent.
14% is not an Atheist state.
Quote:
Yeah, your rule is not quotes, but allow me this one.
Your statment that virtually all religous people are violent is just totally moronic. You've lost it JJ. You've cast aside all reasonable argument and are just in bashing mode. Get yourself together man. I know that you can't possbily really believes that the vast majority of religious people are violent.
..... Allow me this quote JJ.
Elodin, your reading it so what your saying makes sense. The agnostics are the most peacefull because they fight all the conflicts miuns 1, the religious wars. The war itself is a wrong expression for this, but its the most fitting.
They just do not know whats the behind the curtain, nor got a clue on it.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 04:36 PM |
|
|
Why I taught my children my religion.
A) I love my children.
B.) Teaching my child my the spiritual truths I know is a basic tenant of Christianity.
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.
The Way That He Should Go
As a father it is my responsibility to lead my family spiritually. A father is the "spiritual leader" of the family and is held accountable by God for making every effort to train a child in the Way of the Lord. The way that he should go.
God designed the family a specific way. Husband, wife, and children. The children need the guidance of the parents. The children do not know what is best for them. They would eat chocolate ice cream and candy and drink coke all day if the parents allowed them to.
I see my children as a blessing from God. They are precious to me and precious to God. God has given me the privilege and responsibility of watching over their souls. The State cannot alleviate that responsibility nor can it forbid me from carrying it out. While teaching a child proper nutritional habits is important, of much greater import is teaching them in the way that they should go in regards to living life. And specifically in regards to God.
God has given the parents the responsibility for "training up a child in the way that he should go." Unfortunately many parents do not train up a child in the way that he should go. I'm not talking about academics. Mathematics, history, language are all important. But "the way that he should go" has to do with how the child should live his life. Many young people are not "raised up", they just "grow up." Without learning the way that they should go.
As a parent it is MY job, not the job of the state, to train up my child in the way that he should go. A key part of this is religious education. Training in the way that he should go. As I understand it. That is my responsibility before God.
Not the way that society thinks he should go. Not the way that the state says he should go but the way that he should go as determined by God. Not Snoopy, Obama, the school teacher. God.
God has revealed his will in the Bible. In the Bible one can find the way that he should go. Yes, there are no specifics, like when to go to the store or what the child must chose as a profession. But the way that he should live his life is there. The way to eternal life is there. The way that he should go.
A child does not know the way that he should go. He must be trained in the way that he should go. If he is not trained in the way that he should go the world will certainly train him in a destructive way. A way that he should not go.
Churches are important. But a church cannot replace Mommy and Daddy in training Junior in the way that he should go. The primary place for training a child in the way that he should go is in the family. That is where God placed it.
To deny a child religious instruction by his parent is to deny a child what a parent is required by God to provide. A vacuum is left unfilled in the child's mind. He is not being trained in the way that he should go. The understanding that he should have has been given has been denied and his view of the world is incomplete and warped by the teachings of the world that are counter to the way that he should go.
Teaching my child about God and what he expects of us and the things he desires for us is laying a solid foundation for the child's life. In a world that teaches that anything goes my child must understand that God does not accept all behavior. Morality is not relative.
If when my child is older he forsakes the way that he should go and lives a destructive life at least I know that I did my best to train him in the way that he should go.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 04:41 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 17:05, 07 Jul 2009.
|
religion does not save your child from the blight he might get or become.
If someone is criminal,he is so by beginning to the end.
A kidd becomes criminal by birth and will die because of his criminality one day.
I dont think a human is pure when he is born,the tracks of criminality go deep into the genes.Thats why when you go and meet someone,try to preserve you gene and dont defile it with someone who had a criminal past or criminal parents.
and btw people,talk is cheap.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 05:11 PM |
|
|
Interesting stories the Jews tell in their OT history:
Numbers 25:1-9
Quote:
And Israel abode in snowtim; and the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab:
for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel.
And Jehovah said unto Moses, Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up unto Jehovah before the sun, that the fierce anger of Jehovah may turn away from Israel.
And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto Baal-peor.
And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.
And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand;
and he went after the man of Israel into the pavilion, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her body. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand
Numbers 31:1-18
Quote:
And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm ye men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute Jehovah's vengeance on Midian.
Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
So there were delivered, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
And Moses sent them, a thousand of every tribe, to the war, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand.
And they warred against Midian, as Jehovah commanded Moses; and they slew every male.
And they slew the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
And the children of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods, they took for a prey.
And all their cities in the places wherein they dwelt, and all their encampments, they burnt with fire.
And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of man and of beast.
And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and unto Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan at Jericho.
And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war.
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Jehovah.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Moreover, Elodin, you are not telling the truth about why Jews at one time and Christians were periodically persecuted within the Roman Empire.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 06:29 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:32, 07 Jul 2009.
|
@ Del_Diablo
I made no claim about the the religion of the average person in China. The People's Republic of China bas atheism as the official state religion. Just like the USSR did.
No, I am not reading anything into JJ's statement. "The fact that there are peaceful believers is just documenting that most "believers" nowadays are agnostics." That clearly implies that most actual believers are not peaceful.
@JJ
Israel was a theocracy. Worship of false gods was not allowed. Sex outside marriage was not allowed. The pagans where having an orgy and the Jew joined in. God judge them.
Oh, and about the Midianites. Did you notice the word avenge? This is a retaliatory strike against the Midianites. A counteroffensive. Of course this is a passage that anti-Christians and anti-Jewish folks like to take out of context so I am well familiar with arguments you may want to present about this passage.
Quote:
Num 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites
You say I am not telling the truth about why Christians were persecuted by Rome. Contrary to your false accusation, I am telling the truth.
Rome was quite happy to adopt new gods into their pantheon. But the concept of only one God undermined Rome because Rome based its right to rule on the claim that Romulus (a false god) had founded Rome. If Romulus did not exist then obviously Rome had no claim for rulership.
And of course the Roman emperor was considered to be a god and some of the Roman emperors insisted on being worshiped.
The fact that Christianity was growing at a very high rate and would not acknowledge more than one God is the primary reason for the persecution. They feared that their power was being undermined because more people were refusing to acknowledge their divine right to rule.
One of the ways Rome sought to undermine Christianity was by making false accusations against them to try to turn the populations against them. Such as saying Christians are canibals by trying to pervert the meaning of communion. Saying Christians were lecherous because they greeted one another with a holy kiss. Ect.
False accusations. A common tactic to smear Christians today.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 06:54 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
China has no state religion. Neither did the USSR.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 07:00 PM |
|
|
A "retaliatory strike" FOR WHAT? For that the Israelites found things with them so good that they joined them in an orgy AND bowed before Baal?
Because that's what the Israelites did:
1) They joined an orgy and
2) They bowed before another god
WILLINGLY and DELIBERATELY.
Second, you are not correct about Rome. Rome had a large Pantheon and when the Emperors starting with Augustus were deified, he and all others after him were just ONE of MANY. Of course the deification was a political move - it had nothing to do with religion at all. The Jews were monotheists as well and as such they did reject the normal Pantheon, which wasn't a problem, though, since the Romans GENERALLY left everyone their gods. The Jews were a local problem, and they didn't recruit - they were prosecuted ONCE - when they were mistaken for Christians.
Christians, however, spread over the whole Empire and converted followers, undermining the stability of the Empire for
a) they indeed rejected EVERY other god, preaching all over the Empire that they were null and void, endangering the political stability, but more importantly
b) were against SLAVERY - the backbone of the Roman economy - and most logically found wide reception among slaves.
In short, the Christian religion seemed to be a danger for the inner structure of the Roman Empire, and when there was trouble breweing and a scapegoat was needed, Christians just came in quite handy. True is, that WHEN they were prosecuted (there were a couple of phases), they were prosecuted under every pretence that was deemed useful - politically, it would have been unwise to tell the real reasons, obviously.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 08:06 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:07, 07 Jul 2009.
|
@JJ
You are getting the two passages you quoted totally confused. They are unrelated.
Num 25 deals with the Moabites. God judged the Jews for worshiping the false gods of the Moabites and the Moabites for corrupting the Jews.
Nub 31 deals with the Midianites. The Midianites were a constant thorn in Israel's side.
Quote:
Jdg 6:6 And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites; and the children of Israel cried unto the LORD.
Errrr. I said the Roman emeperor was one of many "gods" in Rome.
Yes, the Jewish religion was not spreading. Christianity was spreading rapidly, as I said, and they refused to worship the false gods.
But if you are claiming Christianity was mounting an anti-slavery moverment, that is simply not the case. If you have evidence of Christianity mouning an abolitionist movement in ancient Rome before being persecuted, link to it because I have never heard of such a thing.
Christians taught to serve God in whatever lot you found yourslef in in life. To live sacrificially, not insisting on your own rights at the expense of the possibility of winning another to Christ.
Quote:
Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Eph 6:6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
Eph 6:7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
Eph 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
@mvassilev
Clicky
Quote:
During the Soviet period state enforced atheism turned the Bible...into a forbidden book. Anybody who believed in God became an outcast, effectively deniged the right to a higer education and a career.
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/harber/1945/rel01.htm
Quote:
The attitude of the bureaucracy towards the Church has passed through the usual zigzags of Stalinist policy. During the ultra-left period of forcible collectivisation and the Five-Year Plan in Four an attempt was made to liquidate the Church and its influence by government decree. Starting in 1929 churches were forcibly closed and priests arrested and exiled all over the Soviet Union. The celebrated Shrine of the Iberian Virgin in Moscow—esteemed by believers to be the ‘holiest’ in all Russia—was demolished Stalin and his government were not afraid of strengthening religious fanaticism by wounding the feelings of believers as Lenin and Trotsky had been! Religion, they believed, could be liquidated, like the kulak, by a stroke of the pen. The Society of Militant Atheists, under Stalin’s orders, issued on 15 May 1932 the ‘Five-Year Plan of Atheism’—‘by 1 May 1937’, such was the ‘Plan’, ‘not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR, and the very concept of God must be banished from the Soviet Union as a survival of the Middle Ages and an instrument for the oppression of the working masses’
|
| |
|
|
