|
| 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 08, 2009 08:26 PM |
|
|
@Death
They are two different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
____________
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
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:27 PM |
|
|
Yes I know that. What I don't know is why mvass "extends" the definition of antitheism as people use it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:30 PM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:44 PM |
|
|
Elodin gave you a link to "State Atheism" as it is used.
You say that's antitheism.
Why use a different word than other people?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:54 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
I'm going to use a small quote as well:
Quote:
For example, God had had enough of all the child sacrifice
Jehova's Witnesses seem to think otherwise. The ONLY reason they would let their children die, rejecting a blood trasfusion is their interpretation of the Bible and God's will, respectively. As I said in a post before, this implies the idea God would actually want them to sacrifice their children under certain circumstances, which is pretty insane - why would you believe in such a god? Or, to phrase it differently, why would the god they believe in want something like that?
Sacrificing children for a religious belief is quite obviously against any law of any state.
Interestingly enough the atheist-communist countries of Canada and Britain allow overruling BOTH parents AND Child's wishes, in Japan this is so for children up to 15. So it's not just me who sees a slight problm here.
Otherwise I'm rather certain that NO ONE reading your posts would conclude from them that LOVE, Love thy Neighbor and Love thy Enemy might be central concepts of the religion you are supposedly part of. They are not exactly oozing neighbourly love. Which is what I'm saying and have noted so often.
You can command a lot things, but you not command someone to love, but I don't think that you will ever understand that.
Aside of that most of all this is beside the point.
Children and how and what to teach them is the point. I repeat: Parents have the right to teach their children, but the duty and obligation to take care of them. They, since there are adults, are free to do whatever they want FOR THEMSELVES. They can suffer as much as they want, die from an illness, go into exile, put themselves into a cell and throw away the key - that's their right as adults.
However, they CANNOT do the same thing with someone else, and that includes their children. That much should be clear.
However, INFLUENCING them into doing those things voluntarily is at least as bad.
It seems, the more religious people are, the less they trust their children to find the right way, without them - and others - giving them the right pushes. But that's to be expected, I suppose.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 10:42 PM |
|
|
I don't think they want to sacrifice their children. I think they just think that blood transfusion is evil and they'll be saved in some other means.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:00 PM |
|
|
Nah. Don't think, inform yourself. There are certain passages in the Bible that they interpret in a certain way. That way leads them to the conclusion that blood isn't allowed to be transfused (God doesn't want that blood is handled in a certain way).
If it wasn't for the Bible, they would of course not let their children die in such a situation. Which means, in such a situation they let their children die because they believe that the Bible commands blood not to handled that way.
That means, they are prepared to sacrifice their children because of what they believe an ancient book says about what a guy called god wants.
Sacrifice.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:02 PM |
|
|
Death:
Because "state atheism" literally means that the state endorses atheism. Beyond denying the existence of God, it is a rather vague designation. State anti-theism, though, has a different meaning: the state actively opposes theism.
The difference can be illustrated thus:
State atheism: Obama and Congress and the Supreme Court come out and say, "It is the position of the government of the United States that God does not exist." (inb4obamaisaclosetatheist)
State anti-theism: Obama and Congress and the Supreme Court come out and say, "The government of the United States hereby closes all places of worship and forbids the publication of any religious material."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:07 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:11, 08 Jul 2009.
|
@Corribus
You're going to object to the website but it will take you through Madison, Jefferson, various court cases prior to the Supreme Court case and some cases afterwards.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/050820
JJ
Quote:
@ Elodin
I'm going to use a small quote as well:
Quote:
For example, God had had enough of all the child sacrifice
Jehovah's Witnesses seem to think otherwise.
Actually you have totally misapplied what I said. My statement was related to pagans murdering their children in rituals dedicated to pagan gods. God was sick of them killing their kids.
The Jehovah Witnesses are not killing their child as a sacrifice to God in the event that the child happens to need a blood transfusion. It is at best moronic and at wort dishonest to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are offering such a child to God.
Parents have the right to teach their children that there is only one way of salvation and parents and children have a right to live those beliefs. If Jehovah's Witnesses think a blood transfusion would damn their soul they have a right to refuse the transfusion.
It is amazing how you continue to condemn everyone who does not live by your religion but you condemn them when they say their religion is right.
And you seem to be under a misperception that Christians have to speak what you want to hear. Jesus spoke strongly as did the prophets and apostles. Christian are told to speak against what is wrong.
Quote:
Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Of course I didn't let my kids "find their own way totally without me." It would be moronic to throw a kid out in the wilderness and say "Ok, kid, you're on your own now. I hope you find the right way."
Any parent who cares about his child is going to teach his child. And everyone who says he does not teach his child something about God/religion/religious people is a liar. Children learn by your words, attitudes, and deeds. So I have no doubt that some of the anti-theists on this board have kids who hate theists (unless the kids broke free of the hate) and are elitists who think they know more than everyone else all the while condemning every religious person who says they are right.
Please go back and read my post "Why I taught my children my religion" that I made yesterday so you can have some clue about why religious people teach their religion to their kids.
You accuse others of not allowing children to make their own decisions but you don't trust children to make their own decisions. You agreed with the judge forcing the 13 year old boy to undergo chemo even though he did not want to.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:18 PM |
|
|
@mvass: The article says otherwise, and a quick google search also says otherwise. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:21 PM |
|
|
Pagans murdering children? I knew they did some, but was those not infidels children?
And do not forget, your talking about those antic times Christians and Jews also did their massacres and immoralities once on a while back then, just like the others.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:44 PM |
|
|
Death:
The article is wrong, because the suppression of religion has nothing to do with atheism.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:52 PM |
|
|
It's like the words amoral and immoral. Amoral means lack of morals, while immoral means going against morals. the same goes for atheism and anti-theism. I just felt like adding said comparison to the discussion.
EDIT: it's basic latin, really
ab means : missing or away from
anti means: against
im- in front of a word usually means the opposite of that word and immo means on the contrary. Okay, that last bit is not-so-basic latin...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 12:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
suppression of religion has nothing to do with atheism.
Of course it does. A christian won't suppress religion.
Only an atheist can be an anti theist. Of course, not all atheists are anti theists.
Just like only a Muslim can call for a Jihad, but not all Muslims support violence.
____________
"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 09, 2009 12:56 AM |
|
|
Ok, back to my question. The reason I ask is that a lot of things we teach our children have the potential to harm them. Just because something can be harmful, we should not teach them it? Guess there goes walking, driving, and a whole lot of things. I mean it is our duty to protect our children from all possible harm right?
Now before you start saying..but that is different. I personally agree that there is a difference. However, just because something has potential for harm should not mean it can never be taught.
You also have never really answered the question I posed Elodin. What makes YOUR belief superior to others? What gives you the right to decide what everybody should learn?
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 01:16 AM |
|
|
If Elodin says his religion is superior, I disagree with him, but then so I disagree with the "Life Religion" or "Church of Life" as some put it (like Dagoth in the other thread), because it does the same thing, it says it's superior. (aka people should be taught and even forced/brainwashed (else they're mentally ill or so it goes) that life is a good thing and is the most important thing)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 01:17 AM |
|
|
Mytical, I think we have a responsibility to teach our children about things that can be harmful to them if maltreated. I said this in my post a few pages ago. More importantly, we need to teach our children how to avoid maltreating those things to protect them from harm.
____________
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
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:28 AM |
|
|
Mystical
Quote:
You also have never really answered the question I posed Elodin. What makes YOUR belief superior to others? What gives you the right to decide what everybody should learn?
I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT EVERYBODY SHOULD LEARN. If you claim I have, link to the quote.
I said parents should teach their children their own religion. I will teach my children my religion. You teach your children yours.
You seem to be changing your question unless I missed some question you have asked. I answered your first question which was:
Quote:
Mystical
Quote:
Why should we disbelieve one person's claim that they are following God's 'Ultimate Truth' (to kill, harm, etc) and then believe another person who claims the same thing (to spread the word of peace and love)?.
Now I will address your current question.
I am not superior to other people.
I have nver said "my beliefs are superior to your beliefs."
I do say Jesus Christ is the one true God existing as a man. He is the human manifestation of God. He died for my sins (as a man.) He rose from the dead in a glorified human body, ascended to heaven, and sits on the throne of God. He is both a glorified human being and the one true God. The Lamb of God and God. The Son and the Father. A man and the Spirit.
In my own limited human intellect I cannot "ascend to" the things of God. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Revealed by the Spirit of God. This is what Jesus meant by:
Quote:
Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jesus was in heaven (as the Spirit) at the same time that he was discussing being born again while on earth (as a man). Jesus is the one mediator between God and man because he is both God and man.
40 days after he ascended to heaven he poured our his Spirit on his disciples on the day of Pentecost. Jesus is still pouring out his Spirit today.
I have received the Spirit of God. I am one of "those crazy Pentecostals" who speaks in tongues. I know Jesus is Lord (God) because he lives in me.
Whether or not Jesus is God is not an academic exercise to me. It is a truth that God stirred in my heart (revealed.) I submitted to him and received his Spirit.
I am not superior to anyone. I am a human being in need of God's mercy like all other people.
My beliefs are true because they are true. Not because I am in any way superior to any other person. I know they are true because of the revelations of God not because of my own limited human intellect.
Yes, I do say my beliefs are true. But I am not superior to other human beings.
It is obvious that both Christianity and atheism can't be true.
5=5.
I don't condemn anyone for not holding to my beliefs. Each person should diligently seek the truth and live what he believes.
I would never seek to undermine a parent's authority/responsibility to teach his child his religion.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 09:15 AM |
|
|
I'm getting really tired of repeating the same thing over and over again, but since I've seen no post actually admitting to it, it seems to be necessary.
Does everyone accept the basic principle of living together in a society, that it's a major difference what you do to yourself and what you do to others? (And, Death, that applies to Docs and suicide as well.)
Example: You can take a cleaver, hack a finger off of your hand and sacrifice it on the little personal altar in your cellar or preserve it as a back-scratcher - no one will care AS LONG AS YOU ARE AN ADULT (if you are a child or youth people will wonder and ask themselves what your parents may have done to you).
Now try this to do with others and you'll get a problem. A massive one. Try to do it with children and people will probably tear the rest of your fingers violently out of your hands.
Now, what if you run around preaching, finger-hacking will buy you a fine house - a place - in your third afterlife? The answer is immediately obvious. If there are in fact adults who believe your preachings, well, there is no end to the stupidity of man, isn't there? It's their fingers, after all, so what?
And what about the children? What if you preach it, giving away nice little balloons and small playhouses that look like the fine house their fingers will buy them, and some sweets? Do we have to protect the children from falling for this? ABSOLUTELY! Or don't you think?
And what about the children of the finger-hacker? Is it their personal bad luck to be born as the children of a complete nutcase? No, of course not. We have to protect them as well, otherwise we betray what society actually means, because we fail those who need our protection dearest.
We try to protect our children by teaching them that they have to be careful what they believe, when people tell them something, and when we do that well, as adults they won't fall for the finger-hacker either...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose we wouldn't know about Jehova's Witnesses and you'd just hear the story:
"There was that boy, 9, had an accident. Parents didn't allow blood transfusion, boy's last words were, no blood transfusion. Boy died." What would you think? Probably you'd either curse the parents, for letting their son die and wish for them to rot in some dark cell, or you'd think, probably religious nutcases which is telling.
Now, if the parents afterwards said something like, well, to tell the truth, our boy was developing quire disturbing habits and we took the chance to get rid of him - or anything else along those lines -, they would be tried, obviously.
However, if they say, our church doesn't allow blood transfusion, it would have damned his soul, it's something completely different.
They let him die IN GOOD FAITH, wanting only the best for him - and he (already) believed that as well, so everything is fine. Or isn't it?
Before we follow this path further, let's keep something in mind: we are, technically, here, when we are talking about this case: people are doing things to other people/teaching things to their children, that is, the area where society has the duty to watch over children and for nutcases.
What are the reasons why we should respect the decision? While the followers of another religion would disagree with the actual decision, they would respect it because they want the same tolerance with their "special rites" - either that or it would be war about what is right and what not, and we had that ad infinitum.
But where are the limits? It's obviously possible to believe in satan as well. What if a child is taught that his role in this world is to be sacrificed for the good of all followers and his own, since he'll sit right next to the big boss after his death, and that child then willingly takes that role because it believes his parents?
What if children are taught that they will sit right next to the big boss when they kill the enemies of the big boss?
What if children are taught that there are witches and demons and that you have to find the witches and demons and that it's better to kill those posessed by them in certain ways to save their immortal souls than letting them live and be damned?
What if children are taught that they will go to hell should they find themselves unseemly attracted to their own gender and follow that attraction, unrepentingly, and everyone else who does so as well?
What if children are taught that god is filled with overflowing love for all humans and will therefore send everyone into eternal suffering who, unrepentingly, doesn't follow his orders?
What if children are taught, that if they eat the brains of their enemies they will get their strengths?
So, it seems to be fairly obvious that there must be limits.
BACK TO THE EXAMPLE WITH THE NUTCASE!!!
The limits haven't changed - they are still the same: as soon as another person is involved, people are allowed no force; as soon as children are involved, teachings must not be harmful, immortal soul or not.
Now the religious people will protest at this point and put in a big BUT. BUT there is nothing more important than the immortal soul.
And I would answer them: Do you take your one and only god who supposedly made everything and made everything fine, for a complete and utter fool? Do you really believe that this god would allow the fate of this immortal soul to be determined by any 3rd person, maybe even by ILL-WILLING 3rd persons like commie-atheists or worse? What would we think about a father who'd trust his little son with the task to keep the fire in the hearth burning while he's away, and upon coming home and finding him lying on the floor, shackled by some robbers, and the fire out he would exile him from the house because he didn't fulfill his task? We might think different things about the why and how, but I suppose we'd all agree that the father was unjust.
However, that is true the other way round as well. Do you take this god for a complete fool that he wouldn't notice when a child has been goaded into believing and never had any CHOICE?
It does seem so. It does seem so that many people seem to think that god is something like a sorting machine, like that for mail. Look at the address, check the stamp, paid enough, destination heaven. Underpaid, undeliverable, wait in hell, eternally.
Or is it the concern for the immortal soul of the parents themselves? After all, god commands to teach them everything about him, doesn't he? Of course he does. But would he want the parents to teach their children that he's a complete and utter fool? No? Then why are they doing it (see above)?
It amounts to fear and missing trust: don't think about things and if in doubt follow the respective holy book to the letter. But that seems to be surprisingly difficult considering how many different interpretations there are when you look at the churches and splinter groups and sects and whatnot.
If you are prepared to sacrifice the life of one of your children, you should be DEAD sure that it is the right thing to do, because if you are NOT, then you just killed your child, and I doubt that Jehova would look kindly on child-murdering - if he did, it wouldn't make things better, obviously. If you consider the fact that there ARE different interpretations, actually, and that the pov of the Witnesses isn't without contradiction or changes in the course of the years, it's clear that DEAD SURE looks different: if you forbid something now, but losen things later, what will the parents say who DID sacrifice a child under the harder restrictions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I repeat, that in Britain, Canada and Japan the DOCS can overrule parents AND child. There, if a life depends on a blood transfusion, but the parents and the child won't allow it, they can STILL do it, and in urgent cases they don't even need a warrant.
Which is as it should be: the grown-ups can throw away their own life for the good of their immortal soul as they see fit, but if they want to do it with those who depend on them, their care, and their guidance, in the name of who- and whateever they have to be stopped.
I trust that the majority of people isn't prepared anymore to accept cruelty as a major trait of their gods, and if it is so that's indeed proof that humanity is progressing.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 10:08 AM |
|
|
@ Elodin
May I remind you of the main rule of this thread?
 No quotes!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
| |
|
|
