Religion is "child abuse" ??

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

mohawk wrote: »

What form would atheist indoctrination take?

There was a thread here a couple of days ago about a mother not wanting her child to enter a nativity play and the child may feel left out etc.

mohawk wrote: »

All the atheists that I know personally grew up in christian homes. We all arrived at our current beliefs over a number of years. Who am I to force a belief onto my child? A child has its own journey in life to go through and they will arrive at their own beliefs.

I cannot say with 100% certainty that there is no god. If there is a god I also cannot say with any certainty which god is true. I will have to be honest with my child and I have no intention of saying there is no god end of discussion.

There is a vast difference between indoctrination of beliefs and sharing them with a child. I don't think that sharing your beliefs counts as child abuse as if the child is happy to go along with it they won't suffer any lasting upset. On the other hand forcing beliefs onto a child could be damaging to a child long term.

+ 100

I totally agree and I think most Christians (in modern Ireland) dont force their beliefs on children and when they do it is wrong just as it is wrong for an atheist to force their beliefs on a child (which I believe is also rare)

However the real argument here seems to be on what does forcing beliefs - for example if you bring a child to mass are you forcing beliefs on him?

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

It's in the catechism.

So its the Churchs teachings and not Jesus' ?

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)


"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,(Matthew 19:4 NIV)

Both of these are quotes from Jesus.
He also said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6)

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3)

Funnily enough, I posted essentially this exact same post to you before in a different thread, and you didn't respond to it then. I shouldn't get my hopes up I suppose

OK the issue of “literalism” is quite distinct from that of the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Jesus plainly believed that the Old Testament was both inspired and authoritative – he did not believe that it merely had some nice stories and some inspirational bits (like Aesop’s fables or The Lord of the Rings). But to believe that something is inspired and accurate need not imply one takes it literally. Thus eg we may believe that John was absolutely accurate and inspired in recording that Jesus said “I am the vine” (John 15:1) – but this does not mean that we take it literally. Jesus definitely believed the whole Old Testament (his Bible) was inspired, but he did not neccessarily take it literally?

Genesis 1 pictures God as resting on the seventh day, though every Jew knew that God actually never wearies or needs rest (Isaiah 40:28). But did Jesus think it meant God rested for a day and then, perhaps, did something else? No. Jesus said God still is still working “even until now” though this was effectively in God’s “Sabbath”, so it is therefore not a literal day (John 5:17). So if Jesus did not take the seventh “day” of Genesis ch 1 as literal, why should the other “days” be literal?

Jesus, also, plainly said “God is spirit” (John 4:24), and was well aware as a Jew that it was because they had seen no form for God (Deut 4:17) that no graven image of a human could be made to represent God. No Jew would have taken literally the picture of God walking noisily in the garden unable to locate Adam and Eve (Gen 3:8-9)

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

eating your god.

Theophagy.

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

But cant they be indoctrinated into believing the atheist point of view just as easily?

Definitely.
And that would be just as condemnable in my book.
Anybody who witholds information and education from children with the view of bringing them up within a biased ideology is not acting in the child's interest, and, depending on the form this upbringing takes, commits child abuse.

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

Catholics may interpret Genesis in a non-literal manner so long as the interpretation is faithful to Church Teaching.

And the Church teaching is that Adam and Eve were real people.

So you can fit Genesis into evolution and old Earth theory and all that. A lot of Christians believe Adam and Eve were the first humans given souls by God rather than literally created by God after a week of creation.

But you have to think they existed because their existence is important for Jesus' claimed ancestry and to Jesus referencing Adam as a historical figure.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Wicknight wrote: »

And the Church teaching is that Adam and Eve were real people.

So you can fit Genesis into evolution and old Earth theory and all that. A lot of Christians believe Adam and Eve were the first humans given souls by God rather than literally created by God after a week of creation.

But you have to think they existed because their existence is important for Jesus' claimed ancestry and to Jesus referencing Adam as a historical figure.

I explain this in more detail up round 4 posts above this one

post #184

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

OK the issue of “literalism” is quite distinct from that of the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Jesus plainly believed that the Old Testament was both inspired and authoritative – he did not believe that it merely had some nice stories and some inspirational bits (like Aesop’s fables or The Lord of the Rings). But to believe that something is inspired and accurate need not imply one takes it literally. Thus eg we may believe that John was absolutely accurate and inspired in recording that Jesus said “I am the vine” (John 15:1) – but this does not mean that we take it literally. Jesus definitely believed the whole Old Testament (his Bible) was inspired, but he did not neccessarily take it literally?

OK, so before I get into the rest of this, just to check, do you accept the authority of the OT? Do you accept all of its laws and rules, as Jesus says you are supposed to?

Des Carter wrote: »

Genesis 1 pictures God as resting on the seventh day, though every Jew knew that God actually never wearies or needs rest (Isaiah 40:28). But did Jesus think it meant God rested for a day and then, perhaps, did something else? No. Jesus said God still is still working “even until now” though this was effectively in God’s “Sabbath”, so it is therefore not a literal day (John 5:17). So if Jesus did not take the seventh “day” of Genesis ch 1 as literal, why should the other “days” be literal?

All you have done is shown a contradiction in the bible. This contradiction just indicates that an objective observer shouldn't take the whole thing as literal, it doesn't actually indicate that Jesus didn't take the OT as literal, just that he messed up some things.

Des Carter wrote: »

Jesus, also, plainly said “God is spirit” (John 4:24), and was well aware as a Jew that it was because they had seen no form for God (Deut 4:17) that no graven image of a human could be made to represent God. No Jew would have taken literally the picture of God walking noisily in the garden unable to locate Adam and Eve (Gen 3:8-9)

Not to mention the theological conundrum of a god who couldn't immediately find something he was looking for. Same as above though. These contradictions only serve to make an objective observer skeptical about taking the whole bible as literal, not skeptical as to wether or Jesus took the OT as literal.

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

I explain this in more detail up round 4 posts above this one

post #184

You said nothing at all in that post about wether or not Adam and Eve actually existed and what that would mean for Jesus' claimed ancestory.

gbee

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Wicknight wrote: »

And the Church teaching is that Adam and Eve were real people.

They did at one time and then changed their minds on it.

Now, ironically, genetics is suggesting that we had an 'Eve' gene and an 'Adam' gene even though they lived thousands of years apart and never met, describing this in a simple form to a child, could offer some support for the churches story.

In my case I was stunned, now I had a difficult time with religion from the very beginning, I thought it was a load of waffle, but I was a kid and in my childhood we could get a few physical belts and the strap and the wooden spoon [and this was normal and not the viscous child abuse that was also going on, but I never encountered that].

However, I'm making a long story into an epic, I, like most children, believed because I was forced to, I was in school when they dumped poor Adam and Eve and I was actually laughed at in class in front of my peers for believing in such nonsence.

This was by the very priest who had forced this idea into my brain and now he was calling it nonsence and it raised the question of the infallibility of the POPE.

I was off from there on, never had been convinced anyway, but believed, I mean my parents would not lie to me and my teachers and priests and so on, so I thought I was a freak and it came as a terrible shock that the Church would change its ideas overnight but then insist it was all a stupid idea ... hmmmm ..... was it so? Then ... come 'ere a while I want ye!

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Wicknight wrote: »

And the Church teaching is that Adam and Eve were real people.

No it isnt!

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

OK, so before I get into the rest of this, just to check, do you accept the authority of the OT? Do you accept all of its laws and rules, as Jesus says you are supposed to?

I believe in the majority of its teachings and morals etc but i do not know it off so I cant be sure.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All you have done is shown a contradiction in the bible. This contradiction just indicates that an objective observer shouldn't take the whole thing as literal, it doesn't actually indicate that Jesus didn't take the OT as literal, just that he messed up some things.


Not to mention the theological conundrum of a god who couldn't immediately find something he was looking for. Same as above though. These contradictions only serve to make an objective observer skeptical about taking the whole bible as literal, not skeptical as to wether or Jesus took the OT as literal.

If Jesus = God then he wouldnt "mess up some things" and if he doesnt take the Old Testament as literal then we shouldnt either however he does say it was divinely inspired.

Now Jesus = God and it is common knowledge that Jesus often taught through parables and symbols and so if God used these in the New Testament surely he would have used them in the Old!

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

So its the Churchs teachings and not Jesus' ?

Mark 3:28-30

"Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men and blasphemies, however they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation"; because they said, "He hath an unclean spirit."

Matthew 12:30-32

"He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad. Therefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Luke 12:8-10

And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God. And every one who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

Mark 3:28-30

"Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men and blasphemies, however they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation"; because they said, "He hath an unclean spirit."

Matthew 12:30-32

"He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad. Therefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Luke 12:8-10

And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God. And every one who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven.

Wow I guess your all pretty screwed then! :cool:

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

Wow I guess your all pretty screwed then! :cool:

So, any real comment on how it ties into child abuse like I mentioned previously? Or are you just going to skip over that?

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

I guess your all pretty screwed then! :cool:

On a mod note, Improbable's right to pull you up on your evasion.

You're doing your cause no good by closing your eyes and ears to important questions.

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

I believe in the majority of its teachings and morals etc but i do not know it off so I cant be sure.

You should know it off, you said before you follow Jesus' teachings and he said to follow it all, so you should follow it all.
How do you feel anout homosexuals? Slaves? Disobedient children?

Des Carter wrote: »

If Jesus = God then he wouldnt "mess up some things" and if he doesnt take the Old Testament as literal then we shouldnt either however he does say it was divinely inspired.

Now Jesus = God and it is common knowledge that Jesus often taught through parables and symbols and so if God used these in the New Testament surely he would have used them in the Old!

How do you tell the difference between Jesus being god and considering the OT to be (at least partially) metaphorical, and Jesus being human and forgetting the specifics of the OT (hence the contradictions)?
Nothing you have said contradicts the idea that Jesus took the OT as literal, but inadvertently contradicted it with his own subsequent teachings.
Even if you assume Jesus = God, how can you tell which parts of the OT you are supposed to take as literal and which you dont?

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

Mark 3:28-30

"Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men and blasphemies, however they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation"; because they said, "He hath an unclean spirit."

Matthew 12:30-32

"He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad. Therefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Luke 12:8-10

And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God. And every one who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven.

Ok unlike the vast majority on this forum (both atheists and christians) Ill admit when Im wrong. Now as for this I do not believe this teaching as the idea that a catholic murderer and rapist has a better chance of going to heaven than an Atheist/hindu/etc who lives a good life but happens to be brought up in the wrong religion is ridiculous.

So i can only assume that Jesus did not mean it literally.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok unlike the vast majority on this forum (both atheists and christians) Ill admit when Im wrong. Now as for this I do not believe this teaching as the idea that a catholic murderer and rapist has a better chance of going to heaven than an Atheist/hindu/etc who lives a good life but happens to be brought up in the wrong religion is ridiculous.

So i can only assume that Jesus did not mean it literally.

Well that's refereshing... To me, that seems pretty clear cut, there is no equivocating if you look at the quotes closely. But what would your metaphorical interpretation be? Also, I think you're still kind of avoiding the question about whether teaching/not teaching this to your children is child abuse, (depending on your own beliefs).

Dades

Des Carter wrote: »

So i can only assume that Jesus did not mean it literally.

Wouldn't it be great in real life if you could assume any law, regulation or rule you didn't like was metaphorical?

"I'm sorry Garda, the 60kph limit on this road is so inconsistent with my world-view, I assumed it wasn't meant to be literal!"

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok unlike the vast majority on this forum (both atheists and christians) Ill admit when Im wrong. Now as for this I do not believe this teaching as the idea that a catholic murderer and rapist has a better chance of going to heaven than an Atheist/hindu/etc who lives a good life but happens to be brought up in the wrong religion is ridiculous.

So i can only assume that Jesus did not mean it literally.

Do you not see what you are doing here though? You are not living your live according to Jesus' morals. You are living your live according to your own morals, and simply only referencing the teachings of Jesus that agree with your own morals, and explaining away those that dont as having to be literal.

In a way this is a good thing, you dont just blindly follow what you read in the bible and your own morals and sense will overide what you read when you recognise the nastiness it proposes.
Of course, in another way its just crazy that you dont recognise that you being good and moral has bugger all to do with what you think Jesus says and more to do with you having an idea what is good and bad anyway.
You dont need Jesus' teachings to justify your own moral beliefs at all, as your own preconcieved morals will overide any teachings you dont like and label them as literal anyway.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You should know it off, you said before you follow Jesus' teachings and he said to follow it all, so you should follow it all.

As you Atheists often point out the NT was written many years after Jesus died and so many of Jesus' teachings were forgotten/not mentioned. Also the Church heavily edited and censored the Bible to push their agendas and so left out a lot of important details etc so it is impossible to follow all of Jesus' teachings

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How do you feel anout homosexuals? Slaves? Disobedient children?

When did Jesus say gays are evil/going to hell
When did he condone slavery?
and what have disobediant children got to do with anything?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How do you tell the difference between Jesus being god and considering the OT to be (at least partially) metaphorical, and Jesus being human and forgetting the specifics of the OT (hence the contradictions)?
Nothing you have said contradicts the idea that Jesus took the OT as literal, but inadvertently contradicted it with his own subsequent teachings.
Even if you assume Jesus = God, how can you tell which parts of the OT you are supposed to take as literal and which you dont?

all I am saying is that we dont know if Jesus took the OT to be literal or not as he never says and so it is a strong possibility as he often taught in parables. As for which parts are metaphorical I guess it comes down to common sense and rational thought.

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Dades wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great in real life if you could assume any law, regulation or rule you didn't like was metaphorical?

Reminds me of one relative who (a) received a message from god to the effect that she could drive at whatever speed she liked because the law didn't apply to her when she was on god's business (which was most of the time) and (b) had a heavenly insurance policy that would protect her against road accidents (and it certainly did, right up to the point when this relative took the side out of somebody's car driving into town one day).

BTW, lest the forum think I'm making these blood-curdling stories up, I can assure yiz all that I'm not

gbee

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Dades wrote: »

"I'm sorry Garda, the 60kph limit on this road is so inconsistent with my world-view, I assumed it wasn't meant to be literal!"

Poor example in actual fact, we have East Europeans and Nigerian doing exactly this on our roads with impunity ~ *** partly based on their religious views.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

gbee wrote: »

Cú giobach;
Parents want the best for their kids and taking the chance of "damming them to hell" in the event of premature death would be inexcusable.

It's only inexcusable if you believe in that rubbish.

Exactly my point.
Because of the very nature of religion it would be virtually impossible for a parent (especially someone with "fundamental" beliefs) not to pass on their religion whatever that is.
That would include all aspects of said religion, whether moral or not to someone outside or to the wider world.
It's a total f*ck up.

iguana

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

gbee wrote: »

Now, ironically, genetics is suggesting that we had an 'Eve' gene and an 'Adam' gene even though they lived thousands of years apart and never met, describing this in a simple form to a child, could offer some support for the churches story.

Not really. What scientists have found is the remains of a man that all people on earth are believed to have descended from patrilineally. Our most recent common ancestor. And a woman that all people on earth are believed to have descended from matrilineally due to our shared mitochondrial DNA. She is our most recent female common ancestor.

Scientists have called these two people Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve as a reference to the book of Genisis. It's just a bit of a joke based on the most popular creation myth not any actual admission of their existence. And "Adam" was anywhere between 50,000 and 80,000 years younger than "Eve."

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Still waiting on an answer Des.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you not see what you are doing here though? You are not living your live according to Jesus' morals. You are living your live according to your own morals, and simply only referencing the teachings of Jesus that agree with your own morals, and explaining away those that dont as having to be literal.

In a way this is a good thing, you dont just blindly follow what you read in the bible and your own morals and sense will overide what you read when you recognise the nastiness it proposes.
Of course, in another way its just crazy that you dont recognise that you being good and moral has bugger all to do with what you think Jesus says and more to do with you having an idea what is good and bad anyway.
You dont need Jesus' teachings to justify your own moral beliefs at all, as your own preconcieved morals will overide any teachings you dont like and label them as literal anyway.

Ok I guess I agree to some extent and I do not know if a God does exist but I think most would agree that Jesus taught a lot of good stuff in terms of how to live a good life. He also done the whole pick and choose thing when he healed the buck on the Sabbath and the Pharasees were like you broke a rule so you dont follow God as yournot allowed work on the Sabbath so he admits himself that there are exceptions to these rules. So if you look at Jesus as a moral compass so to speak your not going to live a bad life (for the most part).

Marcus.Aurelius

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok I guess I agree to some extent and I do not know if a God does exist but I think most would agree that Jesus taught a lot of good stuff in terms of how to live a good life.

He also done the whole pick and choose thing when he healed the buck on the Sabbath and the Pharasees were like you broke a rule so you dont follow God as yournot allowed work on the Sabbath so he admits himself that there are exceptions to these rules. So if you look at Jesus as a moral compass so to speak your not going to live a bad life (for the most part).

Jesus sends demons into pigs, then sends the pigs off a cliff
Some poor dude lost his bacon. This was bacon he probably worked very hard for. Imagine you are a poor pig farmer looking forward to having ham with your eggs when out of the blue a guy comes along and runs your flock off a cliff. To add insult to injury, he then claims they were possessed by demons. He also brings twelve guys with him in case you decide to get stroppy.

Jesus lies about prayer
This is a dirty lie. Just last night I prayed for a Ferrari. When I woke up this morning my garage was still empty. Jesus clearly states in the bible “Ask and ye shall receive.” If any of the readers here happen to run across this Jesus fellow in your daily travels, please let him know I got jipped. I also never received the harem of lesbians I asked for two years ago. I need these things.

Jesus kills a fig tree
Jesus must have hated farmers with a passion. Someone should have told him that one can not just go around destroying other peoples stuff. Imagine again that you are a farmer with a fig tree. Some asshat comes along and kills your tree because it is not bearing fruit, even though it is not the right season for it to bear said fruit. No wonder this guy was crucified.

Jesus broke up families
Jesus stated in the book of Mathew “lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine.” This sounds like something a pimp would tell one of his hoes. It also brings forth an interesting further issue:

Jesus was an attention whore
What the hell did he do that was so good as to merit such adoration? At that point, he hadn’t yet “died for our sins” nor was it ever insinuated that he was actually the creator of everything. Why should anyone love him? All he ever did was run around breaking other peoples stuff.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

Well that's refereshing... To me, that seems pretty clear cut, there is no equivocating if you look at the quotes closely. But what would your metaphorical interpretation be?

Again I can only guess and I have my own opinions I mean maybe Im wrong and God is really an evil pr!ck.

Improbable wrote: »

Also, I think you're still kind of avoiding the question about whether teaching/not teaching this to your children is child abuse, (depending on your own beliefs).

If you go into that much detail with your kid then your more than likely going to be one of those psycho Christians which enforce all the extreme views and not teach them alternatives and so yes that wold not be good.

does that answer your question?