Should teaching children extreme religious belief be tolerated

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, so just ignore all those differences and construct a nice strawman instead.

Wicknight made the generalisation that self-loathing is part and parcel of Christianity. That was untrue - and you dancing around making snide remarks about cults, translations and contradictions won't make it true.

PDN. I am genuinely waiting for enlightenment as to how and where i constructed a strawman when mentioning that The Bible has been through many translations, that different strands of Christianity contradict each other and as to why calling christianity a cult is wrong.
I may be stretching the cult thing there but really the only difference between a religion and a cult is scale. But I dont see your point on the translations and contradictions. Enlighten me please.

As an aside :
Is there a name for falsely accusing an argument as being a straw man when it is not and then using this false accusation in the self same argument.
Strawman + ?
Strawman x 2 ?
Anyone?

PDN

Ghost Buster wrote: »

PDN. I am genuinely waiting for enlightenment as to how and where i constructed a strawman when mentioning that The Bible has been through many translations, that different strands of Christianity contradict each other and as to why calling christianity a cult is wrong.
I may be stretching the cult thing there but really the only difference between a religion and a cult is scale. But I dont see your point on the translations and contradictions. Enlighten me please.

As an aside :
Is there a name for falsely accusing an argument as being a straw man when it is not and then using this false accusation in the self same argument.
Strawman + ?
Strawman x 2 ?
Anyone?

I didn't accuse you of constructing a strawman.

I said that Wicknight constructed a strawman by making a blanket generalization about Christianity in general based on characteristics of a sub-section within Christianity.

When you started going on about Bible translations etc. then I responded that your point was irrelevant. Wicknight's argument, in ignoring the differences between different forms of Christianity, was still a strawman.

Also, I didn't say that calling a Christianity a cult was wrong, nor am I offended at it. You can do so in capital letters if you wish which, even if they are ten foot high letters, won't offend me at all (but they will get you a thanks from a kindred spirit). I do think you probably used the word 'cult' as an attempt at provocation. It didn't work, because I'm well used to it. If I point out an untruthful statement on this forum then it's a fair bet that some posters will do everything they can to change the subject, move the goal posts, or throw a few snide remarks and insults around.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So hang on, because I believe that one particular expression of sexuality (sexual acts between people of the same sex) is incompatible with Christianity then that justifies Wicknight's blanket assertions about Christianity and sexuality in general?

Are there any editions of christianity which encourage the belief that gay sex is perfectly normal?

PDN wrote: »

And just how does this justify his claim that self-loathing is part and parcel of Christianity?

I'd have thought it was really quite obvious.

Christian prelates preach that having gay sex is morally wrong and that the desire for gay sex is, in broad terms, "unnatural". For that section of the population who are gay and christian, it's therefore quite easy to see how their requirement to believe what religious preachers want them to believe causes self-loathing. How can it not?

Not to mention biblically-derived prohibitions on **** (well, on one's own anyway), certain kinds of sex outside marriage (strangely, not all). But weirdest of all, no prohibition for hetero people of the kinds of sex enjoyed by homosexuals -- I've yet to hear a christian preacher lecture people about the moral depravity of hetero anal sex, for example, though I'm sure plenty have.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If I point out an untruthful statement on this forum then it's a fair bet that some posters will do everything they can to change the subject, move the goal posts,

There is significantly less goal-post shifting going on in this forum than in certain other forums in our joint corner of baords.ie

MorganG831

It depends if the kid wants to be taught that way?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Are there any editions of christianity which encourage the belief that gay sex is perfectly normal?I'd have thought it was really quite obvious.

Unfortunately what you think is obvious is not very convincing.

Yes, there are forms of Christianity that think gay sex is perfectly normal. The Church of Sweden and the Metropolitan Churches in the US are examples. I think they're wrong - but then they probably think the same about a lot of what I believe.

Christian prelates preach that having gay sex is morally wrong and that the desire for gay sex is, in broad terms, "unnatural". For that section of the population who are gay and christian, it's therefore quite easy to see how their requirement to believe what religious preachers want them to believe causes self-loathing. How can it not?

Again, you are muddying the waters by making generalisations about the whole based on the views of a subsection of Christianity.

I don't think that the desire for gay sex is unnatural. I think it's just as natural as the desire I might have for Olivia Wilde.


Where does the self-loathing come in to it? I don't loathe myself for finding Olivia attractive, but I do recognise that it would be wrong of me to act upon the desire and have a relationship with her (probably not a dilemma I'm likely to encounter unless she's struck by blindness).

You guys seem to have a funny idea that having boundaries as to what constitutes moral behavious must inevitably result in self-loathing. I'm not sure what that says about you.

Not to mention biblically-derived prohibitions on **** (well, on one's own anyway)

Again, I'm not sure what you're basing this inaccurate generalisation on.

But weirdest of all, no prohibition for hetero people of the kinds of sex enjoyed by homosexuals -- I've yet to hear a christian preacher lecture people about the moral depravity of hetero anal sex, for example, though I'm sure plenty have.

I've heard some. But, again, it would be wrong to generalise. It might not be my cup of tea (I hate washing poo off the bedsheets) but I don't see what harm there would be if a man and a wife find that floats their boats.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

There is significantly less goal-post shifting going on in this forum than in certain other forums in our joint corner of baords.ie

Thank you for demonstrating the truth of what I said to Ghostbuster.

Now, back to Wicknight's false generalisation?

Turtwig

PDN wrote:

Of course we're flawed. No-one in their right mind would pretend otherwise.

This curious phrase just struck out at me. On what basis are you making the claim that humans are flawed is obvious. I guess I'm not of the right mind, but to me it seems like a very large assumption to make.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

This curious phrase just struck out at me. On what basis are you making the claim that humans are flawed is obvious. I guess I'm not of the right mind, but to me it seems like a very large assumption to make.

Look at the way we've cocked up the planet. We've turned a beautiful ecosystem into a dump.

Read a history book. We've spent thousands of years fighting, killing and oppressing each others.

We've taken our wonderful ability to develop tools and used it to fashion increasingly effective tools for killing or inflicting pain on each other.

Of course there's a lot of stuff that we can proud of too - but I fail to see how anyone can look back over human history and deny that we are flawed.

eyescreamcone

Maybe if we insisted on the proper and complete teaching of evolution in our schools - children would see that all the god stuff is panto.

We are not special.
We are just animals like all the others on the planet.
Thus, no souls etc.

We were not made in any one's image.
If we were, he must be dissapointed as we continually EVOLVE.

All religions are based on fictional stories.

These are the facts.
As more facts are found this class will be updated.

Class over.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It does in the movement of which I am a part of.

I think if you were prepared to be genuine about it you would find it is.

PDN wrote: »

After all, What I'm saying can't be valid if it contradicts your stereotype, can it?

Given that you seem to have fallen into your usual knee-jerk say anything to contradict Wicknight mode I'm taking everything you say with a pinch of salt as I'm not even assuming at this stage that you yourself believe it. The example of sex being "best enjoyed" in marriage being a good example, as if God's instructions are sex were just tips on how to have a more fulfilling sex life, rather than instructions on how to avoid sin.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, but that is not what you claimed.

Yes actually, it is what I claimed

Christianity teaches people to feel bad about normal sexual impulses, to feel that these are bad and unhealthy unless they are done in a very specific context that allows Christianity to control reproduction.

Again you misrepresent your own religion with your notion that God's instructions on sex are simply tips on how to do it better, rather than instructions on what is morally correct or wrong.

Sex outside of marriage is morally wrong according to all mainstream branches of Christianity, to desire sex outside of marriage is to desire something that is morally wrong.

I don't know about you but most people when they feel they are desiring to do something that is wrong feel bad about it. :rolleyes:

You can say you believe there is nothing wrong with the desire to fornicate but (as part of your PR spin) you conveniently leave out the so long as you don't do anything about it bit.

PDN wrote: »

I believe that the right environment to act on those feelings is through a process of courtship and marriage.

You believe more than than PDN, you believe that to act on these feelings in the "wrong" environment is immoral and a sin against God.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I think it's just as natural as the desire I might have for Olivia Wilde.

Where does the self-loathing come in to it? I don't loathe myself for finding Olivia attractive, but I do recognise that it would be wrong of me to act upon the desire and have a relationship with her (probably not a dilemma I'm likely to encounter unless she's struck by blindness).

You just answered your own question. Even if you weren't married Christianity teaches that what you desire to do (a desire to have sexual relations with Olivia Wilde) is wrong unless you are married to her and should not be acted upon.

You are saying there is nothing wrong with you wanting to have sex with her so long as you don't have sex with her because doing it is wrong.

This is typical Christian double speak.

If it is wrong to have sex with her then what you want to do is something that is wrong. This is actually what Christianity teaches, as I suspect you know.

If someone wanted to rape Olivia Wilde no one would say "Nothing wrong with that" Such as sentence would make no sense since raping Olivia Wilde is immoral and thus wanting to rape Olivia Wilde is wanting to do something that is immoral. We as a society spend a great deal of time teaching people in society that non-consentual sexual intercourse is wrong, and we hope and expect that people who desire to rape someone therefore feel that such thoughts are wrong and go get help rather than simply holding on to such desires.

I find it genuinely difficult to believe you don't see this, and I suspect your posts are simply knee-jerk defensism

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Of course there's a lot of stuff that we can proud of too - but I fail to see how anyone can look back over human history and deny that we are flawed.

The word flawed suggests to me a design flaw, which doesn't sit with the reality that we are neither at the beginning or end of a design process, rather stuck somewhere in an evolutionary scale which might never end or be snuffed out like the dinosaurs.

So we're not flawed, we're just stupid.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I think if you were prepared to be genuine about it you would find it is.

Of course you think that, because to do otherwise would be to admit that your stereotype is wrong.

Given that you seem to have fallen into your usual knee-jerk say anything to contradict Wicknight mode I'm taking everything you say with a pinch of salt as I'm not even assuming at this stage that you yourself believe it

I disagreed with one generalisation that you made. You know people are allowed to disagree with you withoutthat constituting an anti-Wicknight crusade? :rolleyes:

Yes actually, it is what I claimed (that Christians see sexual acts outside of marriage to be sinful)

Christianity teaches people to feel bad about normal sexual impulses, to feel that these are bad and unhealthy unless they are done in a very specific context that allows Christianity to control reproduction.

Those are two very separate positions. Can you genuinely not understand that. If not, then there's little point in trying to continue debating with you in English.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

The word flawed suggests to me a design flaw, which doesn't sit with the reality that we are neither at the beginning or end of a design process, rather stuck somewhere in an evolutionary scale which might never end or be snuffed out like the dinosaurs.

So we're not flawed, we're just stupid.

So if a gem stone is flawed then that implies a designer? Is Dades veering towards ID?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You just answered your own question. Even if you weren't married Christianity teaches that what you desire to do (a desire to have sexual relations with Olivia Wilde) is wrong unless you are married to her and should not be acted upon.

You are saying there is nothing wrong with you wanting to have sex with her so long as you don't have sex with her because doing it is wrong.

This is typical Christian double speak.

Again your problem is with the English language, not some imaginary doublespeak.

I never said there was nothing wrong with a married man wanting to shag Olivia Wilde. I said it was natural.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Those are two very separate positions.

No they aren't. You are trying to present them as such as part of a rather standard Christian apologetics response (the PR we have already referred to). I suspect you have practiced it quite a bit and I don't doubt that you have convinced yourself that it makes sense.

In reality though if you tell someone what they desire to to do is immoral then what you are telling them is that what they want to do is immoral.

Pretty simple, isn't it.

clever_name

PDN wrote: »

Again your problem is with the English language, not some imaginary doublespeak.

I never said there was nothing wrong with a married man wanting to shag Olivia Wilde. I said it was natural.

Ok its natural but is it wrong?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I never said there was nothing wrong with a married man wanting to shag Olivia Wilde. I said it was natural.

You asked where the self-loathing comes into it. I answered your question. You have repeatably said that the desire and acting upon it are two totally different things, one being fine and the other not fine.

You seem now, ironically in the guise of another defensive post, to see that is nonsensical.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You asked where the self-loathing comes into it. I answered your question. You have repeatably said that the desire and acting upon it are two totally different things, one being fine and the other not fine.

I have said no such thing. How can we have a debate if you insist on twisting what I say to get a meaning that you know fine well I never intended? I have charitably tried to assume that you simply don't grasp English very well. But it is happening too many times to be accidental.

I have said that sexual urges are natural and normal. It is not wrong to have sexual urges.

However, it is possible that those urges may cause us to desire something that would be wrong. For example, if a young single man has the hots for Olivia Wilde then there is nothing wrong with that. He would be doing nothing wrong in trying to get a date with her. However, as a married man who has promised faithfulness to my wife then such a desire would be wrong for me. Not because of some mythical control that Christianity is operating over my reproduction, but because faithfulness to one's marriage partner is a core value in my beliefs.

So, I recognise that any urges I might feel when I see a photo of the lovely Olivia are wrong for me. That doesn't cause me to loathe myself - it simply reminds me that I'm a normal chat who is required to exercise self-control.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

However, it is possible that those urges may cause us to desire something that would be wrong.

Yes, welcome to 5 pages ago PDN. :rolleyes:

Christianity teaches that the desire to have sex outside of marriage is to desire something that is immoral, that the urge to sleep with your girlfriend or gay boyfriend is an urge to sin that should be restrained because it is morally wrong. You asked where the self loathing comes in. It comes in here.

It does this by manipulating guilt and self-loathing so the person ends up agreeing with this notion and following the Christian prescribed method of reproducing within the Christian marriage. What you wanted to do was wrong, what you should have wanted to do was X, Y,Z, that is God's plan for you.

What is it with you, we spend pages and pages with you arguing that we are grossly misrepresenting Christianity until finally you simply admit what we were all saying in the first place, that Christianity teaches that the desires people have to do particular things are wrong.

Do you genuinely not get what we are saying at the start or is it simply a dance we all have to do with you to help you save face or something?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, welcome to 5 pages ago PDN. :rolleyes:

Christianity teaches that the desire to have sex outside of marriage is to desire something that is immoral, that the urge to sleep with your girlfriend or gay boyfriend is an urge to sin that should be restrained because it is morally wrong. You asked where the self loathing comes in. It comes in here.

I'm waiting to hear where the self-loathing comes in.

Everybody gets tempted at times to do things that we feel to be wrong. That is part and parcel of every moral code. Are you seriously suggesting that self-loathing is part and parcel of every moral code?

It does this by manipulating guilt and self-loathing so the person ends up agreeing with this notion and following the Christian prescribed method of reproducing within the Christian marriage.

Nonsense. Saying that one course of action is right and another is wrong is not, except in the mind of the wide-eyed zealot, "manipulating guilt and self-loathing".

And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up reproduction. You wouldn't be taking a Catholic notion and making another false generalisation against Christianity as a whole? Surely not again?

Watching you debate is like watching Bambi walking on ice.

What is it with you, we spend pages and pages with you arguing that we are grossly misrepresenting Christianity until finally you simply admit what we were all saying in the first place, that Christianity teaches that the desires people have to do particular things are wrong.

We all think that the desires to do particular things are wrong.

If you had said that, instead of making absurd generalisations, then we wouldn't have had to spend pages debunking your falsehoods.

Do you genuinely not get what we are saying at the start or is it simply a dance we all have to do with you to help you save face or something?

I would have got what you claim you were saying if you had actually said instead of making false generalisations.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I'm waiting to hear where the self-loathing comes in.

I've already explained that, so I doubt you are.

But to give you the benefit of the doubt, Christianity gets people to adhere to its standards by teaching people that what they desire to do is wrong and sinful. It manipulates guilt people feel over such desires in order to get them to conform to the Christian moral code. Part and parcel with this is making people feel bad about such desires, which is where the self loathing comes in.

Or put it another way. Do you hate sin? Do you hate sinning? Do you hate disappointing God?

PDN wrote: »

Everybody gets tempted at times to do things that we feel to be wrong.

Who is "we" in this? The Christian Church? God?

PDN wrote: »

That is part and parcel of every moral code. Are you seriously suggesting that self-loathing is part and parcel of every moral code?

I'm suggesting that introducing and then manipulating self-loathing is a strong way to make someone follow your moral code.

You won't find many secular moral systems that teach that if you do the immoral thing (defined by the system) you have fallen short of the perfect divine creator of the universe, so much so that you desire eternal punishment for doing so.

Which (shock horror) brings us back to the original point of the thread, the influence religions such as Christianity have on children and how they shape their moral outlook.

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense. Saying that one course of action is right and another is wrong is not, except in the mind of the wide-eyed zealot, "manipulating guilt and self-loathing".

It isn't. But then Christianity does not simply say one course of actions is right and another wrong, does it.

It introduces an entire system of "divine" justice and plan to justify the saying that one thing is right and the other wrong, with an elaborate system of punishment for those who disagree.

You rather ridiculous attempt to present Christianity as simply a disagreement over various ethical standards is both bizarre and fascinating at the same time, as if Christianity presents itself to believers as simply one of many moral options rather than the divine proclamation of the creator and judge of all humanity.

PDN wrote: »

And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up reproduction. You wouldn't be taking a Catholic notion and making another false generalisation against Christianity as a whole? Surely not again?

All mainstream branches of Christianity teach that sex is only for inside a marriage. You would have to be grossly naive to think that has nothing to do with reproduction PDN, and you ain't grossly naive.

PDN wrote: »

We all think that the desires to do particular things are wrong.

Of course we do. The question is how do we get others to follow our moral code.

Christianity has figured that one out already. For a start, introduce an absolute moral authority that judges you based on its moral code, removing all subjective determination and introduce a consistent sense of displeasure at any behavior that deviates into the realm of sinful acts.

That seems to work pretty well.

PDN wrote: »

I would have got what you claim you were saying if you had actually said instead of making false generalisations.

Do you deny that Christianity teaches that some desires, such as a desire to fornicate, or the desire to have homosexual sex, are desires to do something that is immoral?

If you don't deny that then, as I said, welcome to 5 pages ago.

johnfás

Wicknight wrote: »

Who is "we" in this? The Christian Church? God?

Have you ever been tempted to punch somebody or to break a red traffic light? Our society judges all of these things to be wrong and has therefore made laws against them. In the case of punching somebody - you are not allowed to act on your desire unless you have lawful excuse. That is, you may act on your desire in an appropriate context, for example when you need to defend yourself.

marienbad

Hello PDN, Can I ask you a question or two ?

You say that to desire Olivia Wilde is perfectly natural and as long as one does not give in to those desires ,that is fine. But what if you were overcome by those desires and give in to them, possibly gave in to them many times, how would that make you feel ?

Can I posit a second case ? What if it was Oliver instead of Olivia, and you had no other attachments or commitments and you gave in to your desire for the beautiful Oliver, how would that make you feel ?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Hello PDN, Can I ask you a question or two ?

You say that to desire Olivia Wilde is perfectly natural and as long as one does not give in to those desires ,that is fine. But what if you were overcome by those desires and give in to them, possibly gave in to them many times, how would that make you feel ?

If I was unfaithful to my wife I would feel extremely guilty. I don't think that is exclusive to Christianity.

Can I posit a second case ? What if it was Oliver instead of Olivia, and you had no other attachments or commitments and you gave in to your desire for the beautiful Oliver, how would that make you feel ?

Its rather hard to imagine that scenario given that I've never been attracted sexually to a guy, and my only experience of gay sex was being raped as a boy.

I would think that any kind of sexual immorality would leave me feeling angry at myself for being a hypocrite and lacking self-control. I would also be guilty and sorry that I had grieved God.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

So if a gem stone is flawed then that implies a designer? Is Dades veering towards ID?

A "flawed" gemstone implies that there is an attainable level of perfection - as envisaged and judged by the human eye. Not a concept consistent with still evolving mammals, I'd have thought (even Olivia Wilde.)

Ghost Buster

johnfás wrote: »

Have you ever been tempted to punch somebody or to break a red traffic light? Our society judges all of these things to be wrong and has therefore made laws against them. In the case of punching somebody - you are not allowed to act on your desire unless you have lawful excuse. That is, you may act on your desire in an appropriate context, for example when you need to defend yourself.

I may be going off your point here but Im not sure what your point is to start with. Can you elaborate.
But.......
There is quite a differance between the man made laws you mention and gods laws.
Most man made laws have an obvious reason for existing. Running red lights lead to car crashes and death and random acts of violence is an offence against the person with all that that entails.
Gods laws are bizzarre. Does it effect god or any one else what two adults do with their genitals. I mean really.
Dont get me started on wearing mixed fabrics, eating certain foods, saying his name out loud, working on certain days of the week... sheesh.... Get a life god!!:rolleyes:

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

If I was unfaithful to my wife I would feel extremely guilty. I don't think that is exclusive to Christianity.

Its rather hard to imagine that scenario given that I've never been attracted sexually to a guy, and my only experience of gay sex was being raped as a boy.

I would think that any kind of sexual immorality would leave me feeling angry at myself for being a hypocrite and lacking self-control. I would also be guilty and sorry that I had grieved God.

Hello PDN Thank you for the straight answers and I am sorry for your boyhood experience and would not presume to say any more than that on that issue.

But surely you must accept that on the general question of sexuality
those feelings of guilt are just self-loathing under another name. A rose by any other name and all that.

And following on from that it is one's core beliefs that induces those feelings of guilt over those actions . Those actions may or may not be worthy of that guilt , but an outside 'force' arbritrarily says they are.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Hello PDN Thank you for the straight answers and I am sorry for your boyhood experience and would not presume to say any more than that on that issue.

But surely you must accept that on the general question of sexuality
those feelings of guilt are just self-loathing under another name. A rose by any other name and all that.

And following on from that it is one's core beliefs that induces those feelings of guilt over those actions . Those actions may or may not be worthy of that guilt , but an outside 'force' arbritrarily says they are.

Not at all. Every human being feels guilty if they do something that is contrary to their code of morality. It does not follow that their moral code is therefore based on self-loathing.

Many people care about the environment and feel guilty if they waste resources. Does that mean that self-loathing is part and parcel of environmentalism?

We might disagree about precisely what actions we each deem to be moral or not, that's fine. But all of us feel guilt when we fail to live up to what we believe to right. That does not equate to self-loathing - indeed it is entirely compatible with having a healthy self-image.

Indeed, in Christianity we don't go around loathing ourselves for our failings - we believe in the power of forgiveness and redemption.

Zombrex

johnfás wrote: »

Have you ever been tempted to punch somebody or to break a red traffic light? Our society judges all of these things to be wrong and has therefore made laws against them. In the case of punching somebody - you are not allowed to act on your desire unless you have lawful excuse. That is, you may act on your desire in an appropriate context, for example when you need to defend yourself.

Correct. And Christianity is a social construct that attempts to imbed its notions of morality in other people through various methods, some of which include manipulation of guilt and self loathing.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Every human being feels guilty if they do something that is contrary to their code of morality. It does not follow that their moral code is therefore based on self-loathing.

Correct, it doesn't. But then it isn't their moral code, is it. No one comes up with the Christian moral code on their own. It is taught to them. And that is very much where self-loathing comes in. Manipulating self loathing is a, pretty effective, way to make someone believe something they didn't initially think was wrong is actually wrong.

It would also be foolish to assume I (or others here) view Christianity as simply another human moral code. Christianity is far more than that, any system that invokes a supernatural deity as the arbiter of moral standards extends far beyond that.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Correct, it doesn't. But then it isn't their moral code, is it. No one comes up with the Christian moral code on their own. It is taught to them. And that is very much where self-loathing comes in. Manipulating self loathing is a, pretty effective, way to make someone believe something they didn't initially think was wrong is actually wrong.

You're really stretching now.

Nobody comes up with their moral code entirely on their own. We are informed and taught by parents, educators, peer-pressure and a whole host of other influences.

Everyone derives their morality from a variety of sources. Everyone feels guilty when they fail to live up to what they believe to be right. Yet, when there's a Deity in the mix, your ideological partisanship causes you to toss logic to the winds and to start this nonsense about self-loathing.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You're really stretching now.

Nobody comes up with their moral code entirely on their own. We are informed and taught by parents, educators, peer-pressure and a whole host of other influences.

Everyone derives their morality from a variety of sources. Everyone feels guilty when they fail to live up to what they believe to be right. Yet, when there's a Deity in the mix, your ideological partisanship causes you to toss logic to the winds and to start this nonsense about self-loathing.

I edited this in above so you may have missed it, so let me repeat

It would also be foolish to assume I (or others here) view Christianity as simply another human moral code. Christianity is far more than that, any system that invokes a supernatural deity as the arbiter of moral standards extends far beyond that.

The self loathing comment is little to do with "ideological partisanship", I can give you plenty of examples where the same principles apply that have nothing to do with a supernatural creator deity. As I already mentioned on of the easiest way to sell something to someone, to get them to feel they need and depend on you or your product, is to introduce feelings of self doubt and self loathing that can only be fixed through the embrace of their product or service. If you want to sell makeup to a girl make her think she is ugly. If you want to sell God to someone make them think they are wicked.

Christianity simply uses the same principles to get what it wants, and does it better than most.

Your attempts to make Christianity out to simply be a human moral code is rather ridiculous as they ignore key aspects of Christianity faith, such as the existence of God as originator and judge of moral conduct, and the notion of God's disappointment and anger at those who disappoint him, and the notion of humans as being in a Fallen state, prone to wickedness.

As I asked you before, do you hate sin? Do you hate it when you sin? Do you hate disappointing God?

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Every human being feels guilty if they do something that is contrary to their code of morality. It does not follow that their moral code is therefore based on self-loathing.

Many people care about the environment and feel guilty if they waste resources. Does that mean that self-loathing is part and parcel of environmentalism?

We might disagree about precisely what actions we each deem to be moral or not, that's fine. But all of us feel guilt when we fail to live up to what we believe to right. That does not equate to self-loathing - indeed it is entirely compatible with having a healthy self-image.

Indeed, in Christianity we don't go around loathing ourselves for our failings - we believe in the power of forgiveness and redemption.

Hello PDN, to a certain extent it is all a bit chicken and egg in that which comes first the self loathing or the moral code. But let me give you an extreme example .

All those years ago when Capt Cook met those canibals, they had no moral qualms about bopping sailors on the head and popping them into the pot. Within fifty years they did have such qualms , and a good thing too, but there is no denying that it was a moral code imposed from outside. The fact that it is one we can all agree on is neither here nor there. The point is with that code came guilt.

Star_Cow

I am going to school in a christian school & our religion is about all other religions not just christianity

Zombrex

Star_Cow wrote: »

I am going to school in a christian school & our religion is about all other religions not just christianity

How dare you try and bring this thread back on topic :P:eek:

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

All those years ago when Capt Cook met those canibals, they had no moral qualms about bopping sailors on the head and popping them into the pot. Within fifty years they did have such qualms , and a good thing too, but there is no denying that it was a moral code imposed from outside. The fact that it is one we can all agree on is neither here nor there. The point is with that code came guilt.

You seem to be confusing the concept of guilt (a healthy thing in appropriate circumstances) with Wicknight's overblown and hysterical accusations about self-loathing.

Btw, while Capt Cook's pals did not previously feel guilty about eating seamen (pun intentional) - are you suggesting that they never felt guilt about anything else?

People feel guilty for all kinds of things. The followers of Pythagoras felt guilty about eating beans!

Zombrex

If anyone is wondering what I'm actually talking about have a read of something like this

http://www.healthyplace.com/eating-disorders/main/eating-disorders-body-image-and-advertising/menu-id-58/

And then have a thing, in the context of Christianity, does any of that sound familiar ...

Memnoch

The point is that Christianity (and other religions) try to make people feel guilty about 'normal,' things, such as, having a sex drive, or masturbating (though the pressure on this has eased off in the western world) or for that matter homosexuality.

To teach children that their feelings (as they grow) which are perfectly normal, and which in most cases they can't help are causes for guilt is the problem that results in self-loathing. Because the person thinks that they are doing something bad, and yet can't help themselves, and therefore this makes them a bad person (as taught by religion.)

There is nothing wrong with making someone feel guilty because they stole. But making someone feel guilty because they had sex with their girlfriend before marriage or because they are gay is wrong.

PDN

Memnoch wrote: »

The point is that Christianity (and other religions) try to make people feel guilty about 'normal,' things, such as, having a sex drive, or masturbating (though the pressure on this has eased off in the western world) or for that matter homosexuality.

Zombrex

Memnoch wrote: »

The point is that Christianity (and other religions) try to make people feel guilty about 'normal,' things, such as, having a sex drive, or masturbating (though the pressure on this has eased off in the western world) or for that matter homosexuality.

To teach children that their feelings (as they grow) which are perfectly normal, and which in most cases they can't help are causes for guilt is the problem that results in self-loathing. Because the person thinks that they are doing something bad, and yet can't help themselves, and therefore this makes them a bad person (as taught by religion.)

There is nothing wrong with making someone feel guilty because they stole. But making someone feel guilty because they had sex with their girlfriend before marriage or because they are gay is wrong.

+1

I would expand a little on that by saying it is also the techiques used to achieve this manipulation, such as the introduction of an absolute authority/father figure who both dishes out disappointment and punishment in equal measures.

Despite PDN's attempts to convince otherwise, a conversation between me and you about two different ethical systems would be vastly different to a debate between me and a Christian about these systems as the Christian is arguing from a position of representing the divine creator of the world who takes personal interest in the behavior of his creations.

While parodies of "Jesus is watching" are fun when presented on Family Guy or South Park it would naive to assume there is nothing in them. The Christian notions of morality are based around humans, all of us, be judged to a perfect standard and us all falling short of this standard, disappointing God.

It is difficult if you think all this is nonsense to appreciate what this actually means to a believer who struggles with conflicting notions between what he personally feels is ok to do and what his religion tells him.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

This again, I though we had moved passed this.

Does Christianity teach that to desire fornication with someone is to desire something immoral?

If you admit it does can you please stop this nonsense?

Morbert

Surely the easiest way to answer whether or not Christianity, implicitly or explicitly, involves self-loathing is to ask Christians whether or not they loathe themselves.

philologos

It seems like we're shifting way off the topic.

Should teaching children extreme religious beliefs be tolerated?

What is extreme or what counts as extreme, because Wicknight seems to be implying that Christianity is inherently extreme if so or at least of the ilk that PDN and I hold to.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

This again, I though we had moved passed this.

Does Christianity teach that to desire fornication with someone is to desire something immoral?

If you admit it does can you please stop this nonsense?

Believe it or not, it is possible to have a sex drive without giving in to the temptation to commit fornication. :rolleyes:

I'm starting to think you are just goading me so I will say what I think and so get myself infracted or banned.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

Surely the easiest way to answer whether or not Christianity, implicitly or explicitly, involves self-loathing is to ask Christians whether or not they loathe themselves.

Nope, that won't work. If our answer doesn't conform to Wicknight's stereotype then we are either deceived or dishonest.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

You seem to be confusing the concept of guilt (a healthy thing in appropriate circumstances) with Wicknight's overblown and hysterical accusations about self-loathing.

Btw, while Capt Cook's pals did not previously feel guilty about eating seamen (pun intentional) - are you suggesting that they never felt guilt about anything else?

People feel guilty for all kinds of things. The followers of Pythagoras felt guilty about eating beans!

That is exactly my point, of course they felt guilt over other issues just as we do. But your example of Pythagoreans is even better , yes they felt guilt over their beans, accepted slavery and the subservient place of women among other things . But I ask you how many current Pythagoreans (if such existed) would believe such things now ? The answer is none. Because as society changes so do their beliefs. They are society.

Now with religion such beliefs are immutable are they not ?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Believe it or not, it is possible to have a sex drive without giving in to the temptation to commit fornication. :rolleyes:

By now I'm sure you are aware that is not the point. Your religion teaches that it is immoral to "give in" to the "temptation". Wanting to do so is wanting to commit an immoral act.

PDN wrote: »

I'm starting to think you are just goading me so I will say what I think and so get myself infracted or banned.

Indeed. If you don't want to be infractions I suggest you dig deep into that Christian heart of yours.

Ghost Buster

Star_Cow wrote: »

I am going to school in a christian school & our religion is about all other religions not just christianity

So what makes it a Christian school?