Pushing ones views

Mistress 69

Galvasean wrote: »

That would be friggin' epic! :cool:



Okay, so next time a census comes around I'll fill in your form for you, but I'm gonna instill my believes onto your census form. Fair?



Well you did (eventually) answer my questions in that you posted something, despite it not being particularly relevant.
Like if I asked you what age you were and you answered with, "Australia".

I think someone is afraid to admit they might not actually be Catholic.

What! Fill in my form! But sure you are not my Daddy!

I did answer, and definitively.

I am Catholic.

Delirium

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Sorry did not mean to be glib When I was in school religon was pushed big time. Pretty boring when you are a child. While it is still there I think the large push and shove bit is gone, well my experience anyway. Baptisms could be around for the major longterm, always an excuse for a good party.

just to clarify, I was saying I made the glib comment, wasn't accusing you of making one

Mistress 69

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I am Catholic.

A Catholic who doesn't necessarily believe in transubstantiation, nor sees huge problem with contraception and pre-marital sex.

What about the immaculate conception? Or, do you think the Pope is infallible when it comes to matters of belief?

I genuinely don't mean any offence. It's just that so many people consider themselves Catholic when they don't believe the vast majority of the church's doctrines and dogma.

ShooterSF

Mistress 69 wrote: »

No problem, you have not shown the full quote,(a selective eyesight thing)

Where I asked to be counted as a questioning sinner. Yeah 411 was a definitive answer.

Next:P

Ok, well then tell us what parts you find yourself questioning.

Mistress 69

Sarky wrote: »

Well on the one hand you seem to be all for giving a child options and freedom, but on the other you're also all for forcing them to be raised according to a belief system they have no concept of, or even giving them a chance to decline, or even find out about other belief systems, or the option of not accepting any of them, which is atheism.

Then there was that bit earlier where you admitted very young children couldn't possibly believe in a god or gods, but at the same time you remain adamant that somehow they're not atheist.

That's two sets of two conflicting opinions in your head, apologies for providing more than you specifically asked for. Does that not make you uncomfortable? Surely you realise that one of each pair of opinions can't be right, because if it was, the other would have to be wrong, and vice versa.

I will try and clarify it. Everybody has a right to choose what they want. Full Stop. I am sure we agree on that. A newborn child is in the care of its parents, and they have to choose for it.
I had to agree to dissagree with GVN over babies default button on atheist setting. That might be a point I revisit. I have not got the energy to go into that one again just now

Question for you. Imagine you have a 22 year old daughter, and she wants to run off and Join the Sisters of Mercy located somwhere in Middle America...... Would you let her or would you try and talk her out of it?

Galvasean

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Question for you. Imagine you have a 22 year old daughter, and she wants to run off and Join the Sisters of Mercy located somwhere in Middle America...... Would you let her or would you try and talk her out of it?

Assuming she wasn't under any mind altering substances or a victim of brain washing I'd have to respect her decision.
So, how are new born babies not atheists?

Galvasean

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I am Catholic.

And I'm the Pope.
Of course saying something (no matter how many times) does not make it true

MagicMarker

At least Mistress 69 has something in common with us atheists, she's about as much catholic as we are.

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

Arg. Then why come in giving out about atheists arguing the point (the same belief you hold) with people that believe a child can be labelled such?

When did I do this?

Mark Hamill

Mistress 69 wrote: »

A newborn child is in the care of its parents, and they have to choose for it.

Why does a parent have to choose a religion for the child? Cant the parent just leave religion out of it until the child is old enough to understand it, like politics?

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I had to agree to dissagree with GVN over babies default button on atheist setting. That might be a point I revisit. I have not got the energy to go into that one again just now

Its very easy to understand. Just remember just like theist covers christians, jews, muslims, hindus, ect, that atheist is a very general term which means at its very simplest "someone who lacks a belief in god". The reasons why will define what type of atheist you are.

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Question for you. Imagine you have a 22 year old daughter, and she wants to run off and Join the Sisters of Mercy located somwhere in Middle America...... Would you let her or would you try and talk her out of it?

Talk to her, of course.

Sarky

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I will try and clarify it. Everybody has a right to choose what they want. Full Stop. I am sure we agree on that. A newborn child is in the care of its parents, and they have to choose for it.
I had to agree to dissagree with GVN over babies default button on atheist setting. That might be a point I revisit. I have not got the energy to go into that one again just now

Cool, as long as you're considering it. Refusing to think about things like that is... Unwise. It can lead you down some very strange paths.

From my own experience, I resented being brought up Catholic once I'd discovered just how much of the world it disregarded. I was pretty angry with my parents, until I realised that they didn't really have a choice in the matter either because it was all they knew, or they were terrified they'd go to Hell or the Pope would come to their house and excommunicate them if they didn't raise me that way. I don't hold it against them, they didn't really know any better.

I would have much preferred my parents and schools showing me a bit of everything and telling me to make my own mind up. But if religion worked like that there'd be a lot less religion, don't you think?

Question for you. Imagine you have a 22 year old daughter, and she wants to run off and Join the Sisters of Mercy located somwhere in Middle America...... Would you let her or would you try and talk her out of it?

The only reason I might try to talk her out of it would be that "Middle America" is very far away and I'd miss her. If she was doing what she wants with her life, and had thought it through, then more power to her. As long as she sent back some good cigars every now and then, at least. At 22 years old she'd certainly know better than to try and save my soul, so the reunions wouldn't be a problem.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

When did I do this?

My bad you actually offered up some crap about about children been born as software developers or such completely misunderstanding the argument going on. So I'll just repost the important point I made again for you to take away.

ShooterSF wrote: »

You said:

"I don't agree that you can label a child, so where's the argument I wonder? It would feel remarkably strange if someone said to me that a 2 month old child was a Christian."

The argument is with the majority of Christians that unfortunately don't hold your view. Just because some Christians like yourself are enlightened enough to realise how stupid an idea it is doesn't mean there aren't other ones who don't and who need this argument made (for all the good it does).

Edit by the way just to offer how much of a minority you are in re: christians calling their children christian. Here's a thread I started a while back. Has a poll too which shows the stark ratio.

Mistress 69

gvn wrote: »

A Catholic who doesn't necessarily believe in transubstantiation, nor sees huge problem with contraception and pre-marital sex.

What about the immaculate conception? Or, do you think the Pope is infallible when it comes to matters of belief?

I genuinely don't mean any offence. It's just that so many people consider themselves Catholic when they don't believe the vast majority of the church's doctrines and dogma.

Crikey GVN

I titled the Thread Pushing Ones Views NOT explaining all of mine re the above. No offence is taken. Surely a questioning sinner will suffice

Mistress 69

Galvasean wrote: »

And I'm the Pope.
Of course saying something (no matter how many times) does not make it true

Question For You Galvasean

Are you implying I am lying?

Mistress 69

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok, well then tell us what parts you find yourself questioning.

NOYB !

Mistress 69

Malty_T wrote: »

Thanks but I think you misunderstood the question. I want to know what you think about Communion and what it means to you. Not the position of the RCC and its dogma.

No I did not misunderstand, and I answered the question in 411 quite definitevely.

ShooterSF

Mistress 69 wrote: »

NOYB !

Fine, to be honest I don't care what you doubt in the cult you choose to follow but don't go saying you have posted a definitive answer to peoples questions because that's horse manure. If you weren't willing to answer say say so and save some posters here some valuable time.

Mistress 69

Dades wrote: »

So you bring up baptism to refute my point, while admitting that baptism is a can of worms?
I think we both know:

(a) A child has no choice in baptism, and
(b) Sometimes parents have no choice but to baptise their child.

Ok I got the point wrong. I assume you meant that there should be no reason to state religon, or non religon on the census form, especially for children.

Given that religon, rightly or wrongly is a, if not The Major issue in the world, I reckon it is needed on the form. How else could the state know the stats.

As for Baptism, could we do that one again, not running away, just I have to light the bbq on this smashing evening!

Mistress 69

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fine, to be honest I don't care what you doubt in the cult you choose to follow but don't go saying you have posted a definitive answer to peoples questions because that's horse manure. If you weren't willing to answer say say so and save some posters here some valuable time.

For those with selective eyesight I DID ANSWER AND AM NOT GOING OVER IT AGAIN

Sarky

You did give vague answers, to be honest. All that was required was a yes/no to each question, not "here's what the Church thinks" or something similar. We still don't know what you think of each particular issue. Calling yourself a "questioning sinner" probably means you disagree with one or more of the Catholic Church's teachings on the matter. If so, which one(s)? Specifics. They really are important, I'm afraid.

Then again, you might agree with all of them and be referring to some other sin you think you've committed. Regardless, I'm not sure how you can claim to be Catholic if there are parts of Catholicism you disagree with and/or refuse to practice.

MagicMarker

Mistress 69 wrote: »

For those with selective eyesight I DID ANSWER AND AM NOT GOING OVER IT AGAIN

You have not, you're simply trolling.

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

My bad you actually offered up some crap about about children been born as software developers or such completely misunderstanding the argument going on. So I'll just repost the important point I made again for you to take away.

I don't see how that is crap. Claiming that the idea that children are born agnostics (without knowledge of the concept of God) doesn't really help the argument at all. There are many things we don't know of when we are born and it doesn't logically follow that we are better off for not knowing these things.

Even if we were agnostic, it is still very easily argued that if there is a Creator, that it is perfectly natural to seek to know Him in a sense of coming back to our collective roots, not through any particular genealogy or ethnicity group but the beginnings of everything.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Edit by the way just to offer how much of a minority you are in re: christians calling their children christian. Here's a thread I started a while back. Has a poll too which shows the stark ratio.

I don't see what the point is in claiming that I am in a minority. I understand that you think this, and I am OK with you thinking that. I don't need to conform with how others think in every case necessarily.

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how that is crap. Claiming that the idea that children are born agnostics (without knowledge of the concept of God) doesn't really help the argument at all. There are many things we don't know of when we are born and it doesn't logically follow that we are better off for not knowing these things.

So... You'd be ok with children being groomed to be software developers or musicians from birth? They'd surely be better off knowing how to code handy Java applets or playing a guitar.

Mark Hamill

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Given that religion, rightly or wrongly is a, if not The Major issue in the world, I reckon it is needed on the form.

I think politics is a major issue in the world, should children be allowed vote?

Mistress 69 wrote: »

How else could the state know the stats.

In what way are these stats actually useful though? We dont allow children to vote because we dont recognise their ability to make a mature, informed decision in voting, in what way can they make a mature,informed decision about religion? If political elections were run like religion in the census then you would essentially have politicians counting the children of the people who voted for him/her as having voted for them also, which would be a joke.

kiffer

Wait, what are we argueing about now?

Crosses in schools?, Are infants atheists?
Whether M69 is actually a Catholic?
Or what?

Seriously lads and lassies, the thread is a mess.

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

So... You'd be ok with children being groomed to be software developers or musicians from birth? They'd surely be better off knowing how to code handy Java applets or playing a guitar.

If they demonstrated such a talent I would encourage it.

As far as I see it though, Christian parents have a responsibility from God to encourage them to enter into a life-long relationship with Him through His Son Jesus. It would be immoral not to. Indeed, Christians have a responsibility to bear witness to God in everything they do from the way they work, to the way that they deal with relationships, to the way they deal with their families and friends, to the way that they deal with their finances. I want God to inspire every single aspect of my life because I believe that His ways are true and right in every respect.

Even if one encourages people to be a Christian, they don't have to. Although I wouldn't see it as a matter of preference but of absolute necessity for any Christian parent to encourage that.

What kind of monster would you have to be to deny your children the chance of salvation?

MagicMarker

philologos wrote: »

What kind of monster would you have to be to deny your children the chance of salvation?

BANNED FOR PERSONAL ABUSE

Sarky

What makes you think you can save your kids' souls if God can't do it?

And what if their talents DON'T lie in believing whatever religion you're trying to place on them? Will you respect their wishes and leave them be, or are they staying [religion] and that's final?

kiffer

and Muslim parents have a moral obligation to teach their beliefs.
and Hindus have a moral obligation to teach them about Lord Shiva.
and Astru parents have a moral obligation to teach their kids how to get to Valhalla.
and Hellenic pagans have a moral obligation to teach their kids to get to Elysium.
and atheist parents have a moral obligation to protect their children from the untruthful claims of the above.

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

What makes you think you can save your kids' souls if God can't do it?

It is God doing it through people. That's what mission is all about whether that is keeping a Christian home, or how we witness to people around us, or going further afield.

I don't claim to be able to do anything by my own power, but I do things through the power and means that God has given to me, either through Creation or through my relationship with Him.

It's an important point that I need to keep coming back to to ensure that I don't get arrogant or conceited about anything I do.

Knasher

philologos wrote: »

What kind of monster would you have to be to deny your children the chance of salvation?

I do agree with you here, you hold your beliefs to be true and helpful and you should pass them on. But do you deny that it takes a far more sinister light if you also pass on the idea that not only will your child be punished eternially for not believing but that you believe that god is just and therefore justified in punishing your child so harshly?

Yes I know that is a part of your faith. There are other things that are also a part of your faith and that you chose to reinterpet (thankfully so). I would have much less of a problem with christianity if it thought that moral beheivour rather than faith was the source of salvation.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how that is crap. Claiming that the idea that children are born agnostics (without knowledge of the concept of God) doesn't really help the argument at all. There are many things we don't know of when we are born and it doesn't logically follow that we are better off for not knowing these things.

Even if we were agnostic, it is still very easily argued that if there is a Creator, that it is perfectly natural to seek to know Him in a sense of coming back to our collective roots, not through any particular genealogy or ethnicity group but the beginnings of everything.

Again you're having a different argument. It's about labeling kids.

I don't see what the point is in claiming that I am in a minority. I understand that you think this, and I am OK with you thinking that. I don't need to conform with how others think in every case necessarily.

The point is that you asked "so where's the argument I wonder? " and I was pointing out where it was. With most christians who label their children as such (whether being a christian is a good thing or not is irrelevant).

kiffer

salvation by good acts is the case untill you hear about Jesus... Then once you hear about him it's justification by faith alone, but you have to spread the word or else you don't really believe and thus get tortured.
See otherwise the way to save the most people would be to not tell them about Jesus at all and just teach moral leasons...
But that sort of meme doesn't survive long.

ShooterSF

Mistress 69 wrote: »

For those with selective eyesight I DID ANSWER AND AM NOT GOING OVER IT AGAIN

Why not? Obviously some of us were not clear on your answer say in regards do you believe it is ok to have premarital sex? What harm is it for you to clarify your belief unless you are ashamed of it?

It only takes a maximum of 3 letters. I'll even save you time. simply reply to this with the letter Y for yes or the letter N for no. I can't make it less of a hassle to clarify your opinion. If you want an exchange ask me my opinion on anything and I will answer you honestly.

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

Again you're having a different argument. It's about labeling kids.

The underlying assumption is that the child apparently is an atheist, and that parents should leave this alone. Some posters have implied this heavily. Therefore it is important to note the underlying fallacy of suggesting that it is bad to impart knowledge, or belief to children.

ShooterSF wrote: »

The point is that you asked "so where's the argument I wonder? " and I was pointing out where it was. With most christians who label their children as such (whether being a christian is a good thing or not is irrelevant).

There is more to this and I'm entitled to raise whatever points I feel relevant.

kiffer wrote: »

salvation by good acts is the case untill you hear about Jesus... Then once you hear about him it's justification by faith alone, but you have to spread the word or else you don't really believe and thus get tortured.
See otherwise the way to save the most people would be to not tell them about Jesus at all and just teach moral leasons...
But that sort of meme doesn't survive long.

Actually we don't know what happens to those who haven't heard the Gospel. I don't presuppose anything for sure in that case.

Even then this is fallacious because it assumes that there is no benefit of Christian living in this life, but only in the next.

Galvasean

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Question For You Galvasean

Are you implying I am lying?

Heaven's no. I am however implying that you may be avoiding directly answering questions about your faith. I answered basic and specific questions about your beliefs which you never directly answered. I can only surmise that you are avoiding doing so as you do not wish to be branded an ala carte 'Catholic'.
Correct me if I am mistaken by answering my questions directly.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

The underlying assumption is that the child apparently is an atheist, and that parents should leave this alone. Some posters have implied this heavily. Therefore it is important to note the underlying fallacy of suggesting that it is bad to impart knowledge, or belief to children.

There are two different arguments being discussed simultaneously:

1) It's wrong to label a child as a Christian child, a Muslim child, etc., and
2) It's wrong to raise a child in the belief of its parents; it's right to leave a child in their default position until they're able to make decisions for themselves.

I'm guilty of raising the latter argument, I think.

Your counterargument goes against the second argument, not the first.

But, in relation to the latter argument: I've never said it's bad to impart knowledge or belief onto children. I said it's bad to impart one kind of knowledge or one particular belief system onto a child.

philologos

gvn wrote: »

1) It's wrong to label a child as a Christian child, a Muslim child, etc., and
2) It's wrong to raise a child in the belief of its parents; it's right to leave a child in their default position until they're able to make decisions for themselves.
[...]
I said it's bad to impart one kind of knowledge or one particular belief system onto a child.

It's not more "bad" than sharing with your child how you live your life. If you live your life as a Christian this will ultimately take some form of influence in your child's life even if you never actually taught them about the Bible (which again I don't see as a bad thing obviously).

Such thinking would lead to stuff like paying a babysitter to mind your kids while you go to church. I don't see how this is any worse than bringing your child to any other location where they would learn something about your life and what you stand for as an individual.

Every parent has an influence on their child, it's unavoidable and hardly a bad thing. Children can decide for themselves based on their own experiences later on in life. The suggestion that you should stop being who you are in front of your own children is just absurd.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

It's not more "bad" than sharing with your child how you live your life. If you live your life as a Christian this will ultimately take some form of influence in your child's life even if you never actually taught them about the Bible (which again I don't see as a bad thing obviously).

Such thinking would lead to stuff like paying a babysitter to mind your kids while you go to church. I don't see how this is any worse than bringing your child to any other location where they would learn something about your life and what you stand for as an individual.

Every parent has an influence on their child, it's unavoidable and hardly a bad thing. Children can decide for themselves based on their own experiences later on in life. The suggestion that you should stop being who you are in front of your own children is just absurd.

You're arguing against a point I'm not trying to make.

Of course a parent is going to influence their child. That's unavoidable. (Where did I say that was a bad thing?)

So, let's take an example. Say a father likes jazz. If the father listens to jazz during the child's youth then, sure, there's a good chance the child will grow up to like it. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as the father respects the child's right to listen to other music, or no music at all, then all's good.

Now, at the opposite end of the spectrum. Say that the same father raised his child to like only jazz, and no other type of music. The child isn't allowed to listen to other kinds of music, nor is he allowed to not listen to jazz.

Can you see the difference?

There's a world of difference between a child growing to like jazz because his father liked it, and a child growing to like only jazz because he was told that it's the only type of music he should like.

Likewise, there's a world of difference between a father's Christianity influencing a child and that same father teaching the child that Christianity is the only type of religion (or lack thereof) that the child should adhere to.

philologos

gvn wrote: »

Now, at the opposite end of the spectrum. Say that the same father raised his child to like only jazz, and no other type of music.

Is that even possible? The child will ultimately make their own decision, there is no way that people can raise people this way really. They will make up their own minds and if they think their parents are right they will become Christians too.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Is that even possible? The child will ultimately make their own decision, there is no way that people can raise people this way really. They will make up their own minds and if they think their parents are right they will become Christians too.

I think you're being naive, to be honest. If a child is brought up to be a Christian then chances are they'll be a Christian when they're older.

Some people may question their religious upbringing or the beliefs they were taught to have, but those people are far from the majority.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

Is that even possible? The child will ultimately make their own decision, there is no way that people can raise people this way really. They will make up their own minds and if they think their parents are right they will become Christians too.

So it's just a coincidence that most people hold the belief they are brought up with?

Mistress 69

Galvasean wrote: »

Heaven's no. I am however implying that you may be avoiding directly answering questions about your faith. I answered basic and specific questions about your beliefs which you never directly answered. I can only surmise that you are avoiding doing so as you do not wish to be branded an ala carte 'Catholic'.
Correct me if I am mistaken by answering my questions directly.

Friday night vino bbq etc, could not resist a quick scan of the thread which does seem to have attracted a couple of seriously good debaters.
I do not wish to be arguing with you and have no intention of leaving a smart ass reply.

I will come back to you on this.
enjoy the bank holiday weekend

Mistress 69

Really glad to see you back on my thread considering previous events:)

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

So it's just a coincidence that most people hold the belief they are brought up with?

Are you suggesting that people who hold the same beliefs haven't thought about them in every case?

That's a little bit of a gratuitous leap. What about those who have considered reasons for why they believe what they do?

Would you also extend this to atheist and agnostic parents whose children are atheists and agnostics? Or is that too far for you? :pac:

liamw

philologos wrote: »

A
Would you also extend this to atheist and agnostic parents whose children are atheists and agnostics? Or is that too far for you? :pac:

Why do you keep referring to atheism as a belief system (I remember you referred to it as 'positive atheism')?

Mistress 69

kiffer wrote: »

Wait, what are we argueing about now?

Crosses in schools?, Are infants atheists?
Whether M69 is actually a Catholic?
Or what?

Seriously lads and lassies, the thread is a mess.

The What... now that is the point in question.... bit of fun though..... better than noddy's back slapping and thanking etc. better say nothing at midnight ! Another Glass and Turn up the music!... :eek::D

Mistress 69

liamw wrote: »

Why do you keep referring to atheism as a belief system (I remember you referred to it as 'positive atheism')?

I know others will say hit and run troll, but sorry... dudes wake up... its just another belief system!

Mistress 69

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I know others will say hit and run troll, but sorry... dudes wake up... its just another belief system!

If that's the case then we all have an infinite number of belief systems.

If you follow on through with "atheism is a belief system", then your lack of belief in Thor is a belief system; as is your lack of belief in Zeus, or Krishna, or Kukulcan; your lack of belief in the cup of tea sitting on my desk is a belief system, as is your lack of belief in X, where X can be any number of things.

Are you prepared to accept the above just so you can continue to believe that atheism is, in and of itself, a system of belief, instead of just being a lack of belief?

Dades

Since when is not subscribing to someone else'e belief system a belief system?