Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Religion is "child abuse" ??

1…1314161819…27

Comments

  • #452
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    rational wrote: »
    I thought atheism was supposed to be about inclucivity, openness, rationality, yet I am criticised as an outsider, dropping in, spoiling the party with my "notions" etc.
    You dropped in to soapbox the tired idea that atheism is a "religion", described our "zelous riteousness" and posted a picture of Dawkins as our "God"...

    I'd hate to see what you'd be posting if you weren't looking for 'inclucivity'. :)

    Seriously, you're more than welcome to post here, but if you get people's goat up people will respond accordingly.


  • #453
    rational
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭rational


    I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Okay, you have to be being deliberately obtuse now because it's been pointed out numerous times already that atheism isn't "about" anything other than lacking a belief in a god. A - without, theism - belief in a deity. Repeatedly ignoring other posters and continuing to spout the same drivel isn't spoiling the party, it's just being snotty & childishly annoying..

    So because I just dont take your accepted wisdom as Fact I am being obtuse? That is so ironic coming from an atheist. Cant you see that?

    Just as the non believers of the past were "told numerous times" the accepted wisdom and failed to believe. Yet I must accept your wisdom as gospel or I Shunned by the mob.


  • #454
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    rational wrote: »
    I thought atheism was supposed to be about inclucivity, openness, rationality, yet I am criticised as an outsider, dropping in, spoiling the party with my "notions" etc.

    You thought wrong my friend.
    at the risk of repeating myself for the third time, Atheism is about not believing in God. That's it. That's all it is about. Nothing else. It really is that simple.


  • #455
    rational
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭rational


    I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Dades wrote: »
    You dropped in to soapbox the tired idea that atheism is a "religion", described our "zelous riteousness" and posted a picture of Dawkins as our "God"...

    I'd hate to see what you'd be posting if you weren't looking for 'inclucivity'. :)

    Seriously, you're more than welcome to post here, but if you get people's goat up people will respond accordingly.


    I am not looking for inclucivity I am saying it is a characteristic that atheistics hold to be important. Again my reference to Dawkins has a context. Specifically because Dawkins was used by one of the moderators in a previous post as a juxtiposition to George Bush.

    Please feel free to slight me but at lease quote me contextually.


  • #456
    rational
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭rational


    I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    You thought wrong my friend.
    at the risk of repeating myself for the third time, Atheism is about not believing in God. That's it. That's all it is about. Nothing else. It really is that simple.

    Good post

    Yes as a word that all it is about. Just like believing in God is your relationship with the Devine. However the problems arise when this belief impacts on others.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    rational wrote: »
    I am not looking for inclucivity I am saying it is a characteristic that atheistics hold to be important.

    where did you get that from?


  • #458
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I was talking about people picking and choosing what to believe, how people who are brought up with and edited version of the bible and end up only believing in the bits they know and like and out and out deny the rest. This is what you did and I pointed this out.

    OH so you were actually talking about people who were brought up in the way you described. - Sorry I thought you were claiming that I was one of those people.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Then what is your point on arguing with me on this?

    Im not arguing with you (apart from when you claimed to know about my upbringing). I am engaging in a conversation and a discussion on your beliefs. An argument would suggest that I had a stance or was representing a side. I am questioning you in the same way as I often question theists on why they do believe in a God. This way you get to see different interpretations of the world etc to get a better understanding.

    This IMO is much better to gain a deeper understanding of peoples beliefs than trying to disprove other beliefs.


  • #459
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    rational wrote: »
    However the problems arise when this belief impacts on others.

    I don't see what kind of problems someone not believing in god can cause.

    It seems to me that people who believe in god cause many many more problems than those who reject the existence of a deity.


  • #460
    rational
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭rational


    I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    where did you get that from?

    I stand corrected. Atheists have no view on that issue. My mistake.


  • #461
    rational
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭rational


    I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    I don't see what kind of problems someone not believing in god can cause..

    The title of this thread for one thing. Dont you think it might just be a tad bit insulting to people who bring up their kids in the best way they can and try to give them values they hold to be important? Not your values maybe.


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm not jumping to conclusions, you changed your believes because your edited ideas of the bible where shown to be wrong. .

    Again your jumping to conclusions - by using the word because you claim to know why I changed my beliefs - it is impossible for you to know. They may have been changed as a result of looking for new theories and ideas and finding some that make more sense as opposed to my beliefs being challenged. I have these kind of conversations with theists aswell.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I simply pointed this out as an example of how most people are (they just haven't had their ideas challenged yet). I don't know why you are taking offence, changing your views on new evidence is a good thing.

    Most people are not like this at all most people will stick to their beliefs even more strongly if they are challenged.

    Yes changing your views based on new evidence is a good thing - for both theists and Atheists.


  • #463
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    robindch wrote: »
    It's only through the forced imposition of religious views that anybody ever stops being an atheist.
    I would disagree with this as it is possible to reach the conclusion that a God exists through other means.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Such as?

    I never said I knew what it was - but I do know (not think - but actually know) one exists.

    How do I know? - well if we are all born Atheists then someone would have have to draw the conclusion that there is a God (way back is cavemen time nearly - I would guess) and then he would have spread that belief.


  • #464
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    rational wrote: »
    The title of this thread for one thing. Dont you think it might just be a tad bit insulting to people who bring up their kids in the best way they can and try to give them values they hold to be important? Not your values maybe.

    Well I do think the title of this thread is provocative, inflammatory and insulting. I agree with you there. my parents were (not very committed) catholics and they definitely were not guilty of "child abuse" for trying to raise me as they themselves were raised. They also instilled in me the desire to examine my beliefs and question things that make no sense to me (hence my atheism) and for that I am thankful.
    However the poll options:
    Do you think some religious dogmas are child abuse, well I have to agree with this. I've seen footage of children spending their school time mindlessly reciting the Qu'ran for hours on end. I think that is tantamount to abuse, as it is brainwashing them completely and stifling their ability to think for themselves. I think that is sickening.

    I'm trying to find that footage at the moment to link it here.


  • #465
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Do you not think its a valid question*, why worship a god whose most important commandments are "worship me" and who once lost his temper at a fig tree?

    *question to those who hold to the ten commandments and to the story of teh tree

    I was more referring to the tone (or whatever the keyboard equivalent is) in which he phrased the question.

    I got the impression that he meant it as a rhetorical question and was implying that anyone who believed this is stupid and so he was looking down at other beliefs and was not going to take any answer he got seriously. - which isnt exactly respectful of others. (if however I am wrong I apologise and I would advise him to phrase his questions better in future)

    However if he had phrased it like you have where you seem interested in hearing answers it would be a different thing altogether.

    As for the question you would have to ask someone who believes these.

    Also just to correct both of you Jesus did not kill the fig tree when he was throwing a strop/losing his temper - he was in a more emo mood.


  • #466
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    my parents were (not very committed) catholics and they definitely were not guilty of "child abuse" for trying to raise me as they themselves were raised. They also instilled in me the desire to examine my beliefs and question things that make no sense to me (hence my atheism) and for that I am thankful.

    Thank you for posting this as I am/was engaged in a number of discussions on this topic and I asked this question:
    Des Carter wrote: »
    So if you were a critical thinking Christian who did not force your views on your child in an over-authoritarian way, taught them that there are other possibilities out there and encouraged them to question beliefs if they doubted them - Then it would be acceptable to raise your child in a Christian upbringing?

    One answer I got was "Nope" continued by further detail of how it was still undesirable and the other answer was "its better than most but still not as good as raising a child Atheist.

    So same question to you.


  • #467
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


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

    it seems to me that Christians who are totally committed to their religion wouldn't teach their children that there are other options out there, and wouldn't encourage them to question their beliefs. Perhaps I'm wrong. A committed Christian would not consider my folks to be true Christians, (see this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056046045 and the responses to the OP from Christians)

    So one has to ask if you
    taught them that there are other possibilities out there and encouraged them to question beliefs if they doubted them
    then are you really giving your children a Christian upbringing??
    You'd have to define what a Christian upbringing is.
    I believe a Christian upbringing is one where you teach your child that the Judeo-Christian God is the maker of everything and the one true god and you've to believe in all of his rules (even the ones that you don't agree with or the ones that make no sense in the modern world). If you are a true Christian then you would surely believe that you are placing your child's "soul" in danger by allowing them to believe in other possibilities.

    I think I was given a secular upbringing by not-very-committed catholic parents. I was taught some morals that are in line with Christianity, like most Irish people. And not taught others (like gays are immoral etc)

    Personally I plan on giving my daughter a similar upbringing to the one I had myself. I won't preach my atheism to her, but I will give her my opinions on things if she asks for them. I'll then let her choose her own path.

    I would be disappointed if she chooses to be a theist however :)

    I think its right to give your children the knowledge of other possibilities and the freedom of thought to choose their own beliefs. But I don't think that constitutes a "Christian" upbringing.


  • #468
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    I think having children is child abuse.


  • #469
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    You'd have to define what a Christian upbringing is.

    Well in my discussion I would be very skeptical of the Churches teachings and would be more of the opinion that you should decide what is good through critically examining each belief - but no I would by no means be a traditional Christian.

    I also defined Christion upbringing as:

    Des Carter wrote: »
    By Christian upbringing I mean having them go to Mass the odd time, having them baptised/receive holy communion/confirmation and teaching them the basic Christian teachings (ie God loves you etc) .


  • #470
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des I personally see what you are saying, about
    critically examining each belief and deciding what ones to follow and what ones to disregard. However that's not "Christian". I'm pretty sure it would be considered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy to a traditional Christian. So I agree that you're not a traditional Christian.

    some quotes from the thread i linked above are:
    but, really, if you believe in Christ why do you think it's ok to ignore his teachings?
    How can you say you believe he was the Son of God and still say you don't believe his teachings?

    Also, if you don't believe that he actually thought the things the Gospels say he thought, then where are you getting your beliefs from, if not the Bible?
    As for your 'religion'. I don't think you can call yourself a Christian at this stage. I mean, even the demons believe Jesus exists and is the son of God. And you can hardly call them Christians.

    I get the impression that the Christians in the thread would disagree with your definition of a Christian upbringing.

    However you're doing what you feel is right, and I don't think you're instilling hardcore views into your children. Which is good I think, as fanaticism of any type is wrong.
    The reservation I would have is that while you are skeptical of the Catholic church, by having your kids take part inthe rites of that church (baptism/communion etc) you're propping the church up. Keeping it on life support. However, my own folks did that with me and there are many many Irish a la carte catholics who do the same.


  • #471
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    rational wrote: »
    So because I just dont take your accepted wisdom as Fact I am being obtuse? That is so ironic coming from an atheist. Cant you see that?

    Just as the non believers of the past were "told numerous times" the accepted wisdom and failed to believe. Yet I must accept your wisdom as gospel or I Shunned by the mob.

    In discussions, especially those about personal belief, you either accept what others say they believe/when their beliefs developed/didn't develop as fact or you can call them a liar and dismiss what they tell you - which I can't imagine will gain you many friends in any arena. If I go on the football forum, I don't ask someone to prove they are Man Utd fan, I take their word for it & discussion commences. I'm not even sure why it should stick in your craw so much to accept someone has never believed in a god and therefore have always been an atheist, anyway? Unless it happens to negate whatever comforting nonsense you've convinced yourself about atheists? :confused:

    Being obtuse comes in by repeating dogmatically your tired and blinkered view of atheism and atheists on the A&A forum, claiming to know more about it than those said atheists, despite their patiently explaining numerous times where your lack of logic and understanding is taking you - it's a well trodden & rather staid argument at this stage. There has to be three theists a week come onto this forum to chant about atheism being a religion, dawkins the atheist god and how atheists are ALL x, y & z just because they are atheists - generally based on little more than knee-jerk reaction and flame-baiting; it's just sheer ignorance on so many levels.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    not really as when I say broad teachings Im talking about the ones that most people know the best.

    eg love your neighbour as yourself, ten commandments, forgive your enemies, turn the other cheeck etc.

    I don't know if that has been addressed yet, but... the ten commandments?

    Don't make any pictures?
    Don't worship any other gods?
    Keep Sundays "holy" (however you want to interpret that one?)
    Don't desire anything that doesn't belong to you yet?
    And don't swear?

    As for the love your neighbour, forgive your enemies, and turn the other cheek... if you go be the importance those words are given in the biblical context, they are little else but anecdotes. How do you decide which ones to pick, and which ones to leave?


  • #473
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    rational wrote: »
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    I don't see what kind of problems someone not believing in god can cause..
    The title of this thread for one thing. Dont you think it might just be a tad bit insulting to people who bring up their kids in the best way they can and try to give them values they hold to be important? Not your values maybe.
    rational, you're making a classic mistake which many do when they come into this forum - which is assume all atheists agrees with each other.

    The thread title is just a question, not a mantra. Like others in this thread I'd only consider religious indoctrination "child abuse" in very extreme circumstances like fundamentalist Muslims or "Jesus Camp" etc.

    I haven't voted in the poll because I don't want to appear to be on the side of those who think every religious education is child abuse, while I recognise that some certainly is.

    So if you have an issue with opinions here, look to who exactly are espousing those opinions and don't automatically assume it's an atheist thing.


  • #474
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    rational wrote: »
    Apology accepted.

    A discussion fourm does not constitute a belief system but when people of a similar set of beliefs gather to one point then it constitutes a community and a community with similar beliefs is a unifying factor.

    People coming together to have arguments constitute a community???

    Wow.

    Israel is a very community-orientated place, then, wouldn't you think?


  • #475
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Dades wrote: »
    I haven't voted in the poll because I don't want to appear to be on the side of those who think every religious education is child abuse, while I recognise that some certainly is.

    :eek: I voted only because the question specifically stated "at least some" rather than a repeat of the thread title...


  • #476
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    FionnMatthew wrote: »
    I think having children is child abuse.

    That's something I got thinking about myself when I heard some pro-lifer say 'how would you like it if you had been aborted?!'.

    Redundant question. I will check out that book. Thanks.


  • #477
    Abraham
    Closed Accounts Posts: 254 ✭✭Abraham


    Improbable wrote: »
    Personal belief has nothing to do with truth. How do they know that their religion is the right one? They BELIEVE that it is but there is no logical reason to do so.

    Right on. Belief is not the same thing as truth.
    The world is full of people who believe things that are just not true.
    Religious believers start out with their fear based notions and then select things and engage in practices to bolster that viewpoint. Sceptics are treated with distrust. So there....yes, I am a sceptic.....before anyone points it out to me. As Terry Wogan in last Sunday's Indo piece...."there's far too much evidence to the contrary".

    In a nutshell, believers ignore hard 'in your face' evidence in favour of no evidence whatsoever. Quoting 7th Century Bedouin philosophies to me about the msytery of life is not an answer to this either.

    I simply do not believe that what the clerics did globally in terms of child abuse and paedophilia could possibly have been condoned and allowed to happen, by any deity especially as it was being done to the most innocent of all,...defenceless children. Aaaaggghhh....gimme a break.


  • #478
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,455 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    rational wrote: »
    Atheism has a lot of characteristics that in my opinion seem to make it like a quasi religion. Atheists share common characteristics of belief; they share a zelous riteousness about the certainty of their beliefs and they even share similarities in they way they celebrate key times in terms of rites of passage etc. They gather in communities to reafirm their beliefs (like this one) too and like religion there is hell to pay if someone goes against their assumptions. And like religion they even have their own Gods.
    If the only tool you're familiar with is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

    Instead of telling us atheists and agnostics what your view of us -- a view I certainly don't recognise -- why don't you ask us?

    You know, engage in dialog rather than preaching.


  • #479
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There is plenty of evidence (eg: the testimony of the gospel writers) it's just that you reject it.

    False. There is plenty of what you are CALLING evidence. I do not reject it if it is evidence. I reject it because of the reasons why it is not valid evidence in the first place.

    It would be a mistake for anyone to think something is evidence simply because someone has put it forward and called it evidence. Something does not become evidence merely because you choose to label it so.

    If you think you have evidence, then my all means present it to me. I will never reject valid evidence. However I will certainly point out why it is invalid if it indeed is.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The evidence is there

    Lead the way to it so and show it to me. Alas you seem to prefer talking ABOUT there being evidence rather than talking about what it actually IS. I wonder why that might be.


  • #480
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Des Carter wrote: »
    Yes but I never said it wasnt a hypothetiical situation. I disagree I mean if we didnt have fantasy situations the whole area of philosophy wouldnt exist and also if everyone thought like this peoples imaginations would be rubbish and that would lead to no good fictional books/movies etc leaving this world rather boring IMO. Again I disagree there is evidence for a God - however in your opinion it is not solid, which is fair enough but it is STILL evidence so your above claim is false. True but it is entertaining none the less and prevents people from becoming close-minded. For example a Christian who believes everything the Church says is fact and doesnt think about the hypothetical situation of there not being a God becomes close-minded and impossible to have a conversation with and would be ripped to shreds in A&A - so why wouldnt the opposite be true for an Atheist? - If that makes sense. You have contradicted yourself. Earlier in your post where I highlighted you said there was NO evidence but now your saying there might be!
    The point is we cannot know for sure so people shouldnt be so quick to dismiss things. I never said there was I was having a hypothetical debate where theoretical grandchildren were involved at one point!

    You will forgive me for not replying to you in the Zebra crossing format which you choose to use. I find it, like any linguistic formatting aid, almost unreadable when it is overused to the point of diluting its usefulness beyond recognition.

    I think you mistake the difference between engaging in fantasy, and engaging in fantasy about something there is literally no reason to lend credence to. As you say engaging in fantasy is the very essence of philosophy and science. If we did not, we never would have had the ideas that drove either of those fields forward. This kind of fantasy is to be commended and encouraged and it is a failing on the part of my prose if I gave any such impression that it was THIS I was speaking against. I will happily clarify however.

    This is a far cry from wasting time answering questions about fantasy scenarios that have literally no basis in reality, nor any reason to lend them a single iota of the time of day. There is a clear distinction between fantasizing about what can and might be, and fantasy about something there is no reason to think even likely at all, in any way.

    If however you disagree that there is evidence for god, then simply present said evidence to make your case. Simply saying there is evidence, and leaving it at that, hardly helps anyone does it? Can you imagine in a court of law saying “Your honour there is PLENTY of evidence he killed the victim” and walking out? No… talking about the evidence might entertain you, but it is useless to us unless you are willing to discuss what said evidence actually is.
    Des Carter wrote: »
    You have contradicted yourself. Earlier in your post where I highlighted you said there was NO evidence but now your saying there might be!

    This is simple linguistic pedantry on your part and no more.

    Of course there MIGHT be. I do not know as I do not know everything, nor do you. However if there is such evidence it simply is not forthcoming and when I say there is "no" evidence I mean in my personal experience only. Unless I were to claim to know everything there is to know about everything there is to know it about... the claim that there is "no" evidence clearly is non-sensical.

    When I say "no evidence" you should read it as "no evidence forthcoming" or "no evidence that has been made available to me". Call it short hand, and what I mean by it should be pretty clear.

    If you think there is, stop talking ABOUT it and be so kind as to point it out to me, because in 20 years of asking I have only met people like you and antiskeptic above who like to refer to how there either MIGHT be evidence or there IS evidence, but none of them EVER get around to presenting what it actually IS.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    Des I personally see what you are saying, about
    critically examining each belief and deciding what ones to follow and what ones to disregard. However that's not "Christian". I'm pretty sure it would be considered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy to a traditional Christian. So I agree that you're not a traditional Christian.
    I agree
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    I get the impression that the Christians in the thread would disagree with your definition of a Christian upbringing.

    Again I agree
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    However you're doing what you feel is right, and I don't think you're instilling hardcore views into your children. Which is good I think, as fanaticism of any type is wrong.
    The reservation I would have is that while you are skeptical of the Catholic church, by having your kids take part inthe rites of that church (baptism/communion etc) you're propping the church up. Keeping it on life support. However, my own folks did that with me and there are many many Irish a la carte catholics who do the same.

    Just to clarify Im not actually doing this (as I dont have children) and was just giving an example of an alternative.

    As for the taking part of the rites I would imagine this would be done so the child wont feel left out - If all his friends are making their first holy communion and were talking about how great it was etc this would be unfair to him/her.

    As for the quotes I think the majority of these issues were raised and discussed - in great detail - earlier in the thread so I dont really want to go over them again.

    However I would advise reading over the thread (or at least some of it) as some very interesting points were made -from around page 11 onwards


Advertisement