|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 22, 2007 7:26:50 GMT -5
You said you don't personally believe in absolute morality and yet have made statements that religious "indoctrination" of children should be illegal because it is harmful. Well, isn't that an absolute statement of morality that you just made? If you don't believe in absolute morality, how do you judge right from wrong?
I came up with instantaneous resurrection for the murderverse because I can't think of anything else that would make that society survive if murder and theft are the norm. You said have a high birth rate, but given that it takes humans at least over a decade to reach sexual maturity, they'll all be dead by then. And if everybody is dead, what free will would we be speaking of then?
About the sandwich, you said there's two different flavors. So, perhaps one will really please my palate and I would finish it, and the other I would spit out cos it had onions and I have onion allergy. Therefore, the results are still consequential and therefore I still had real choices.
Again, back to the voting example, the outcome is still uncertain and not pre-determined, so therefore I still have a real choice in the election. And who's to say that in the future handful of votes won't determine the outcome of presidential elections. I believe it had already happened in a past presidential election in the U.S.
My lord, you did not answer my conceptual question though ... forget all the scenarios we just talked about ... ================================================================= So, let me ask you this ... just speaking conceptually ... would you consider it a real choice if the outcome is already pre-determined and it doesn't matter which option you pick as the result will be the same? =================================================================
Speaking of assumptions ... dismissing the relevance of the existence or non-existence of the butterfly just because it does not affect you or you can't verify it is very human-centric and does not change the fact that it did in fact exist. Your knowledge or lack of knowledge thereof does not alter reality.
It is in the interest of society to preserve family unity and privacy as much as possible of course. That being said, there are things that are prohibited of parents to do to their children now without creating a police state. Sexual abuse for instance, which warrants the arrest of the abuser parent and the removal of the child from that household.
But to make it unlawful for religious teaching in the home, society must come to answer these questions:
1. Is the practice producing significant harm to children? You subjectively seem to think so. I don't. My experience with religious teaching by my parents has been very positive. Speaking as someone who does not believe in absolute morality, you have to give equal credence and validity to my experience as much as yours.
2. Is the practice an aberration and unacceptable by society's norms? It is very rare and highly unusual for parents in our society to sexually abuse their children. In contrast, millions of parents conduct religious instruction at home. Therefore, religious instruction is not an aberration and is considered acceptable by most of society.
By the way, I don't believe that it's hard to unlearn the things we hear as children. How about Santa for instance?
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 22, 2007 9:05:44 GMT -5
I don't have time right now to respond to all your points, as it's Thanxgiving Holiday here in the States. Anyways, I just want to point out that we disagree on the following subjective points:
1. Is religious teaching harmful to children? You say so, and I don't think so. You speak from experience, and I speak from experience.
2. Are religious teachings "false"? You say so, and I don't agree.
3. You say you're operating within the confines of the moral system of society, and yet that same moral system does not find religious teaching of children as harmful and unlawful. So which is which really? How did you determine that religious teaching is harmful if that same moral system you're using as a basis does not find it so?
JC
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 22, 2007 9:24:05 GMT -5
I don't have time right now to respond to all your points, as it's Thanxgiving Holiday here in the States. Anyways, I just want to point out that we disagree on the following subjective points: 1. Is religious teaching harmful to children? You say so, and I don't think so. You speak from experience, and I speak from experience. 2. Are religious teachings "false"? You say so, and I don't agree. 3. You say you're operating within the confines of the moral system of society, and yet that same moral system does not find religious teaching of children as harmful and unlawful. So which is which really? How did you determine that religious teaching is harmful if that same moral system you're using as a basis does not find it so? JC I realised all of the above, hence I decided to change tact. Forget what I was talking about before and if you have the chance and are willing, answer the questions I asked in the second post. Is this a trap? I'll answer them later after I've had a heart to heart with the Pope and after we've prayed that Zoff's heathen heart finally returns to the waiting arms of the Catholic church. Lol. Just kidding. If Cristobal were here, he'd probably note that we've broken the record for the longest post many times over.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 22, 2007 9:37:14 GMT -5
You can't be the next pope. You gotta at least be 80 for that. You're not even 30 yet. I think we were all over the place with this thread. We need to focus our discussion on a limited number of issues. I'll have my answers for you by tomorrow. Like I said, I'd have to run it past the Pope before he accuses me of heresy and excommunicates me to be burned at the stake. Then, this Thanxgiving, I'll be the turkey. Joke on the side: What's the difference between the chicken and the pig in a bacon and egg sandwich? The chicken is there, but the pig really participates.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Nov 23, 2007 8:10:17 GMT -5
hai. But Abraham didn't kill Isaac, did he? Only because God told him to stop. He would've killed Isaac ('cause God told him to). Basically, whatever God told him, he'd do. I don't really see a point or reason for it.. Again, when I read these passages, I always try to look for the context. The fact that he was in the end not required to kill his child is not irrelevant. It is very relevant. Abraham knew that God promised that Isaac would bear his descendants. So, in the end, Abraham had faith that Isaac was going to live. Yes, as Christians, we are called to obey God no matter what He asks. But why?? What will God do if you don't have faith or don't obey?? SMITE you?? I believe that God would never ask us of anything or test our loyalty to Him. He ain't needy like a girlfriend or boyfriend going ' do you love me, do you love me??' all the time. Justice still requires the shedding of blood. Totally warped and untrue. And I'm still betting my money these kids end up as better citizens than the average MTV moron, whose sole goal in life is f**king and getting designer clothing. Maybe some EA's need Christianity or Islam so they wouldn't be self-worshipping, material obsessed, vain people. You judge people very harshly--you stereotype-- just as those you seem to hate. To me, atheism is also religion. You don't always have to be something. It is possible to be nothing, you know. Atheism is not a religion. It's just a name the religious folk made up for the non-believers. In your upside down society scenario, how can a society function if murder and theft are the "right" things to do? That's the thing. You think people should always do what's commonly considered "right"-- you think that people will begin to steal and murder because they've been taught that it's "right". The idea is to ask yourself what's right. If people stole and murdered because you told them it's right-- then they're mindless robots. However, when you tell someone that shooting someone else in the head will guarantee them a spot in Heaven, and they respond with 'wtf??'-- then you have a free thinker on your hands. The Christian belief is Jesus died on a cross to save the souls of all of humanity. Your goal in life to to live by his word, and example. I don't really understand how Jesus dying saved our souls......... and what of all those souls before Jesus died? And why is that my goal in life? What for?? .. Just 'cause?
|
|
|
Post by buff on Nov 23, 2007 9:24:13 GMT -5
The problem in society today is that many young adults like to portray themselves as too liberal-“ that they themselves ask what’s right for them, because they know what’s right for them”, now that they’ve grown a bit and developed a tad of reasoning, they would like to distinguish themselves that they think of what’s right or wrong for themselves” when in fact their own schooling have established a standard of what’s wrong/right, morals/ethics within them. How would anyone know what’s right then. Everyone here attended school to learn what’s right and wrong, to distinguish the two, and finally be guided to the right thing once the differentiation is clear so that the person will become an “ideal’ citizen of the nation. The Constitution were taught in school, English lit is not merely based on English language but zero in on the ethics, wrong/right of the story. Even in Mathematics, you were taught to follow a set of rules and postulates to move up the lather of education. Chemistry and Physics have their own formula that everyone need to follow to pass. Everyone here followed that same set of rules or standards. Now, many wants to distinguish themselves and portray themselves as Atheist/liberal who should be enjoying the “freedom to choose to think right/wrong for themselves” and yet deny the fact that they followed the same moral laws and ethics established during their formative years in school. Had they not succumb to the same laws, do you think they are still out there to preach how “they themselves ask what’s right for them and know what’s right for them”. Now with regards to Religion (I will exemplify the Christian standards as I don’t know the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist standards), how many rules in the ten commandments are now copied in the Western Constitution (including Australia), ALL and yet the constitution fine tune them to more rules and regulations. Don’t ever try to deny this because you yourself think and know what’s right or wrong for yourself and for society - yeah the same ones you learned in school, reason why you’re FREE (not in jail) today because you followed them regardless of how you VOCALLY DENIED them ;D I hope nobody here strives to be an oxymoron ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 23, 2007 13:07:51 GMT -5
hai. But Abraham didn't kill Isaac, did he? Only because God told him to stop. He would've killed Isaac ('cause God told him to). Basically, whatever God told him, he'd do. I don't really see a point or reason for it.. But why?? What will God do if you don't have faith or don't obey?? SMITE you?? I believe that God would never ask us of anything or test our loyalty to Him. He ain't needy like a girlfriend or boyfriend going ' do you love me, do you love me??' all the time. Totally warped and untrue. You judge people very harshly--you stereotype-- just as those you seem to hate. You don't always have to be something. It is possible to be nothing, you know. Atheism is not a religion. It's just a name the religious folk made up for the non-believers. That's the thing. You think people should always do what's commonly considered "right"-- you think that people will begin to steal and murder because they've been taught that it's "right". The idea is to ask yourself what's right. If people stole and murdered because you told them it's right-- then they're mindless robots. However, when you tell someone that shooting someone else in the head will guarantee them a spot in Heaven, and they respond with 'wtf??'-- then you have a free thinker on your hands. The Christian belief is Jesus died on a cross to save the souls of all of humanity. Your goal in life to to live by his word, and example. I don't really understand how Jesus dying saved our souls......... and what of all those souls before Jesus died? And why is that my goal in life? What for?? .. Just 'cause? - You should post drawn out comments like these more often, when you said 'free thinker' you said the magic words..
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 7, 2007 5:04:20 GMT -5
In fact scrap that, I'm not going to convince you of harm because you believe. Instead let me ask you a few questions. 1) Does your religion place restrictions on how you live your life, your actions etc.? 2) Does it use the concept of sin to make you feel guilty if you don't adhere to the rules? 3) Are all the rules practically useful or logical? 4) Do you spend a significant amount of time worshipping? 5) Does it teach you that there is a hell where you could be punished for sins? If so how is this hell described? Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you. Anyhow, I know what you're getting at for asking these questions. You want to essentially go back to your argument that religious teachings involve "brainwashing" and should therefore be illegal; and that parents who engage in "religious brainwashing" of their kids are criminals. Is that not right, my lord? JC
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 7, 2007 5:08:06 GMT -5
^ stop avoiding the questions Quid pro quo. And stop avoiding mine.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 7, 2007 5:15:54 GMT -5
I asked first. I've been answering your questions the whole thread, now it's your turn. Or are you worried the answers may support my argument? But I'm older than you, so seniority counts. Lol. If you remember, I did answer your questions, except from this last post. The one prior to that I answered too, before you decided to switch arguments cos I suppose you were in a bad position. Lol. I do want to know where you're coming from so that I can present my answers in a more relevant fashion and I wanna know where we're gonna go with this. I don't want to be all over the place like last time. ;D
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 7, 2007 5:32:20 GMT -5
I changed tact, not because I was in a bad position, but because I could see that my approach wasn't going to get my argument across in an acceptable fashion. My questions only require honest simple responses. If you tailor the responses according to the answers I may or may not want they become pointless. The last questions I asked you, but that you left unanswered were: You say you're operating within the confines of the moral system of society, and yet that same moral system does not find religious teaching of children as harmful and unlawful. So which is which really? How did you determine that religious teaching is harmful if that same moral system you're using as a basis does not find it so? But we do not have to come back to those, if you don't want to. Also, you were raised Catholic, so you know what the answers to your questions are already. So, what's the point then? Do you seriously wanna find out what Protestants believe?
|
|
|
Post by jericho on Dec 7, 2007 6:15:50 GMT -5
I like the title of this thread. Is it really called that?
'Hey want to hang out this weekend?'
'Nah man, I can't I got Jesus Camp.'
;D
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 17, 2007 2:22:27 GMT -5
It's called the Socratic Method! It's the coolest!
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 8:24:00 GMT -5
You say you're operating within the confines of the moral system of society, and yet that same moral system does not find religious teaching of children as harmful and unlawful. So which is which really? To clarify I'm pointing out the hypocrisy within the system by using it's own rules against it. This moral system, supposedly places the welfare of children before all else. There is a conflict here with (what I consider) to be harmful actions towards children perpetrated in the name of religion, which if they were to occur in the name of anything else, would cause outcry. Very simply by looking at what is considered to be harmful to children. Remove religion from the equation and imagine many of the same actions that these parents do, but done for non religious reasons. Are they now acceptable? No. Then under a system that supposedly places children's welfare first, they should remain unacceptable even when religion is involved. Also, you were raised Catholic, so you know what the answers to your questions are already. So, what's the point then? Do you seriously wanna find out what Protestants believe? Well seeing as we're debating. Obviously I have a vested interest in the answers to the questions I'm posing. Therefore, while I am perfectly capable of answering the questions myself, it would not be convincing if I were to do so, even if I were to be unbiased. It is much better if the answers come, not even from an independent source, but from my very opponent in this debate. After all, it goes against your interests to further my argument Give me your proof that religious teaching of children is universally harmful to them. Unless you can come up with something concrete and objective, then all we're discussing are plainly conflicting opinions, hearsay, and personal experiences.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Dec 17, 2007 8:29:34 GMT -5
^ You teach them WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think.
|
|