|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 8:36:08 GMT -5
^ You teach them WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think. Not the way I was raised. My faith actually encourages me to question things. I don't have to believe what I believe in, but I chose to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 8:45:02 GMT -5
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. I've answered all of your questions. Your turn now No, you haven't. The last request remains outstanding, my lord.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 17, 2007 8:45:31 GMT -5
^ You teach them WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think. Not the way I was raised. My faith actually encourages me to question things. I don't have to believe what I believe in, but I chose to believe it. Let us admit this: once we have come to rely on 'faith' we have by definition given up questioning in a fundamental way. To have faith is to believe in what would otherwise be questionable.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 8:48:10 GMT -5
Not the way I was raised. My faith actually encourages me to question things. I don't have to believe what I believe in, but I chose to believe it. Let us admit this: once we have come to rely on 'faith' we have by definition given up questioning in a fundamental way. To have faith is to believe in what would otherwise be questionable. Semantics ... semantics. I was talking about "faith" in terms of upbringing, not a system of beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 8:49:11 GMT -5
No, you haven't. The last request remains outstanding, my lord. Which one? Post 88.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 17, 2007 8:49:49 GMT -5
Ok, I see.
But your "faith" encourages (if not requires) 'faith'.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 8:50:45 GMT -5
Ok, I see. But your "faith" encourages (if not requires) 'faith'. Is there a question?
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 17, 2007 8:52:42 GMT -5
No that was a statement that supported HB's point and undermined yours to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 8:56:23 GMT -5
No that was a statement that supported HB's point and undermined yours to some extent. I'm sorry. You lost me.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 17, 2007 8:59:38 GMT -5
Read the recent comments again. I'll explain later if it's really necessary.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 9:03:01 GMT -5
Not the way I was raised. My faith actually encourages me to question things. I don't have to believe what I believe in, but I chose to believe it. Let us admit this: once we have come to rely on 'faith' we have by definition given up questioning in a fundamental way. To have faith is to believe in what would otherwise be questionable. Faith is actually believing in something that you can't physically see ... something that is invisible. It does not necessarily mean it's believing in something questionable.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 17, 2007 9:07:48 GMT -5
I knew you'd get it... Believing in something for which there can be no proof will always be questionable. Unless you have 'faith' that is. But 'faith' and questioning are by nature opposed, they rub each other quite awkwardly when united under one "faith".
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 9:10:43 GMT -5
I knew you'd get it... Believing in something for which there can be no proof will always be questionable. Unless you have 'faith' that is. But 'faith' and questioning are by nature opposed, they rub each other quite awkwardly when united under one "faith". "Visible proof" is what I'm arguing.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 17, 2007 9:14:09 GMT -5
Now you may have lost me.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 9:31:32 GMT -5
Now you may have lost me. re: your post 104, substitute "visible proof" for "proof".
|
|