2nd Level German Court: Circumcision illegal

[kentonio]

How is me not teaching a (my) child about God relate in any way to trying to teach a (my) child to think for themselves?

Because everything about religion is (quite intentionally) designed to control behaviour and thinking. You can't invite free thought yet insist that there is a single set of absolute truths that are beyond question or debate.

How would this apply to the vast number of Christians who are more universalist in their outlook? Heck, really only evangelical Christians these days believe in eternal torture Hell (seriously, even the Catholic Church states in their Catechism that Hell is seperation from God, not eternal torture).

You mean all those christians who don't really follow christianity, just their own woolly made up variations? :

It doesn't really matter if you take away the brimstone and forks though does it really, the whole point of heaven is to say that if you follow a narrow set of rules you get a wonderful prize at the end, and if you don't then you'll be punished with misery. It has all the sophistication of threatening a child with a smacked bottom.

[Jon Miller]

Christ transforms people who have a relationship with Him.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Because everything about religion is (quite intentionally) designed to control behaviour and thinking. You can't invite free thought yet insist that there is a single set of absolute truths that are beyond question or debate.

Physical laws exist absolutely beyond question or debate.

I guess you disagree with teaching children science too?

JM

[giblets]

Christ transforms people who have a relationship with Him.

JM

Given how mean and nasty Ben Kenobi is he must have been a serial killer before he found Jesus.

[kentonio]

Physical laws exist absolutely beyond question or debate.

I guess you disagree with teaching children science too?

What a silly strawman, have you started channeling Ben?

The reason I think that free thought is so damn important, especially when it comes to moral and ethical issues, is exactly because these is no single set of inviolable rules, or if there is we certainly haven't found them yet. Modern morality is constantly evolving. The moral code of the bible is in places replusive, in others wildly outdated and in others still appropriate. How exactly should we explain to a child that they only have to listen to a few appropriate parts, and should ignore the rest?

Can you just explain to me btw how come we get to completely ignore the old testament? I get the whole thing about the rules changing under Jesus (not that that makes a lot of sense) but are we supposed to also ignore the parts where god is a terrifying, bloodthirsty monster? If so, why does the OT still appear in churches and sunday schools where it can be seen (and presumably misunderstood) by children?

[Elok]

Of course it's impossible to have a 'blank slate' child, but there's a huge gulf between trying to encourage the development of independant thinking, and force feeding a pre-determined set of values which are often logically inconsistent anyway.

What constitutes "force-feeding," anyway? If my wife and I both go to church, are we supposed to leave Laz at home? If we take him with us, what are we supposed to tell him about what's going on? "We believe X and Y but bear in mind it's possible that it's all rubbish so question all of this and make up your own mind." That's incoherent, at least from the child's POV. Nobody raises a child that way, no matter what they believe.

Suppose you and six-year-old Ken Jr. are walking along the street when you come across a guy on the sidewalk handing out flyers asserting that Muslim immigrants are actively setting out to destroy the British way of life and must be driven out before the country succumbs to Sharia. Do you tell Ken Jr. that this man is a hateful nutter, and if you do, do you urge him to make up his own mind on the matter and consider all the man's arguments carefully? Or do you teach him that your own values of tolerance and inclusiveness are correct, end of story? Bear in mind that Ken Jr. is six.

If they don't stand true on their own merits then they deserve to be rejected. Or does religion only make sense if you get it into peoples minds young enough?

I think you're assuming secularism (or whatever you wish to call it) as a default state here--it's not. It's a learned pattern of thought just like any other attitude. Certainly free inquiry is a highly unusual way for human beings to think; as the descendants of apes, we naturally have the desire to cling to basic truths (I'm not saying this is right or correct, just how we normally tend to think). People have to be trained to question all their assumptions, and an atheistic worldview depends on its own assumptions, primarily that of a mechanistic universe.

[kentonio]

I think you're assuming secularism (or whatever you wish to call it) as a default state here--it's not. It's a learned pattern of thought just like any other attitude.

Absolutely untrue, but I am very aware that you can never admit otherwise.

Certainly free inquiry is a highly unusual way for human beings to think; as the descendants of apes, we naturally have the desire to cling to basic truths (I'm not saying this is right or correct, just how we normally tend to think). People have to be trained to question all their assumptions, and an atheistic worldview depends on its own assumptions, primarily that of a mechanistic universe.

Nope, it all just comes back to God of the Gaps. People very rarely invent fantastical explanations for things they actually understand. Despite how much we wish we were a species of artists and dreamers, we're actually a very pragmatic bunch for the most part, which is why we became the dominant species and why even now we do so much wrong to each other despite us having developed such a refined sense of morality.

You're right about assumptions of course and clinging to basic truths, but humans will reach for a mechanistic answer over a spiritual one almost every time, especially when that answer is simple enough for them to readily understand. The only reason so much of the planet believes in religion is because for so long there were no answers for so much. Religion had thousands of years of ignorance to work with, and that's going to take a really long time to clear away.

[Asher]

Given how mean and nasty Ben Kenobi is he must have been a serial killer before he found Jesus.

He never said it was for the better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean all those christians who don't really follow christianity, just their own woolly made up variations? :

I enjoy it when non-Christians presume to tell Christians how they should believe, even in the face of historical precedents that make them seem foolish (then again, I guess the great early Christians like Origen, Basil the Great, et all, are far harder to remember than Jerry Falwell).

It doesn't really matter if you take away the brimstone and forks though does it really, the whole point of heaven is to say that if you follow a narrow set of rules you get a wonderful prize at the end, and if you don't then you'll be punished with misery. It has all the sophistication of threatening a child with a smacked bottom.

This doesn't answer those who are universalist, which has been a persistent alternative within Christian thought since its beginning.

And I wasn't sure that Love God, Love Others (to paraphrase) is all that narrow.

I think though atheists have a decidedly narrow view of what Christianity is and those who don't fit into their constructions are insufficiently Christian - because they can't be demonized. It'd be akin to calling someone insufficiently atheist if they don't want to slaughter all believers.

[Guynemer]

I think though atheists have a decidedly narrow view of what Christianity is and those who don't fit into their constructions are insufficiently Christian - because they can't be demonized.

Pot, kettle, etc.

I appreciate your larger point, however, and I recognize you did not intend to paint all atheists with one brush. Simple mistake, no harm intended, none taken.




As for some other people every ****ing time this discussion arises: Seriously, people, how ****ing difficult is it to recognize we are all ****ing individuals?

[kentonio]

I enjoy it when non-Christians presume to tell Christians how they should believe, even in the face of historical precedents that make them seem foolish (then again, I guess the great early Christians like Origen, Basil the Great, et all, are far harder to remember than Jerry Falwell).

I can understand how people could believe in a God and I can understand how they could see his teachings as divine, however what I cannot understand is how people can claim to worship a divine god yet somehow believe that humans have over time refined his teachings into a more perfect form.

This doesn't answer those who are universalist, which has been a persistent alternative within Christian thought since its beginning.

Yes there have always been heretics.

I think though atheists have a decidedly narrow view of what Christianity is and those who don't fit into their constructions are insufficiently Christian - because they can't be demonized. It'd be akin to calling someone insufficiently atheist if they don't want to slaughter all believers.

Not really, because atheists don't have any set of rules or any moral code they claim to live by, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in god. You guys are the ones with the structure and the teachings and all that jazz, yet you all seem quite happy to ignore as much of it as you like yet still claiming the hat and the badge.

"Oh yeah, I believe in God, but I just think I know better than him how I should live my life"

Well in that case, no you don't believe in God, otherwise you'd have a bit more frikkin humility.

*That wasn't directed at you btw, its just a long time annoyance on my part.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can you just explain to me btw how come we get to completely ignore the old testament? I get the whole thing about the rules changing under Jesus (not that that makes a lot of sense) but are we supposed to also ignore the parts where god is a terrifying, bloodthirsty monster? If so, why does the OT still appear in churches and sunday schools where it can be seen (and presumably misunderstood) by children?

We don't. We claim the Scriptures are an evolution of thought about God. The vast majority of Christians do NOT believe Scripture is infallible. We may believe in its divine inspiration, but realize that flawed men wrote it and flawed men translated it. Therefore there are truths behind the stories, but cultural and era-specific biases creep into the stories. One can see how the view of God evolves from closer to a Near East deity (though even then, God makes creation good as opposed to using violence to put chaos to order - see Walter Wink) early on up to a God who gets mad when people don't take care of others - even Gentiles - right before the New Testament comes into play (in fact a lot of Jesus's teachings about loving everyone would have been perfectly at home in Pharasee teaching - one belief is that Jesus argues so much with the Pharasees because he in fact belongs to that rabinnical order).

I think one has to see it as evolution of man's view of our Creator. And I believe God doesn't give us more than we can handle. So he doesn't tell Paul that slavery is contrary to His will because it would have blown his mind - he waited until we were ready for it with William Wilberforce and Fredrick Douglas (both religious people), etc. at the fore. Of course, just because the inspired writers got some of the details wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't have truth within those stories.

[Jon Miller]

It isn't the Christians in this thread who are arguing that atheists/agnostics should not raise children as atheists/agnostics.

JM

[kentonio]

We don't. We claim the Scriptures are an evolution of thought about God. The vast majority of Christians do NOT believe Scripture is infallible. We may believe in its divine inspiration, but realize that flawed men wrote it and flawed men translated it. Therefore there are truths behind the stories, but cultural and era-specific biases creep into the stories. One can see how the view of God evolves from closer to a Near East deity (though even then, God makes creation good as opposed to using violence to put chaos to order - see Walter Wink) early on up to a God who gets mad when people don't take care of others - even Gentiles - right before the New Testament comes into play (in fact a lot of Jesus's teachings about loving everyone would have been perfectly at home in Pharasee teaching - one belief is that Jesus argues so much with the Pharasees because he in fact belongs to that rabinnical order).

I think one has to see it as evolution of man's view of our Creator. And I believe God doesn't give us more than we can handle. So he doesn't tell Paul that slavery is contrary to His will because it would have blown his mind - he waited until we were ready for it with William Wilberforce and Fredrick Douglas (both religious people), etc. at the fore. Of course, just because the inspired writers got some of the details wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't have truth within those stories.

But hasn't that constant evolution of teachings just led to a planet full of people who are divided and warring often over the differences between those different teachings?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can understand how people could believe in a God and I can understand how they could see his teachings as divine, however what I cannot understand is how people can claim to worship a divine god yet somehow believe that humans have over time refined his teachings into a more perfect form.

How can humans fully grasp the teachings of an unknowable God? It is process of getting closer to Him. Of further revelation for when we are ready for it - after all, what did you think Pentecost was all about?

Not really, because atheists don't have any set of rules or any moral code they claim to live by, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in god. You guys are the ones with the structure and the teachings and all that jazz, yet you all seem quite happy to ignore as much of it as you like yet still claiming the hat and the badge.

But yet, you don't seem to care about the structure and the teachings unless they belong to evangelical Christianity, which has only been in existance for like 150 years.