2nd Level German Court: Circumcision illegal

[kentonio]

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

Really?

Religion is good for children. It sure beats whatever athiestic crap people are shoving down children's throats.

[Guynemer]

Tags for this thread: we need less cutbacks, we need more cutbacks.


Bravo, mystery Polytubbie, bravo indeed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?

Is there divison, of course - but not as if there wasn't division and warring when it was to be enforced as ONE rule (the first 500 years of Christianity had much putting down of "heretics")! These days we acknowledge our differences but also our similarities. Heck, the Pope visited Lutheran Bishops in Germany this year!

[kentonio]

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?

You're not talking about a personal journey of discovery though, but rather a process lasting thousands of years. Those who come later do not build purely on the experiences of those before, knowledge is lost, trust is not there, belief splits. It's a horribly inefficient way to impart knowledge, and whats more it implies that the early teachings were ok for their time. Genocide, rape and torture may have been more common once upon a time, but I'm still confused by how they can have been used as a means to encourage humans to be better people.

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.

Huh? I'm talking about fundamentalism not evangelicalism. You know, the Christianity that existed for nearly two thousand years before we got all modern and soft with it.

[kentonio]

Is there divison, of course - but not as if there wasn't division and warring when it was to be enforced as ONE rule (the first 500 years of Christianity had much putting down of "heretics")! These days we acknowledge our differences but also our similarities. Heck, the Pope visited Lutheran Bishops in Germany this year!

When's he due to give mass in Mecca next?

[Jon Miller]

Really?

I don't read kid.

Was his post in response to others?

JM

[Jon Miller]

You're not talking about a personal journey of discovery though, but rather a process lasting thousands of years. Those who come later do not build purely on the experiences of those before, knowledge is lost, trust is not there, belief splits. It's a horribly inefficient way to impart knowledge, and whats more it implies that the early teachings were ok for their time. Genocide, rape and torture may have been more common once upon a time, but I'm still confused by how they can have been used as a means to encourage humans to be better people.

Huh? I'm talking about fundamentalism not evangelicalism. You know, the Christianity that existed for nearly two thousand years before we got all modern and soft with it.

How can you expect God to efficiently communicate (huge concepts) with a person from scratch in one lifetime?

Universalism was from the first 100 years.

In the Bible Christianity is compared to a man (Christ, God as one of us) marrying a woman (the church, a large group of people). While God has a personal relationship with each of us, it is true (and should be obvious) that God is much much bigger/greater than one of us.

JM

[kentonio]

I don't read kid.

Was his post in response to others?

IIRC, that was what caused the branch off from circumcision to more general child related religion stuff.

How can you expect God to efficiently communicate with a person from scratch in one lifetime?

So why make human lifetimes so short that communication and understanding cannot be achieved?

[Lorizael]

How can you expect God to efficiently communicate (huge concepts) with a person from scratch in one lifetime?

By setting his omnipotence to 11.

[Elok]

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

Why, because I'm too stupid? You're being uncharitable here. I trust you (based on past experience) to be reasonable about this. Please don't let me down.

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.

But the scientific explanation is just as fantastic to the average person as the religious one, just as blindly accepted, and out of necessity. I can accept on some level, for example, that every material and solid thing I see is actually mostly empty space which seems solid due to electrostatic force or some such. I have no idea how this was proven, or how I would go about proving it. Nor do I particularly care, and I imagine the average person cares even less, assuming s/he ever so much as comes into contact with such an esoteric truth. Depending on how you are raised to think, you either accept or reject it based on your respect for the authority giving it, but it's not a part of your daily life and so not real.

Likewise, most of us knew the crusaders liberated Christendom, until it became fashionable for experts to think otherwise and most of us obligingly thought of the crusaders as bloodthirsty villains. We have no personal knowledge of most of the truths we accept. But I agree with you that what we do, we do out of pragmatism. The genuinely curious man is just as rare as the genuinely religious, because arcane knowledge of any type is divorced from day-to-day life. The rest of us go to science class to fill a requirement, then go to church out of habit (I'm not claiming to be substantially better than average in either respect).

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.

That is the myth you have either received or constructed. I have received/constructed a different myth, and I object to your double standard that teaching mine (and only mine) constitutes "brainwashing." By-the-by, you ignored the whole first half of my previous post. I'd appreciate it if you let me know what you think about that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're not talking about a personal journey of discovery though, but rather a process lasting thousands of years. Those who come later do not build purely on the experiences of those before, knowledge is lost, trust is not there, belief splits. It's a horribly inefficient way to impart knowledge, and whats more it implies that the early teachings were ok for their time. Genocide, rape and torture may have been more common once upon a time, but I'm still confused by how they can have been used as a means to encourage humans to be better people.

Who says it has to be a "personal journey"? Its the history of God's relationship with His people. So, of course, it would go through the masses over thousands of years. And things do indeed built upon each other. As pointed out, it is simply impossible for God to be able to share everything with just one person, considering the cultural and era specific assumptions that person has. God would lead those people closer to His purposes, but as far as He could take it with that person and then that other level is where the next stage begins. Do people go backwards at times? Of course, but God always works on us to move towards how He wants his Creation to be.

Huh? I'm talking about fundamentalism not evangelicalism. You know, the Christianity that existed for nearly two thousand years before we got all modern and soft with it.

Fundamentalism is relatively recent itself. It can't have existed prior to 1500 because the Catholic Church held Tradition to be equal to Scripture. Furthermore allegorical readings of Scripture were articulated since before the coming of Jesus himself, but were definitely used by the early Christian church.

When's he due to give mass in Mecca next?

IIRC, John Paul II visited Muslims in Jerusalem.

[kentonio]

Why, because I'm too stupid? You're being uncharitable here. I trust you (based on past experience) to be reasonable about this. Please don't let me down.

Of course not, it has nothing to do with stupidity. My point was simply that someone with faith cannot admit that secularism is the default state without implicitly undermining their faith. It's something we naturally have to be diametrically opposed on, due to our positions.

But the scientific explanation is just as fantastic to the average person as the religious one, just as blindly accepted, and out of necessity. I can accept on some level, for example, that every material and solid thing I see is actually mostly empty space which seems solid due to electrostatic force or some such. I have no idea how this was proven, or how I would go about proving it. Nor do I particularly care, and I imagine the average person cares even less, assuming s/he ever so much as comes into contact with such an esoteric truth. Depending on how you are raised to think, you either accept or reject it based on your respect for the authority giving it, but it's not a part of your daily life and so not real.

Yes, but science in general earns that 'faith'. We trust them when they talk about the complex crap we don't understand because we know from experience that the smaller more practical stuff they tell us generally turns out to be true, or at least the system of discovery has generally been true. It also provides us with constant shiny toys to reinforce our trust.

Likewise, most of us knew the crusaders liberated Christendom, until it became fashionable for experts to think otherwise and most of us obligingly thought of the crusaders as bloodthirsty villains. We have no personal knowledge of most of the truths we accept. But I agree with you that what we do, we do out of pragmatism. The genuinely curious man is just as rare as the genuinely religious, because arcane knowledge of any type is divorced from day-to-day life. The rest of us go to science class to fill a requirement, then go to church out of habit.

True.

That is the myth you have either received or constructed. I have received/constructed a different myth, and I object to your double standard that teaching mine (and only mine) constitutes "brainwashing."

Mostly just because not teaching someone something does allow them to learn it themselves later. It's much more difficult to 'unlearn' something.

By-the-by, you ignored the whole first half of my previous post. I'd appreciate it if you let me know what you think about that.

Sorry, my bad.

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.

True, and while I was writing the above posts I was thinking about how much snorting and rolling of eyes any real parent would be doing while reading what I was writing. Obviously practicality overtakes fancy ideas, and there's going to be a huge list of things you try your damndest to get your kid to conform to, whoever you are.

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.

Even at 6 I think you could probably get a bit of discussion going. Obviously it's not going to be anything crazy deep, but it'd be a start.

[Jon Miller]

IIRC, that was what caused the branch off from circumcision to more general child related religion stuff.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Even at 6 I think you could probably get a bit of discussion going. Obviously it's not going to be anything crazy deep, but it'd be a start.

So you would teach him that your own values of tolerance/etc are correct.

JM
(I don't think it is wrong to do so. But you can't expect Christians not to do so, without expecting them to not be Christian. The same is true of Scientology (just to put out something that I am very opposed to.) Saying that values/etc should be taught to a persons kids, except religious ones, is a huge attack on religion and highly hypocritical. In the US, we do not even (generally) restrict a parents right to teach values/etc that we as a nation disagree with such as Nazism/communism/etc.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

(I don't think it is wrong to do so. But you can't expect Christians not to do so, without expecting them to not be Christian. The same is true of Scientology (just to put out something that I am very opposed to.) Saying that values/etc should be taught to a persons kids, except religious ones, is a huge attack on religion and highly hypocritical. In the US, we do not even (generally) restrict a parents right to teach values/etc that we as a nation disagree with such as Nazism/communism/etc.)

Unsurprisingly, I agree. If one is a Christian, their faith is central to their view on values and morals. You can't divorce the two - the whole concept of "private" religion is kind of silly - as if ones faith views don't inform their views on how a society should be.