Studies show young children's exposure to religion causes difficulties
- Rad Manposted 9 years ago
0"Young children who are exposed to religion have a hard time differentiating between fact and fiction, according to a new study published in the July issue of Cognitive Science."
Does anyone think this is a problem?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 8/abstractI think it's overblown and tries to make an issue out of something that isn't an issue. It's kind of irrelevant whether a child aged 5 or 6 thinks a character in a story is real or not, and neither is it a big deal that some at that age may have difficulty separating fact from fiction. Stories are part of growing up and as a child grows and learns how to reason they naturally come to understand what is real and what isn't. To suggest that children brought up in a religious setting are somehow harmed here is just trying to make a case of of nothing.
Are children psychologically damaged because they believe in Father Christmas? Today my 6 year old daughter was asking me whether it true or not that the moon is made of cream cheese. My 10 year old son still thinks the tooth fairy is real!! Are my kids somehow going to be disadvantaged in some way? Of course not.
Under UK law all state funded schools must hold a religious assembly at least once per week which must include prayer and be predominantly Christian. It's a tiny miniscule minority of parents who have a problem with this. Last Christmas I was talking to an Islamic colleague about the school nativity play, and his daughters loved taking part. He has no issues either as he recognises this is all part of UK culture. So with all this going on does anyone seriously think the entire UK population are a bunch of psychologically damaged retards that cannot discern fact from fiction?Very valid points… but does it lead to adults who can't tell fact from fiction?
I'll ask you something similar to your question to Beth in another thread. We have many children who have displayed violent aggression mimicking actions in their video games. Studies have been done showing there is a sharp difference in levels of compassion in adults when they are told images of violence are news, as opposed to entertainment.
These studies show that there are many things which allow a person to blur the lines between reality and fantasy; and that perception alters their behavior patterns.
Would you say religion is more of a problem, similar in nature or completely different? Does religious education in children equate to violence in their behavior patterns or a sharp decline in their ability to display compassion? If not, what are the negative effects (to society)brought on by the differences?Well, like the studies show, children have a harder time differentiating fantasy from reality. What I see in these forums are some adults also have a difficult time differentiating fantasy from reality.
Hmm. You draw that conclusion due to disagreement. Your conclusion does not necessarily equate to reality. You do understand this?
Of course. Unlike some (who shall remain unnamed) I do read the links before commenting.
Or, clearly state that I haven't.We see people talking about demons and Satan as if they were real. They are as real as unicorns. Yet they are unable to see the difference between reality and fiction. Sound familiar?
I think the question was, how does that affect you, or me?
I think my problem is you read one study and think you've found something profound. Everything under the sun can be viewed as boon, or bane. Depending on who is looking and what they hope to find. You might want to read one of the following links which talks about how those with a belief in God respond better to psychiatric treatment than non believers. I know, I know. You will be inclined to insist that those who don't believe in God experience no psychological problems but I think reality would dispute that.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/04/26 … 54121.html
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/1 … s&_r=0
I warn you. Those two reference the same study. I just thought one or the other might strike you as more authoritative.
You might be interested in checking out the next link. Since, you appear to think that those with belief have an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 103828.htm
A very large study was done. Across cultures. They found that people are predisposed to believe in a God and an afterlife. They feel that theism and atheism are shown to be reasoned responses to basic impulses of the human mind.
My point is. What is your point?Red hearing. Please lets stay focused. If you'd like to post these in another forum I'd be happy to read them.
Cute. Considering you are prone to attempt to divert a conversation with complaints that the topic doesn't encompass all that you would like it to encompass.
There is no red herring here. My point is that you have no point; unless one perceives it to be a point; which doesn't make it a point.
You set forth an article which claims children of religion have a hard time differentiating between reality and fantasy. You perceive this claim to bring a problem to light. I see no evidence, through my observation of children, to support that; nor do I see that there is any evidence to support the assertion you made subsequently that the difference creates adults who have difficulty telling the difference between reality and fantasy. Your disagreement with them does not imply any difficulty; other than the fact that you do not agree with them. Maybe, the difficulty lies with a refusal to give leeway to respect others beliefs?
We cannot verify the truth of a cosmic belief. I have no idea why anyone would try; or why someone would attempt to belittle those who live in an open and free society for the simple act of disagreeing on a cosmic issue and following their assumptions as to what that belief implies. Humans are predisposed toward belief in a higher power and an afterlife. That's a fact. As we ponder the ramifications of this predisposition we are in a position to gravitate toward an infinite number of conclusions; any number of which could lead us toward religion with an equal number pulling us away. Those who believe in things I, or you, don't accept are not having difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality. Since, included in reality is their predisposition to believe in a higher power and an afterlife which is not observable from this point in reality. Their theories are no less provable than are yours, or mine; on a cosmic scale. And, they have as much right to share their beliefs with their children as you do; that right includes not having others attempt to imply they are somehow harming their children by doing so.You know Emile, I agree that they have the right to teach their children what they like, but I and the others have the right to point out any dangers in doing so. Dangers like strapping on explosives and detonating them in a public place because they fell they will somehow be given a bunch of virgins in heaven. Do people really think they will have sex in heaven and what do they think the bunch of virgins did wrong to be stuck with a murderer?
You can dismiss the study all together if you like, because the few children you've talked to seem to see the difference between reality and fiction. It's just interesting that these children end up typically believing the stories given to them. Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Christians and those who followed Thor.And here you take your point to an illogical conclusion.
Your reasoning seems to be:
This study says children who are taught religion have difficulty telling reality from fantasy.
Some adults who have religion strap bombs on and kill people.
Therefor ALL people who have religion are in real danger of strapping on bombs and killing people.
Yet that is just not true. There are so many variables that you simply ignore. Culture? Religion? Interpretation? History? Home life?
You're drawing a simplistic conclusion.Again, I didn't say all are strapping bombs to themselves, but if a few are doing so then that's a problem isn't it? How can we possibly fight extremism. Up here we are currently studying how to prevent our young Muslims from moving abroad and fighting us.
Or do you think those who strap bombs to their backs are sensing Gods wishes? I would think not, but they are so convinced that they will die young for it hoping for a better afterlife.
I'm trying to ask you to set aside your own beliefs for a moment to look at them as you would think someone who would strap a bomb to himself should, in that they are as convinced as yourself that they are right, maybe more so.The unibomber was an atheist, Therefore all atheists could be bombers?
Stalin was an atheist. Therefore all atheists, given enough power, would starve the peasants?
They saw the logic in their actions, so you might also?
Does any of that make sense to you?That's not what I said at all. For the record the unabomber never strapped a bomb to his back and detonated it.
Please don't pretend to say that I'm saying any believer would strap a bomb to his back. Someone a while back asked what harm could come from not understanding the difference between fact and fiction so I brought that up. I could also bring up any of the holy wars for that matter.Oh, so if one doesn't strap a bomb to one's back...no harm, no foul? Darn, we should probably get the word out.
What are you talking about? I've said none of the things you are accusing me of saying.
You did say "For the record the unabomber never strapped a bomb to his back and detonated it."
I'm not sure what you were implying by that statement, if not that his bombings were not as heinous as a bomb strapped to one's back.
I'm not attempting to give you a hard time Rad Man. But let's, at the least, be honest with ourselves. You started a thread about children who are raised in religion not being able to differentiate between reality and fantasy. You then state that religious people who believe in things you don't believe in can't differentiate between reality and fantasy. You start talking about religious violence, as if somehow one leads to the other.
All I am saying is that if you open a can of worms we should be able to question how that can of worms compares with another.No, it was simply in reply to your statement that said "The unibomber was an atheist, Therefore all atheists could be bombers?" The difference is the Unebomber was not killing himself and others because of religious indoctrination. Those who strap bombs to their backs think they will be rewarded in heaven.
Religious violence is most certainly proceeded by religious extremism, that's why it's called religious violence, it's brought on by religion. Violence in general, not necessary, however if we call it religious violence it was religious in nature. Just as we call racial violence, racially motivated we call religious violence, religiously motivated.
Most certainly, so if we find children who are indoctrinated have a hard time distinguishing reality from fantasy we should be able to see if it compares to adults. Thanks Emile.OMG. I would laugh if that wasn't so darn sad. My statement was simply showing how ridiculous your train of logic would appear, if we substituted something closer to your heart. But, for the record, you are still saying that the violence perpetrated by the Unibomber wasn't as bad, simply because it wasn't religious indoctrination which drove it. So, since he didn't think he would be rewarded in heaven, you appear to think his actions weren't wrong.
So, I suppose you won't have any problem with me bringing up atheistic violence? Can I just call it atheistic violence, because it wasn't brought on by religion? Can I just say that it was brought on by atheist extremism? I shouldn't have to look any farther than that, since you don't? Right?
So, I have to point out that your fantasy that you are somehow right and they are all so wrong is making me think you might have problems differentiating between fantasy and reality.I honestly don't know where you get this stuff. Show me where I said it wasn't as bad? God ahead try? I simply said one was religiously motivated and the other not. Two different things, you brought up the unibomber as a red hearing as it's completely unrelated to the conversation.
Oh dear Emile, what are you talking about? Atheistic violence? You have to prove the violence was motivated by the atheism. See the difference? A Muslim walking into a store and killing his ex lover is NOT religiously motivated unless the religious asked for said violence, but a Muslim strapping a bomb to his back to kill others that are not of his faith because he think he will be rewarded in heaven with a bunch of virgins is religious violence.
I most certainly could be delusional. You'll have to find that I'm making claims that are delusional in nature. LOL. I know you are just poking the bear.Poking the bear? Is a koala really a bear? I suppose it does flow from the tongue better than saying poking a wombat.
I think, my problem lies in what would be the outcome if society was somehow convinced that parents raising their children in one belief structure was somehow creating difficulties which were detrimental to their development. Were we to agree, and act on that belief.....the idea of the ramifications of such actions is not pleasant to me.And, you stated the obvious because???
Never mind. You do realize calling you a koala is possible even if you don't live down under? I mean, it isn't as if you were calling yourself a real bear, in the first place. You do know you aren't a bear? If not, then perhaps we should move out of the discussion of religion and ponder more pertinent problems.
The Unabomber (and yes, it's 'una' because he was called that after bombing some corporation that started with 'una') DID kill others because of his beliefs. So your point there doesn't quite hold. You still seem to be saying, broadly, that religion is the primary cause.
Now don't get me wrong, religion has something to do with what the suicide bombers are doing, obviously. But there's a long string of events that get to that point. It's not like just any Muslim will start reading the Quran and one day, poof, they show up at a police station with fifty pounds of dynamite strapped to their chest. And thinking that it is 'magical thinking of religionists' that leads to this is not that far removed from thinking that all those dirty Irish coming into the country (or whatever group it was in Canada, I'm using American history for my example) are inherently unclean and will corrupt our children.I get that there is violence that is not associated with religion, however there is religious violence.
Thanks for the una thing. I knew something wasn't right.
Yes, it is a problem. But (and I've been guilty of this, especially post 9/11) thinking that it is the religion that is causing it is, at best, failing to see the forest for the trees. Many aspects go into this. The majority of Muslims in the world are no more likely to strap on a bomb than you are.
I think that was the point. If religion was causing the violence we could expect more of the religious to be violent. Since it is a small minority (miniscule, actually) then we need to look further to understand the causes.
Have you been to the middle east lately? Are the problems there minuscule?
No, but by the same token, if you removed religion from that area entirely you would still have the problems.
My cousin alerted me to this, you might find it interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-riz … 02701.htmlThat entire area doesn't have a separation of church and state. I will grant you that it is also clan related however religion does plan a big role in those clans.
I read some of the link but got distracted by the bathing suit articles on the right. I'll get back to it eventually.I didn't even notice those articles. Wow.
In any case, yes, religion plays a part in the way things are but if you were to remove the religion altogether you would not suddenly achieve peace, love and harmony. People who so want to blame all the misery on religion don't see that if there were no religion, there would still be misery. Religion does not cause people to do bad things. People would still do those bad things, they would just use a different justification.I'm not so sure someone would strap a bomb to their back if they were not told they would be rewarded in heaven.
I agree with that specific example, but that doesn't mean violence wouldn't still happen. I've heard stories in the news where sociologists who talk about the rise of 'religious extremism' point out that it's generally people in situations of not only grinding poverty but also extreme oppression, who feel like they have no other way out, who resort to this. Muslims who grow up in riches nations or at least in democracies don't, on the whole, become radicalized and certainly not to the extent where they even think about becoming a suicide bomber. Yes, it does happen, but it's rare, and usually in instances where that person (for whatever reason) comes to identify with suffering peoples to such an extent that they feel as if they must literally join the fight.
Again, I'm not saying that religion has NOTHING to do with this, of course it does. But it's part of a much bigger picture, and if you removed the religion you wouldn't remove the violence. Suicide bombings are pretty specific to Islam but if there was no Islam that doesn't mean violence on the whole would decrease.
Unless I misunderstood you, which is certainly possible, you seem to be saying that the religion is responsible for the extremism.
You make the case that because YOU can't see the supernatural, that the supernatural must not exist and therefor anyone who DOES claim to be able to perceive the supernatural (whether or not sight is involved) is unable to differentiate fantasy from reality.
Which goes back to the claim I had to deal with constantly a few years ago that to believe in God is to be schizophrenic.
But why? Why does your inability to perceive something mean that it must, must, must not be real? And even if it's not real, why must some people's belief in it mean they are unable to differentiate fantasy and reality?I said nothing about anyone being schizophrenic?
I guess it sounds harsh, but I don't mean it to be harsh. What I'm trying to say is if it is as the study says and children who have been told that these stories are factual have a harder time distinguishing between fantasy and fiction it may follow that the same thing might be true of them as adults as they continue to believe things that haven't been shown to exist. I'm not speaking of anyone specifically here so please don't take offence, but there is no reason or evidence that suggests some people have another sense that the rest of us don't have, further it appears to me that if you did you'd all perceive the same thing, but as it is you don't. Why would a Muslims 6th's sense allow them to sense Mohammad, a Hindu's 6th's sense allow them to sense thousands of Gods and a Christian's 6th's sense allow them to sense the holy trinity? Why did the Norse sense Thor and the Jews sense a God that gave them three levels of soul while giving Gentile's one level?True, you did not say schizophrenic. It's a leap, but only a tiny little one:
A) Schizophrenia is, by definition, the brain's inability to differentiate reality from illusion. So someone who might be inclined to infer from your statement that religious people are schizophrenic probably will
.
B) It was not that long ago that I was outright called a schizophrenic for being a believer, by more than one person here on these forums. Not anyone who's on here now, as far as I know, but it did happen and I think that a few people on here now may still think that way.
The assumption that people who perceive that which is 'outside the norm' (as the supernatural would be by definition) must be able to perceive the same thing in the same way is illogical for two reasons:
1) In the majority of cases, people who claim to have perceived the supernatural don't claim any special sensitivity. Some do, to be sure, and they get the majority of the press, but most people who I've talked to or read who claim they had some kind of experience usually don't claim that it happens often or that they have a special knack for seeing it.
2) Even if you remove the supernatural from the discussion entirely, the fact is that two people will likely not perceive the same thing the same way. Sometimes their perception of it is completely different. Have an American conservative, a Canadian liberal, a Mexican socialist and a farmer from Namibia sit down and listen to a speech by any political figure, and then find out how four people who sit in the same room and hear the exact same thing come up with (sometimes wildly) different perceptions of it.
Beautiful points, DH. Far more logical.
And there's a big difference between "belief" and "faith."
Belief can be wrong. Faith never is. Faith is outside the realm of physical reality at the point of creation. Been there; done that. Most believers don't know what faith is, because they've never been there.
So many of the blind are creating such a stir about all the talk of "color" being fantasy. (I'm using physical blindness and "color" as an analogy, if you haven't already guessed.)
Most people do a fairly poor job of critical thinking. I do okay, but until about 3 years ago, I believed the Bush "conspiracy theory" of 9/11. Oh, boy! I was wrong!
The current media, the corporations which fund scientific studies and the government are all controlled by people who have unsavory intentions about our well being.
Take for instance the Climate Gate scientists who fudged numbers to try to sell the "climate change" scam. Climate changes; it always has. But they're trying to tie it to carbon dioxide and sell $Trillion$ in carbon tax to enslave the planet.
Take for instance the NIST scientists of the American government who wrote up a report on the 3rd building to collapse on 9/11 -- WTC7. They try to sell us on the notion that solid steel could ever offer ZERO RESISTANCE! I'd like to see them try to punch their fist through solid steel. Maybe they'll get lucky after a few million tries, if their fists are bloody stubs.
Our young children will be exposed to a lot. And then they grow up. What I'm afraid of is adults with lousy critical thinking skills buying what the news media is selling them. Like the poverty-stricken Germans did in the 1930s, Americans have more easily swallowed their own tyranny and watched as their nation has attacked, without provocation, other nations and occupied them. With Syria, Obama moved us to the brink of WW3. The elite power brokers don't care how many people die. They lust for power, and wars always bring shifts of power.
So, be more critical. Be restrained on accepting what even scientists say, because some scientists are unethical opportunists. And skepticism is chock full of bias -- the potent bias of "doubt." And that's pretty unscientific.Greetings LoneStar.
In as much as you feel compelled to go off topic to sell us your own versions of history, I feel compelled respond against the unsupported innuendo. On the other hand, your comments may not really be so far off topic if one considers your obvious willingness to treat highly improbable scenarios as if they really happened.
NYFD officers at the scene evaluated the integrity of WTC7 early in the afternoon of 9/11. They ordered an evacuation of all personnel after considering the damage to the structure. Most believe they made a good call that saved a lot of lives. Nevertheless, some agenda driven members of his forum keep accusing those fire fighters of lying to cover up a controlled demolition ordered by President Bush.
WTC7 did not collapse in its own footprint but fell to the South East around 5 p.m. A perfect free fall collapse of WTC7 is inconclusive speculation that relies on hypothetical conjecture and assumes (???) hundreds of your fellow Americans, including the Mayor, NYC firefighters, policemen, journalists, and eyewitnesses, are all members of a colossal conspiracy to cover up the mass murder of thousands of other Americans
Some excerpts from firefighter commentaries:
“Building 7 had fires raging out of control, had a huge gaping hole plus a gash more than 20 floors high on the south face, and a the massive load of 40 stories above it.” [ED.: Underscore added for educational purposes.]
“NYFD using a transit saw the building was beginning to lean to the South and by mid-afternoon ordered all firefighters and rescue teams away from the building.”
A video of the collapsing building shows the seriously damaged southeast corner of the building buckled, and as the forty stories above it began to descend, they pulled the rest of the structure down with it. Watch the water tower on the southeast corner of the roof collapse first and the North side of the building follows seconds later.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/117041#post2469139
My apologies to the OP for also responding off topic.
At first I was ready to not comment conceding agreement with the study until reading the following:
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/arti … l-thinking
After reading that article I think the study is inclusive and fruitless. Obviously it is published seeking peer review. Like a thesis in scholastic ventures there will be challenges made to it with both deductive and inductive reasoning. The data and conclusions will have to defend the thesis, which is not shared with the abstract. I do not think the narrow stroke of the brush can be used for a generality (inductive reasoning) with this study. It is specific to parameters of learning theory and too narrow of a specific concluded.
Yes, it does offer one to ponder, however mainline thinking with magical thinking for a 5 - 6 year old seems much more broad than three stories could conclude. We do not even know how they interviewed the children - individual or groups. That children's age group simply has a predisposition for magical thinking to explain phenomena. One's 'magic' is different than another.
However, I could believe that children without a religious upbringing 'may' adapt to logical thinking (normal ages 7 - 12 http://www.learningrx.com/4-cognitive-s … nt-faq.htm) sooner . . . maybe. Most likely that may be parenting, social, and the individual with the ability or capacity to 'learn' rather than religious influence. Yet, that is a different study all together.From your link.
"This is a perfectly normal part of the process of figuring out reality from fantasy. It is better to allow children the time and space to create their own understanding, rather than try to convince them of the "truth."
Thanks for the thoughtful post. It seems to me that some adults never obtain the ability to be able to effectively distinguish the difference. I think we can see this when they start to talking about things that haven't been shown to exist in a way and insist they are reality. Are we supposed to assume that all Muslims and Hindus are misguided by their imaginations while Christians are actually experiencing God in some way?I agree with "It seems to me that some adults never obtain the ability to be able to effectively distinguish the difference." However, I fall into that category as well. I ponder if the experiences of learning . . . how learning occurs does not ever change. Those phases from that article I referenced are always a part of our repertoire. Some simply process through those phases with a problem seeking a solution or resolve much faster than another. Maybe that is simply from practice or using that process daily. We may see it more easily with science and mathematics as components of logic (philosophy) and much less easily with metaphysics or ontology (philosophy). It simply is beyond most, beyond average, and beyond common. Is there fault with that? Isn't that what leadership and education is about? Isn't that what wishful parents desire for their children to 'know' more than they themselves - the parents?
Ponder scientific method. I have begun watching a series on WGN-TV 'Manhattan' about the development of the atomic bomb (a common method of learning today - watching TV). TV kinda' is nothing but wishful thinking. Are we being socialized and held back at the stage of wishful thinking as a populous to the extent our news broadcast are wishful thinking?
Anyway . . . It showed there were two teams working on what they termed a 'gadget'. Both had two different theories for the solution. One may ponder if they both did use basic learning skills beginning with wishful thinking learned as a 5 - 6 year old. It is the next step of scientific method that leads away from wishful thinking seeking to 'prove' without a doubt it is not wishful . . . it is real thus reality. Yet, it began simply as wishful thinking no matter how much it was founded on their 'known' knowledge. One or the other would be wishful thinking not ever reaching being fruitful or actual.
Many . . . many simply do not understand scientific thought and method. They never learned it or were not capable of learning it. Some place great weight on science and mathematics. Their higher power or authority are those two. Their faith simply says if unexplained today, well, science will explain one day. There faith and trust is in science, even though science may not explain such and such. Bare bones that is pretty similar to attributing to 'God' as the authority or higher power. Both cannot be touched. The protocol, procedures, and products of science can be touched, but science in purity cannot be touched. Thus, we are fortunate to have wishful thinking leading toward or as a cause seeking the effect or knowledge something is as so. The architect (of thought?) for a structure concrete or abstract thrives on wishful thinking
Isn't that what StarTrek is all about? Wishful thinking? The science in that series is believable to some and others it simply is beyond their comprehension. And, many simply do not really care until it is real to the extent it can be touched (sensed or experienced). For example the StarTrek communicator and the cell phone. Wishful thinking of the audience eventually became real. Yet, how many understand how the whole concept of a cell phone works or is? Does that lead toward the credibility of the wishful thinking of 'Warp Drive' . . . wishful thinking for space travel? Possibly it is only differences in learning and processing what is learned combined with acceptance, faith, and trust.Wishful thinking and creativity and StarTrek? You are talking about reality with those, something tangible. Sure we have to suspend our belief while watching, however we do know that it's not factual and these transporters do not yet exist and may never. I was talking about telling a child that things exist as fact that cannot be proven. We don't watch StarWars and think that those events and people lived in a galaxy far far away.
Ironically, it is theoretically possible to travel light years but not faster than light.
Although they are looking into the warp drive thing.
But the warp drive will literally warp space, not cause objects to move faster than the speed of light. At least that's my understanding of it.
Right, but somehow will get from A to B faster than light. I read about it a few times now and I'm not able to contain it's complexity for long.
I read about it once, I think I understand what it's supposed to do but I have no idea how it's supposed to do it.
You are correct. The example I attempted to share was not the story and plot. It was the products of the science of the series 'StarTrek' (not StarWars) I eluded to. Top 10 'Star Trek' Technologies That Actually Came True http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/10 … htm#page=0 It was wishful thinking when I first saw the series in the 60's that I would have a communicator. Today I have a smartphone, yet I really do not understand how the technology of it works.
The main point I attempted to share was in regard to 'wishful thinking'. Wishful thinking is a means of learning a person first experiences at ages 5 - 6. It is abstract thinking. It is later with learning mathematics and grammar structure that logic is introduced to solve problems and make sense of this or that.
I tend to think wishful thinking remains as a problem solving technique and a means of learning even for scientist today. That type of thinking is the beginning of scientific method. It is the original idea . . . a creative thought or wishful thought something can be so (created) or is so (exists). The next step of scientific method is to do background research followed by so on and so on or apply rational thinking. That is the difference between rational and empirical supporting the original 'idea of wishful thinking'. Each of those steps are steps of learning and they are progressive. One 'proves' as your comment alludes to with both rational and empirical. Some are happy with the rational and others require empirical.
The point being many never progress beyond a certain stage of learning especially within metaphysics and ontology within it. They simply accept what they have been told or read and never venture with learning through the next steps. Instead they 'live' with the means of learning and knowledge they have procured and accept what they have been told. Even if they arrive upon the same 'personal' conclusion seeking more of least they sought 'one step beyond'. That is where understanding from learning comes from. Understanding both sides of an argumentative discussion leads 'with' learning. Captain Kirk ended each episode answering a question, "Where to now Captain?" He replied, "Out there somewhere . . . Just go."
If you would like to read something that is well written and goes a step beyond try this article on the Theory of Reciprocity. It is a questioning process of a product of 'wishful' thinking' - How was the Universe created? When did it begin? For enticement here is the link followed by a copy/paste of its introduction:
The Nature of Being: Science vs Sense http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com
"The following thesis is the product of a common sense perspective that rationally explains the enigma of existence without invoking undetectable extra dimensions, supernatural deities or spontaneous singularities. Derived from simple reasoning and critical thinking, it reveals how 'Existence Ex Nihilo' is logical while 'Creation Ex Nihilo' is not. It does not conflict with accepted scientific data, but it does explicitly refute the conventional interpretation of that data. Once you understand the phenomenon of existence, the nature of life and the rest of the physical world logically falls into place - almost as an afterthought. In any case, I do hope you find the deductions and speculations herein to be an engaging and thought provoking mental exercise worthy of your participation whether or not you ultimately agree with my conclusions.
In order to understand the nature of the cosmos, it is necessary to begin with the basics and study its two most fundamental phenomina: existence and change. This thesis examines the relationship between those two criteria and it results in conclusions that contradict the contemporary models offered by academia. All I ask of you is to keep an open mind and consider the possibility that the pundits may be wrong and the Universe may not really be flat."
I of least discovered possibly how fruitless discussions are of how the universe is created. It is the discussion of 'existence' that I now find more intriguing offering pondering.Thanks for that, however the logic is flawed in my opinion. I don't have time to get past the first page, but I will.
Here is the problem.
"To create something is to cause it to exist. But if being is necessary in order for change to occur, then cause and effect is, itself, derived from (thus subordinate to) the more basic phenomenon of being. Simply put, existence is the source of cause and effect not the result of it and no phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative."
Starting with the assumption that the universe was created. Example, bubbles of gas exist without someone blowing through holes. They may have a cause, but the cause had no plan.Doesn't the axiom follow the question?
So, why does something exist rather than nothing?
Axiom: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.
Is the question wishful thinking? What follows is the rationale of conventional thought 'that' something exists. The article states seemingly the same as yourself or I may be incorrect. The article states further along;
"If existence is the source of cause and effect and cause and effect is governed by fundamental laws of nature called principles, doesn't it logically follow that the key which unlocks the enigma of existence should be a principle instead of a process?"
Within that question is the questioning of 'creation' as that is a 'process' and not a principle. Again, a question to be pursued further along with rationale in the article. Again, was wishful thinking at the head of the pathway now traversing through thought seeking logical explanations.
I am only suggesting with the beginning OP that children's wishful thinking at age 5 - 6 is answering 'their' questions of the unknown. The process of solving or resolving is IMHO what should be addressed and evaluated at that age and has importance. I tend to think it more important that a child at that age is "processing information" and arriving upon an answer that is important.
Take a peek at Amazon for books for children at that age. A vast majority are animism. With a story book or story maybe they may say 'No a dog does not talk', but I bet they will say the dog in the story told them the answer. Does that mean the dog was real?Starting with the assumption that the universe was created rather than happened is the error. What existed before our universe happened is unknown. We only know the universe happened, that's all.
You are absolutely correct. The paper does not make that assumption. It refutes creation. The first two opening lines to the paper states;
"How was the Universe created? When did it begin?
To be quite blunt, it wasn't and it didn't. Those age-old philosophical questions are both falsely premised."
Read the short version, can't view the full article because I am not a member.
Children's upbringing was also related to their judgment about the protagonist in fantastical stories that included ordinarily impossible events whether brought about by magic (Study 1) or without reference to magic
What do they consider magic? Many atheists use that term loosely in these forums to put down believers in Christ. They use trigger words and terms to try to get a rise out of believers.
(Study 2). Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional.
Those children who are taught that we live then we die with nothing coming after death do not see or know that these things are possible, (speaking of what they consider magic).
The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children's differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.
The findings are tainted, IMO. Controlled to make sure that the children of believers fail, in their own minds.Although I understand what is attempting to be conveyed here, the study which was presented seemed to be somewhat biased or restrictive for a few reasons:
The criteria upon which the abilities of these children was based, was a story (stories) with protagonists in 'realistic' or 'unrealistic' scenarios. The determination of what is considered realistic or not is already determined by those who made the test, and we are not given specifics about what they considered to be real or not, and if it would in fact be universally accepted. In order for this study to work, all would have to agree on what constitutes reality. We do not, and that is the whole point being discussed. For all we know, the "unrealistic" scenarios could be something that the "religious" (if you will) adults would find true, in which case the author is attempting to prove a point using the very point he/she's trying to prove, making it a circular and useless argument. More details are needed for me, personally, regarding this study in order for it to be useful to its intended audience.
I see the point being made, however, regardless of the credibility of the test. I have heard it argued that children introduced to religious teachings (depending on which one it is) tend to take less of a critical thought approach towards concepts and ideas, and that they have been taught (in most cases, due to the nature of most religions) to rely on faith WITHOUT questioning. I think that this only applies towards religious concepts which are taught in such a way as not to be questioned, and therefore the responsibility lies solely in the one doing the teaching. It is possible for children to be introduced to religious concepts (regardless of which one it is) without being encouraged to be mindless in their beliefs or even, in some extreme cases, have disdain of science or logic (as was in my case.) Although it is not explicitly stated,this seems to be the underlying message of the study (that children believe things that do not stand under logic, critique, or evidence, if highly exposed to religion.)
Some might argue that the nature of most religions themselves is to promote the unnatural, miraculous, or impossible, but this would be circular reasoning, for it is only those who do not believe in that religion which would find it fantastical. For those who adhere to it, it is very real indeed. It always comes back to that never-ending question of "what is reality?"
I personally was brought up in a very restrictive, religious environment which taught me never to question, never to use logic, and never to ask why, at a young age. This is, of course, an extreme example. For me, this produced the opposite effect. I was homeschooled in a religious home and I fought against what was taught me. However, it made it extremely difficult to approach the world in this way and to me, was definitely a hindrance. At the same time, the frustration with being taught so narrow-mindedly was also just the push I needed to REALLY think for myself. I guess I could call it rebellion. So in the end, the religious brainwashing I received was counter-productive, but I would never repeat it on my own children. Again, my case was an extreme one and I'm not suggesting all cases are like this.Yes, your case was extreme, and you kind of make my point when you say...
"The determination of what is considered realistic or not is already determined by those who made the test, and we are not given specifics about what they considered to be real or not, and if it would in fact be universally accepted."
Because we do in fact know fact from fiction, we know dogs don't talk and we know there are no unicorns roaming around forests.Which is true as far as it goes, but there are still some unanswered questions:
1) Do religious adults understand what a miracle is?
2) Do they expect this on a regular basis in their own lives?
3) Do adults without religion understand that adults with religion understand what a miracle is?
I think the tendency to blame religion for a lot of stuff is still overblown. I see magical thinking all the time in the form of "if Obama were only allowed to do what he should" or "if everyone would only practice conservatism." It isn't that different. And the assertion that religious kids tend to be more dullards is also, IMO, a bit overblown. A lot of times, when you think you're teaching kids to be critical thinkers what you end up with are smart-asses who simply find slightly more clever ways of doing what they want regardless of how it affects everyone else (which is human in general, to be sure.) I'm not a big fan of "don't ask questions" but from my experience "question everything" doesn't usually produce better results. "Ask the right questions" is what we should be teaching them.You mean, ask the questions I want you to ask right? Kids can be taught respect and to question at the same time. For instance one would never openly question someone's faith without understand that their is a dialogue. I don't show up in front of a place of worship handing out pamphlets and asking questions and I certainly don't knock on people doors. I've never even talked to my own kids about what I don't believe until they came to me with questions. One never has and remains tight lipped, the other two discuss it all the time.
It's important to question everything otherwise when the JW's or the Mormons knock on the door one doesn't blindly follow what they say that one should be doing.Further,
1. That's open for debate, but according to the RCC miracles happen all the time and they get to decide when they happen. St. Kateri Tekakwitha was recently Sainted for what the churched called a miracle which was in my opinion silly. Some poor child had been infected with the flesh eating decease on his face. He was in the hospital and was being given the best treatment possible, but was still struggling, when the parents prayed to Tekakwitha because she was thought to have had a skin problem. The kid survived and Tekakwitha was sainted because of the miracle, the poor kid had will never look the same so I just don't see the miracle.
Do you?
2. Some do and become angry when things don't go their way.
3. See number 1.I don't keep tabs on the RCC or what it does or does not deem a miracle. I'm still unclear on what, other than popularity, is fueling the drive to saint John Paul II.
You're right, some do. And yes, they become angry when things don't go their way. Guess what? There are people who aren't religious who still believe that things should go their way and get angry when they don't. This is where the urge to blame religion is a red herring. However, just to keep the record clear, I don't subscribe to what could be called "Course In Miracles" thinking. I believe miracles do happen but: a) they don't happen all the time, and b) we can't just expect them or summon them up. That's magic, not faith.
As for "ask the question I you want them too" you are correct. I want them to learn how to ask the questions and to actually ask the questions which will really get to the heart of the matter. And when properly taught, religion does not undermine this. When improperly taught, skepticism most certainly does. But, again, to be clear, I don't want kids to ask a certain pre-set number of questions that will lead them by the nose to the answer I want them to have. I want them to learn how to ask probing and intelligent questions.
Very true.
However, we do not know that this is the type of scenarios specific to that study. I questioned the credibility of the study because the information was very vague as to what constitutes reality and fiction.
We all agree on SOME aspects, but not all. The case of animals talking in human language, etc. would be an isolated situation upon which we all agree. But we do not know if it is this type of scenario that was depicted by "real" or "fiction" in the study. As a whole, humankind does not agree. In specific situations, it can.It seems to me they read stories to the children and asked the children if individuals in the story were real. Some of the stories contained magical or impossible things which would be an indication that the stories were fictitious like Harry Potter would be. However the children who were being indoctrinated had a more difficult time distinguishing fact from fiction. I wonder why?
Perhaps I'm being too nit-picky, but what one defines as "magical" is what makes the problem for me.
I would like to know what sort of things the test-makers determined as magical, because this is the basis for the test. If it is something which a religious adult would find factual, then the test is not very helpful in making an objective study on children highly exposed to religion. It would be self-serving and not helpful to anyone except those already perceiving religion as fantastical. For example, a lot of "religious" (I hate calling them that) folks believe in the possibility of the "magical" happenings of Harry Potter involving witchcraft, etc. There was, in fact, a whole huge controversy about it in the churches. That the books were teaching children REAL witchcraft. But I begin to think I'm being nit-picky at the expense of clarity.
I think I should note that I agree to most extent with the concept being put forth, but I question the credibility of the test itself based on the lack of information I have about the variables.I don't know about nit-picky, but it sounds like you're saying that adults, too, have difficulty distinguishing reality from fiction - it can be seen in that they believe things that violate natural law do, in fact, occur and that they are unable to differentiate between imagination, or opinion, and reality or truth.
Well that's kind of illustrating what I mean.
I speak from the position of determining whether or not such a study is even useful, as it's presented. If one uses their own ideas about what is factual to devise a test to determine if someone is factual and then presents it as proof, then there is an issue of circular reasoning.
If one already assumes that a religious statement is not factual, then the whole point of the study is pointless in an objective sense because it proves itself by its own argument.
I think Adults do have a difficulty doing that, at least some. And not necessarily in a religious context. I feel that the findings of the sciences helps to enlighten us to our world so that we may be better educated about reality and truth, but I feel that one ultimately believes what they want to believe or what fits their own needs. I prefer truth over comfort, personally.
Hey there, Rad Man. Thank you for an interesting topic.
Do you really wonder why? I believe, based on this study, you think you already know why. However, the study has limitations of which you are either unaware or choose to deny.
I suggest it would be intellectually naïve to draw any opinions based solely on reading the abstract (summary). The link in the OP statement points just to the abstract, so I hope you accessed and read the entire study before starting this thread.
First, the authors themselves recognized the uncertainty of their results with this observation in the body of the paper: “A second concern is that even if the group differences observed in both studies are correlated with differential exposure to religion, other family factors may have been as important if not more important in bringing about the observed differences.”[Ed. Underline added to emphasis my point.] {1}
Since the researchers acknowledge other family factors may be more important than the different levels of religious exposures, I find their data establish a correlation with a religious environment but do not establish causation.
In addition, the study was conducted on 5-6 year old children. I found nothing to suggest the resulting data can or should be extended to include mature adults. Researchers Corriveau, Chen, and Harris conclude their study by saying, “By implication, the environment in which children are raised has an important influence on the way they process and categorize the narratives that they encounter.” {2}
The study does not mention nor does it justify your obvious desire to establish a link between early religious exposure and "adults who can't tell fact from fiction." Most adults who say they believe in God also know Harry Potter is a fictional character. It may be convenient for validating a preconceived notion but it is otherwise inconclusive for your implied purposes.
An interesting topic, Rad Man. I thank you for posting.
{1} http://www.bu.edu/learninglab/files/201 … -press.pdf p.22
{2} Ibid. p.25Thanks for the thought provoking post. I'm rather impressed, however while the adults seem to underhand that Harry Potter is fiction as it's stated in the description of the book "fiction", many people think it's acceptable to think a person can be is both God and human, which seems equally ridiculous to me. We call one fiction and the other not? They seem both absurd to me.
Anything can be considered absurd when viewed from the appropriate angle. I see nothing absurd in the possibility of being part human, part God. But, I think we all possess a spark of the Divine, so someone with much more than a spark is entirely plausible.
Never seen or heard one, but you see nothing absurd about the possibility? Does it seem absurd to you that Joseph Smith would we equal to God? Does it seem absurd that you may need a secret handshake to get into heaven? Does it seem absurd that Mohammad rose to heaven on a horse?
So, if we see absurdity at one point then, according to you, it is logical to see absurdity everywhere?
The idea that we are all connected to all life and, thus connected to the source of that life doesn't, in my mind, imply secret handshakes, proven charlatans being somehow cosmically superior, or (although this is the first I've heard of Mohammed on a celestial horse) a horse sent from heaven to ferry one home. If it does, to you, then you do well to find it all impossible.
My only point in responding was to share the observation that believing something to be absurd doesn't make it universally so. Conversely, what makes sense to one isn't necessarily universal sense.The reason we don't find some of these thing absurd is because we were taught them and excepted them. To some a secret handshake doesn't sound absurd. If you however look at the different stories of the different religions as if you haven't heard them before you'd be more apt to see the as absurd.
If you look at the culture of anyone as if you haven't heard it before, the tendency is to either treat it as some exotic wonder or as completely absurd. America, although not alone, has a long history of such cultural arrogance when dealing with the rest of the world. And the easy dismissal of the 'absurdity' of any given story is a bit arrogant.
I'm not talking about culture, I'm talking about religion and beliefs.
Which fall under the heading of culture. Many times, especially before the mid-20th Century, religion and beliefs are bound up in a country's culture. And to simply look at the story and say, "Sounds silly to me" is arrogant, even if the person making the judgement is not generally an arrogant person. Failing to look at why people believe this, what it means to them, what it has historically meant to them, is a form of egocentrism. "If I don't believe it, it's silly."
Religion is not culture. Each area of any nation has it's own culture and within it a multitude of religions. That being said a secret handshake through a curtain is just a silly way to get into heaven.
The secret handshake thing aside, what you said is a very post-1960's statement, and even then really only in more westernized parts of the world. It's still pretty true that, for instance, to be Basque is to be Catholic. Religion is very much culture in a lot of places, and even in places where there are many religions, there is usually a dominant faith that informs that majority of culture, even if (as often happens) that culture is influenced by other faiths or other cultures or even just borrows words from other languages.
No rad man. It is easy to look at what others think and call it absurd. The hard part is taking them seriously and attempting to understand why they don't think it is. You can chalk other thought processes up to indoctrination, but I say you've been indoctrinated to believe that. You believe others don't think, simply because you don't fully understand what they do think.
I didn't say anything about people not thinking. Okay so if you think a secret handshake through a curtain will get you into heaven isn't absurd then I guess you will believe just about anything. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why some would think it's factual, it's because they were taught it was factual and it became part of their norm.
I didn't say I didn't find the suggestion absurd.
I find a lot of things absurd. For me and from my perspective. I don't know what leads it not to be absurd to someone who may believe it. No one is absurd. No one clings to beliefs they find absurd so, I am left to assume I don't fully understand what reasoning was used to arrive at that conclusion. Without fully understanding, I think one is unqualified to label someone else's conclusions absurd.
I can label your conclusions absurd. If I remember correctly, I have on several occasions. Is there any moment when I laid that accusation that you felt your conclusions to be absurd, or did you simply find me rude for making the observation?I think if one is honest, they are quite capable of admitting that their beliefs are absurd. They can even continue holding them while admitting it. What happens when they do is really neat. They go on believing but are honest enough to admit that there is no reason on Earth than anyone else should... hence they stop trying to spread their beliefs. It's actually quite nice. Everyone gets to believe what they like AND they allow others the same benefit.
Not sure I see the logic in holding what one knows is an absurd belief. Who would do that? Why would they do it ? I'm assuming you hold what you label to be an absurd belief. Could you give me an example? It might help because the whole idea sounds absurd.
Of course, your idea of absurd and mine might be vastly different.I believe, for example, that Jesus laid hands on people and healed them. This is an absurd belief. It has never been duplicated reliably. There is no reliable evidence that it happened. It violates all laws of nature. The belief is completely illogical and wildly unreasonable. Still, I believe it happened.
There is, of course, NO logic in holding what I acknowledge is an absurd belief. *Shrugs* I guess that's what faith is. It makes me feel better. It gives me hope... yada yada.
Now, if I didn't acknowledge that it was an absurd belief that went against all laws of nature and science I guess I would be more willing to believe that every badly dressed, balding televangelist who can slap an old lady on the head might also have that power.I don't consider that such an absurd belief. I watched a show a while back. An orthopedic surgeon took similar cases. After putting the patients under anesthesia some received surgery, some did not but were told they did. Both groups had similar success rates and recovery times. The human mind can accomplish much if it believes something is of benefit. At that time in history, I would think humanity had much more faith in a faith healer than you could find today, so the benefits would, naturally, be greater.
Some of the stories of Jesus' powers are fantastical. Impossible? I don't know. I don't know that we have though information to say yay or nay.I didn't see the show you are talking about but, I'm willing to guess that it wasn't surgery that was life threatening or surgery that could repair a spinal cord for example. The placebo effect is real and works however it doesn't repair a severed spinal cord.
Melissa once again bring great things to the conversation. She understands that what she believes is absurd but believes it anyway, which is much different than thinking we need a secret handshake to get into heaven and spreading the word. It's called honesty, and I like it. It shows some understand the difference between fact and fantasy, however still have faith. Faith.
Do you see how this relates to how and what we teach our children and how it can effect them?No, I don't see the correlation, rad man. I didn't raise my child in religion. We didn't talk about much unless he brought it up and when he did I attempted to answer questions without imprinting. But, I'm afraid he might have been one who would have faired poorly in that survey. We were, and are, very open minded as to a plethora of possibilities.
I am now in the very unusual position of defending the absurdity of my beliefs.
I do indeed acknowledge the power of placebo. Can we agree that in a few of Christ's healings (Lazarus jumps to mind) that it is exceptionally unlikely that placebo effect played a part? He either healed or he didn't. It is absurd to believe he did. Yet... well there you go.
So I again state with conviction that my beliefs are completely absurd and there is absolutely no logic at all behind them...
Err... so take that.I'm glad that at least someone else in the world catches the humor in it
Just because I'm not sure and am genuinely curious, do you believe that God's supernatural power can cure people?
I don't really use the word supernatural... but sure why not? I guess he could do anything. I don't believe he does though.
Again, with the caveat that the idea is completely absurd.
You know, there are people in this century who don't know dead from looks like dead. There have even been cases in hospitals where people were pronounced dead and had the audacity to wake up in the morgue. So, to me, Lazarus doesn't create a giant hurdle.
It creates a giant hurdle for me when people insist that he was literally dead for three days, sealed in an oxygen-lacking tomb with dressings and wrappings and no food and, more importantly, water and was supernaturally literally raised from the dead later.
They used to bury people with a chain in the grave. To pull and make a bell ring so they could be dug up, in case a mistake had been made and they were simply unconscious.
A wake is called that because people did, literally, sit around in case what they thought was a corpse wasn't really a corpse. They were waiting in case it woke up.
Yes, the story is fantastical but who knows? Strip away embellishment and you may have a perfectly understandable 'miracle'.Those people were in a coffin, buried under the ground, and the graveyard shift was designed to listen for the bells of the not-quite dead. It's a far cry from jewish first century burial practices in a stone tomb with no food, water, airway or fresh air for 72 hours.
Not to mention that they said he was already stinking, which at the very least implies decomposition.
Under those circumstances, no. But the belief that that could happen is not what we are talking about. We are talking about my belief that Jesus himself caused it to happen.
I believe that Lazarus was indeed dead and Jesus brought him back to life. I don't believe he looked dead or was accidentally presumed to be dead. That belief is, by all yardsticks of rational thinking, absurd. It wasn't the placebo effect as I don't believe it's possible for a placebo effect to be strong enough to affect the mind of a corpse.Which is my point. It's a Christian belief. Your average Christian does not believe that Lazarus wasn't really dead or that blind men were healed by the placebo effect. They don't believe that there are rational explanations for the events of the Bible. They believe in absurdities. They believe in things that don't happen. They believe in, essentially, fiction.
Now, there is a buffer that kicks in with many adults (sadly not all) that essentially turns these events into "special cases". It helps with the cognitive dissonance of knowing that it is impossible to walk on water and believing that Jesus did.
Children have no such buffer.I don't know how I missed this before hon. Thank you, it's nice to "see" you guys again too. I missed you all as well.
(For anyone wondering, no I wasn't banned.)
I'll be honest here. I don't think accepting miraculous deeds as fact, when viewing Christ, Mohammed, Buddha or someone from ancient religions as somehow detrimental to one's ability to discern fact from fiction. I can certainly see the detriment of limiting a child's education to only being taught by those who put religion as a top priority. But, it is the religious view of the fundamentalist which poses the problem. Not the religion itself.
I was raised going to church. The public school had a woman come into each class once a week for an hour to teach Christian religion. When I went away to prep school we were required to attend church once a month (no church in particular) I don't know that I suffered from any of it. Nor did my siblings. One claims to be buddhist, one appears to be atheist, one takes the local politically correct stand of being Christian (although he thinks we are simply born into it, like it's an ethnic group) then there's me. A rebel without a clear cause.
I am not inclined to readily accept an assertion which implies that simple exposure to religion is detrimental to anything since I have not observed, or experienced, such during my lifetime.My experience differs. I have observed obvious harm to children from being exposed to religion and have taken steps to prevent that same harm to my children.
And, since that is your experience I would say you've made the appropriate decision for you and your kids.
So exposing children to religion (any religion) has no 'obvious good'?
Not that I have found. At least no obvious good that is exclusive to religion. I suppose using religion to teach morals could be considered good... however, there are many ways to teach morals without exposing children to something that they -again by your own admittance- are unable to grasp. Saying that stealing is wrong because it hurts the person that you stole from is concrete, understandable, and completely realistic. It encourages empathy and self-responsibility... and the lesson falls squarely within the developmental capacity of an average child.
Teaching children not to steal because God says so gives no rational explanation to why it's wrong, doesn't encourage empathy, self-responsibility or independent moral decision making... and introduces concepts that would require parents to create an artificial "buffer".
I'm not seeing any benefits... could you give some examples?Ideally the one would lead into the other. You start by teaching that stealing from another is wrong because it hurts the other person. You build on that to explain that God says stealing is wrong, and go on to explain how He loves us enough to want us to do right and values each of us, both my kid and the person my kid stole from (assuming my kid stole anything.)
Removing religion from the equation has never been a guarantee that the kid gets a better rationale for not stealing. A lot times, "God says it's wrong" simply becomes "It's wrong, that's why." Either way, an awful lot gets lost in translation. And a real sense of who and what God is fails to be transmitted to the child.Why add the God part? I'm still not getting that. There doesn't really need to be an additional reason.
Because you believe it's true is what you keep saying. I'm not seeing why that matters. I don't see why you would need to transmit a sense of what God is to the child before they are old enough to possibly understand it. What benefit would that cause to them?
God is who he is. He will still be who he is when children are old enough to understand it. Is there a reason why you would try to force understanding before they are capable? Again, to what end?Add the God part because without God, why religion? If God does not exist then I'd let the kids grow up like I grew up, with no religion.
Because if it's true then it's important to communicate to the children that it IS true when they are young. As they grow older, you help them understand the 'why' but it's still important that they get the 'what' when they're young. If you simply say it's wrong until they're, I don't know, seven, and suddenly introduce God into it because they 'lacked the intellectual capacity', you run the very real risk of being seen as a hypocrite for not being honest enough up front. And that charge would be true.
The kids still need to know God exists when they're still too young to 'understand who He is.'
In a very real sense, most people are never 'old enough to understand' but that lets exactly no one off the hook. You don't have to 'scare the hell' out of toddlers but you still have to tell them about God.
Which is why adult guidance is important. Kids tend to believe a lot of things that aren't possible and even with adult guidance, they sometimes have to learn the hard way. I wish that wasn't true, but it is. Even adults who believe in miracles need to teach kids that the miraculous is exactly that, and not an everyday occurrence.
IMHO it doesn't make sense to expose children to potential damage and take steps to counter that damage when one can just not expose them to the potential damage in the first place. I'm not sure why a parent would not just wait to expose their children to religion until they are developmentally advanced enough to have that buffer naturally rather than trying to force concepts that they are-as you have acknowledged- simply not able to grasp without a struggle, if at all.
Can you explain why a parent would do that? What benefit does it provide?I don't see telling the truth to children (that God exists, that Jesus came to die for us, and that the Bible actually happened) as purposefully doing obvious damage to children.
Telling my kids that these things are NOT true when they are, on the other hand...You know, you really didn't answer the questions or really address any of the points I made. You essentially just said "It's true. Telling my kids it's not true is wrong."
Which would be relevant, I guess, if I had said it wasn't true or that people should tell their children it's wrong. Since neither of those points were anywhere in my post, I have to assume that you either didn't read my post or for some reason don't want to discuss it.
If it's the first option, why bother responding to something you didn't read? If it's the second, why bother responding at all?
Do you wish to discuss or do you just want to say you are right over and over?I don't know, do you?
I did respond to your question. The question, if I understand correctly, is "Since exposing children to religion is (at least potentially) damaging, why would a parent do that?"
My response, basically, is "Because I believe it to be true. If I'm right, then I am doing my children more harm by NOT exposing them to my religion than I am by exposing them to it. It is still dependent on me to help them sort things out, but on Judgement Day God is certainly not going to award me brownie points for waiting until my kids were 'old enough' before telling them about Him."
I also understand that others think my views to be absurd or even dangerous. I don't. But I'm certainly capable of dealing with that, and helping my children to deal with that.Ok.
1. Do you tell your children about everything you believe to be true? Regardless of age appropriateness of the conversation?
2. What damage would not telling them cause?
3. Are you saying that you are telling your kids about God so that he will give you brownie points on Judgement day?1) If they ask, I tell them. I answer the question they ask and don't embellish. I don't go on rants or give lectures. However, I do also take opportunities to say, "We give thanks for the food." I give credit for things to God. If this leads to conversations, great. If not, I don't push it.
2) May God forbid, but if they were to die without hearing about Jesus, yeah. The damage could literally be eternal.
3) Cute. That one got a chuckle.OK.
1. If they weren't exposed, why would they ask? Do you believe that children would ask about a concept that they've never heard about?
2. Do you believe that God sends children who have never heard of him to hell for not believing in him?If they live in a Christian household, how are they not exposed? At some point, if you really love and praise God, they are going to ask.
Children is an especially thorny issue. Babies, no, I don't believe He would. But among the many things I ponder and don't really have an answer for is, "How old would someone be before they are held fully responsible?" It's frankly not all that different from "If a person lived in a jungle tribe and had never heard of Jesus, would they still go to hell?"And as a parent/teacher figure to the child, it would be upon them to answer that question from an objective point of view or simply tell the child to wait until they are older, rather than telling a child that god absolutely exists with nothing to back it up.
Is it coincidence that you do not need to provide any proof of that to a child, since they are too young to really question why or simply hold what their own parent says as undoubtedly true? Probably, but I highly doubt it.The cynics marching one by one
Hurrah!
Hurrah!
The cynics marching one by one...
It's possible, it happens in my home. I try to shield my children from any adult topics that they are too young to understand. Loving Christ doesn't require cymbals and horns. (As a matter of fact, we are strictly cautioned against such things)
As far as where do the children go I've done some big time research on this one... My belief is that the innocent (and ignorant) get a spiritual free pass. I'm not the one to provide scriptures unless they are specifically asked for, but I think there is a fair amount of Biblical backing to that belief.
But, I concede point, if one is of the belief that God is going to send children to hell even if they have never heard of him, that is the one circumstance that one can consider it a benefit.
Otherwise, if God is true, he will still be true after an adult-level evaluation. Do you not agree? If one believes that one's children would not believe in God if they saw him through adult eyes, doesn't that imply that they doubt the veracity? In addition, do you believe that Jesus would want followers who believed before they understood what that truly meant? Isn't that kind of hindering the relationship?To be honest, yeah. I do. Because otherwise I would not be one of His followers. When I became one I really had no idea what that meant and twenty-five years later I'm still wrestling with it. The Bible clearly states that we are to 'train up a child in the way they should go' and that means telling kids about God. The way you imply smacks of mystery religion to me, where you can't be 'one of the chosen' until you've been through the initiation (the 'secret handshake', as it were.) I'm sure you don't see it that way, and I don't mean to imply that UU is a mystery religion (I confess that I don't understand it that well) but that's how it seems to me.
And even if we wait until the kids are 'old enough' (and who gets to determine 'old enough' and what are the criteria?) that doesn't mean that other, competing and even contradictory ideas that the kid is 'old enough' to understand won't hold sway. That the kid might question the veracity of the claims is not necessarily an indication that the claims aren't true. But if something more immediately gratifying grabs their attention, then question they will.
A question arises from your statement about the innocent (and ignorant) getting a 'free spiritual pass.' Who, exactly, are they? Obviously this would include little kids but if, say, a sociopath were locked in his house for thirty years, and his only contact were with his family, all humanists who don't believe and never discuss religion, and then the person gets out and murders someone, does that make someone (under this conversation, not under state law) 'innocent and ignorant'?
As for you other point, no, we are not to use cymbals and horns but neither are we to hide our light under a bowl.Training up a child in the way he should go is no big mystery to me. It is completely possible, easier I believe, to teach a child right from wrong without religion yet still be completely within the teachings of the Bible. Compassion, love, devotion, service, empathy. You can teach your child not to lie, steal, kill, covet etc without ever bringing out a Bible. You can put them on a Biblical path without ever involving a Bible. Jesus's lessons are universal like that.
I'm not sure how teaching no religion creates a mystery religion, maybe you could explain that a little more?
As far as UU. UU is not really a religion, it's a fellowship. I'm Unitarian (Which is a denomination of Christianity, a pretty well established one, which simply doesn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity) I'm also a UU, which is a group of individuals that get together and discuss different faiths and different beliefs. We also do a lot of charity work and a lot of activism.
As far as when children are old enough... the stages of typical child development are fairly well documented. Barring that, it's when they go looking for answers themselves. There are no competing ideas to hold sway if no religion is ever introduced.
As far as innocent and ignorant, the point of contention I believe we were making was a belief in God/Christ. So in that case he would most certainly get a pass on whether he accepted Christ or not. Doesn't mean he's going to heaven. Although to be completely honest, I personally
(without any bible verses to back me up) would believe he would get a bye there too. The abusers that locked him up... maybe not so much.
Of course that's kind of equating not being taught about religion as the same thing as not being taught morals. Which is fairly inaccurate. I'm also not sure why you used the example of a mentally ill person rather than a normal person who just had never been exposed to religion.
My light shows... my children's light shows much stronger. I don't have to be praising God every 5 seconds to have a light.... My children don't have to praise him at all, or even know of him.I wasn't equating 'teaching no religion' with a mystery religion. I was equating 'not teaching them until they're ready' with a mystery religion, although I was not making a one-to-one equivocation. I was saying that in a way, what you suggested sounded to me a bit like that.
I suppose it's possible without a Bible, but without God then how?
To say there are no competing ideas when no religion is taught is, IMO, a false rationale. It assumes that religion is a sphere separate unto itself, and if it is introduced then its only competition is one or more other religions. Sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, the internet, world events, all these compete for attention. The challenge is to integrate your faith into a holistic understanding of all these things and act accordingly, at least to the best of your ability. But for a teenager especially, when the hormones are running wild and the entire world often seems soooooooo dramatic, without someone to guide them and without a good foundation in their faith, often these other ideas simply swamp their faith. It happens within the most rock-ribbed family of any faith, of course, but that doesn't mean the teaching shouldn't be there.
Equating being taught religion with being taught morals is a fair point but only so far. Biblically speaking, God has made it pretty clear who gets in and I don't see how someone who doesn't acknowledge Him gets a pass.
The 'light' Jesus mentioned is, of course, Jesus and our knowledge of and following Him. So I'm not sure how someone who doesn't know Jesus can have their light shine like that.I hate doing this in a point by point format but it fits best here. Sorry about that.
I've given a couple of examples already, but I'll go again. Take for example the parable of the Good Samaritan. Basically, kindness even to those we would think of as our enemies. A simple lesson of encouraging a child to share with another child even if they have not been so nice. Same lesson, morals are still biblical. No mention of God or Jesus needed. The child is still on the path. My middle son worked full time at the local mission for 6 weeks this summer as a volunteer project. He learned the lessons of feeding and clothing the poor. He learned compassion, empathy and caring for those who have less than you. He learned self-sacrifice and service. All very Christian concepts. No need for God or Jesus to be mentioned.
Just as a bonus "No graven images and no other Gods before me" come automatically.
Well, first of all, if they have no faith yet, this issues can't swamp it. By the time they chose their faith, they are well past the distractions and can do so without the confusion.
In addition, once again, avoiding sex, drugs, rock n roll (which I actually don't avoid) etc... is also a matter of parenting and can be handled without involving religion. As much as I love Christ, I don't need him to set up a parenting control on my child's computer. The lesson, for example, of avoiding too much wine is quite easy to teach. A nice picture of a liver with cirrhosis does the job, IMHO, much better than a warning from God anyway. A weekend of working with drug addicts teaches some powerful lessons as well. My oldest son avoided sex like the plague until recently (He's 21) because he has endured 4 younger siblings and he knew what caused them.
Well, I firmly believe that if there is a heaven, my son is there... and he never heard of Christ in his life. I think the story of David's son pretty much backs me up there... but I'll find the specific verses if you want me to. (I believe it was Samuel)
If heaven is made of souls that resemble those of a child (Luke 18 16-17) then how could their light NOT shine. They are the pure spirit of Christ. They shine like beacons1)Jesus didn't need to mention God in the Parable of the Good Samaritan because everyone already knew about God. The entire point of the parable (which was made rather explicit at the end) is that God does not only decree that people 'like you' are you neighbors. This is why the Priest and the Levite were such crucial components of the story, they pointed up that the Jews had been living according to rules that were important back in Moses' time about not mixing with peoples of other cultures, but Jesus was saying that doesn't let you off the hook. God wants us to love everyone. And everyone listening to Jesus speak (which is why Jesus never mentioned Himself) already understood explicitly that He was speaking to people who followed God and this is what God expected of them.
For those of us who are not practicing Jews living in the first century, the explicit mention of God and Jesus, although I certainly wouldn't swamp my five-year-old with it, does become increasingly important as they grow older.
Which is not to say that you can't teach compassion to people without using the words God or Jesus. Of course you can. And there are uber-compassionate non-Christians, and there are uber-compassionate Christians. But if you're teaching the truth (and the truth that will set us free is that Jesus came to die for our sins) then you need to start teaching about God and Jesus.
2) Saying that if their is no faith then other issues can't swamp it is true but it's also pretty much just like saying that if you legalize drug use and all associated activities then there is no drug problem. Not necessarily in a moral sense (although I don't rule that out) but in the sense that you are over-over-over-simplifying the question in order to declare a simple answer.
I disagree to an extent about the parenting issue thing. Don't get me wrong, parenting is extremely important and I don't let parents off the hook (including myself) but kids are who they are. My twenty-one year old has never smoked, done drugs (as far as I know, but I believe him when he says he hasn't) or had sex (again, just like the drugs.) He does drink. I'm a teetotaller (I just don't like the stuff and don't enjoy getting drunk) who never did drugs or smoked but I didn't avoid the other before I became a Christian. You can talk, cajole, plead, persuade and impress all you want, some kids will and some kids won't. Some of the most strict parenting produces street rats and some of the most lax parenting produces saints. To an extent, you just never know.
3) I'm very sorry about your son. I lost my wife and that is, to this day, incredibly difficult but I can't even imagine what it would be like to lose a kid.
4) That's a new interpretation of that passage on me. Which version do you read? Mine says that the Kingdom of Heaven 'belongs to such as these.' Which is a little different.
I think you are confusing state law with biblical law. We've come a long way in the last few thousand years. We understand that ignorance is no excuse and we understand that children can't be tried as adults. Biblical laws were self serving and seem to fly in the face of justice to most of us today and for good reason.
I didn't confuse the two at all, I tried to show that I was separating them. Biblical laws, depending on circumstances, were not necessarily meant to apply to Gentiles at all. But some things were very clearly meant to apply to all people for all time. Leaving aside some situations which were chronicled in the Bible but were NOT presented as laws in the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible), some of the things commanded in the OT simply CANNOT apply to us today (sacrifice laws, for instance, which were binding only on Jews and only while there was a Temple in Jerusalem.)
Who then decides which parts of the OT laws we should follow? The big ten were clearly not written for us, yet we have people telling us to follow them.
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Do we simple pick and choose which laws we like and adhere to them?No, we don't. But by the same token, we don't assume that every rule or law that was passed down in the OT was directed at everyone everywhere. Jesus did confirm the 'Big Ten' certainly and we do judge by His statements and actions. Slavery laws don't apply to us, we neither own slaves nor are we owned as slaves. Dietary laws don't apply to us, and there are specific reasons why given in the NT.
During Jesus time here on Earth, the 'Teachers of the Law' (the rabbis) were given to expounding on the laws to the point where it became too much for most people to do. That's what the Talmud basically is, the collection of the refinements and addendums that various rabbis had put onto OT laws. Jesus stripped these away by His proclamations.
And He was also confirming that the Prophets foretold Him.Then why do some still feel homosexuality is a sin? Was it one of the things they picked? It seems so opened to interpretation to me that it can and was up until a short time ago used to keep slaves.
I will say that Jesus laid down that marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman for life. Beyond that, there's a lot of things I wrestle with. The fact that I count gay people among my friends means I think about a lot of things.
When Jesus was asked about divorce, He quoted what we would call Genesis chapter 2. The Hebrews didn't have chapters in their scripture (I think they still don't.)That's fair, am I correct in assuming that you follow the NT and simply use the OT as reference when referenced by the NT?
Just a question, no trap. I do understand your trouble when scripture conflicts with your sensibilities.I believe that the NT very organically fits with the OT. It's a little tough to explain, but a thorough knowledge and understanding of the OT really deepens the understanding and respect for the NT. Certainly knowing all of the Messianic prophecies is key, but so is a good understanding of the rules and why they were instituted and why some don't apply to us today.
There's a sermon by RC Sproul that I heard once that really went to the heart of why some of the things that Jesus did and that happened to Him are better understood if you know the OT really well.
I know there are several here who think the NT is somehow divorced from the OT, but I don't believe that. I think that people who quote OT exclusively have got it wrong (and that's even more true of those who's only NT quote is the one about the law not passing away) but those who think that the NT somehow completely negates the OT also have it wrong.
IMHO.
Jumping in here - she's not saying that you should never tell your children about god. I've followed the conversation thus far, and she's saying that exposing children to supernatural concepts before they have the cognitive ability to grasp what it is you're saying can be potentially harmful. Having the cognitive ability to understand doesn't exactly happen when they're middle aged. What, potentially, is the harm of waiting until your children are at an intellectual and emotional maturity level to really understand the concepts you're explaining to them? Unless you think that god is going to send a four year old child to hell because his/her father didn't teach them that Jesus was tortured so they wouldn't have to be yet. That makes no sense from a Calvinist (predestination) perspective or an evangelical perspective. If you're a Calvinist, doesn't predestination dictate whether or not your children will be saved anyway, and since God already knows, does it really matter when you start telling them?
Hmm. As far as the predestination part is concerned, yes it does dictate whether the kids would be saved anyway (although as anyone who has read my posts for a while knows, predestination is the one point of TULIP that I wrestle the most with) but that does not excuse me from my duty to tell my kids about God. I don't think I need to go into any theological depth about it when they are little kids. Honestly, a lot of the deeper things are points that many adults choose not to wrestle with, and maybe I'm wrong for worrying as much about them as I do. And even when their cognitive ability starts to mature, that doesn't mean I think they need sophisticated lectures about Grace and all the finer points that entails. But by the same token, if I'm understanding Melissa correctly (and maybe I'm not,) she seems to be saying that we shouldn't go out of our way to introduce these concepts to kids at all, even in overly simplified, child-friendly terms.
And Melissa, you asked a question earlier. Protestantism (and I don't mean to insult my Catholic friends by saying this) is in large part a reaction against 'brownie points.' You don't earn God's favor in Protestant (and specifically Reformation) thinking. The 'relics' were a form of 'brownie points.'There is absolutely nothing anyone can ever say to justify not waiting until their kid is of proper age to properly introduce them to religion. If they do try and justify not waiting, I cant help but think that they know its alot easier to indoctrinate a child than a teenager. In fact I wrote a short blog/article about that very topic on another writing site. I believe I mentioned making a law that required parents to wait until their kids are 14 before teaching them about religion. Someone said that apparently violates the Constitution. I had to chuckle at that...
Come to think of it, I have asked people this question a few times before. Never got an answer, it was either ignored or I was insulted/mocked for being an atheist. Fun fact, Im not an atheist...A law, telling parents not to share their religion until a kid is 14? That has to be the most ridiculous idea I've come across in quite some time. Why not simply sterilize everyone until you decide they can have kids? Or, let's let you raise all the kids.
I'm beginning to think some simply want a bunch of clones walking around with only approved thoughts authorized.Emile, you constantly show that you do not actually comprehend my comments before replying to them, only to then mildly insult and/or mock me and my thoughts. Lets clarify then.
First off, the entire thing was hypothetical. Im slightly positive I posed it as a question to anyone who read the blog.
Second, I didnt say a parent was not allowed to share their religion with their children. Having bibles and crosses in the house is sharing your religion with anyone who happens to see them. I said the child should at least be 14 before the parent starts TEACHING religion to their child. Believe it or not, there is a difference. Nowhere did I say the parents should withhold religion completely from their kids, but wait until they are old enough to think for themselves. Yet according to you, thinking for one's self is akin to being a near mindless clone...interesting.
If by some slim miracle the parent is capable of teaching religion to their kid objectively, then by all means start at whatever age. Of course I think a decent amount of people who start teaching their kids about whatever religion at an early age do not care to be objective about it. "God exists because he does" and that is all there is room for.
Is it not easier to make a child believe god exists without a shadow of a doubt when they are 4, rather than when they are 14? A 4 year old asks "Why?" and they are either punished physically (for the more extreme parents), scolded for asking a legitimate question, or simply told "Because I said so". If you were to say that phrase to a 14 year old, instant rebellion is almost certain. A 14 year old is much more capable of asking questions and finding flaws than a 4 year old is, and a rebellious 14 year old sure as hell will not automatically accept "Because I said so" as a reason for anything.
Why are cigarettes not allowed to people under 18? Why can you not buy alcohol until you are 21? Because they are dangerous to you as an individual and to the people around you. Only until you are a certain age are you deemed responsible enough to make your own decisions, regardless if they are dangerous to your health or to others. In the context of the OP, I would assume abstaining from teaching religion to children until they reach a certain age relates to that quite well, or am I wrong?
Set aside my "ridiculous idea" for a second (love the compliments by the way) and answer this question if you will:
Do you think religion should be pushed onto a child that is not old enough to fully understand what is being said, has next to no choice in the matter, and just told to accept it; or do you think religion should be offered as an option to a teenager who is actually capable of thinking for themselves and doing research on the matter, with the ability to actually say no if it does not appeal to them?How would you enforce such a law? The fact that such an idea could not be implemented without a police state, of sorts, makes me wonder why you would propose it, in the first place.
Secondly, I see no benefit to be gained by pushing such an idea. I'd be curious why cigarettes were presented as an example. Does religion cause cancer, emphysema or some other public health hazard? I haven't been presented with that data. Could you provide it?
To answer your final question. Define religion. Perhaps, by honing in on the definition we might see where our opinions diverge. Unfortunately, I'm a firm advocate of freedom of conscience so I do think it will be difficult to find merit in your opinion concerning parent's rights to share theirs with the children.I would assume asking hypothetical questions to people is the process of understanding their thoughts on a certain matter, regardless of how likely the situation can actually occur. Since it is purely hypothetical, like I stated it was, how you would implement such a law is irrelevant. It's pretending the law is already in effect or about to be and voicing your thoughts on the matter. You are entirely over thinking this.
No religion does not cause cancer or other diseases and I never said or implied that it did. Religion has been the cause of death and discrimination however by people who were strictly taught to obey god/followers of God no questions asked.
In fact I made it very clear why I brought up cigarettes (you read that part right?), they are a hazard to your health and you have to be a certain age before you are allowed to purposely kill yourself with them.
Definition of religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
I wasn't under the impression I was operating under a different definition of religion, if that was even possible.Well, I was hoping you were operating under a different definition. It would certainly explain your comments.
But, hypothetically. If there were a law that parents couldn't teach their kids about religion until they were 14; we'd be living in a police state. I'd rather not.Pretty easy to understand my comments when you understand the context of not only the OP but other people's comments on here as well. You say you are an advocate of freedom of conscience. Cool beans. You didn't really answer my final question to you regarding if religion should be forced upon a child who does not know how to say no or offered as an option to a teenager who can think and choose for themselves. And even though I stated that parents would still have the right to teach their religion to their kid just at a later point in life, you still seem confused on that part. Are you even pretending to try and understand my comments at this point Emile? To me, you being an advocate of freedom of conscience would mean that you would choose the second option rather than the first for reasons that are not only obvious but were clearly explained to you, twice, yet you still seem oblivious as to why the first option is an obvious problem and how it led to me asking such a hypothetical question. If you do understand why, then you have not shown that you do.
Please explain how we would be living in a police state if my hypothetical law was in effect? I will bring up alcohol and cigarettes again. You have to be a certain age to buy them, that doesnt mean 14 year olds are not going out and buying smokes and drinks for themselves and their buds with fake ID's. There are no police enforcing that law, unless you are caught buying those products by a police officer shopping at the same place as you or the cashier actually cares enough to report a fake ID. How many cops do you know that roam about your neighborhood, knocking on doors, and demanding to search the house for cigarettes and booze bought by a minor?
The law is the law, some people obey it completely, others obey it when they feel like it, and others disregard it completely since most laws are not actively enforced 24/7 to prevent people from ever breaking them. If this hypothetical law was in effect, would everyone obey it? Obviously not, but plenty of people would. Also, you act as if someone were to break the law they would immediately end up in jail or something. If we have to delve deeper into this hypothetical, I would say the consequence of breaking this specific law would be a major fine and thats it.I still have no idea why you keep referencing cigarettes and alcohol. There is no comparison. And, possessing illegal contraband is vastly different from entertaining a different way of thinking. That is what your hypothetical law boils down to. Thought police. You say, 'noncompliance would be a fine'. Who's monitoring? Who decides the parent shared religion? Saying a parent shouldn't share their views on life is incredibly invasive and impossible to achieve. Would they not be able to say a prayer at their meals? Would 'Now I lay me down to sleep' be banned because the kid might ask who 'the lord' was?
There are a lot of religious sects I think of as cults. Even those, I would hesitate to agree that they shouldn't be allowed to raise and teach their children within their values and beliefs. What you are advocating is denying citizens of their basic rights of freedom in hopes that the next generation will turn out more to your way of thinking. I find that frightening that someone could be so self righteous as to imply that others who are, at times,.so self righteous shouldn't pass on their beliefs which have led them to think they are correct in their self righteousness.
And, I'm sorry. But that is what this line of discussion boils down to. Because, we all imprint our beliefs on our kids. One belief I'd like to see stamped out is the belief that our beliefs are superior to the beliefs of others. So superior that we advocate passing laws to enforce them against the will of others.I find this to be confirmation that you just like to talk without actually caring about what other people say. I do not understand why you are scuba diving so deep into a hypothetical question that was stated to be a hypothetical question to then be explained as to why it was asked as a hypothetical question.
I stated, more than once, that parents would not be prohibited from teaching their religion to their kid unless the child has reached a certain age, then its open season. Hard to deprive people of their rights when they still have them. Is it depriving people of their rights to make them wait until a certain age before being able to rent an R rated movie or buy a violent video game? To be 18 to buy smokes, 21 to drink alcohol, or 16 in order to get a part time job? If it hasnt hit you yet, the whole age thing is the point I was trying to get across with cigarettes and alcohol before, even though I was pretty sure I clarified that from the beginning.
If you want to talk about something else, be my guest. I am done repeating myself to someone who doesnt see the logic behind a question that was explained to them several times, to only then invent new things to attack about the logic surrounding the question. I still don't think you have answered my previous question directly either rather than skirt around it and imply that I am self righteous
I guess I should apologize for actually wanting to give children the option to choose if they wish to follow a religion or not regardless of what I personally think about religion (which shows a clear respect of people's rights to share their beliefs), rather than be forced into it from an early age. Whoops.
This raises the question of how to 'teach religion objectively.' You yourself seem to dislike religion and feel that it has no positive effect, therefor your 'objective' standard would seem to indicate that. But that would not be truly objective.
Right, nor would mine truly objective, that's why I haven't told my children what I think until that ask and are old enough to form their own objective opinion.
It appears to me that Melissa's approach was however far more objective than mine as I allowed others to teach my children about God while I tried to teach them to examine the evidence independent of religion.The difference being that you don't actually believe in God, let alone the religion, and Melissa (and please forgive me if I don't characterize you correctly, and please feel free to correct me, but I'm trying to be accurate) does believe in some of the Bible, does believe that God exists and Jesus exists but also believes that large portions of the Bible are metaphorical in ways that I don't. I believe in God and Jesus and much of the Bible in a literal way, and that includes admonishments to teach my kids the Truth of Jesus and what He did. So for me, that sort of objectivity is not doing my kids a service.
Nor do I think that teaching kids respect makes them dull.What you "think" the truth is may not be the actual truth, and you may be doing them a disservice. You've got one chance in a few thousand of being right, would you gamble those odds?
I think that's a fairly apt definition. I will say that I don't believe teaching kids respect makes them dull either. I think teaching them unthinking, unquestioning adherence makes them dull though.
Teaching them that is more rare than many people think, and actually getting it to stick is even more rare.
It doesn't matter if I dislike religion or love it. I am a person of logic and rationality, meaning I do not let get my feelings in the way of whatever the topic at hand is if I can help it. A simple enough concept that not a lot of people understand.
To teach religion, say Christianity, objectively, you start with its historic origins. If you teach it strictly out of the Bible, there is no cherry picking the good and semi bad parts, you teach the whole thing or not at all.
Simply saying, like you have, that your specific God exists with absolutely no proof is not being objective.I've covered that one before, many times. Faith is what it is, and the demand for the sort of proof that strips faith completely away is simply not going to happen even if it were possible. Even if two hundred angels dancing on the head of a pin sang the Hallelujah Chorus from the Vatican, the Dome of the Rock and the Kremlin simultaneously, people of 'reason and logic' would immediately set about 'proving' how it could not be from God. I present what I believe and why and if after that the only rejoinder someone has is "but you still haven't proved it" then they are not interested in a conversation, only in being right.
(That's not true in every case but it is more often than not, in my experience.)Yes, but you believe what you believe based on personal experiences that you assert that you know beyond doubt are from a very specific deity, and when asked, you cannot explain how you jumped to that secondary conclusion, when the answer is because you chose to. Wouldn't your personal experiences, if they are what you say they are, be proof that would render faith meaningless? Did the apostles have faith, or did they witness miracles first hand, down to sticking their fingers in the holes of Jesus hands. Did Paul have faith, knocked off his donkey and blinded by Jesus? Did any of the patriarchs who supposedly walked and talked with God have faith? The emphasis on faith is a reformation concept, and was not necessarily the emphasis of the early or universal church. Faith without works is dead. It doesn't get much clearer.
I have covered how I came to the conclusion that these experiences were from a specific deity. And in any case, many of the actual experiences were not mine. It was all about context. If these had happened while I was in a Mormon temple, or a Sikh temple, then yes, my conclusion as to where they came from, or at least what they were reinforcing, would have been different.
To a degree you're right. Yes, Thomas did put his finger in the hole. And yes, Paul was blinded and knocked off the donkey. But that does not mean there was no faith involved after that. Just as I often examine what I believe and why I believe it. The works may bolster the faith, but faith is still necessary. Believing that it's for the best, that you are part of God's working out of events, that requires faith. I don't need faith to believe you exist because we communicate pretty much every other day. God certainly does not. And again, I've never heard His voice (unlike Thomas or Paul.)So the fact that you assert to have absolute knowledge of not only god's existence but YOUR god's existence is all wrapped up on the fact that you had strange experiences while you happened to be sitting in a church (for the first one anyway). You just guessed. And that somehow equates to absolute knowledge for you, and not only for you - but you think it should be true for everyone else and your children as well, and you're going to teach them that it's absolute truth as well. I'm sorry, but that's a little bit ridiculous. Are you going to teach your children that other people in the world believe just as fervently (and have the personal experiences to back up their beliefs as well) in other gods, and let them figure out why? Are you going to tell them that other people of different religions KNOW that their religions are true as well - or are you going to instruct them that they're somehow wrong, but that you're right. Because you felt strange in a church - and instead of trying to figure out WHY, you attributed it automatically to the God whose church you were in and literally converted on the spot.
Here's the problem with personal experiences being relied upon as proof - and absolute proof at that. You have to make multiple HUGE leaps that you cannot possibly justify - and I think you know that, and that's why you still think about it - and it's why you have problems thinking about other people of varying faiths having similar experiences that are just attributed differently. In which way (aside from confirmation bias for later experiences) have you validated your claim of a source behind your experiences?
So, let's say I pray for a good parking space at the mall, and I get one right in front.
Nobody would argue that I did not get a good parking space, that actually, demonstrable occurred.
But in what way does that demonstrate that it was the prayer that was responsible for the outcome? If I had not prayed, how do I know that outcome would not have occurred?
When a person says that their personal experience with "X" demonstrates god, because god is somehow responsible for their experience, I am inclined to ask them how they got to that secondary conclusion about the cause, when all we observe is the end result. Do they have any controls to offer? Do they have a demonstration that they cannot get a good parking space without a god helping them? If not, then why do they trust their assumptions about the cause, which are not supported by the mere outcome?
In instances of healing, I've known several people who wanted to use personal experience of a supposed healing as evidence that (insert the name of whichever god you'd like here) exists. Yet they seem unwilling to do a study, comparing their "healing" as fulfilled prayer to all of the other similar prayers of healing but went unanswered. If being healed is evidence for a god, not being healed should be evidence against that god's existence, if we're going to honestly evaluate the issue, shouldn't it?
As far as the faith thing goes - we're talking about two different types of faith. The disciples and Paul had absolute evidence that miracles happened, that Jesus was a real historical person, and that was a good reason to believe that the other things he claimed were true (if you accept the bible as true, anyway). they had faith that other things would come to pass. you're talking about having faith that any of those things are ACTUALLY true. You believe they are, but that belief does not turn into knowledge. Knowledge and facts can be demonstrated. Beliefs cannot. I'm not sure why you (and several other believers) are so completely unwilling to admit that. If I were to say (and I don't believe this, and you know it) that I KNOW that the Christian god does not exist, based on personal experiences - would you just accept it at face value? Or would you want evidence? Evidence of the sort that atheists ask you for all the time - and all you can point to are personal experiences as evidence - all in a hub entitled the "proof" that god has given me. Do you not see the problem with that line of thinking, if it were put in reverse?This personal experience you mention related to non-Christian religions - In truth, I don't see much of it for those of other religions, but instead see a lot of "second-hand faith" - I hear people of other religions saying what they've been taught, what they're leaders say and so on. I don't see that they have any PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God as true Christians do. Sure, they engage in rituals and traditions (church, prayer and the like). Yet their hearts don't sing to their god as the Christian sings to the Lord; they don't "walk" with their god as Christians walk with the Lord; they don't "hear" from their god as Christians hear from the Lord...
You seem to want us to dismiss all our spiritual experiences as coincidences, imagination, and so on. But let's look at your example of the parking space - it's too easy to get a good parking space, so it's too easy to occur, which makes it a likely coincidence. But look at some of our examples of answered prayers and experiences with supernatural manifestations. They are not so likely to occur. Think carefully about one of my examples I've given before: For 13 years I experienced abnormal pain each month; then one day while praying to God to take away the pain or kill me, I heard him above me saying repeatedly "Focus on me, not the pain" and I was drawn upward so that I was away from my body and away from the pain (my only "out-of-body" experience, where I saw my body still laying on the bed). I was HEALED during this SUPERNATURAL experience, so that now for 15 years the pain has never returned. It could've been explained if I had simply learned a pain management technique, but I don't need to use any techniques, as the pain never even comes for me to need it. Even if you try to explain it psychologically, based on my belief that God is Healer, I could have become free from the pain at any point over 13 years. When really thinking about 13 years of pain and 15 years of freedom from the pain, how is it that ONLY AT THE MOMENT of such an ODD and RARE experience, do I happen to become freed from the LONG-term pain?
You say Chris "happened" to be sitting in a church. I similarly "happened" to be in a prayer group of Spirit-filled Christians the first time I experienced a supernatural manifestation as an adult. I'd wandered from God from around age 12 to around age 23 (over a decade); why didn't any "weird" things occur that I could've "misconstrued" as spiritual manifestations (I still believed in God; I just ignored him and turned my back on him). Why did the "odd" experience await this revealing moment? I wasn't expecting it, so it couldn't have been expectation fulfilled; I hadn't even been raised to believe in such manifestations (no one in my life spoke of such); and it wasn't even desired - I pushed it away and said to God, "This is too much for me!"
The problem with using "controls" or looking at "unanswered prayers" is that God has set the world up in such a way that it will by and large OBEY natural laws. So even for the Christian, the MAJORITY of the time we EXPECT and will find just that - natural laws WILL be followed by the universe. For example, MOST of the time we'll either heal or not heal depending on what NATURALLY follows. The MIRACLE is the RARE event - that which supersedes the natural. It comes about in that RARE time when all the RIGHT factors are present - God's divine manifestation for a supreme purpose; God's will; our need, desperation and/or great desire; our true status as his children (not just his creation) within his care; our sincere faith; the sincere faith of those praying (if others are involved); our reliance on the Holy Spirit and our act of abiding in him, etc.
You say, "If I were to say (and I don't believe this, and you know it) that I KNOW that the Christian god does not exist, based on personal experiences - would you just accept it at face value? Or would you want evidence?" The problem here is that NOT experiencing something CAN'T confirm that it "doesn't exist". Such experiences are based on nothing but the LACK of anything occurring, rather than the PRESENCE of anything. Lack can't show what IS or IS NOT (though it's an understandable conclusion, and I understand that when seeking him genuinely it's confusing when he doesn't yet "show"). Still we need the existence of the positive, not the assumption based on the negative, for confirmation. We don't doubt other religions because we haven't experienced their god, but rather we don't believe it because we HAVE experienced our God.Cat, with all due respect, this post is intended for Chris, and Chris alone. Chris and I are friends and have had several more in depth conversations of the type that you and I will never have, and while I'm sure your post is in typical cat fashion, I'm interested in his response. You're quite free to respond as you see fit in an open forum, but I'm interested in his response to my post, not yours. I've heard yours before.
I'm sure Chris will respond to your post, and my post doesn't detract from that.
I think pretty much every person in these forums has responded to posts on which they have something to say, not strictly those addressed to them, so I'm not sure why the problem. Even if you are not interested in my post, I had some questions I really was interested in having you answer in a meaningful, thoughtful way. Guess not, though.
Lack of something does not show if something is or is not. Nice, logical, and accurate as far as I can see. Then you turn around and say that you do not believe in other gods of other religions because you have experienced your own god. Meaning you lack an experience with the gods of those other religions, which according to you does not prove or disprove their existence. Yet you claim they are false because you have experienced your own god. You are spinning around in a circle so fast that I need to go search for my motion sickness pills.
And I am sure you will give me an outlandish response or none at all, but can you explain why you are so special as to be healed from your abnormal pains, when there are diseased people dying slow and painful deaths all over the word on an hourly basis, let alone daily?Rather than it being NOTHING BUT LACK of experience with their god that makes us not believe in their god, it is the fact that we have already EXPERIENCED something far different - One who confirms himself through the Holy Spirit and who warns us of any false spirits. Because of this EXPERIENCE, we cannot accept their "gods".
Truly I am not "special" and sooner or later I too will die, perhaps even a "slow and painful" death. Still it is our God who is Healer and when our faith meets his love and power, then at those times we may see that which supersedes the natural laws and we may be supernaturally healed.
Sorry that it's taken me so long to get to this, but I think most of it has been deal with over in the other forum. Nevertheless...
Yes, I do need to make some assumptions, although after time I'm not sure how HUGE they would have to be. I do track my thinking back to why I started believing in the first place. I compare my continued experiences to what I thought about early ones and why.
I do think about people of other faiths and their "answered" prayers. My personal belief is that they are seeing answered prayers, but they're not answered by the same being. But yes, part of that conclusion is arrived at by working backwards.
It's late and the post is long. I think the rest of it is dealt with over in the other forum. If you have any other questions I would be happy to answer them another time.do you think that your particular god answers the prayers of those who don't believe in him? Do you think he answers the prayers of those who worship and believe in different gods? Why?
I still maintain that the leaps you are making are huge - and their being built upon experiences that you attribute to a specific god - because you chose to. There is no confirmation or verification whatsoever. There is no possible way to test it. It's just a choice on your part - and every experience after the very first one is building up a ladder of confirmation bias.1) Sometimes, although I think they are directly or indirectly related to getting to know Him (better.)
2) See first answer.
In one sense you're right, I could (theoretically) choose to associate all the experiences with Allah, or Krishna, or the FSM. It's just that the experiences are all centered around Christian atmospheres, so doing that would make no sense on any level.
And yeah, I can hear someone say, "Well, it makes as much sense to me as the other," but that would just prove my point.Perhaps everyone should start to pray to whatever God the Saudi's pray to, God seems to have given them everything one could want. They get to rule over a very large, very expensive, very valuable piece of land, they get as many wives as they desire and get to pass it down from generation to generation. And, no women drivers or drunk drivers.
Perhaps this is how we should determine which is the right version of God?Sure it is, it's exactly what the Israelites did. Convince themselves that their God is on their side and therefor they are entitled to the land. It seems the God's favour the Saudi's. You may have gotten your dryer, but the Saudi's have all the oil and as many wives as they want. Just messing with you.
I am going to point out now that I know you were not talking about me, directly in any case, but I will talk as if you were.
First off, if 2, let alone 200, angels flew from the heavens and started dancing, all of which was witnessed and caught on video, there would be absolutely no way anyone in their right mind could deny that it has to do with God. What they would question is if it had anything to do with YOUR specific God, 2 very different things. To deny it has anything to do with God at all would be lunacy.
Second. I was somewhat flabbergasted when you said anyone who continues to assert that "you haven't proved it" is not interested in conversation. The fact that they asked you to prove it to begin with proves they want to converse with you to some degree (a lot like me in my forum yes?). Regardless of that, you are the one making the claim that God exists as a fact, you know that you cannot prove that with any tangible evidence and dismiss people who ask you for such, yet you turn around and say the person questioning YOUR claim is disinterested in conversation and only wish to be right?
If hypocrisy was a power source, I probably wouldn't have to ever worry about my electric bill again just from your comment, and probably be set for generations with all the other comments I have seen on this site."...if 2, let alone 200, angels flew from the heavens and started dancing, all of which was witnessed and caught on video, there would be absolutely no way anyone in their right mind could deny that it has to do with God. What they would question is if it had anything to do with YOUR specific God, 2 very different things. To deny it has anything to do with God at all would be lunacy."
I'm sure they'd deny it yet - say it was special effects or something.So you are saying your God is unable to make himself known to all. He's powerless"
I'm saying that people in their disbelief will find reason to disbelieve anything given them. Those who witnessed such an event first hand MAY believe, but even they may think it an illusion; those watching a recording would tend to dismiss it as special effects.
God has not left us without witness and testimony of himself. Yet some will not believe no matter what sign they are given. Those who hear the voice of the One calling will respond. None can judge who this will include, as it may include the most ardent of former atheists, those who disbelieved right up to their dying day, those who never heard in the natural but are witnessed to in the spiritual, and so on.Yes, essentially. I never got that train of thought either... it always seemed like a rather low opinion of God but whatever.
If I were saying God is UNABLE, then yes, this would be a low opinion of God. Kind of like calling God an ass or whatever derogatory term it was you chose.
That's about the gist of it from my POV. It's one of those debates that you'll likely not get an honest answer from from most Christians... because admitting that God is anything but peachy keen by our standards for some reason sends people into apoplectic fits. I think it has to do with lack of faith and insecurity.
Seriously - "admitting that God is anything but peachy keen by our standards". Why say you follow him if you don't consider him at least "peachy keen"?
And if someone speaks against your children or another loved one, is it insecurity or lack of faith in them that causes you to defend your loved ones?Cat, you claim to have several advanced degrees in psychology. I'm curious, what would you say about a person who constantly tries to initiate conversation with another person even after being told several times that the second person wants no contact with them? What would you advise if this behavior continued for literally months (close to a year)?
Would that be considered stalking or harassment? What would your initial diagnosis be of that person? What compulsion would drive that individual, in your opinion?First, I'd say that if you regularly respond to my posts INDIRECTLY as you do (by making negative comments about my posts in response to others' replies to my posts), then you've already lost all validity to your claim of "harassment". Second, I've already explained to you that my responses to your posts in these public forums are not necessarily FOR you, but for the benefit of others and in the interest of truth and glorifying God. If you speak against God or Christians, as you often do, or you make a statement that is not truth, I will speak up. You are free to continue ignoring my posts. (And I haven't been on Hub Pages for close to a year.)
So some kind of obsessive personality disorder? That's my guess anyway. Especially when a person goes through two identities to continue the harassment. When confronted, they justify their behavior.
I get what you are saying about ignoring... I've been trying that religiously. There were MONTHS that went by were I wouldn't respond to this persons posts at all. It didn't seem to help. It's like they believe they have the right to initiate conversation with me against my will. The conversation is always hostile and argumentative.
It doesn't seem rational at all.
I've heard stories about people being stalked online by unbalanced individuals. Should I be concerned about this one? I mean this person seems relatively harmless, but you never know what someone who is showing signs of obsession will do, right?Melissa, I was having conversations with others on here. You initiated interaction with me by making comments about my posts when others replied to my posts. And as usual they were negative comments you made (about being insecure in faith and such). So now not only are you attempting to control the forums, but you are also attempting to continue your own "harassment" (if that's the label you give such things) while claiming that you're a victim. As far as going "through two identities to continue the harassment", I'm not sure what you're talking about. Less than 1% of my posts have been in reply to anything you've posted, and generally they weren't even with you as the intended audience.
The degree of manipulation shown here is concerning. Manipulation is actually a category of abuse in the psychological field.Mmmhmm... So now that you've finally earned my reply after so much effort, what exactly is it you want to say? Can we get it all out so that you can stop following me from forum to forum replying to posts that you imagine are about you?
Do you actually have something to say or have all of the attempts at initiating conversations that I CLEARLY DO NOT WANT with you just so I will acknowledge your presence?
Can you say what you have to say and then leave me alone? I mean other than the plethora of times that I asked you respectfully to leave me alone... after the times that the OTHERS have reminded you that I asked you to leave me alone... After months of ignoring your posts hoping that you will give up...Is that what will do it?
What exactly is it that you want to say? The floor is all yours. Say what you have to say and then STOP TRYING TO TALK TO ME. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH YOU...AT ALL...EVER.
And just as a little slap of reality, the conversation about insecurity and faith had absolutely nothing to do with you. I wasn't thinking about you when I wrote it. It wasn't to get to you. It was me having a conversation with someone else that in no way shape or form was about you. Do you really think every conversation I have is somehow about you?Regarding one of my posts you said to your friend who'd responded to me, "it always seemed like a rather low opinion of God but whatever." I clarified and said what I wanted to say already, so I'm good there. Regarding another one of my posts you said to your friend who'd responded to me, "admitting that God is anything but peachy keen by our standards for some reason sends people into apoplectic fits. I think it has to do with lack of faith and insecurity." I asked a couple of rhetorical questions and said what I wanted to say, so again I'm good there.
Looks like I've already said it. I wasn't expecting a response to my posts from you and will continue not to expect them. But in this public forum, I will continue to make statements that glorify God, uplift my brothers and sisters in Christ, declare truth and so on, and I'll make these statements in response to any and all posts as relevant (if it happens to be yours, just ignore it). I don't think you've even been involved in the other forums I've been in lately, so I'm not sure why you'd comment that I'm "following" you other than to further manipulate the situation.So basically, you're not going to leave me alone because you believe that harassing me is glorifying God. You don't care if your behavior causes distress. You only care about your own selfish desires.
I might get banned for this, but at least the person moderating will read it and maybe do something about it.
You are not stable. You have an obsession. Your constant need to follow someone around and attempt to provoke and insult them is cyber-bullying. If someone did what you are doing to another person in person, they would be arrested and psychologically evaluated. I cannot believe that you actually ever treated clients. You need to be in treatment yourself.
I have no idea why you have fixated on me. I am fairly certain it has something to do with my religion... which adds a whole layer of creepiness to it. You really do need to get help for it though. You can't stalk and harass people just because you don't approve of their faith.
This is the last response to you. I don't know if my reports will be taken seriously or not but every response you make to me from this point forward will be reported as harassment.Hmmmm, it appears a few people have specifically asked you to stop responding to their posts. Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because you are having difficulties distinguishing reality from fiction (staying on topic) and it's causing difficulties communicating with others? It appears to me that when some are exposed to tales as a child and are told the tales are factual they can become confused as to what is fact and what is fiction. Imagine a grown person thinking they have a special direct connection with a God that is bonded by God that can never be broken, however that person can't supply one shred of evidence to support the claim.
I must've missed the other requests; I'm aware only of Melissa's. IF a person is going to request no posts in response to theirs (which I think is controlling and inappropriate in a public forum, and as far as I'm aware is NOT one of the rules here), then the requesting party should avoid commenting about that particular person OR their posts in general. Otherwise it's a game, it's manipulative, it's an aggressive person playing the victim.
So you view someone requesting not to talk to you as controlling and inappropriate, regardless of the reason they told you why they no longer wish for you to talk to them. You completely disregard their feelings on the matter, make up excuses to talk to them, and continue to talk to them DIRECTLY anyway. How do indirect comments that had little if nothing to do with you somehow MAKE you reply to Melissa directly? Glorify god all you want, but there are at least 12 other people following this forum to do it to yet you seemed to have chosen one specific person. Is there reasoning behind that?
In this forum, I responded to her posts that were indirect responses to my previous posts. So that's one reason I respond to her (I suppose I could've played the game and responded indirectly as well, but I'm not interested in the game playing and would rather be direct).
Since this particular person regularly speaks against God and against other Christians, and since I'm a person particularly prone to defending others, defending truth and defending God, that's another reason I respond to her posts.You regularly speak out against other Christians as well. Why is that?
You should understand however that speaking out and being honest about what parts of the bible say that a God did or said is not talking badly about God, it's using reason and understanding that the God of the OT doesn't appear to be the best guy around. That could be either that he isn't the best guy around or that the OT is not a fair representation of a loving God.
So unless you stop speaking out against other Christian as you just did in your post that I'm responding to you may want to stop telling others that they shouldn't be doing the same. It seems like a typical school yard bully tactic.It's simply not true that I "regularly speak out against other Christians as well". Now if you had said I regularly confront the one self-professed Christian who speaks against all the other Christians (except her friend) and against God, then you would have spoken more accurately.
You, Rad Man, and this self-professed Christian appear to share very similar opinions of God. Strange, considering your supposed differing standpoints.
I'll have to think about this one - Do I bully bullies or do I confront bullies? You may be right that I bully bullies, or it may all be confrontation.That's what bullies do Cat. They pick a person and talk badly about them and demand no one do the same to them. You've just said a bunch of very nasty things about a fellow Christian simply because they are not the same denomination as yourself, which is how a bully control their own group, they bully inside their own group.
You already know it's not "simply because they are not the same denomination". I've said multiple times that I confront this person because of her attacks on Christianity, Christians, God, and the Word. Saying God is an a**, saying Christians are responsible for this and that evil, etc. are NOT due to any denominational standing.
I confront people, often in defense of others or myself or God. I've confronted your twisting and manipulating of words. I still care about the people I confront. But right is right and I will speak up. You call it bullying (a bully), I call it confronting and standing up for my faith, my brethren and my God.
Im not sure if this mind boggling option ever crossed your mind Cat, but rather than disregard her feelings and responding to her directly, or playing the "game" and responding to her indirectly, you could have simply not responded to her at all rather than attempt to pick fights with a "self proclaimed" Christian.
Imagine that...
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that you are free to respond to anyone as you see fit. I do. I just find it fascinating that a person such as yourself who claims to be a prophet can't seem to reach people and have a conversation without someone not wanting to communicate with you anymore.
None of the responses I've seen are surprising at all. If one tactic to attempt to silence someone doesn't work, it appears folks are happy to adjust their approach. Hey, I applaud creativity!
He may or may not classify me, himself and all those with gifts for speaking truth as "prophets", depending on understanding of the definition. Definitions of this spiritual gift vary (I even did some more research on it due to the responses here). It's really about whether we speak the truth of God or not (something not all Christians do).
He probably won't answer because he's to afraid of you.
He doesn't have to consider me a prophet. Maybe he's coming from a different interpretation of the spiritual gift. I speak truth; he speaks truth; many here speak truth. I called it the gift of prophecy (and said maybe it's more accurately labeled gifts of wisdom and knowledge).
Strong word because it carries lots of connotations, but technically? Absolutely. By definition a spokesperson is a prophet, and all the more so if they are enthusiastic about it.
I guess I was kinda wrong. Except that you changed the definition of prophet to suite her.
prophet |ˈpräfit|
noun
1 a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.
the definition then goes on to list Jeremiah, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets.
Didn't find Cat in there at all. But I guess by your definition anyone can claim to be a prophet.And by your definition anyone is a Christian if they say they are.
Here is a full definition from Websters:
proph·et
noun \ˈprä-fət\
: a member of some religions (such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) who delivers messages that are believed to have come from God
the Prophet —used as another name for Muhammad, the founder of Islam
the Prophets : the writers of the books of the Bible that describe what will happen in the future
Full Definition of PROPHET
1
: one who utters divinely inspired revelations: as
a often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible
b capitalized : one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will <Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah>
2
: one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3
: one who foretells future events : predictor
4
: an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
You'll be happy to know that Cat's harassment has silenced me. I honestly came back to the forums after a two month absence hoping to find some decent conversation. Cat immediately started up like I had never left. If I can't have a conversation without someone stalking me and harassing me, it defeats the purpose.
She has already admitted that she stalks me because of my faith, my faith isn't going to change any time soon. I would really rather not deal with constant baiting and attacks while discussing it.
So have the forums. I'll not be back. There are some great people here, but the crap just isn't worth it. I applaud people likes you and Cat for attempting to drive off those who don't follow your version of Christianity. When it's just you guys left, you can sit around congratulating yourselves on your own virtue."The likes of me" liked your violin. Dishing out, taking, all that. I left for a couple months thinking "who needs the grief?" You have to have a thick skin to participate. All the more true of some folks who tend to be aggressors. Remember all the grave dancing comments? I'm just not buying it, but do wish you well, and expect we'll see you, or a sock puppet who reminds us of you, back in top form in due time.
Dude, that's not cool. She seems to have dodge a bullet and the most Christian thing you could do was say that she was lying? I wonder by Gandhi didn't like Christians?
Spinning the shield to show the kitten when getting push back, but the lion when on attack is not cool. Effective, particularly in rallying support from your friends, but still not cool. Do you really want me to repost examples? I'd rather not. I've said nothing not fair or true.
