|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
A child is baptised, receives first communion, and is confirmed before they even fully understand what religion is, and what consequences it will have on their life.
Would it be better to wait until a person is... say sixteen or eighteen years old, then asking them which religion they'd like to be accepted into?
I just think it's a very personal decision and don't entirely agree that parents should decide for their kids.
What do you think?
Although I'm not Catholic or of any denomination that regularly advocates baptizing newborns, I see nothing wrong with it when used as a statement of parents' desire to devote their children to God.
Us Protestants believe that the actual baptism comes after a child is old enough to consciously accept Christ as their Savior, and it's a symbolic gesture of that.
At any rate, no, parents should not wait til their kids are young adults and then present the choice to them in such a manner as you seem to indicate. They should train up their child in the ways of the Lord from day 1 as the Bible says. Because, with Christians, it's not a matter of them accepting Faith as a "religion"; it's a matter of their souls being saved.
I didn't raise my son as a Christian Brenda. Does that mean he went to hell when he died?
I'm not qualified to answer that. That's a matter between him and God.
What I do believe is that God reveals Himself to all people before they die and gives them a chance to accept Him. What happens between a person and God before they die is, like I said, sometimes only between those two.
The fact that you didn't sound the warning as the Bible commands us to is also between you and God. There's a Scripture that speaks about it, but you probably already know of it if you've read the Bible.
I do know something else---God is a God of forgiveness to a truly repentant heart. If I didn't believe that, it would be useless for me to even claim the Faith. Because all humans are fallible. The Lord is our only saving grace.
I'm curious... and not being at all aggressive or sarcastic here...
Do you think God would rather have people believe in him because they never knew anything else or because they weighed all the options and chose to have faith?
For me personally, I take the free will thing pretty seriously. You can not have free will as an adult if you've been brain-washed as a child. And knowledge... of any sort... comes only after understanding. If a child cannot understand then they can't truly believe. They can only do what they are told. I didn't have children to turn them into robots.
I don't think God has a "rather" on that. It only matters that they do reach the point of belief. The first scenario seems easier and simpler but it really isn't. It's often harder for a "good" person to see their need for a Savior than it is for a person who's raised in rebellion. And yet the latter scenario is difficult because there's the danger of being presented with too many "options".
The brainwashing idea is mostly an excuse, I believe. Free will is stronger than brainwashing attempts. I say that because I've seen families where each child was raised the same way on the Word of God; yet some of the children ended up choosing to not believe, some of them becoming avowed atheists. I suppose somewhere along the line there was an outside influence that embellished upon that choice, but the choice was already given to us all by God. He doesn't pull any punches in His Word. That's what free will is.
I've also seen children whose parents never taught them the Word of God, yet those children accepted Christ's salvation. I believe that even in religions like Islam and Hinduism, one's conscience gives people a choice. That doesn't negate the responsibility of the parents or teachers who try to indoctrinate the children. It's just that I believe the Holy Spirit will at some point give them the opportunity to make a choice. When Jesus said He would draw all men to Him, I take Him at His word. Where we fail, He succeeds. It doesn't negate our responsibility to spread the Word; that's on our heads if we refuse or omit our duties. It simply means I believe Him when He said He would draw all men to Him.
Is it possible that being raised in a religious household is actually the reason those children who became atheists? Many people resent the beliefs of others being pushed upon them and choose to do the opposite.
I don't believe there is such a thing as too many options. Nor do I believe that "good" people have a difficult time finding religion... (actually, I find that thought depressing... as it means that the only people with faith are those who are "bad" by nature)
And, with all due respect (because I promised this would be civil) the brainwashing thing is not an excuse. It is a deeply held conviction that all people should be free to worship how they see fit. I believe it for the world in general, but doubly for my children. You can't force anyone into a faith at gunpoint and I certainly don't want to abuse my authority as a parent to try and do the same thing.
No. I don't believe that for a second. What I believe is that Satan tried harder to tempt them because they were being raised up for God. And it worked for a time. The parents were given the promise that if they raised them up the way they should, when those children are old they won't depart from their teachings. That lets me believe that there's hope still. God's Word never returns void. Even if those children's free will allows them to choose against Christ, the teaching of the parents will serve a good purpose somewhere.
Thank you Melissa for engaging in a civil conversation with me.
I'm gonna go one step further, Brenda. I'm gonna quote scripture.
Now we understand and agree that you and I are coming from two different religious denominations. From the place and beliefs of my faith in general, the verse (I assume we are talking about Proverbs 22:6) means something different to me. I'm assuming the KJV is acceptable.
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Well, since free will is very important in my faith as is coming to your faith freely and without coercion. I am actually following the scripture by allowing my kids the freedom to choose without outside interference.
(So I guess in some ways I probably am teaching my kids that part of my faith without intending to.) I understand that a tenant of your faith is to spread the word... with my faith not so much (We are encouraged to answer questions if asked -how we define witnessing-). So I guess that's the difference in overall outlooks.
Well, I would define it as two different religions instead of two different Christian denominations, because I'm pretty sure that every actual Christian denomination interprets "the way he should go" as encouraging a child to choose Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
But I can understand your point; at least I think so.
Yes. Without proper indoctrination and belief that is what will happen., just as it happened to the thousands of Egyptian children and infants that God murdered for the sins of their parent's political leaders.
Or you could become Mormon and baptise him into heaven after his death.
(I mean no offense to you, Melissa, and am sorry to hear that you have lost a child sometime in the past)
No offense taken.
You would not believe the things I heard at his funeral from "caring" Christians. If I would have had the presence of mind to strangle them, there would have been no jury in the world that would have convicted me.
It's actually one of the reasons I bear such animosity against the "preaching" Christians. I actually felt worse for my then estranged husband who was a devout atheist. The "come to Jesus so that you can see him again" line was about the most insensitive and cruel mind-f*** that I had ever heard in my life. I actually pulled the pastor who was doing the service aside and told her if she made ONE attempt at conversion during the eulogy or uttered the words "he's in a better place" I would happily beat her to death. For my ex-husband that was basically saying "Being nowhere is better than being alive".
I dislike my Ex... Intensely... but no grieving parent should have to deal with that.
I understand completely. I have not gone through that garbage with my child, but have heard it at other funerals for people I loved.
The only excuse I could ever come up with was that it was kind and thoughtful for the believers in the crowd that had suffered the same loss as I had. Rationalizing it maybe, but it kept me from walking out.
You are discussing Roman Catholic practices here. This is the practice of the Catholic. I agree that it is wrong for the parents to force their beliefs upon an innocent baby like that, BUT, it is done more for the parents to be perceived as good Catholic Parents than for how the child is to be perceived.
I was raised and brought up a Catholic, and it was not until my confirmation that I actually started to read the Holy Bible and learn just how wrong it was to have been treated that way. By then though it was a little late for the damage had been done.
Since then though as I have grown in "Christianity" I have openly spoken against such practices both to priests and to fellow parishoners, and I remain in association with the church to try and correct that from within.
I was baptized and received first communion, and neither had any meaningful, lasting effect on me. I don't think any of those religious-cultural rituals do.
The only danger is the sort of fire-and-brimstone scaremongering that some extreme religions use to instill emotional obedience. Fortunately, my parents did not bring me up with that nonsense (which is really a form of emotional abuse).
Whether any of us like to think so or not, any parental effort to instill religious beliefs are not necessarily permanent, especially if they run counter to the values that the child has herself.
Of course it's not fair, but look at it from the perspective of the church or Islamic state: "how else will we get people believing in it without conjuring up proof?"
I think a parent should show their religion to their child by living it. When it comes down to it the child should choose their own religion because being forced can make them insincere. What good is that?
I think that it is ideal if that is the case, wait for them to have their own decisions. But in reality, the parents are the caretaker of their children (assigned by the society) and it is in the home where we are first socialized. It is in some ways advantageous if the family are one in activities. The parents values are transferred to the children and it works that way. As they grow older when they go outside their homes, school and community, they widen their horizon and they can see better and decide for themselves. That what happens to me, my parents are strict Catholics.
I do not think that by baptizing, doing the first communion and confirmation are negative in any way. These steps are taken when children are under the guidance of their parents. It is true that there are parents or catechists who do not understand the meaning and put their children thru these events just to follow a tradition in their family. In may case, I went thru every one of these events, but I learned why. My parents always told me that later one in life I could follow any religion, but that their responsibility as parents was to guide me. I am thankful they did that.
Well, if your family is a part of that community, it wouldn't be fun to be excluded because you aren't old enough to make your own decision. I think it's great to include children in any community their family is a part of, and if the child thinks differently when she's older there's no reason she needs to be bound by her parents' decisions. People participate in religious communities on so many different levels and in so many different ways that it's just as easy to condemn parents for making their kids wait until they can make up their own mind as it is to condemn them for forcing their own religious beliefs on their impressionable offspring. I suppose you really have to see what's going to work for the child in question and let them change their minds or adjust their opinions as often as it occurs to them to do so.
Personally, I believe that each person has to accept or reject faith on their own. Sometimes this is a confusing process. Parents can only teach what they know. They should be respected for doing just that. Parents should remember to give their children room to hear or draw a blank on their own.
If you are a devout person of faith, then you won't let your remorse over a wayward loved one ruin dinner.
Atheists. Why worry. If it isn't real, it can't hurt you.
Exactly. Part of religious freedom included the right to raise your child as you see fit. Eventually everyone either makes their parents' faith their own or rejects it. Even the Amish understand that; they made it an official part of their adulthood initiation.
So would it be just to teach my children that murdering your enemy is okay from a young age, on the premise that it is my right of religious freedom to do so?
Then we wait for him to decide whether it is morally appropriate or not? Children trust their authority figures, ingraining ideas into their head will mean just that.
Why is it only when one hears the extreme of what they are saying, that they realise the consequences.
To teach a child that which is wrong from a young age has no relevance to freedom.
Since you can't definitively say that anyone is wrong on a spiritual level, your assertion is a little flat. Attempting to throw out extreme and bizarre examples doesn't add weight to your argument.
"Part of religious freedom included the right to raise your child as you see fit"
Who are you to tell me that my examples are extreme or bizarre? YOU just said that "you can't definitively say that anyone is wrong on a spiritual level".
I think you've been a little religiously insensitive there Emile R, you have just offended my family's religion and their lineage up to the first man. I urge you to apologise!
These are examples of my life, who are you to label them things.
Drawing a line on what is "extreme" and "bizarre" is exactly what you said cannot be done. Which was precisely my point. It is your argument that falls flat. Think it through.
I've insulted your family? Ok. So you come from an extreme and bizarre family. Then, wouldn't it follow that you insulted your family first? Or was your bizarre and extreme example not offered as a reason why people should not be allowed to raise their children with their own values?
My point doesn't fall flat, except to someone so emotionally opposed to religious freedom that they find it difficult to think straight.
Extreme is the word I used, BIZARRE is frankly offensive Mrs R!
Your point falls completely flat because "religious freedom" has no restraints. It can be anything, it is subjective.
By your logic, no one can say anything about anything as long as they pretend it's part of their "religious freedom"
We have laws. We all must abide by them. Anything that falls within the limits of these laws is legal, no matter how much allowing others the same freedoms you probably demand might offend your delicate sensibilities.
Pahaha, laws are fickle, in some countries, you are not allowed the vote. Beating your wife is acceptable, stoning to death is acceptable.
Argument from law, is flawed
What you mean to say is morality. We should abide by morality, and not pseudo powers from above
God's law is a MORAL LAW.
Where the idea law and morals should be seperate came from I wonder..
Oh yeahhh.. Humans.
Maybe that's why the laws you speak of are so disgusting.
Wow. Thank you for your excellent, and utterly useless comment.
Provide for me irrefutable proof that God is both real, and a good source of morality, and I may just change my tune.
Until then, farewell.
I don't have to prove anything number one.
Number two, it doesn't need to be proven for one to see the Law I speak of as the undeniable ultimate standard..
My comments are not useless because you think you deem things and they are such because you deem them so.
Love IS a good source.. It is the perfect source of morality.
Your tune is one I'm fairly used to, and not surprized by.
Oh no, you don't have to prove anything. The fact you comment shows that you want to.
Undeniable ultimate standard? Pahaha . There are 40,000+ different interpretations of the bible alone Ahahahaha, so 39,999 deny the 1 that YOU think is true, and you call it "undeniable".
And that's just one religion!
Tell me what IS love, the subjective term you refer me to, and then I'll find you people that disagree with you
People kill others out of 'love', the thing you call the perfect source of morality.
It is very well spouting naive and ignorant comments like you do, but think about what effect you may be having on passing by children, they do not need your nonsense
Define objectively "love".
Using subjective terms as the foundation of your argument is a fallacy.
You know, you aren't really good at the debate thing. Perhaps you should simply give up?
In a country that allows people to beat their wives, that is part of their moral code. Go figure.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Considering your only method to beat the points I bring up have been
"insult use of colours", "insult the mentally debilitated", and of course the constant building of strawmen, I daresay that it is you who fails at debating
See, what I just did there was bring up ways in which you fail to debate, that's called backing up your statement.
Try it sometime.
Of course a newborn has no clue what's going on during baptism Pope style, other than they don't like being sprinkled with water when they are taking a snooze.
Atheists should be so easy to wake up.
I do my very best to not expose my children to ANY religion until they are old enough to decide what is right for them. It's remarkably difficult to avoid it, but I do what I can.
Sure! You are teaching your children all you know . . . nothing.
*Smiles* I would rather teach my children that I know nothing then teach them opinions as facts. One sends them seeking for answers themselves... the other leads them to believe they have knowledge that they don't.
So... do you have kids and what are YOU teaching them?
I'm teaching them how to keep their steel pots clean.
That's good... because if you impart all of your knowledge too them they MIGHT be able to get jobs as dishwashers.
Yes, I could see that career for your children as well. Assuming you stopped teaching them religion long enough to teach them how to read and write.
Give it up. You can't hang. Never start a fight with a stranger.
Here's a picture of one of my daughters. She just won some national competition for fitness models. I taught her to eat right and get plenty of exercise.
The worst thing about being raised by me? You end up with the impression that men can be trusted. Was your father in the same class?
Actually, my dad is a retired Sergeant First Class from the U.S. Army. I am his only child and the only girl (and youngest child)in my family. He and my flock of male cousins (mostly military/police backgrounds) taught me that the men in my life better damn well be trusted or they weren't likely to be untrustworthy for long.
Nice stab in the dark, but I am and always have been a daddy's girl.
Sorry, being attracted to women doesn't mean that I am a man hater. I LOVE men.
Kind of off topic, but WD Curry, "Give it up. You can't hang. Never start a fight with a stranger." -- you were the one who responded to Melissa. If anything, you started the "fight" by insulting her... And she can definitely hang, her posts are very insightful and well read.
Where did that ugly mean streak come from . . . Mom?
Funny, I'm oddly complimented by that. I'm really not mean though, I just have a limited tolerance for BS. I guess if you are the cow that's dropping it, that may seem mean.
LOL. I'll tell you what, I will give the opinion that complete internet stranger has on my self-image exactly the consideration that it deserves.
As for our little conversation, you- having said nothing even vaguely relevant to the topic- have obviously proved nothing. As such, you have the very last word now to whatever conversation that you have been having in your head. Congratulations.
WD Curry, and as far as religion and our creation is concerned, we certainly all do know nothing! Unless of course you've cracked the code and haven't shared?
Selfishness is frowned upon Mr Curry!
In my own point of view, faith is very far from religion. Religion, this is composed of imposed things. Let's say the church would want us not make a sin by stealing, to prove that you are a part of a religion, you would follow it. There are many instances when people do a thing just because that is what his religion dictates him to do. If you only do something unwillingly, then that is not faith and I think that is a misconception in religion. Not all people who follow their religion are faithful. I firmly believe that religion is a choice. I know so many people who do not have any religion at all but it does not make them lesser people. On the other hand, so many people appear to be so devoted in their religion but they keep on doing bad things. Worse is, they sometimes make their religion as a cover up to do bad. If ever I will have children someday, I would let my children understand religion first and I would let them decide on their own. This is a choice. This should never be enforced since it would underestimate the understanding of a human mind.
Its natural for a child to adopt whatever beliefs their parents hold, be they religious or non religious. All children are indoctrinated by their parents and their environment into thinking a certain way.
Organized religion with a doctrine is easy to attack by others who do not believe the same, however not believing in a God etc is still a belief system too.
No, not all children are indoctrinated by their parents to believe one way or another. I have my faith but only one of my kids (now an adult) could tell you anything about my religious beliefs.
Not believing in God is not a belief system. The idea of God, in my experience, is only brought about by exposure to another with the idea. There is no belief system. Just a slate left blank until they are old enough to choose what to write on it.
When I refer to indoctrination, I simply mean the way that children are taught values, beliefs, culture etc from their parents - not necessarily something consciously engineered.
And your perspective on religion is a belief system whether you recognise that or not. The idea that you are providing you children with a blank slate is not very realistic, unless you actually raised them in a lab or something.
Well, two of my children have chosen a faith and neither of them chose mine. Their religion fits their personality and they are confident in their beliefs... so -so far- my little experiment seems to be working.
What, then, is the "belief system" of the agnostic? The religious believes in God, the atheist believes there is no God, but what is the belief of the agnostic? What "system" does (s)he adhere to?
But both believe, do they not? Believing in nothing is still belief. Defining oneself as an agnostic requires a person to hold a certain philosophical perspective on life's experiences which can be described as a belief system. I think you may be under the impression that belief is synonymous with faith or religion?
I'm not sure "I don't know" can be defined as a belief system.
Perhaps you may like to research agnosticism some time as it's a little more than "I don't know".
We're you intentionally trying to be condescending? If you were please let me know as I can then be appropriately ironic.
But let's- just for a second- pretend that you somehow have knowledge that I don't. It's a stretch, but I'll work at it.
So would a child raised without exposure to any religion (or atheism) be agnostic? If so, how would they have those "life experiences" to form that "philosophy". They couldn't be considered any religion, they couldn't be considered atheistic...and according to you (oh wise one) they couldn't be agnostic either.
So, since (also according to you) everyone has a religious belief system... then how would theirs be defined? I await your wisdom with baited breath.
Apologies if I offended you. I only mentioned agnostic in reference to the post by 'wilderness', and was referring to a person who has consciously taken that philosophical position - not a person (or child) who is simply non-religious. And I never said that everyone has a religious belief system, just a belief system. You're pretty good at condescension too you know:)
I'm OK with condescension...I don't use it enough to really excel. My biggest strength is sarcasm followed by ironic hyperbole. I've been working on mocking superiority and judgmental rhetoric as well. After I become passing fair with those two all I'll really have left to master are "your momma" jokes.
...in response to the title of the post - how about after they die?...i had a flippin' idjut of a friend...(i've forgiven him)..say to me that he hoped my husband accepted god before he died.....arggggghhhh!!!....but, for some flippin' reason, i managed to get past his strong over the top christian beliefs at a very, very difficult time...he's flippin' lucky!...i'm gonna see him in a week or so...he better not say anymore crap...or i'll have fightin' words for him! Michael had his beliefs, but...they just weren't over the top kind of beliefs...or the right ones...whateva!!!!!! i can't believe how patient i can be with people....but, you only get one chance to mess up with me!....when you are a very good friend.
There should be some kind of pamphlet available when you enter funeral homes... something like "Funeral etiquette for idiots" or "How not to put your life in jeopardy at the hands of a grieving loved one" or even "Shut up and offer a damn casserole."
...yup...i think you are onto something there MB!...i just don't get it....people are people...and some say the stupidest things at the wrong times...however good friends should know flippin' better!...he gave me a flippin' book on some of his very strong beliefs too...i recycled it! FO! i said to myself....still i'm patient...what's wrong with me?...too many years of being good friends i guess...he went through a divorce and became 'hard core' in his beliefs..funny, he didn't have any when he was married.....i get what happened to him.....but.....leave me alone....however, .he better be on his best behaviour when i see him...
I was raised to be Christian. I went along with it for awhile. then I started hating church as I got older. people forcing me into something never worked. I ended up becoming atheist. then I got into philosophy and now I believe in a different higher being than most people and don't follow anyone. my connection to my God is intensely personal and that is enough for me. my deepest question is if I had never been given the idea in the first place of a God or Creator, what would I believe? say if I was stuck on an island somewhere since birth. I think If someone could do it we would get a better idea of if religion and spirituality come naturally.. just my two cents worth.
First, thank you for composing this forum!
I have always wanted my children to grow into free thinking, independant, strong people. When my oldest daughter was very young, I spent more than a year exploring different religions and going to as many different worship places that I could. I learned a lot! All of my children have come to me with questions about religion begining about the age of 6 and I teach them about all the different beliefs I know. This is a continued learning proccess for me because you really never know everything about even one religion much less many. It's totally worth it for me though. This topic is very common at my house and I feel that it will give my children the benefit of making an informed decision so they will know that they have found the best fit for them. I don't want to raise sheep who blindly follow anything or anyone because of fear.
Inasmuch as some deem it dangerous to instill children with their values, it might be safe to abdicate your parental responsibilities and let the little tikes come to their own conclusions. Some great examples of how that turns out can be found here.
http://www.smashinglists.com/10-feral-h … y-animals/
*grins* there's a slight difference between forgoing religious training and letting your children go feral.
Well, I think you and I know that. Some of these others have me worried. I think they would prefer feral children to well mannered little angels who have the shame of being raised by parents that teach them a prayer to say at bed time.
Well, it's a closer decision than you would think... but I guess I'd go with the indoctrinated children. I still think it's a mild form of abuse (sometimes actually quite severe depending on the circumstance) but that's just my opinion... (and the opinion of the occasional FBI agent that has to raid a compound)
Well, we need to put the conversation into perspective. You are talking about fringe groups within religion and; it sounds like specifically Christians. What percentage of people who profess Christianity fall into that group?
If we agree that this small percentage is raising children barely more able to cope in the real world than the one we found with a family of goats, then we open a hell of a can of worms. There are so many people raising children outside of the bounds of what we consider the'correct' way to raise them....should we pass laws? Confiscate the poor little brats before they are forever ruined?
It's a ridiculous conversation. Parents have rights and responsibilities. They raise kids the best they can and when the kid grows up they can step back and reevaluate. No one has.the right to tell a parent the right way to raise their kids as long as it is done within the limits of the law.
I raise my kids the way I choose to... everyone else gets to do the same. I have opinions on why I wouldn't do it their way and I'll discuss them but-in the end-it falls on the parent to choose how to screw up their children.
And, to me, there is absolutely no ethical differce between Christianity, Islam, Satanism etc for the purposes of this conversation.
And that is the point to remember. We all screw our kids up to a degree. I'm not going to get on a high horse and complain about the average religious person when it comes to raising kids.
*smiles* but you will discuss it openly and honestly, giving reasons for your opinions? And if someone finds your honest opinions to be offensive you will not give one gram of a fudge... right?
I love fudge. You made me lose my train of thought for a minute there.
Yes, I love the discussion. I simply hate it when the left side starts sounding as rigid as the right and obviously have no problem speaking out about it. I actually respect your approach to child rearing. I'll be honest, when my son was little I didn't put much thought into it. If he asked a question, I answered it. If a friend invited him to church, even the crazy ones, I let him go. I don't fear religion because one should follow their heart. Had his led him there, I would have been cool with it.
So far I've had one go wiccan (which is perfect for him, as he tends to be the abstract free-thinking one with a ridiculous amount of imagination and a unique view of the world) and one go extremely fundamental Christian (which is also perfect for him as he is all about needing absolute answers and clearly defined rules to feel comfortable).
I support both of their choices.
The trick will be teaching them to continue to be supportive of each other.
LMAO... They both like heavy metal, zombie video games and Jessica Alba... why on earth would they choose to talk about religion?
Pack thirty years on them and they'll be like the rest of us. Yakking about it in our spare time on the internet.
I don't get along with one of my sisters because of religion, among other things. Claims she's a buddhist but talks like a pentacostal. The last time we spoke I laughed at her for insisting my Dad's fate was in God's hands and we should all pray. She didn't appreciate me pointing out that was probably a pointless endeavor and a somewhat unbuddhist suggestion to make.
Congratulations, that is one of the top three most ignorant statements I have ever heard on a forum.
The other two: "We don't breathe air to live."
"You can't prove that you exist."
Then please do enlighten me on the ethical distinctions within the scope of the current debate.
Ah hah, it needs to be within the limits of morality, not the law, and certainly not religion. That requires free through, unbiased creative thinking, and logic.
Not selfish moronic blind guesses.
What are laws, but a loose fence that extends beyond the boundary of our moral values? A fence that allows us all the freedom to follow our own paths in a semi controlled environment so we can hopefully live our life in peace.
I hate to tell you this slick....but a person with no morals by your standards can survive in our country well if they conduct themselves within the limits of the law. It's one of the downsides for those who think the pony they ride is a high horse.
It is both foolish and self-centred to assume that it is always about your country that I'm talking about.
The law does well in 'our country', but there are 195 other countries out there in the world, each with their own flawed legal system.
It is pathetic to tell the people of those countries that they should abide blindly by the law and tell them what they're doing is okay
Merry stoning everyone!
Yes. Judging from the illogical train of thought in your posts preceding this one, I can see why you might think telling people to mind their own business is stoning. Since you have admitted to being an American, perhaps it would be best to ensure that your opinions would actually be useful if acted upon in your own country. If they are foolish here, imagine how foolish they would be perceived in societies you don't understand. Or, do you think you have the right to complain about the way others outside of this nation conduct their business? Hilary? Is that you?
I'm British. Hence why I quoted your "our country".
And It's not illogical, let's stone some people in Islamic states, and when anyone asks, let's tell them to "mind their own business".
Show me how anything I've said has been illogical, please
Living as a citizen of the world, nay, a human being of the world we have the right to complain about anything we feel is unjust or wrong.
And since you're so for the law, "No one has.the right to tell a parent the right way to raise their kids as long as it is done within the limits of the law", let me tell you that actually everyone has that right - freedom of speech .
If you can't explain why you're teaching your children gibberish to society, how can you be trusted to raise them?
We have freedom of speech. What we do not have is the freedom to force others to live by our opinions when their actions are well within the boundaries of the laws of the land they live in. To state that some can't be trusted to raise their children is to imply that these children should be taken away and raised by others. I think, having read your posts, you've never raised a child? Maybe you are only a few years past that particular age group yourself?
Anyway, most people who have gone through the process are mature enough to give leeway to parents to make their own decisions within the boundaries of the law. Our courts here in the states are wise enough to do the same. So, if you brits want to create a state where 77% (I believe that is the current statistical number of believers) turn their kids over for those who consider themselves wiser to raise; please do so. We'll sit this one out and watch to see how the little experiment turns out.
("What we do not have is the freedom to force others to live by our opinions when their actions are well within the boundaries of the laws of the land they live in")
, what an ignorant and one-level statement! The laws of the land are dictated by the people of the land. Thus, everyone has a right to demand change when they see something is unjust.
How can you not see that the law forces people to live by our opinions?
If it is truly unjust, then the law will change to accommodate it, providing that there is no totalitarian influence acting upon certain peoples.
In this case, we are talking about God and religion. How can people think clearly and raise their children logically when they have "HELL" looming over them?
To teach your children only your views (as you suggest) is to say that you know best, and you don't. You know that. Why trick your children into thinking that?
And embarrassingly you've created a Strawman "So, if you brits want to create a state where 77% (I believe that is the current statistical number of believers) turn their kids over". Not once did I say that all children should be taken away from believer parents.
Nor was it implied.
I'll walk you through this, since you don't appear to understand the meaning of the word implied.
You said If you can't explain why you're teaching your children gibberish to society, how can you be trusted to raise them?
If we agree as a society that someone is speaking nothing but gibberish to their children and cannot to be trusted to raise children (this is your agreement); then (it is implied) as a society we would not let them raise children. If they had any, they would be taken away.
I realize you need to imagine reasons to type in color but, at the least, put something intelligent in color when you choose to use it.
That statment that parents shouldn't teach their kids their views is ridiculous. I find it impossible to believe that someone with such extremist views as you are exhibiting would be able to raise a kid without imprinting that child. Maybe we should deem you not to be trusted raising a child.
You've built yourself a Strawman:
"how can you be trusted to raise them?" does not imply " as a society we would not let them raise children"
I may not trust the man serving burgers at McDonalds to not spit in my food, but that's not to say that we should fire him. He may do a spiffing job otherwise. Likewise with parents who impose a few of their views on their children.
My point was that it's not right to impose views that the parents themselves cannot back up, I.E. religious ones, to weak and vulnerable children.
You made the strawman of "Philanthropy said that all religious parent's children should be taken away" which isn't at all what I said
I started off with the statement that parents shouldn't teach children what they don't know for certain, they should give them all of the options in an unbiased manner.
You responded with the idea that parents should do whatever they want with their children as long as it is within the limits of the law.
I responded with the idea that the law is not perfect and it should be morality that decides what they should do with their children.
You responded with ad hominem and strawman.
I'm beginning to wonder if this attachment to color isn't an indicator of an underlying psychological issue. It's been fun philanthropy, but you really haven't done anything here other than a show an embarrassing need to attempt to belittle the religious without backing it up with fact. If you ever have proof there is some valid reason to think people who instill a belief in God somehow handicap their children you might want to bring it up. At that point, you might be doing more than just posting to see all the pretty colors you can make.
Emile, surely you can see how petty you are being? The fact that I am dwelling upon is the fact that there is no sense in teaching things you can't make sense of, to your children. Your only argument back to me seems to be that I use too many colours. I can only apologise .
Thank you once again for reminding me that eventually people who make potentially dangerous ignorant comments will see the light, and reveal to us that they have done so by attacking my use of colours !
P.S. Your frequent use of Ad Hominem in personal attacks such as "I'm beginning to wonder if this attachment to color isn't an indicator of an underlying psychological issue" is inappropriate to the forums of HubPages. I personally have no psychological issues, but what about people who do? Is it really worth offending others out of some petty need to attack me because your argument fell flat?
As an artist, I like the color (colour). I think you did a good job of choosing which color (colour) to assign to each blurb. It is too tempting for participants in this thread to resist teasing you about it. I find your passion, intelligence and talent encouraging. I don't agree with much of what you say, but you can sure make your point clear.
You could be sixty years old for all I know, but you seem young to me. If you are young, your gift for expression gives me hope for the future. If not, you are an opinionated old fart.
I find it disturbing that you refer to Mac Donald's in such a matter of fact way. That is one of the things I used to like about travel abroad . . . they didn't have Mac Donald's. You enjoyed the regional cuisine. It just goes to show you what a Scotsman can do with some grease, potatoes and sub-par beef.
Don't feed the beast little fellah. A point is either valid or it isn't. The box of crayolas is superfluous in the forums.
Thank you Mr.Curry! Whilst (while) I recognise (recognize) the fact that the colours (colors) are a focal point for humour (humor), I find they're all too useful for emphasising (emphasizing) parts of my argument that I'd rather others not have missed! In my defence (defense), I have apologised (apologized) for it already to Mrs Emile, though that has not caused any cessation on her part.
Thank you for your compliments, your way of expressing yourself is admirable too, I enjoy the way you incorporate your own personal experiences into prose without making them the focus. The humour (humor)'s not bad either
You ignore anything other than what you hope to identify as an attack. You have brought nothing to the table except an attempt to attack and belittle opinions that don't mirror your own. But, you have given no reason for me to believe your opinion is the result of an understanding of the process of child rearing or religion. It appears to be nothing more than an intractable belief that there is some magical way to raise children where the religious can be dogged into being embarrassed about their faith enough to hide it from their kids. Instilling a simple faith in God has not proven to be a handicap that I can see and you have given no reason for me to change my opinion.
If you have a valid point, that addresses the question at hand, it would be refreshing. At this juncture, the conversation has become tedious. Devolving into virtual foot stomping doesn't win points.
Make a valid statement, void of emotion. Once. Please.
Since you failed to acknowledge it the first time, here is the summary of our debate, with the latest additions. I find it very useful to recap what happened in an organised way, here it is:
I started off with the statement that parents shouldn't teach children what they don't know for certain, they should give them all of the options in an unbiased manner.
You responded with the idea that parents should do whatever they want with their children as long as it is within the limits of the law.
I responded with the idea that the law is not perfect and it should be morality that decides what they should do with their children.
You responded with ad hominem and strawman.
I addressed your strawman, and summarised the argument.
You responded with ad hominem and offence to the mentally debilitated: "I'm beginning to wonder if this attachment to color isn't an indicator of an underlying psychological issue."
I responded by reminding you that the only counter argument you've made has been against my use of colours.
You responded with going off topic and building further strawmen.
I summarised the debate.
Thank you for once again humiliating yourself with frequent usage of the most common argumentative fallacies. It's good to know that in a world of change, some things remain stable.
I'll be honest. I read this a few hours ago, chuckled and thought 'what the heck. Let him/her/it have their fantasies.'
Then I got to thinking about it and decided to do a recap of my own, but after reading through our conversations I realized you are delusional. I'm not going to waste my time. If you honestly think you made a valid point anywhere in that exchange then I will leave it at, .
All this talk about me not making valid points, but check the summary, you're not doing too well yourself. Please, write your own. I imagine you read through our conversation and realised that you are indeed the villain, vehemently abusing the laws of argument.
My points were all valid, yours were ad hominem.
WD Curry seems to think that I'm able to express myself clearly, what is it that you are not getting?
I don't need to go by your summary, I know what the actual conversation was. WD Curry was being polite. If you noticed, the little fellow said you expressed yourself well. That does not mean you have any valid points. It means you have a command of the English language that he is appreciative of. The comment included the statement that he doesn't agree with most of what you said.
He appeared to have been an artist defending your habit of adding color. Nothing much more; other than encouragement for what comes off as a young kid asserting his independence. And, he is right in most of what he said.
I've seen your picture. You actually look like a guy I used to date. I was referring to your avatar.
I know. I am fooling around. I am proud of the little gator. They upset newcomers who bought into the housing developments. Hello! Florida is a swamp.
I hope the guy you dated was nice, and a lot of fun. He didn't have much else going for him.
Nah. From what I've gathered from reading your posts he was no where as nice as you. Association with him is where I came up with my theory that some people have a good heart with a dark soul. His moral center was bizarrely off kilter from where I stood. But, he honestly thought he was normal. It was fun though. I learned a lot about human nature.
I will say, in the end, I still found his looks to be his best feature.
Interesting . . . a good heart with a dark soul. Did he help a little old lady across the street and run off with her purse?
No. I don't know how to describe it. He simply was without. There was no depth of character. He didn't appear to understand the difference between right and wrong. To sit down and really talk to him was to delve into the darkest recesses of the human psyche. And he didn't know it. He honestly believed he was normal.
If there is a heaven and hell that guy would choose hell and swear it was heaven. He was just that dark.
Believe me, I have been around. I think I know what you mean. Our culture is like that in many respects. He is a product of his culture.
There is an Arab saying, "One must first know discord in order to appreciate harmony." How's it going now?
I don't know that I agree with the saying. I've run across too many people who appear to think discord is harmony. Or maybe they are going through their learning phase. Or maybe my expectations of how humans should interact with each other are high. It's an ongoing mystery.
I guess your question referred to that guy. I heard he had cancer and died. They said he found Jesus a few weeks before his death. So, who knows. It would have been a great curiosity to sit and talk after that point. Had he actually been transformed, found a true moral center; I would have thrown that into the category of miraculous. I would probably be more prone to believe in the possibility of cosmic retribution for non believers. I think the guy was either hedging his bets or possiby believed strongly enough that it helped him find some relief.
age of understanding is important.
There is a difference between doctrine and christian lifestyle.
Parents should be an example of godly lifestyle, purporting good godly principles, like honesty and fairness, love etc.
But when it comes to teaching their child about God coming in the flesh and being crucified for their atonement of sin. This is just not right. The child is to young to understand any of that. Sure its correct doctrine, but what is doctrine to a 6 yr old?
Let them be children. Teach them correctly godly ways but leave out the heavy stuff for when they are older. By seeing your christian example of godly lifestyle they will inquire themselves into your beliefs and this is proper.
Taking a young child to church when they are nursing or prone to crying is unnecessary - get a sitter. Focus on church and time with each other (husband, wife) without distraction.
Enrolling an older child in sunday school with all their talk of satan is, to me, inappropriate, even if i did believe in a literal fallen angel named satan. But this is heavy stuff that children should not be bothered with.
Teach them at home when they naturally inquire but live the Way that they may see and be intrigued.
As they get older bring them into the doctrines gently - don't try to fear them up with catholic hell ideas.
you can't force people to be christian, even offspring. IF they want nothing to do with it then just love them. They may return to it later in life.
First, humility and boldness established here. I'm not being pushy, but I am certainly not budging under any condition as my wisdom is based on the knowledge of my Lord Jesus Christ the Rock upon which I stand and build my house on.
Fair? Force on the child? Is the fact of the adult leading the child in the first place because the adult knows best all but lost here?
Well said it was that if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
I know Jesus Christ lives and has saved my soul from Hell, whether anyone here likes it or not has no issue, for it is my child, and I love that child more than any of you will.. Shoot - I love all of you even if I don't like your choices, I still love you.
And you think because someone else we Christians call 'blind', and for a reason at that, doesn't like religion or Jesus or God or can't believe.. that I'm not not going to instruct my child to be righteous, do good, and follow the untouchable doctrine of my Lord and God Christ Jesus?
No, I'm sorry for anyone willing to bow to an idol of self, tv, a man named buddha, or anything else they put before Christ.. I won't follow, and so long as my child requires my services to live He will revere God almighty as God deserves. Call me whatever you want.
That doesn't change people's option to choose anyway you nuts.. lol If you were raised in a church that's Christian you'd know they will choose on their own in the end anyway. They all leave the church [well most..] around teenage age anyway because they have 'freedom'.. But the fact is I came to God because I need Him. And so does everyone else whether they believe in Him or not.
If you build a lamp, forge a light bulb and then set it in the house.. It's USELESS without sustenance.. Sustenance that we call electricity.. Which is energy - extracted from God's universe might I add.
The life you have relies on death of another living being every day, like it or not a sacrifice must be made to sustain your body and life.. Plant or animal - SOMETHING will DIE for YOU to LIVE... End of story. God is the giver of life, and it is Him that sustains all of us, with or without admission from the partaker of the energy from that dead being.
God sustains me, and my child, and deserves credit and reverance.. And I won't desert my Father in Heaven no matter what anyone else believes. I have life in Christ, and the sacrifices you eat every day are just temorary and imperfect at that meaning you will still ultimately die.. Christ gave the perfect sacrifice, and eternal life - not temporary.
These are things my child WILL KNOW.. And if he ends up rejecting Christ I will still love Him. But I will not push him towards Hell and tell him atheists are right.
No.. I KNOW what I know. They have theories they cling to for their satisfaction..
Call me whatever you want, my children will understand good, and be punished for doing evil. They will not be casting harry potter spells, or cooking frogs to speak to spirits.
You can call someone else a hypocrite, but forget calling me one. I know my God is real, my Lord and King Christ Jesus lives and because He lives I will never die.
You will see my dead body, and I will be looking at you while I'm going to be with Christ.
And my children will know the truth, because they may all hate me and my Lord Christ and His teachings. I for one will not change or do against God's will because human beings don't believe in Him anymore.
Peace and love from the Father above,
Good start! If not rich, living in an up scale neighborhood, attending a sheltered and monitored school, than the kid is living in a high risk territory; exposed to drugs galore. A faith helps to resist pier pressure, and if necessary, kick the habit. Most all drug recovery centers apply the concept of a higher power.
What does it hurt to chrism or baptist an infant. Person's believing that religion is going to hurt a child's mind is misinformed or badly mistaken. Btw, tell me some of the consequences that it shall have on their lives?
I think it best to start the brainwashing earlier than birth, so we propped a P.A. system up near my wife's belly during pregnancy. Dinged if the lil bugger didn't come out singin' "God Bless America"!!!
I think that I see everyone's points of view and I have to admit its a very hard question. I am from a very religious family myself and yes I guess my religion was pre-determined for me. However, I think that religion is important in a child's life because most kids like to have certain rituals and routines; so I dont think that there is anything wrong with that. But I believe that parents should allow their kids to explore other religions and not interfere with what religions their child's friends follow. I mean like I said, I am from a very religious family, however my parents do not mind me having friends from faiths other than mine. I started reading the bible and talking to an acknowledged bible expert about certain verses and my parents didn't even mind. My brother went and met a priest at a church to learn more about Christianity and its denominations and still my parents didn't mind. So I think that flexibility is key here. Religion, no matter what kind, is beautiful. And knowing more about it makes it even more beautiful. Yes, I dont see anything wrong with pre-determining a child's religious beliefs, but its certainly wrong to force the kid into their own bubble of religion and not allow them to explore other faiths. Also, if the child wants to convert to another religion, parents should discuss the decision with their child and let them take it. I hope that I made myself clear.
by Angela Michelle Schultz15 months ago
If they truly believe that there is no God, why does it matter to them that I do believe?I have written online Christian articles. Those who comment on my Christian writings are usually, 75% Christians, 25% atheists. I...
by Kiss andTales21 months ago
Can the choice of our religious beliefs always be accepted by the Heavenly Father ?I just would like to know how many think that the Heavenly Father accepts all worship.Based on these scripture I think it is vital to...
by Mmargie19666 years ago
I am a Christian, and an American. I believe in the freedom to believe in anything you choose to (or not). What I don't understand is why Christianity is under attack.I don't necessarily believe in...
by jenchristopherson8 months ago
If this is a joke.....well done.
by M. T. Dremer3 months ago
Do you believe non-religious people, who lead a good life, are still going to hell?One of my biggest frustrations with religion is the idea that, how you live your life is of no consequence if you do not accept god. For...
by Tim Mitchell4 years ago
Does belief require something to be a known (to know) to exist? Does to know something mean there is belief (rather than simply suggest) that it exists? If there are more than a singular known existing as truths, then...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.