Catholic confirmation and 12 year olds making infromed decisions.

Red Sleeping Beauty

What do ye people think of the process by which kids are rared into religion ? Taught catholicism in school and then brought to church to make their first communion and then onto the confirmation stage ?

One of sisters is being "confirmed" in a few weeks and I'm quite against it as I don't think she or many other 12 year olds really grasp the concept and thus can't make an informed decision. All the information they're given is that jesus is good, god is good, this is the way, this is the life etc.

If the parent decides to remove the child from the religion class and/or decides their child isn't going to be rared a catholic then when the other kids are off to do their confirmation classes little jessie or johnny has to sit in a seperate room singled out like an outsider.

I was confirmed so I suppose I'm technically a catholic despite having regaled on everything I previously accepted and agreed to once I became more aware of religion(s) and in a greater aspect the (slightly) wider world.


I'll get the ball rolling... I think there should be a minimum age of consent to a religion and that it shouldn't be present in any national school.

Nevyn

In most primary school the children who are not RC are not removed as there is not sufficent supervision and so have to sit and do other work or assingments in the classroom.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K4t

I go to a Catholic school and most of the religion teachers understand that religion and even the Catholic Church is flawed! However, there is one who makes the others say prayers in class etc. etc. It's that type who need to be taken out of schools tbh.

Philosophy ftw.

Bottle_of_Smoke

This occured to me a bit after I made my confirmation. 12 is a clever age to schedule confirmation. You think your smart and making an informed decision, but you're still more loyal to family than anti-religion.

Alan Rouge

Alan Rouge wrote: »

What do ye people think of the process by which kids are rared into religion ? Taught catholicism in school and then brought to church to make their first communion and then onto the confirmation stage ?

One of sisters is being "confirmed" in a few weeks and I'm quite against it as I don't think she or many other 12 year olds really grasp the concept and thus can't make an informed decision. All the information they're given is that jesus is good, god is good, this is the way, this is the life etc.

If the parent decides to remove the child from the religion class and/or decides their child isn't going to be rared a catholic then when the other kids are off to do their confirmation classes little jessie or johnny has to sit in a seperate room singled out like an outsider.

I was confirmed so I suppose I'm technically a catholic despite having regaled on everything I previously accepted and agreed to once I became more aware of religion(s) and in a greater aspect the (slightly) wider world.


I'll get the ball rolling... I think there should be a minimum age of consent to a religion and that it shouldn't be present in any national school.

I went to a Marist brothers national school, but later went to a non-religious secondary school. I'm was raised a Christian, but I'm a non-believer of most of it these days.

Looking back, I don't think it really made much of an issue for me. I remember other kids going through the same process and not having any problems. Its just another one of those things we have to do because our parents say so.

I can't honestly see what the problem is. It doesn't affect children very much, and they'll still be able to decide for themselves when they become teenagers. Its not like we get branded or permanently marked by the experience. Frankly I think its just Adults that find fault with these kinds of things. I remember Religion being a great timewaster while in school, and a great way to have some time to ourselves.

As for Religion being taught in schools, I would be against the teaching of of a primary religion in any school... As an education, to teach children to be aware of other religions, and their cultural differences, sure. But not to have a preference shown. We are not a country ruled by a single religion, and since we have so many other nationalities now living in Ireland, I don't think its particularly sensitive.

Tusky

Its an absolute joke to be honest. The kid has a so called choice to do what all his mates are doing and get loads of money, or to get no money and be the odd one out....and all of this at twelve years of age.

It just goes to show that religion has nothing to do with belief or truth and everything to do with what you are thought as a child, and the environment you are brought up in.

Example : Child brought up in a Irish catholic school by Catholic parents, hes gonna be Catholic.

Same kid, born in Algeria to Muslim parents. Hes gonna be a Muslim. So your environment and what you are thought as a kid, dictate what you believe.

There should be no religion in schools and noone should be able to be confirmed until they are 18...old enough to make up their own minds. I think you'll find a hell of a lot of people who make their confirmation at 12, arent religious at all by the time they are 18.

Rev Hellfire

Tusky wrote: »

.Example : Child brought up in a Irish catholic school by Catholic parents, hes gonna be Catholic.

I would imagine that majority of posters here against religion where in fact raised by catholic parents, went to a catholic school but yet didn't turn out catholic.

Personally I'm of the opinion that greater the level of education, the less likely people are to believe in simplistic notions of godhood.

As for the teaching of religion in schools the status quo was that majority wished it so, if that is to change people need to become more active in sponsoring and persuing alternatives.
At present the majority of people seem content with the current system, perhaps not wholly approving of it, but happy enough to not bother rocking the boat.

Black Swan

Teaching religion is only one form of indoctrination that occurs in our schools. Western culture and philosophy? A rather biased interpretation of history? Gender roles? The list goes on and on...

philologos

I don't think confirmation training should take place in schools. Rather I think kids if they do go to a denominational school, should learn about the tenets of Christianity, and then have the freedom to choose for themselves at a later stage, or to be trained for it at home by their parents and their local pastor.

Also to the OP, I personally think that children should have read the Bible by the time they are confirmed, and should be roughly 16. I think most people don't really know what they are getting into. This is a problem of how the church is run other than anything else.

Tusky wrote: »

Its an absolute joke to be honest. The kid has a so called choice to do what all his mates are doing and get loads of money, or to get no money and be the odd one out....and all of this at twelve years of age.

It just goes to show that religion has nothing to do with belief or truth and everything to do with what you are thought as a child, and the environment you are brought up in.

Rather it goes to show that the organisation of confirmations and the like is just terrible. I don't think it has any bearing on how true the Bible is, that's another discussion. I think it should be left out of schools precisely for the reasons you have discussed.

When a tradition that used to have meaning, becomes a mindless ritual, that's the point when someone needs to step in and make sure everyone knows the importance of what they are doing.

Tusky wrote: »

Example : Child brought up in a Irish catholic school by Catholic parents, hes gonna be Catholic.

Same kid, born in Algeria to Muslim parents. Hes gonna be a Muslim. So your environment and what you are thought as a kid, dictate what you believe.

Not quite the truth.

I know another example.

A kid born and raised into a family that is a major part of the Hamas movement in the West Bank. Same child get's arrested for getting into altercations with Israelis. Sees the inhumanity of the Islam that his parents were advocating. Goes to Jerusalem, and goes to a Bible study where he hears the Bible for the first time, and then converts to Christianity and flees to the US for asylum.

Theres plenty of people who convert each year to different faiths. It's not quite as simple as environment. People oversimplify this too much and it needs to be clarified that joining a faith doesn't have to be in childhood.

As for your Northern Africa example, actually that is the continent that has seen the greatest shift from Islam to Christianity in the last century.

Tusky wrote: »

There should be no religion in schools and noone should be able to be confirmed until they are 18...old enough to make up their own minds. I think you'll find a hell of a lot of people who make their confirmation at 12, arent religious at all by the time they are 18.

You don't think that younger people can make a decision. Granted I wasn't sure of Christianity even after my confirmation, but then I found out what Christianity was for myself by reading the Bible, and I decided it was for me. Hence why I suggested in my previous response that all who are going up for confirmation should read the Bible first, and ask their pastors questions about it.

Thoie

My objection to it is that no court in Ireland would accept a contract signed by a 12 year old as being valid. Similarly, a 14 year old is considered incapable of consenting to sex. Confirmation is a kind of "moral contract", and is supposedly an informed decision. If the same kid decided they were going to take out a mobile phone contract, and had made an informed decision about it they'd be refused.

Dades

Communion, Confirmation etc has no legal status on a child however - that's not the issue. A moral contract with a deity isn't binding should you decide to opt out.

For those against the sacraments - it's simply an opinion that it's wrong to fill a child's head with nonsense - especially at an age when they are so impressionable. If religion can stand up to scrutiny, it will stand up when the child is old enough to come to an objective conclusion.

It would be wrong to suggest that parents can't indoctrinate their own kids - even non-believing parents will inadvertently pass on their (lack of) beliefs. But as Jakkass suggests, this should be done outside of school hours so as at least that education is done on the basis of something other than sheer laziness on behalf of apathetic parents.

dave-higgz

I think no one under 18 should be made make their communion or confirmation. Even being baptised is a commitment made by your parents on your behalf and a decision that you may one day regret, if catholicism ain't your thing.

Forcing kids to commit to a religion at age 12 is totally wrong. Even if a few have read the bible or have paid a certain level of attention during mass I don't believe that they are mature or intelligent enough to interpret the messages properly. I am 16 but have only recently began to think about my religion in depth. I feel that my decision to continue with catholicism is well informed and so I think 16 is the age to do it.

Having religion so tied in with school puts enormous pressure on kids to make their confirmation and who isn't gonna turn down the money! I heard about kids getting €600 the other day. These religious ceremonies have just turned into complete materialistic festivals and I believe that if people took these commitments in later life then it would be a lot more reverend and a lot more meaningful.

Capt'n Midnight

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

If we lived in a country where the state build schools it might be possible. But the state doesn't build schools. You have to build your own and hope the state will recognise it and then pay for the running costs. Historically most schools were built by the religous organisations. How long are the waiting lists for the Educate Together schools ?

Dades wrote:

Communion, Confirmation etc has no legal status on a child however - that's not the issue. A moral contract with a deity isn't binding should you decide to opt out.

Unfortunately a lot of people think differently, mostly from the monotheistic religions.

philologos

dave-higgz wrote: »

I think no one under 18 should be made make their communion or confirmation. Even being baptised is a commitment made by your parents on your behalf and a decision that you may one day regret, if catholicism ain't your thing.

Indeed, you have those in certain Protestant denominations who are baptized when they are young adults, and that is in effect their confirmation and their baptism in one go. I think this is a good idea. I was at my friends Pentecostal baptism when he was 17 and I think it was a very nice and meaningful event. They got to make a little speech about what verses spoke to them, and they gave their testimony.

dave-higgz wrote: »

Forcing kids to commit to a religion at age 12 is totally wrong. Even if a few have read the bible or have paid a certain level of attention during mass I don't believe that they are mature or intelligent enough to interpret the messages properly. I am 16 but have only recently began to think about my religion in depth. I feel that my decision to continue with catholicism is well informed and so I think 16 is the age to do it.

Indeed, I didn't understand Christianity when I was 12, heck I didn't even understand Christianity until I was 17 when I read the Scriptures and something clicked. Also, God bless you for keeping with Christ, I'm personally not a Catholic, but denomination isn't what really counts.

dave-higgz wrote: »

Having religion so tied in with school puts enormous pressure on kids to make their confirmation and who isn't gonna turn down the money! I heard about kids getting €600 the other day. These religious ceremonies have just turned into complete materialistic festivals and I believe that if people took these commitments in later life then it would be a lot more reverend and a lot more meaningful.

Well, religious education is different from pressurising people to make religious commitments in school. In my school (secondary with a Christian ethos) the option to be confirmed was optional, and was on an opt-in basis and the chaplain carried out confirmation classes throughout the year.

I agree with you about materialism, when a tradition is there for so long it becomes meaningless if we don't re-explore the meaning of it.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, you have those in certain Protestant denominations who are baptized when they are young adults, and that is in effect their confirmation and their baptism in one go. I think this is a good idea. I was at my friends Pentecostal baptism when he was 17 and I think it was a very nice and meaningful event. They got to make a little speech about what verses spoke to them, and they gave their testimony.

Im sure we can all relate to some fictional literature. And of course, the parents, bible bashers or not, have no bearing in a childs religious upbringing. To think otherwise would be stupid? Woudn't it?

Indeed, I didn't understand Christianity when I was 12, heck I didn't even understand Christianity until I was 17...

So are you advocating early indoctrination or not?

Well, religious education is different from pressurising people to make religious commitments in school.

I dont mean to be a **** but could you clarify that please? When I was a bucail I was the odd one out because I didnt believe the "hype".

miss no stars

Give kids some more credit please.

I had long since gotten rid of any notions of believing in God by the time I was 11 and made my confirmation.

That's correct. I was eleven, had decided I didn't believe it but made a business decision that it was financially more advantageous to pretend I did. I got new clothes, a big day out and a big lumpsum added to my savings account

So I'm fairly sure there are a lot of kids making their confirmation that are just well, money grabbers like myself

I see no problem with it

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Im sure we can all relate to some fictional literature. And of course, the parents, bible bashers or not, have no bearing in a childs religious upbringing. To think otherwise would be stupid? Woudn't it?

As for "fictional literature", that is only what you believe. There is nothing which shows the Bible to be fictional in any sense. If it were it would be in the fiction section of bookstores.

Parents will always have an effect on their children, right down from how they speak in terms of colloquialisms, what language they speak, and what values they have. Parents have the responsibility to teach their children morals, and parents have the right under the Irish Constitution to provide for moral and religious education for their children. There is no child out there who isn't predisposed to the ways of their parents, as such I think it is entirely ridiculous to suggest that parents shouldn't have a role in how their children are raised. I think it would be stupid to suggest that parents don't have any role in their childs religious ubpringing infact.

Atheists and agnostics don't really make an effective argument in their attempt to guilt-trip parents for daring to teach their child religious values. It's the right that is afforded to them under freedom of religion, and freedom to educate their children.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

So are you advocating early indoctrination or not?

It isn't any more indoctrination than colloquialisms that children acquire from their parents or teaching a particular language over another. I don't consider it to be indoctrination in the slightest. Predisposing your children due to the way you live isn't in any way indoctrination. Even if their parents didn't teach them religious values, but lived a religious lifestyle, the child would become curious in their belief system. However that isn't indoctrination.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I dont mean to be a **** but could you clarify that please? When I was a bucail I was the odd one out because I didnt believe the "hype".

Quite simply:
Teaching children tenets of Christianity and leaving it there, is rather different from getting the class to make a pledge before God in a church. I think people should be taught Christian beliefs, but anything else should be left to the church, and youth pastors etc in guiding young people to find God's truth in the Bible.

miss no stars wrote: »

Give kids some more credit please.

I had long since gotten rid of any notions of believing in God by the time I was 11 and made my confirmation.

What makes you think that being religious has any less credit from rejecting it? Just curious.

miss no stars wrote: »

That's correct. I was eleven, had decided I didn't believe it but made a business decision that it was financially more advantageous to pretend I did. I got new clothes, a big day out and a big lumpsum added to my savings account

Hence why I think that the Church needs to change the way it does things, and this applies to every church, however most poignantly to the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland (which I'm a member of). As I've said above, people should read the Bible fully before making a commitment, and there should be a system of Bible classes beforehand for maybe a year or more beforehand so as to make sure that it is understood first. I think a minimum age of 16 is reasonable.

miss no stars wrote: »

So I'm fairly sure there are a lot of kids making their confirmation that are just well, money grabbers like myself

I see no problem with it

That's precisely the problem with it for Christians such as myself. I'm personally fed up with the cheapening of what are meant to be sacred events in peoples lives.

miss no stars

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you think that being religious has any less credit from rejecting it? Just curious.

Please point out where I said that. What I said was give kids more credit. By the time they make their confirmation a lot of kids will already have decided they believe or don't believe, while some, admittadly, won't have thought about it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Hence why I think that the Church needs to change the way it does things, and this applies to every church, however most poignantly to the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland (which I'm a member of). As I've said above, people should read the Bible fully before making a commitment, and there should be a system of Bible classes beforehand for maybe a year or more beforehand so as to make sure that it is understood first. I think a minimum age of 16 is reasonable.

Isn't it to the benefit of all the churches to officially have as many members as possible as they get more state funding?

philologos

miss no stars wrote: »

Please point out where I said that. What I said was give kids more credit. By the time they make their confirmation a lot of kids will already have decided they believe or don't believe, while some, admittadly, won't have thought about it.

I misinterpreted your post apologies.

miss no stars wrote: »

Isn't it to the benefit of all the churches to officially have as many members as possible as they get more state funding?

Membership doesn't count. Tax benefits only apply to donations. However, I as a Christian don't care about money, it isn't the reason why we do what we do. Sure funds help us to spread the message of Christ more effectively in the world, but I would rather have a small percentage of believers who are willing to spread the Gospel and believe in it strongly than a church of people who don't care about what Jesus did for them.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Parents will always have an effect on their children, right down from how they speak in terms of colloquialisms, what language they speak, and what values they have. Parents have the responsibility to teach their children morals, and parents have the right under the Irish Constitution to provide for moral and religious education for their children. There is no child out there who isn't predisposed to the ways of their parents, as such I think it is entirely ridiculous to suggest that parents shouldn't have a role in how their children are raised. I think it would be stupid to suggest that parents don't have any role in their childs religious ubpringing infact.

I think its wrong to expose children to your predefined beliefs when they are of "gullible" age. Be those racist or religious beliefs.

Atheists and agnostics don't really make an effective argument in their attempt to guilt-trip parents for daring to teach their child religious values. It's the right that is afforded to them under freedom of religion, and freedom to educate their children.

Guilt trip? How about time wasted for kids to jump around and act the **** when they go to church to hear some prat rattle on about gods teachings, it doesnt matter to most kids. Its not part of any worthwhile reality. And there are parents who make their kids go to mass, when they dont even have a clue about politics or economics, never mind supernatural supposed deitys.

It isn't any more indoctrination than colloquialisms that children acquire from their parents or teaching a particular language over another. I don't consider it to be indoctrination in the slightest. Predisposing your children due to the way you live isn't in any way indoctrination. Even if their parents didn't teach them religious values, but lived a religious lifestyle, the child would become curious in their belief system. However that isn't indoctrination.

Seriously, its the only reason i'd actually criticise someone over their parenting "skillz", that and hitting the kids. Its wrong. And tbh,somewhere inside me I hope parents keep doing it, because it only adds to the demise of a dying belief system. Its like kids getting pissed cuz

Santa didnt turn out to be real

. It was a waste of good acting the **** time for me and im sure its a waste for many others. We can all teach kids moralistic values, right VS wrong. But this indoctrination is faith based and should not be spoon fed into them at an age where as to be easy manipulated.. some moreso than others of course.

Quite simply:
Teaching children tenets of Christianity and leaving it there, is rather different from getting the class to make a pledge before God in a church. I think people should be taught Christian beliefs, but anything else should be left to the church, and youth pastors etc in guiding young people to find God's truth in the Bible.

No one should guide anyone in any thought pattern ex moralistic. There should be no pledge, I refuse to make a pledge to the easter bunny, and im not going to join the mob in praising some other mythical supernatural invisible thing either. Neither should my kids, if I had any. They are welcome to their own beliefs, their own imaginary friends, whenever they want, without a guide or someone to manipulate thier quieries on beliefs or deitys.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Sure funds help us to spread the message of Christ more effectively in the world, but I would rather have a small percentage of believers who are willing to spread the Gospel and believe in it strongly than a church of people who don't care about what Jesus did for them.

This is what i dont get. Spread the word of Christ. Yeah spread the word to dying etheopians. Have them go to bible school. Sure they'll be saved. I think its manipulation and its disgusting.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I think its wrong to expose children to your predefined beliefs when they are of "gullible" age. Be those racist or religious beliefs.

The real agenda behind this is because you don't want people to have the opportunity to find faith, and therefore become atheists. I think people should learn about religion and then make their mind up. That's the difference. I also think Christian parents should have the right to bring up children in their way of life if that is what they wish. The Government has to deal with the wider interest thankfully, and they realise that there are more religious belief systems in Ireland than not.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Guilt trip? How about time wasted for kids to jump around and act the **** when they go to church to hear some prat rattle on about gods teachings, it doesnt matter to most kids. Its not part of any worthwhile reality. And there are parents who make their kids go to mass, when they dont even have a clue about politics or economics, never mind supernatural supposed deitys.

You may think it's a waste of time. I personally don't, children get to be exposed to a Christian community and understand how it works. You may not respect the pastors and priests, but I wouldn't go as far to call them "prats" just because they happen to be convinced of something that you are not. It's called freedom of conscience, and I'm glad that there are people to lead strong communities like these.

See what you consider "worthwhile reality" is going to be different than what the Christian parent is going to consider "worthwhile reality". I consider the Scriptures to be a worthwhile text in order to be able to determine how we are meant to live, and what meaning we have as individuals in an often hostile world.

Your last point concerns those who don't know about the supernatural or God. That's irrelevant. You already called the priests and pastors who have theological training and who actually do care about what they believe in as "prats". If they don't know about God, maybe they are there to seek Him.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Seriously, its the only reason i'd actually criticise someone over their parenting "skillz", that and hitting the kids. Its wrong. And tbh,somewhere inside me I hope parents keep doing it, because it only adds to the demise of a dying belief system. Its like kids getting pissed cuz

Santa didnt turn out to be real

. It was a waste of good acting the **** time for me and im sure its a waste for many others. We can all teach kids moralistic values, right VS wrong. But this indoctrination is faith based and should not be spoon fed into them at an age where as to be easy manipulated.. some moreso than others of course.

Again, I don't consider this to be indoctrination any more than the things, I mentioned. As for corporal punishment, I don't see a problem with this at all. Associating behaviour with a negative consequence is a deterrent for these things to happen in the future.

As for Christianity dying? You aren't in reality if you think this. The Economist predicts that Christianity will grow and still be the largest belief system in the world in 2050. India, the Far East (mainly S.Korea, and China), the Middle East, South America, and Africa are key areas of growth. However even in Ireland, certain strands of Christianity are growing rather rapidly for example Pentecostalism grew by 160% between 2002 and 2006.

As for morality, there is no reason to consider what you believe to be right or wrong to be right or wrong in every case if you don't have a consistent guide to determine it. I find relative morality to be poor, and one that is prone to failure in many situations.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

No one should guide anyone in any thought pattern ex moralistic. There should be no pledge, I refuse to make a pledge to the easter bunny, and im not going to join the mob in praising some other mythical supernatural invisible thing either. Neither should my kids, if I had any. They are welcome to their own beliefs, their own imaginary friends, whenever they want, without a guide or someone to manipulate thier quieries on beliefs or deitys.

Every child is going to be influenced by their parents. You say nobody should guide anyone in any thought pattern ex moarlistic. Why on earth should we guide anyone in morals then? Isn't this not indoctrination too? Why are you making exceptions to your own rules.

You can refuse to do whatever you want, but denying parents the right to believe whatever they want, and to raise their children as they see fit, is quite frankly a different matter.

As for your claim about imaginary friends, these are just arrogant atheist belief statements with no substance in reality. They are irrelevant in discussion and are nothing more than rhethoric.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

This is what i dont get. Spread the word of Christ. Yeah spread the word to dying etheopians. Have them go to bible school. Sure they'll be saved. I think its manipulation and its disgusting.

How is it manipulation to want the very best for your neighbour and for them to receive enlightenment in Christ's teachings, the teachings of the Apostles, and the teachings of the Jewish prophets? This is what the Christian mindset in doing this is, to help people to find meaning and purpose in their lives, and to help them to be truly happy and truly fulfilled in a world that is filled with artificial happiness based on mere hedonism. I think this is a gift that all people should receive and I would gladly advocate it. I think we should be doing more than we do now actually.

I believe every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2), and be before His judgement seat (2 Corinthians 5). However, it may just be too late for some.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

The real agenda behind this is because you don't want people to have the opportunity to find faith, and therefore become atheists. I think people should learn about religion and then make their mind up. That's the difference. I also think Christian parents should have the right to bring up children in their way of life if that is what they wish. The Government has to deal with the wider interest thankfully, and they realise that there are more religious belief systems in Ireland than not.

Fair point, and no its not agenda driven, if i had kids they could believe in buddism if they wanted, without my criticism, im sorry i dont fit into your misconception about the non believers.

You may think it's a waste of time. I personally don't, children get to be exposed to a Christian community and understand how it works. You may not respect the pastors and priests, but I wouldn't go as far to call them "prats" just because they happen to be convinced of something that you are not. It's called freedom of conscience, and I'm glad that there are people to lead strong communities like these.

To some children they are prats taking their valuable time away, hence the insult! Feck being exposed to a religious community, it just goes to how that buddism, judaism (sorry!) and other faiths are in the minority in this country, hmmm... i wonder why....

See what you consider "worthwhile reality" is going to be different than what the Christian parent is going to consider "worthwhile reality". I consider the Scriptures to be a worthwhile text in order to be able to determine how we are meant to live, and what meaning we have as individuals in an often hostile world.

I dont care what the parent thinks, the child is the important one, i dont respect the parents beliefs fair enough, but i dont think that the child is a peice of plaster or an object for the parent to manipulate.

Your last point concerns those who don't know about the supernatural or God. That's irrelevant. You already called the priests and pastors who have theological training and who actually do care about what they believe in as "prats". If they don't know about God, maybe they are there to seek Him.

That last sentance is IMO, irrelevant to logic. There to seek him, is that the excuse you give if you "guide" a non believer? "You are here to seek God!"

As for morality, there is no reason to consider what you believe to be right or wrong to be right or wrong in every case if you don't have a consistent guide to determine it. I find relative morality to be poor, and one that is prone to failure in many situations.

Not everyone needs a (religious) guide in their morality values, Right is right and wrong is wrong, murder is wrong. Is homosexuality wrong? No, those who love each other should do so without fear of mockery or acceptance. Any ejjit should grasp moralistic values. If this guide you speak of is not religious i apologise. Ive had pints.

Every child is going to be influenced by their parents. You say nobody should guide anyone in any thought pattern ex moarlistic. Why on earth should we guide anyone in morals then? Isn't this not indoctrination too? Why are you making exceptions to your own rules.

You do know that there were basic moralistic values before Jesus supposedly came along dont you. It is in our nature to be corrupt, influenced by power and behave in strange ways. Moral values are there to teach a person what is right or wrong, it is not faith based for it keeps the feelings and pain of another human or animal in mind, it is reality.

You can refuse to do whatever you want, but denying parents the right to believe whatever they want, and to raise their children as they see fit, is quite frankly a different matter.

This is a controversial subject, and IMO it is disgusting to say to a child (exagerration coming...) that if you dont believe in this you will burn in hell. Or dont question these beliefs. You see Jehovahs in the same family, you see chirsitians, you RARELY see any other faith being accepted when the family is of a certain denomination. Thats wrong, and IMO, i think you would feel the same about other religious indoctrination, when it doesnt match yours, for they might not be saved, like you will be?

As for your claim about imaginary friends, these are just arrogant atheist belief statements with no substance in reality. They are irrelevant in discussion and are nothing more than rhethoric.

If you brand all of us the same you are just arguing with the same person all of the time, i know you are a regualar poster on christianity, please dont use the same brush. I was referring to actual imaginary friends that kids have, they are welcome to have them, as they are welcome to believe whatever they want when the time is right. Id ask them to research others before they do though, thats more or less all i'd ask.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it manipulation to want the very best for your neighbour and for them to receive enlightenment in Christ's teachings, the teachings of the Apostles, and the teachings of the Jewish prophets? This is what the Christian mindset in doing this is, to help people to find meaning and purpose in their lives, and to help them to be truly happy and truly fulfilled in a world that is filled with artificial happiness based on mere hedonism. I think this is a gift that all people should receive and I would gladly advocate it. I think we should be doing more than we do now actually.

I believe every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2), and be before His judgement seat (2 Corinthians 5). However, it may just be too late for some.

Enlightenment, wow. Im off to enlighten folks on American republican teachings and theology (politics), im brilliant. Get a grip, just because you hold it as truth doesn' mean you should shove it in others faces or convert people, ESPECIALLY converting miserable and physically challenged people or recovering alcoholics and "junkies"!

[Sorry for spelling.]

ETA

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe every knee shall bow every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2), and be before His judgement seat (2 Corinthians 5). However, it may just be too late for some.

Written by man, you would be misguided to think otherwise. What power does this author hold over you? Why accept it as the order of things? Im sure there are similar instuctions in other faiths, also written by men. TBH I despise this kind of ignorance. It is why gheys and lesbians are still fighting for their rights.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Fair point, and no its not agenda driven, if i had kids they could believe in buddism if they wanted, without my criticism, im sorry i dont fit into your misconception about the non believers.

Fair enough, so what exactly is your dispute in Christians raising their children to be Christians then?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

To some children they are prats taking their valuable time away, hence the insult! Feck being exposed to a religious community, it just goes to how that buddism, judaism (sorry!) and other faiths are in the minority in this country, hmmm... i wonder why....

I think being exposed to a religious community is quite important. Judaism is very much a non-evangelistic religion compared to Christianity. You're generally born into a Jewish family, and you generally go to Hebrew school if you want to take it in anyway seriously, and it's also a cultural identity in that you will most likely be taught Hebrew, and many have a strong affinity with Israel. It's more than religion in my view.

I don't know all that much about Buddhism, I don't think it is evangelistic either.

As for being exposed to religious communities, it could well save lives. It has been shown that people who attend a religious congregation regularly are less likely to commit suicide on average compared to those who don't. If you look to countries like Sweden and Japan which are the the most secular countries in the world, and then look at the rate of suicide, they are both astonishingly high.

Check out: http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

Of course there are much much more other reasons why people attend religious congregations, but it's worth considering why this is in the first place?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I dont care what the parent thinks, the child is the important one, i dont respect the parents beliefs fair enough, but i dont think that the child is a peice of plaster or an object for the parent to manipulate.
That last sentance is IMO, irrelevant to logic. There to seek him, is that the excuse you give if you "guide" a non believer? "You are here to seek God!"

The parent is who is the guardian of the child, and if they want to teach their children religious values and morals based on Christian teaching, that is their choice ultimately, not yours or anyone elses. These parents obviously teach their children what they do so as to benefit their lives and to teach and example that may be fruitful to them. The problem with your point is you assume that these parents have ill intent, but they don't at all and this is where your point falls straight flat. This isn't manipulation, this is raising your child, just as atheists predispose their children to secular values, Christians predispose their children to religious values. Both have the same effect.

By the way, if you are going to throw around "logic" as a meaningless term, it shouldn't be entertained. I expect you to use logic as advocated by logicians if you are going to suggest that my post is fallacious, and I don't think it is too much to expect if you insist on misusing the term.

It's rather simple, if you are not sure, and if you are an agnostic, or maybe you are ignorant to some Christian teachings, it might benefit you to understand Christian ideology concerning these things, and if you are convinced by it to be a believer. Churches by their nature are meant to welcome all those who seek God's truth. Nothing illogical about that to me.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Not everyone needs a (religious) guide in their morality values, Right is right and wrong is wrong, murder is wrong. Is homosexuality wrong? No, those who love each other should do so without fear of mockery or acceptance. Any ejjit should grasp moralistic values. If this guide you speak of is not religious i apologise. Ive had pints.

I would argue that a non-Christian source of morality is lacking due to the fact I believe that God has set the ultimate source of morality. I don't believe that morals differ between people but rather that people have made them stretch between people.

As for homosexuality being wrong, that isn't what Christianity advocates, but rather that homosexual activity (sex with the same gender) is wrong. If one is homosexual and remains celibate that isn't considered a sin in the Christian faith. Check out the thread on it in the Christianity forum, I'm not going to get into it here.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

You do know that there were basic moralistic values before Jesus supposedly came along dont you. It is in our nature to be corrupt, influenced by power and behave in strange ways. Moral values are there to teach a person what is right or wrong, it is not faith based for it keeps the feelings and pain of another human or animal in mind, it is reality.

The moral law existed before Jesus, infact I would argue it had existed since the beginning of creation, much like the laws of physics. We gained knowledge of moral laws through divine revelations, and the laws of physics through experimentation.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

This is a controversial subject, and IMO it is disgusting to say to a child (exagerration coming...) that if you dont believe in this you will burn in hell. Or dont question these beliefs. You see Jehovahs in the same family, you see chirsitians, you RARELY see any other faith being accepted when the family is of a certain denomination. Thats wrong, and IMO, i think you would feel the same about other religious indoctrination, when it doesnt match yours, for they might not be saved, like you will be?

Well in my opinion, I think it's only respectful if you believe what you believe to be the truth, that you should want people to accept the free offer of salvation that God has given them, and that they should be saved by the grace of Christ Jesus. As for rarely seeing another faith being taken, the freedom of conscience is there. As such it's quite frankly irrelevant to what the actual end is. People have this right by the constitution, and I don't think Christians raising their children to be Christian violates this right.

You seem to think that people keep the same beliefs forever. This isn't the case. I personally doubted Christianity for many years before I read the Bible. I thought about it for a rather long time. I think you should give people more credit. I think it's just that you think that people haven't thought about it when they actually have.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

If you brand all of us the same you are just arguing with the same person all of the time, i know you are a regualar poster on christianity, please dont use the same brush. I was referring to actual imaginary friends that kids have, they are welcome to have them, as they are welcome to believe whatever they want when the time is right. Id ask them to research others before they do though, thats more or less all i'd ask.

Well, quite frankly. If you want your posts to be taken seriously, you might want to refrain from such terms. They aren't necessary in a discussion like this. If you want to keep using them that is fine, but by and large it's unhelpful. "imaginary friends", "unicorns", "the FSM", and all these other terms, all they come off as to me is arrogant atheist belief statements.

Well, actually teaching about other faiths is encouraged at Junior Cert and Leaving Cert level religion. I personally focused on Judaism, Christianity and Islam the most when I was in school, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and others are on the cirriculum.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Enlightenment, wow. Im off to enlighten folks on American republican teachings and theology (politics), im brilliant. Get a grip, just because you hold it as truth doesn' mean you should shove it in others faces or convert people, ESPECIALLY converting miserable and physically challenged people or recovering alcoholics and "junkies"!

[Sorry for spelling.]

American republican teachings and theology (politics)? Could you clarify what you mean by this?

Why should I get a grip? Why shouldn't I be able to let people know about my beliefs and give them the chance to decide for themselves rather than keeping them suppressed. Actually, I believe I have a freedom of speech as well as a freedom of religion that are afforded to me as long as I don't violate hate speech laws that is.

It's hardly shoving it in peoples faces to evangelise, that isn't even what the term means. It merely means to let Christianity be known within wider society, and I can't see that as being anything but a good thing. Infact I've even spoken to missionaries of other religions such as the Hare Krishnas before, I think it's a great way to learn about other people.

Alcoholics and junkies? I think they need God's help the most to overcome their former desire and to seek God's plan for their lives. I think that this is perfectly right and honourable.

Red Sleeping Beauty

With regards the materialism (money) and the "business" decisions made by the kids.... does the religion not have a lot of materialism rooted in it's core anyway ? There's the three wise men who bring gifts, there's the pope, bishops cardinals etc. who wear various pieces of jewellry (most notably of course big crosses). I don't know, just a thought....

@Jakkass, I never suggested that all kids should be brought up agnostics or athiests but on the other hand I can't see where the choice is at all. IF the "contract" or agreement or belief in the religion , in "a" god and well basically the whole package is of such importance (and indeed it should be) then I think that any religion should respect people, their individual choices and freedom to choose.

I can't take a religion serious that people are just born into (such is the case in Ireland with Catholicism) and that doesn't let people leave and doesn't respect their own free thought... - there was an interesting thread there about 2weeks ago in Athiests & Agnostics dealing with the kind of "trap" the church gets you into. I think it was post of the day... anyway that's another thread/forum.


So to summarize : I find it hard to take the church and indeed the modern form of the religion serious because of how people become to be involved with it and the fact that people are "confirmed" at such a young age.

It may not be a matter of a "legal" contract but it's something perhaps more important... it's about what you choose to believe and it's a bit sad that so many people take it for granted , ie. just go along with.

philologos

Alan Rouge wrote: »

With regards the materialism (money) and the "business" decisions made by the kids.... does the religion not have a lot of materialism rooted in it's core anyway ? There's the three wise men who bring gifts, there's the pope, bishops cardinals etc. who wear various pieces of jewellry (most notably of course big crosses). I don't know, just a thought....

At it's core. That would depend on what you consider the core to be, priests and bishops or the Bible. I know which one I consider to be the core of Christian belief. We can't trust mere men.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

@Jakkass, I never suggested that all kids should be brought up agnostics or athiests but on the other hand I can't see where the choice is at all. IF the "contract" or agreement or belief in the religion , in "a" god and well basically the whole package is of such importance (and indeed it should be) then I think that any religion should respect people, their individual choices and freedom to choose.

I've suggested that the system needs to be radically changed.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I can't take a religion serious that people are just born into (such is the case in Ireland with Catholicism) and that doesn't let people leave and doesn't respect their own free thought... - there was an interesting thread there about 2weeks ago in Athiests & Agnostics dealing with the kind of "trap" the church gets you into. I think it was post of the day... anyway that's another thread/forum.

I don't either, because I know I had to make a decision in my life to accept Christ. It is a decision that each individual has to make. I don't for a second believe that people are born into it.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

So to summarize : I find it hard to take the church and indeed the modern form of the religion serious because of how people become to be involved with it and the fact that people are "confirmed" at such a young age.

Depends. I think you are being unfair to Christianity as a whole if you haven't experienced how other denominations do things.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

It may not be a matter of a "legal" contract but it's something perhaps more important... it's about what you choose to believe and it's a bit sad that so many people take it for granted , ie. just go along with.

^^ I agree totally.

dave-higgz

Alan Rouge wrote: »

With regards the materialism (money) and the "business" decisions made by the kids.... does the religion not have a lot of materialism rooted in it's core anyway ? There's the three wise men who bring gifts, there's the pope, bishops cardinals etc. who wear various pieces of jewellry (most notably of course big crosses). I don't know, just a thought....

That type of materialism is all in the church hierarchy, and has been a blight of the past where the church owned so much land and they were basically the richest institution of the 2nd millennium. Now they have all these golden crosses lying around and so they might as well use them!

However the materialism today is giving hundreds of euro to kids and for what? They were able to respond "I do" to questions they don't understand, that's what.

The giving of money is seen as a milestone in the growing up of a child and I can understand why it's given. However for the child it takes the meaning out of the ceremony and it destroys the idea of freedom of religion.
If you are a student in a catholic based or catholic ethos school and if your parents aren't another religion then you will make you communion and confirmation no questions asked! Then if you have the maturity at age 12 to say no to confirmation, an informed decision, then you will be at home while everyone else enjoys their meal out after the ceremony and on top of that you won't get any money.

dave-higgz

Jakkass wrote: »

At it's core. That would depend on what you consider the core to be, priests and bishops or the Bible. I know which one I consider to be the core of Christian belief. We can't trust mere men.

Men wrote the bible didn't they??

philologos

dave-higgz wrote: »

Men wrote the bible didn't they??

Depends on how you view it. Many parts of the Bible include God's direct word to prophets, with "the LORD says" being a key means of knowing this. Of course many of Jesus' direct words are also in the Bible.

Men who were divinely inspired wrote the Bible the view of mainline Christians.

Nice try though

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough, so what exactly is your dispute in Christians raising their children to be Christians then?

For the same reason as far right republicans teaching their kids that their **** is right, its unacceptable. Any person deserves free will and free thought and freedom of expression. At any age. These little ones are not our soldiers, they are an extension of of the populous, to misguide them in any way is despicable.

I think being exposed to a religious community is quite important. Judaism is very much a non-evangelistic religion compared to Christianity. You're generally born into a Jewish family, and you generally go to Hebrew school if you want to take it in anyway seriously, and it's also a cultural identity in that you will most likely be taught Hebrew, and many have a strong affinity with Israel. It's more than religion in my view.

It is a valid theory that having a certain closed community or school that is of a certain denomination only contibutes to others ignorance, racism and closed mindedness, its been discussed here before.

I don't know all that much about Buddhism, I don't think it is evangelistic either.

Of course you dont know as much, you are quite happy to succumb to verses in scripture without deciding which is the most attractive denomination, if you want one.

As for being exposed to religious communities, it could well save lives. It has been shown that people who attend a religious congregation regularly are less likely to commit suicide on average compared to those who don't. If you look to countries like Sweden and Japan which are the the most secular countries in the world, and then look at the rate of suicide, they are both astonishingly high.

That comes across to me as saying athiests are more likely to commit suicide because they dont believe it is a sin, Ive been down, sometimes the only thing that stops me is the fact of the unknown, i firmly believe that one ceases to apreciate time when you die, like being asleep without dreaming, only for eternity if there is such a thing.

Religion is a comfort, because people dont realise that they are not on their own in their negative thinkings. All around the world there are people on the edge, god doesnt come down and smack them in the face saying "snap out of it", no. Usually a combination of chemical balance pills and a good bit of proper guidance so as not to accept your negative feelings or inadequcies.

Of course there are much much more other reasons why people attend religious congregations, but it's worth considering why this is in the first place?

Its mob mentality and nothing less. Like scumbags manipulating others for the mob enjoyment, or burning supposed witches.

The parent is who is the guardian of the child, and if they want to teach their children religious values and morals based on Christian teaching, that is their choice ultimately, not yours or anyone elses. These parents obviously teach their children what they do so as to benefit their lives and to teach and example that may be fruitful to them.

No its not, can you say the same for other denominations, indoctrination is disgusting, tell your kids to do their own research, come up with their own conclusions.

The problem with your point is you assume that these parents have ill intent, but they don't at all and this is where your point falls straight flat. This isn't manipulation, this is raising your child, just as atheists predispose their children to secular values, Christians predispose their children to religious values. Both have the same effect.

Of course its not ill intent, its tradition, a disgusting and non evolutionary one at that (if we are to evolve mentally we should be given multiple options and never accept ignorance, not citing darwin here!)

By the way, if you are going to throw around "logic" as a meaningless term, it shouldn't be entertained. I expect you to use logic as advocated by logicians if you are going to suggest that my post is fallacious, and I don't think it is too much to expect if you insist on misusing the term.

Im sure youve heard this before but faith is anti logic. Self thruth is no truth and illogical.

It's rather simple, if you are not sure, and if you are an agnostic, or maybe you are ignorant to some Christian teachings, it might benefit you to understand Christian ideology concerning these things, and if you are convinced by it to be a believer. Churches by their nature are meant to welcome all those who seek God's truth. Nothing illogical about that to me.

Thats mob mentality, acceptance by many, in something with no basis in fact.

I would argue that a non-Christian source of morality is lacking due to the fact I believe that God has set the ultimate source of morality. I don't believe that morals differ between people but rather that people have made them stretch between people.

Of course they differ, whats wrong to one may not be wrong by you, vice versa.

As for homosexuality being wrong, that isn't what Christianity advocates, but rather that homosexual activity (sex with the same gender) is wrong. If one is homosexual and remains celibate that isn't considered a sin in the Christian faith. Check out the thread on it in the Christianity forum, I'm not going to get into it here.

Well TBH, thats bull****, remain celibate from your yearnings, just because other MEN from years ago find it disgusting. Not any god. It doesnt hurt the other lover if he or she is up for it and feels the same. It is no sin. Ignorance in this case, is bliss, i hope you never become "confused", that pain, with your cast beliefs might be too much to bear.

The moral law existed before Jesus, infact I would argue it had existed since the beginning of creation, much like the laws of physics. We gained knowledge of moral laws through divine revelations, and the laws of physics through experimentation.

No divine relolations my friend, just the sympathy for other people, not to hurt them or hurt their feelings. That was no revolation, it was always obvious. Give those before 2009 years ago some credit.

Well in my opinion, I think it's only respectful if you believe what you believe to be the truth, that you should want people to accept the free offer of salvation that God has given them, and that they should be saved by the grace of Christ Jesus. As for rarely seeing another faith being taken, the freedom of conscience is there. As such it's quite frankly irrelevant to what the actual end is. People have this right by the constitution, and I don't think Christians raising their children to be Christian violates this right.

Yes rights, rights set in stone by men in constitutional "scriptures", we should remain patriotic to that, it will always be right, wont it? To take what people have written be it the bible, laws or constitutions, and hold it as the utmost truth, is far from freedom of thought. But thats another tangent ive gone on.

You dont raise your kids to be of any denomination, to refuse them the right to choose is dictorial, and disgusting.

You seem to think that people keep the same beliefs forever. This isn't the case. I personally doubted Christianity for many years before I read the Bible. I thought about it for a rather long time. I think you should give people more credit. I think it's just that you think that people haven't thought about it when they actually have.

Ill give you more credit when you prove to me that it wasnt written by men, when you research and conlude other denominations such as buddism, judaism and muslim faith and accept that no idea other than basic right and wrong should be forced on our younglings.

Well, quite frankly. If you want your posts to be taken seriously, you might want to refrain from such terms. They aren't necessary in a discussion like this. If you want to keep using them that is fine, but by and large it's unhelpful. "imaginary friends", "unicorns", "the FSM", and all these other terms, all they come off as to me is arrogant atheist belief statements.

Hello there Mr jackass, i was using them in the context of a kid Actually
believing in an imaginary friend, i would not refuse them this right as a parent, this is the second time ive had to say this, do keep up and stop painting athiests with the same brush.

Well, actually teaching about other faiths is encouraged at Junior Cert and Leaving Cert level religion. I personally focused on Judaism, Christianity and Islam the most when I was in school, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and others are on the cirriculum.

Yes and religion is still thought as gospel (moar christian and catholic than any other), other denomination kids parents have to ask that their kids be excused, then it becomes another odd one out problem. The same with sexual education.

American republican teachings and theology (politics)? Could you clarify what you mean by this?

Exactly that, if i am of the opinion that republican theology and teachings should be spread to the world, can i do that?

Why should I get a grip? Why shouldn't I be able to let people know about my beliefs and give them the chance to decide for themselves rather than keeping them suppressed. Actually, I believe I have a freedom of speech as well as a freedom of religion that are afforded to me as long as I don't violate hate speech laws that is.

You hold it as truth and your teachings (written by men again) tell you that we kneel waiting for the teachings of christ, thats ignorance and should not be fed into easy manipulated people. That bit you quoted, is disgusting and in a room of yourself and twenty other athiests and other multi denominations, it is no fact at all.

It's hardly shoving it in peoples faces to evangelise, that isn't even what the term means. It merely means to let Christianity be known within wider society, and I can't see that as being anything but a good thing. Infact I've even spoken to missionaries of other religions such as the Hare Krishnas before, I think it's a great way to learn about other people.

Yeah great way to learn about other people and critisize their culture, ubringing and denomination, while preaching god is the saviour to them. If there is one gullible or easily manipulated person there, anywhere, then thats wrong. Missionaries always seem to have perks, food and medicine. Nothing wrong with a little conversion while you are there is there?

Alcoholics and junkies? I think they need God's help the most to overcome their former desire and to seek God's plan for their lives. I think that this is perfectly right and honourable.

Yep, and that quote encapsulates my belief in Christians manipulating the vulnerable. Well done.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Depends on how you view it. Many parts of the Bible include God's direct word to prophets, with "the LORD says" being a key means of knowing this. Of course many of Jesus' direct words are also in the Bible.

Men who were divinely inspired wrote the Bible the view of mainline Christians.

Nice try though

Gods direct word yeah? Is that proven? Again, its brilliant, just because its written in the bible makes it fact. Its fiction, until proven otherwise. Any crazy could say god made me do it. Would you forgive him if he did it on to you?

Red Sleeping Beauty

Jakkass wrote: »

At it's core. That would depend on what you consider the core to be, priests and bishops or the Bible. I know which one I consider to be the core of Christian belief.

That's good that you have your Christians beliefs and know what is at the core but it is perhaps not your christian beliefs that are being taught in schools and in the confirmation classes is it ?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't either, because I know I had to make a decision in my life to accept Christ. It is a decision that each individual has to make. I don't for a second believe that people are born into it.

Has that not been established already ? Catholic parents have a kid... kid is baptised because their parents will have a canary if they're not then kid goes to school and has to do the communion/confirmation act cause otherwise the kid is the odd one out and is bullied or... kid is born into catholic family and ergo is rared a catholic ?
(this is a bit off topic actually... anyway...)

Jakkass wrote: »

Depends. I think you are being unfair to Christianity as a whole if you haven't experienced how other denominations do things.

I suppose perhaps I only meant to talk about Roman Catholicism and the Irish church because that's the issue I see before me.

Jakkass wrote: »

Depends on how you view it. Many parts of the Bible include God's direct word to prophets, with "the LORD says" being a key means of knowing this. Of course many of Jesus' direct words are also in the Bible.

Men who were divinely inspired wrote the Bible the view of mainline Christians.

Nice try though

The contents and legitimacy of the bible is probably another debate/thread.

I would think it'd be an issue with what parts of the bible are actually taught to kids either in schools or church. Is the thorny issue of the book of Leviticus mentioned much ?

philologos

Alan Rouge wrote: »

That's good that you have your Christians beliefs and know what is at the core but it is perhaps not your christian beliefs that are being taught in schools and in the confirmation classes is it ?

Depends on what type of school. I went to schools with an Anglican ethos for both levels. So I may differ in interpretation from Roman Catholics on some things.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Has that not been established already ? Catholic parents have a kid... kid is baptised because their parents will have a canary if they're not then kid goes to school and has to do the communion/confirmation act cause otherwise the kid is the odd one out and is bullied or... kid is born into catholic family and ergo is rared a catholic ?
(this is a bit off topic actually... anyway...)

Yep, however, this doesn't ensure that the child is indeed Catholic. Theres a difference between being raised Christian and accepting that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I suppose perhaps I only meant to talk about Roman Catholicism and the Irish church because that's the issue I see before me.

The Irish church is a changing church in my view. We've seen quite an increase in alternative forms of Christianity between 2002 and 2006.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I would think it'd be an issue with what parts of the bible are actually taught to kids either in schools or church. Is the thorny issue of the book of Leviticus mentioned much ?

Not really. I don't consider Leviticus to be thorny when you understand what context it was in and how Christianity differs from Judaism.

Although people are deserving of death for their sins (Romans 1), due to Christ's grace we have been given mercy, and as such Christians are expected to show mercy to others in return. If you do not show mercy to others, God will not show mercy to you (Matthew 7). Jesus fulfilled the Torah in relation to capital punishment.

Although animal sacrifices were a means for atoning for sin in Leviticus, Jesus is the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world (John 1:29) and as such no other sacrifice is necessary. As the prophet Hosea prophesied concerning sacrifice, "I desire mercy not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6). There are other verses such as these.

The Bible is a book that is a developing revelation from beginning to end. And as such it is to be read as such. This is the way that the New Testament suggests that Christians should look to the Tanakh. Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfil (Matthew 5:17), as such the Tanakh has relevance to Christians today, and there is meaning concerning Christianity in there, however it is a different meaning than was originally gleaned in many respects. Jeremiah 31:31-34 says that there will be a new covenant for Israel and Judah, which would differ from the Old Covenant. This is why Jesus says in Luke 22, this is the blood of the new covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

As such Leviticus is relevant to us today, but one must take the New Testament into account when reading the old. This was a mistake I made when I first read the Bible.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

Dades wrote:

Communion, Confirmation etc has no legal status on a child however - that's not the issue. A moral contract with a deity isn't binding should you decide to opt out.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Unfortunately a lot of people think differently, mostly from the monotheistic religions.

Them thinking it doesn't make it so.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

It is a valid theory that having a certain closed community or school that is of a certain denomination only contibutes to others ignorance, racism and closed mindedness, its been discussed here before.

Nick, explain to me then. I went to two denominational schools, I'm now at university but that's irrelevant for now. Surely I should be ignorant, racist, and closed minded? Now, I don't see how I fit into any of these three categories. I'm willing to discuss with anyone about religious subjects yes, but at the same time I am willing to listen to what people have to say. Ultimately I do believe in Jesus Christ however.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Of course you dont know as much, you are quite happy to succumb to verses in scripture without deciding which is the most attractive denomination, if you want one.

I know the theology that my denomination advocates, and I'm quite comfortable in it for now. I may consider attending different types of churches in the future, and I have attended some other types in the past on an once off basis. I don't see any of my Christian brethren as being lesser or deficient to my form of Christianity. As for other religions I also considered Judaism and Islam to a minor extent prior to concluding that Christianity was for me. I've read sections of the Qur'an and the Tanakh also. Please don't be as presumptuous, I've thought about Christianity extensively before my adoption of it, and I don't think that you have a right to cast judgement on me for my religious preference.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

That comes across to me as saying athiests are more likely to commit suicide because they dont believe it is a sin, Ive been down, sometimes the only thing that stops me is the fact of the unknown, i firmly believe that one ceases to apreciate time when you die, like being asleep without dreaming, only for eternity if there is such a thing.

Whatever reason you have for it, what we do know is that the rates differ considerably between theists who are involved in a religious community, and those who are not.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Religion is a comfort, because people dont realise that they are not on their own in their negative thinkings. All around the world there are people on the edge, god doesnt come down and smack them in the face saying "snap out of it", no. Usually a combination of chemical balance pills and a good bit of proper guidance so as not to accept your negative feelings or inadequcies.

Really, I don't consider religion to be a comfort as such, but rather a realisation about the way of the world and about the reality of God's existence. By the way, claiming that religious people have a disorder or that they deviate from the norm is quite frankly ridiculous given two factors:
1) Scientists are now saying that human beings are biologically disposed to believe in a God. Look up the "God part of the brain" for further reference. New Scientist magazine did a piece on it, as did The Independent (UK) a few weeks ago.
2) Atheists constitute 16% of the population, saying that 84% of the worlds population are mentally ill is quite frankly absurd.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Its mob mentality and nothing less. Like scumbags manipulating others for the mob enjoyment, or burning supposed witches.

Grow up. People do explore their beliefs for themselves, and people do want to know about God and about what He can do for them. If you find this uncomfortable tough luck, people have the right to the freedom of conscience, so stop complaining about it and live your life.

Throwing such a fuss against religion would suggest that you are actually rather insecure about your own atheism. It generally is those who are the most critical of others rights to believe that are the ones who have problems with their own belief systems.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

No its not, can you say the same for other denominations, indoctrination is disgusting, tell your kids to do their own research, come up with their own conclusions.

Of course it isn't. I don't see any problem with Christian parents wanting to bring their children up in a Christian way of life. They do this because they love their children and want what is best for them. They see spiritual guidance as being best for them, and I would certainly too given my experiences as a Christian over the last 2 years that I have been truly active in it.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Of course its not ill intent, its tradition, a disgusting and non evolutionary one at that (if we are to evolve mentally we should be given multiple options and never accept ignorance, not citing darwin here!)

If you think that Christianity is merely tradition, you clearly don't know what it is.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Im sure youve heard this before but faith is anti logic. Self thruth is no truth and illogical.

Give a reason or cop on and stop abusing the word "logic".

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Thats mob mentality, acceptance by many, in something with no basis in fact.

Of course it isn't. I couldn't care for numbers. Numbers do not indicate truth, the Biblical text being indicated for in reality does though.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Of course they differ, whats wrong to one may not be wrong by you, vice versa.

The moral law doesn't differ, but rather people have deviated from it. I don't believe in relative morality.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Well TBH, thats bull****, remain celibate from your yearnings, just because other MEN from years ago find it disgusting. Not any god. It doesnt hurt the other lover if he or she is up for it and feels the same. It is no sin. Ignorance in this case, is bliss, i hope you never become "confused", that pain, with your cast beliefs might be too much to bear.

In your opinion, it isn't a sin. In Christian views it is. That's merely what this comes down to. As I say take it up in the Christianity forum if you have an issue with said belief, there have been threads and threads dealing with the subject.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

No divine relolations my friend, just the sympathy for other people, not to hurt them or hurt their feelings. That was no revolation, it was always obvious. Give those before 2009 years ago some credit.

In your opinion, there are no divine revelations. I would consider you to be profoundly wrong given how much these sources of wisdom ring true in peoples lives and in whole communities on a daily basis.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Yes rights, rights set in stone by men in constitutional "scriptures", we should remain patriotic to that, it will always be right, wont it? To take what people have written be it the bible, laws or constitutions, and hold it as the utmost truth, is far from freedom of thought. But thats another tangent ive gone on.

If your right to freedom of speech was completely and utterly revoked, would you not be angry then, since you do not respect what our constitution happens to say?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

You dont raise your kids to be of any denomination, to refuse them the right to choose is dictorial, and disgusting.

People do every day, and you have no right to deny them the ability to raise their children in their path. If their children choose to reject it later on that's their perogative. The reasoning behind this is because you don't want for religion to have a role in public life, and you may not want it, but you can't guilt trip parents into not raising their children in the way that they see best.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Ill give you more credit when you prove to me that it wasnt written by men, when you research and conlude other denominations such as buddism, judaism and muslim faith and accept that no idea other than basic right and wrong should be forced on our younglings.

I've already researched and discussed with Jews and Muslims. I have my right to choice of religion, and I have chosen Christianity as my own. As for "proof", you have no proof of God's lack of existence. The only way that the truth of God will be shown to you is if you knock down the mental block you have to Him, and be willing to receive God's truth and to act on it. That's the only way that one can truly begin to start the process of coming to faith. If you want to be hard hearted and stubborn that is your choice, but don't complain to me that I haven't shown you the mechanism to see God's truth.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Yes and religion is still thought as gospel (moar christian and catholic than any other), other denomination kids parents have to ask that their kids be excused, then it becomes another odd one out problem. The same with sexual education.

Denominational education should still exist, I have no problem with people taking up the initiative to make non-denominational education in Ireland a reality.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Exactly that, if i am of the opinion that republican theology and teachings should be spread to the world, can i do that?

If you have the means yes you can actually.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

You hold it as truth and your teachings (written by men again) tell you that we kneel waiting for the teachings of christ, thats ignorance and should not be fed into easy manipulated people. That bit you quoted, is disgusting and in a room of yourself and twenty other athiests and other multi denominations, it is no fact at all.

I would argue that you are ignorant of God, I feel more pity rather than anything else though. So let me get myself clear here, you have the right to let others know about your atheism, and I don't have the right to let people know about my faith by your book. That sounds like you want to suppress people the right to be public about their faith. I personally won't be shut up by anyone, I'm free to discuss with all those who are willing about Christianity whether you like it or not surely?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Yeah great way to learn about other people and critisize their culture, ubringing and denomination, while preaching god is the saviour to them. If there is one gullible or easily manipulated person there, anywhere, then thats wrong. Missionaries always seem to have perks, food and medicine. Nothing wrong with a little conversion while you are there is there?

Medicine and food may just help someone temporarily. Acceptance of Christ will allow them the chance of eternal life, if you believe that strongly it would be monstrous not to let people know about it.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Yep, and that quote encapsulates my belief in Christians manipulating the vulnerable. Well done.

The Gospel is for everyone, not just the vulnerable.

Phototoxin

I'll get the ball rolling... I think there should be a minimum age of consent to a religion and that it shouldn't be present in any national school.

There is in catholicsm........ its SEVEN!

Similarly, a 14 year old is considered incapable of consenting to sex.

I disagree (for the sake of argument) as I can consensually have sex with a 12 year old in Vatican City and it is legal there.

I don't know that I agree with your "minimum age of consent" idea, but I believe that religion should be kept among children, their parents, and their church. Teaching religion (as opposed to teaching the history of religion) should have no place in the school curriculum.

+1 but you must realise that the RCC owns most primary schools. The government shouldn't've allowed this.

However when you 'persecute' religion by 'banning' it in schools then people get their persecution complex geared up and then become more hard core. If you look at the UK, their average catholic are more hard core than your average irish catholic as they aren't just left to 'absorb it culturally' but they are actively taught it and why their religion is right.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Nick, explain to me then. I went to two denominational schools, I'm now at university but that's irrelevant for now. Surely I should be ignorant, racist, and closed minded? Now, I don't see how I fit into any of these three categories. I'm willing to discuss with anyone about religious subjects yes, but at the same time I am willing to listen to what people have to say. Ultimately I do believe in Jesus Christ however.

Im not talking about your racism or ignorance when you are in this closed demominational school. Im talking about the ignorance and racism of others outside the closed school and community, you would surely accept that there is ignorance directed at the closed muslim and jewish communities in the UK and elsewhere.

I know the theology that my denomination advocates, and I'm quite comfortable in it for now. I may consider attending different types of churches in the future, and I have attended some other types in the past on an once off basis. I don't see any of my Christian brethren as being lesser or deficient to my form of Christianity. As for other religions I also considered Judaism and Islam to a minor extent prior to concluding that Christianity was for me. I've read sections of the Qur'an and the Tanakh also. Please don't be as presumptuous, I've thought about Christianity extensively before my adoption of it, and I don't think that you have a right to cast judgement on me for my religious preference.

You say you have read sections of the qur'am and the tanakh, you have read the entire bible, as as you have admitted you dont know a lot about other denominations. Thats fair enough TBH, but im sure anyone of the Muslim faith could tell you what you are "missing". Im not casting judgement, im just pointing out that there is a lot of information you havent considered. And now i sound like im converting you to other religions.

Whatever reason you have for it, what we do know is that the rates differ considerably between theists who are involved in a religious community, and those who are not.

Yes because it is a sin to do it in christianity, its not gods hand preventing the suicide just because you have accepted his religion, im sure i can find plent of christians who have committed suicide for whatever reason, citing particular cases though, might be a bit insensitive. Its all about whats stopping you going through with it, family, responsibilites, afterlife beliefs or "mortal sin".

Really, I don't consider religion to be a comfort as such, but rather a realisation about the way of the world and about the reality of God's existence. By the way, claiming that religious people have a disorder or that they deviate from the norm is quite frankly ridiculous given two factors:
1) Scientists are now saying that human beings are biologically disposed to believe in a God. Look up the "God part of the brain" for further reference. New Scientist magazine did a piece on it, as did The Independent (UK) a few weeks ago.
2) Atheists constitute 16% of the population, saying that 84% of the worlds population are mentally ill is quite frankly absurd.

I would say they are misguided, misguided by thier parents or whoever, sometimes manipulated in their time of ill physical or mental status.
I would agree with you on the supposed god part of the brain, but I would not call it that, I would call it the curious or inquisitive part that yearns for answers on our meaning and purpose.

Its great the way that this "god part" of the brain seems to be region specific in its denomination, with only some deviation.

This is what I want to bring to light to keep on topic , that religion is mainly bolstered by early indoctrination, and yes, i know you found jesus at 17. I respect that, but this theory I hope you will acknowledge.

Grow up. People do explore their beliefs for themselves, and people do want to know about God and about what He can do for them. If you find this uncomfortable tough luck, people have the right to the freedom of conscience, so stop complaining about it and live your life.

Freedom of conscience I admire, shoving or forcing beliefs on our children i do not, for as the thread title would suggest, these are not informed decisions, this is a reality forced upon them, however discreetly and "innocently". Passed down from generation to generation.

Its why if I went up the north or came south from a protestant family in the north, I am either a protestant or a catholic, regardless of my own beliefs.

Throwing such a fuss against religion would suggest that you are actually rather insecure about your own atheism. It generally is those who are the most critical of others rights to believe that are the ones who have problems with their own belief systems.

Its not a fuss, its not an informed decision at that age, you dont have the right to vote, you know feck all about politics or economics, never mind an opinion on religion and how the world was created or who created it.

This is no insecurity, its a right taken from us (or them now) at an early age. Whats insecure or wrong with my thought pattern or debate here? Really...

If yu are going to come to a conclusion about my supposed insecurity based on my debate, then I say that you are only acceptant of this practice of indoctrination because it widens your community and bolsters your self truth. You believe that more will accept your truth, your salvation, why would you argue with that? You wouldn't, would you? As evidenced in your below comment about missionaries. This alternate debate that I bring to the thread couldn't be more lost on you.

If you think that Christianity is merely tradition, you clearly don't know what it is.

The indoctination is the accepted tradition.

Give a reason or cop on and stop abusing the word "logic".

You have your own meaning of logic then i would take it, you are deflecting and using semantics.

Of course it isn't. I couldn't care for numbers. Numbers do not indicate truth, the Biblical text being indicated for in reality does though.

No it doesn't, it indicicates about as much truth as the lord of the rings, but this we will not agree on, and I will bow out of arguing with your self truths in this thread.

In your opinion, it isn't a sin. In Christian views it is. That's merely what this comes down to. As I say take it up in the Christianity forum if you have an issue with said belief, there have been threads and threads dealing with the subject.

No, i wont take it there, this was brought up by myself to indicate ignorance by the book, as it were. Proposed, written and accepted by scared authors, with supposed direct communication with a god, telling us how to live, when to eat meat, how to love and who to love. A MAN.

This ignorance, no doubt, has contibuted to a lot of pain, suffering, castaways and eventual suicides all because of scared authors too afraid of the right of another human to love thousands of years ago.

Scared that any deviation from his proposed norm might bring about an apocaplypse or locusts.

If your right to freedom of speech was completely and utterly revoked, would you not be angry then, since you do not respect what our constitution happens to say?

I respect it, its not self evident, they are rights or guidelines given to us by men of power or infuence, revokable or subject to change at any time, just like religion.

People do every day, and you have no right to deny them the ability to raise their children in their path. If their children choose to reject it later on that's their perogative. The reasoning behind this is because you don't want for religion to have a role in public life, and you may not want it, but you can't guilt trip parents into not raising their children in the way that they see best.

They should choose their own path, much like you. How can you deny them this? What makes you special. Why do you condone revoking the spiritual or denominational right that we all should have? But I think ive touched on that earlier in this post.

I have my right to choice of religion,

And children dont? Wut?

As for "proof", you have no proof of God's lack of existence. The only way that the truth of God will be shown to you is if you knock down the mental block you have to Him, and be willing to receive God's truth and to act on it. That's the only way that one can truly begin to start the process of coming to faith. If you want to be hard hearted and stubborn that is your choice, but don't complain to me that I haven't shown you the mechanism to see God's truth.

I might be stubborn because I dont accept your self truth or a muslims or a mormons or even jehovahs witnesses. It seems you think you are the most correct of the bunch, gods truth.... Yeah

Denominational education should still exist, I have no problem with people taking up the initiative to make non-denominational education in Ireland a reality.

Indoctrinated kids into your self truth should have a right to their own schools? Of course.... Why would you have it any other way?

I would argue that you are ignorant of God, I feel more pity rather than anything else though. So let me get myself clear here, you have the right to let others know about your atheism, and I don't have the right to let people know about my faith by your book. That sounds like you want to suppress people the right to be public about their faith. I personally won't be shut up by anyone, I'm free to discuss with all those who are willing about Christianity whether you like it or not surely?

I would argue that you are making assumptions and getting defensive because you cant debate this without seeing my entity in this tread as being without purpose, without god, without faith, without truth and without divinity. Really, you know there is no point debating this with me, for I am lost, in your eyes. And thus, i know there is no point debating this with you. So what say you, have you learned anything, has any part of your thought process been in any way swayed, partially convinced or questioned? You give no leeway here and resort to questioning my security, "ignorance" and "suppression". I think that this is over.

Medicine and food may just help someone temporarily. Acceptance of Christ will allow them the chance of eternal life, if you believe that strongly it would be monstrous not to let people know about it.

Im not even going to bother with this one, you are so entrenched in your belief that manipulating others into your truth saves them and grants them eternal life.

Unconcerned

[I was reading the thread but the usual church defenders with their pathetic arguements really irritated me to the extent that I just went to post response, my points have most likely been talked through and through but I cannot stress enough how plainly obvious they are and how oblivious the people who don't see them are... anyway]


Firstly, religion in schools; Religion is tricky in schools, on one hand it promotes the logic of do to others, as you would do to yourself... and on the other hand it is promotes a boundry between people that often leads to tension, terrorism and in some extreme cases (who am I kidding, alot of cases) WAR (I knew you'd ask "what wars?!" so I'll start from the beginning... crusade).

As far as religion in the modern world goes, 'The good messege' has been replaced by a certain arrogance which has convinced followers that they are obliged to run around the world convincing people to join; these people have a tainted messege, their books and scriptures were written by man, or men, passed from one man to another, claiming they spoke to "god" - tainted to the extent that they have for 2,000 years been a world superpower not confined to international boundries; running their backwards beliefs and complete misinterpretations of the messege freely to the metaphorical sheep of the world. Do you think Jesus would promote the killing of people based on their pagan beliefs or their mysterious ways? Well for a damn long time, your wonderful little religion did promote that killing. In the same way, religion has been associated with some of the worst man created attrocities of all time; is this the association you really want to promote to children? A religion that will "hold onto" proven representatives that touch children? A religion that will go to African countries with a '1/3 of deaths because of aids' title and say "condoms are baaaaad", these are really the people you want preying on a childs "faith"?

I dunno, it seems a bit crazy that you really want this group of toerags filling your innocent childs head full of crap! The messege that God, Jesus, Gandalf... whatever you wana call him, originally brought does not require such a song and dance to spread, with not half as many rules or negative assets that an association like the catholic church carries; it should be done by that of the parents. The basic messege of "be forigiving, be understanding, be loving and don't do anything to anyone else that you wouldn't want done to you"... you really think THAT messege needs to be taught in a classroom? needs to be taught be a teacher/nun/priest? needs all the baggage that comes with a religion with backwards way and a terrible track record of fecking over people? are you really THAT harmless? That is what a parent SHOULD teach in the modern world, not depend on an orgonisation to do it for them...

I am not saying on any level that faith is bad, I would consider myself an atheist to the extent that the catholic church has painted it, "I don't believe in god", though I believe myself to be in the catagory of 'Realist' because I find it hard to believe in a mythical character such as God; this doesn't effect my respect and appreciation of faith however, though the catholic church are not the preachers of faith that I want talking to my children; if I ever have any. I think freedom of choice and faith are what seperates us from animals (As well as thumbs) but offering one single predefined faith to a group full of gullible children from such a young age is just wrong. I don't really see the logic in titling someone just because of where they are from, what their parents were unless it actually means something. There is no point to this "I'm a catholic because my father was a catholic, and my mother was too, and their parents" etc. etc. etc., that is not what faith is, that is falling under a title much like nationality; it means absolutely nothing.

Take what you want from my post, quote me; say my way of thinking is wrong because I haven't seen the light and all that nonsense, say that religion is flawless and pretend that everything is a-okay with the "faith" your ancestors have chosen for you, the one that you would burden upon your child with absolutely no information about the terrible things that have been done in that religions name - keep us seperated on a global scale by the EXACT same messege that each religion ropes people in with, just said by different people about gods with different names....

I will sit at home safe in the knowledge that when I die I won't go to a firey lava pit with some gigantified red demon with a pitchfork isn't gona stab me in my scalded ass for all eternity just for "not believing in the all forgiving being"

Jah bless!

philologos

Unconcerned wrote: »

[I was reading the thread but the usual church defenders with their pathetic arguements really irritated me to the extent that I just went to post response, my points have most likely been talked through and through but I cannot stress enough how plainly obvious they are and how oblivious the people who don't see them are... anyway]

Why are you irritated by people actually wanting Christianity to have a role in public life? I don't see why Christians can't raise their children to be Christian. For me the problem is with how the church organise it, rather than the act itself.

Unconcerned wrote: »

Firstly, religion in schools; Religion is tricky in schools, on one hand it promotes the logic of do to others, as you would do to yourself... and on the other hand it is promotes a boundry between people that often leads to tension, terrorism and in some extreme cases (who am I kidding, alot of cases) WAR (I knew you'd ask "what wars?!" so I'll start from the beginning... crusade).

I've suggested having secular schools and faith schools balanced out so that parents have a full choice on how they want to raise their children. I don't think you can say that all forms of religion promote boundaries.

Unconcerned wrote: »

As far as religion in the modern world goes, 'The good messege' has been replaced by a certain arrogance which has convinced followers that they are obliged to run around the world convincing people to join; these people have a tainted messege, their books and scriptures were written by man, or men, passed from one man to another, claiming they spoke to "god" - tainted to the extent that they have for 2,000 years been a world superpower not confined to international boundries; running their backwards beliefs and complete misinterpretations of the messege freely to the metaphorical sheep of the world. Do you think Jesus would promote the killing of people based on their pagan beliefs or their mysterious ways? Well for a damn long time, your wonderful little religion did promote that killing. In the same way, religion has been associated with some of the worst man created attrocities of all time; is this the association you really want to promote to children? A religion that will "hold onto" proven representatives that touch children? A religion that will go to African countries with a '1/3 of deaths because of aids' title and say "condoms are baaaaad", these are really the people you want preying on a childs "faith"?

Don't be so absurd. Why do you think Peter, Paul, James, Jude, Barnabas etc went out to all nations speaking the truth of God if Christians aren't meant to evangelise?

You want to know my theory? People inherently want control over absolutely everything. Mankind wants to be their own gods, just as the serpent tempted Eve in the garden said in Genesis 3. Mankind becomes arrogant and rejects the teachings of a God who actually does know better than them about His own creation.

As for killing pagans. That isn't advocated in Christianity and most Christians would condemn it. Likewise most atheists would condemn Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot etc who killed and persecuted believers.

Eh? As for condoms. Yes premarital sex is wrong in Christianity. If you are claiming people are dying because of heeding the Pope's command, why aren't they abstaining from sex until marriage which the Pope also decrees? How can this be motivated by the Church if it is caused by disobedience to the Church? Do you realise how little sense this makes. (I'm not a Catholic, nor do I advocate Catholicism more than any other Christian denomination, but your point is just poor).

You think you have it all worked out, don't you? Why can't you just be open to what Christians actually believe rather than what you think they believe?

Unconcerned wrote: »

I dunno, it seems a bit crazy that you really want this group of toerags filling your innocent childs head full of crap! The messege that God, Jesus, Gandalf... whatever you wana call him, originally brought does not require such a song and dance to spread, with not half as many rules or negative assets that an association like the catholic church carries; it should be done by that of the parents. The basic messege of "be forigiving, be understanding, be loving and don't do anything to anyone else that you wouldn't want done to you"... you really think THAT messege needs to be taught in a classroom? needs to be taught be a teacher/nun/priest? needs all the baggage that comes with a religion with backwards way and a terrible track record of fecking over people? are you really THAT harmless? That is what a parent SHOULD teach in the modern world, not depend on an orgonisation to do it for them...

Make a proper case that Christianity is backwards, and it might be better to entertain your argument? Christianity isn't a basic message, it is a full world view and a way of life. It is more than commandments, it's about a relationship with God and man, histories of the State of Israel, and prophets who witnessed God in a dangerous climate for them to do so. I think the message of Christ does need to be taught in classrooms where children who have Christian parents are to be taught. I think it is every right of the parent to provide their children with a moral and a religious education, as in Article 40.2 of the Irish Constitution.

Unconcerned wrote: »

I am not saying on any level that faith is bad, I would consider myself an atheist to the extent that the catholic church has painted it, "I don't believe in god", though I believe myself to be in the catagory of 'Realist' because I find it hard to believe in a mythical character such as God; this doesn't effect my respect and appreciation of faith however, though the catholic church are not the preachers of faith that I want talking to my children; if I ever have any. I think freedom of choice and faith are what seperates us from animals (As well as thumbs) but offering one single predefined faith to a group full of gullible children from such a young age is just wrong. I don't really see the logic in titling someone just because of where they are from, what their parents were unless it actually means something. There is no point to this "I'm a catholic because my father was a catholic, and my mother was too, and their parents" etc. etc. etc., that is not what faith is, that is falling under a title much like nationality; it means absolutely nothing.

You've just gone on about how faith is dangerous. As for "mythical" something needs to be deemed mythical objectively before one can objectively claim that it indeed is.

Parents have every right to bring their children up in a way of life that they deem best for them. If this is Christianity, so be it. Later in their lives they will have a chance to let go of their parents and to decide for themselves if they wish. I can't see anything wrong in the slightest with this.

Unconcerned wrote: »

Take what you want from my post, quote me; say my way of thinking is wrong because I haven't seen the light and all that nonsense, say that religion is flawless and pretend that everything is a-okay with the "faith" your ancestors have chosen for you, the one that you would burden upon your child with absolutely no information about the terrible things that have been done in that religions name - keep us seperated on a global scale by the EXACT same messege that each religion ropes people in with, just said by different people about gods with different names....

Have you ever thought that it isn't nonsense? Or that atheism may indeed be a load of nonsense?

Unconcerned wrote: »

I will sit at home safe in the knowledge that when I die I won't go to a firey lava pit with some gigantified red demon with a pitchfork isn't gona stab me in my scalded ass for all eternity just for "not believing in the all forgiving being"

That's not knowledge, that's a belief, and only a belief. Which you are welcome to have, just as much as I'm welcome to have mine and to advocate it.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Im not talking about your racism or ignorance when you are in this closed demominational school. Im talking about the ignorance and racism of others outside the closed school and community, you would surely accept that there is ignorance directed at the closed muslim and jewish communities in the UK and elsewhere.

Why haven't I turned out to be ignorant and racist if I have attended a faith school? Your reasoning is absolutely absurd. I wasn't taught in my school to hate anyone else. It is a grave sin to hate someone else for any reason at all, let alone hating them merely for being different to you.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

You say you have read sections of the qur'am and the tanakh, you have read the entire bible, as as you have admitted you dont know a lot about other denominations. Thats fair enough TBH, but im sure anyone of the Muslim faith could tell you what you are "missing". Im not casting judgement, im just pointing out that there is a lot of information you havent considered. And now i sound like im converting you to other religions.

As for Muslims and Jews, I will let them explain themselves. I won't be getting into a discussion about Islam or Judaism without Muslims or Jews involved. Otherwise the thread would be filled with fallacious misrepresentations left right and centre.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Yes because it is a sin to do it in christianity, its not gods hand preventing the suicide just because you have accepted his religion, im sure i can find plent of christians who have committed suicide for whatever reason, citing particular cases though, might be a bit insensitive. Its all about whats stopping you going through with it, family, responsibilites, afterlife beliefs or "mortal sin".

Yes you probably could. I doubt that any of these Christians who have committed suicide had the hope of God in them otherwise they wouldn't have done what they had done. However, that's irrelevant. I wasn't claiming that this was God's hand doing this. Rather I was saying that religion is actually less harmful than non-religious approaches in several ways, and that these must be considered. PDN in a thread on the Christianity forum went through how Christians are less likely to find themselves in harm by correlating Christian religious tenets with other probabilities. Take a search around in the Christianity forum, I might find it for you later, but I thought that he explained it rather well.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I would say they are misguided, misguided by thier parents or whoever, sometimes manipulated in their time of ill physical or mental status.
I would agree with you on the supposed god part of the brain, but I would not call it that, I would call it the curious or inquisitive part that yearns for answers on our meaning and purpose.

As I think that you are gravely misguided. However just because you think this doesn't mean that the freedoms of religious parents should be restricted by the Government.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Its great the way that this "god part" of the brain seems to be region specific in its denomination, with only some deviation.

Nonsense, I've already explained in this thread how people all over the world are coming to Christ. From South Korea to Lebanon people are coming to know Christianity on a daily basis and are finding truth in it. It isn't region specific at all. Care to explain why you aren't following Catholicism right now? And care to explain why I amn't either? If people just follow the religion of the majority in any country you should be able to explain this to me.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

This is what I want to bring to light to keep on topic , that religion is mainly bolstered by early indoctrination, and yes, i know you found jesus at 17. I respect that, but this theory I hope you will acknowledge.

Yes, I did. It was the most incredible thing I've ever done in my entire life.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Freedom of conscience I admire, shoving or forcing beliefs on our children i do not, for as the thread title would suggest, these are not informed decisions, this is a reality forced upon them, however discreetly and "innocently". Passed down from generation to generation.

It isn't forcing at all. I heard a pastor speaking at my local church, who was being trained up by another for ministry. He was speaking about his personal faith as a young man, and how he had to repackage Christianity for himself from what his parents had taught him. This involved his own personal consideration. He still had the autonomy to reject it. Children raised in Christian families aren't revoked their choice, but rather are given an option when they grow up whether or not to follow Christianity or leave it. For me Jesus spoke to me as an individual through the words of the Gospels, I just couldn't say no. I don't think this is sick to teach ones child, but rather beautiful. I would challenge every atheist to read the Gospels from Matthew to John with an open mind, and tell me what is wrong with Jesus of Nazareth. If a serious case is raised against Jesus and His teaching to deem it harmful, I will consider it. However, it's blindly ignorant to hate Christianity, and Christians for merely advocating what Jesus spoke if you don't know what He spoke in the first place well. This would be just you making generalisations and assumptions. I have no shame in Christ Jesus, and no Christian parent should.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Its why if I went up the north or came south from a protestant family in the north, I am either a protestant or a catholic, regardless of my own beliefs.

Believe it or not there are Jews and Muslims in Belfast, amongst others. Not everyone is a Protestant or a Catholic. As for the Northern Ireland understanding, this refers to ethno-religious groups, not mere religious groups. There is a problem of attaching your ethnicity to your religion. Just because you are born with Anglo-Saxon genes does not mean that you will automatically be saved. Likewise for Celtic genes.

John the Baptist said to the Pharisees that they should not excuse themselves saying that they were descendants of Abraham, for even God can raise up descendants of Abraham from the rocks.

I don't think quoting ethno-religious groups proves any argument.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Its not a fuss, its not an informed decision at that age, you dont have the right to vote, you know feck all about politics or economics, never mind an opinion on religion and how the world was created or who created it.

The decision comes later on in life. You get a grounding in it, and then decide if you want to continue. Sounds fair enough to me.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

This is no insecurity, its a right taken from us (or them now) at an early age. Whats insecure or wrong with my thought pattern or debate here? Really...

No it isn't. The choice is still open to them.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

If yu are going to come to a conclusion about my supposed insecurity based on my debate, then I say that you are only acceptant of this practice of indoctrination because it widens your community and bolsters your self truth. You believe that more will accept your truth, your salvation, why would you argue with that? You wouldn't, would you? As evidenced in your below comment about missionaries. This alternate debate that I bring to the thread couldn't be more lost on you.

Yes, I think you are insecure if you see Christianity as being such a big threat to society. You claim that people who go to denominational schools become intolerant of others. However, you are literally insecure that Christians could have the audacity to teach their children Christian belief, or to evangelise to the world. Are we really that much of a threat to you? All we want to do is teach Christ's love in peace and harmony with all.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

The indoctination is the accepted tradition.

What indoctrination?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

You have your own meaning of logic then i would take it, you are deflecting and using semantics.

If you have a solid logical reason for your argument, then I will hear it. However shoving the word around without meaning is just silly surely?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

No it doesn't, it indicicates about as much truth as the lord of the rings, but this we will not agree on, and I will bow out of arguing with your self truths in this thread.

If you are that closed minded to automatically consider it fiction, perhaps. The Bible has taught me much about how people work, how they commit sins, how they rise to arrogance, and how futile their efforts are for when the Lord will look upon them at the Final Judgement.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

No, i wont take it there, this was brought up by myself to indicate ignorance by the book, as it were. Proposed, written and accepted by scared authors, with supposed direct communication with a god, telling us how to live, when to eat meat, how to love and who to love. A MAN.

How is it ignorant to take a different position to other people? I think it's ignorant to suppress peoples views because you don't like them.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

This ignorance, no doubt, has contibuted to a lot of pain, suffering, castaways and eventual suicides all because of scared authors too afraid of the right of another human to love thousands of years ago.

Christians aren't taught to hate homosexuals.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I respect it, its not self evident, they are rights or guidelines given to us by men of power or infuence, revokable or subject to change at any time, just like religion.

They should choose their own path, much like you. How can you deny them this? What makes you special. Why do you condone revoking the spiritual or denominational right that we all should have? But I think ive touched on that earlier in this post.

They have this right. I never denied it. However their parents have the right to raise them Christian if they deem that best for them until they decide for themselves.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

And children dont? Wut?

Yes they do. They have the right to think about it for themselves at any stage. I've never denied this right. Parents also have the right to teach their children about Christ however. Infact it's ironic you quote me saying I have the right to choose my beliefs, because it was only after thinking about the Bible reading it for myself, did I come to Christ while living in a family with two Christian parents. I as a child learned about it, but I didn't make a real decision until I was 17. I actually think I'm a good example of what I suggest.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Indoctrinated kids into your self truth should have a right to their own schools? Of course.... Why would you have it any other way?

Faith schools, even Muslim, Jewish etc are only in keeping with the constitution. Secular schools should be built also to keep in the lines of the constitution.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Im not even going to bother with this one, you are so entrenched in your belief that manipulating others into your truth saves them and grants them eternal life.

I don't advocate manipulation. I advocate telling the Gospel to people, and to leave it up to them to accept.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Why haven't I turned out to be ignorant and racist if I have attended a faith school? Your reasoning is absolutely absurd. I wasn't taught in my school to hate anyone else. It is a grave sin to hate someone else for any reason at all, let alone hating them merely for being different to you.

Again, I was talking about the people outside the closed community or denominations school being ignorant or even racist. Thats why I cited ignorance to the jewish and muslim communities.

Im not going to reply to the rest of your post because it was exactly what I expected and it would seem that we are going around in circles.

Unconcerned

Okay, obviously I have caught you at a bad time, your ramblings have become comical; although I know you have been argueing with people on this thread for atleast a day. Now, I know I made it quite unclear in the first post, so I will spell it out for you; no, not all religions create boundries though a religion like the CATHOLIC CHURCH (that one we have been TALKING about) does; for example, classifying homosexuals as sinful when they are doing nothing but expressing their LOVE (stressing on that word there) when the SAME CHURCH (catholic church, incase your finding it hard to keep track of WHAT we are talking about) openly defends male priests who have TOUCHED BOYS... now I know that is really hard to make sense of, since I have really failed to outline what exactly homosexual is... it is doing sexual acts with the same gender. I will further spell out what this entails; not only does the religion that you associate yourself with protect someone that has used their position of power (don't say priests don't have power, or I swear to christ I will hunt you down and slap you til' you talk sense) who ABUSE that power to ABUSE children, now I know in your little holy book that isn't written out in clear writing BUT the FACT that he has touched someone of the same gender (using your religions fruitful logic, therein making him homosexual), though I know if it is a child it is unimportant. This religion is what you want in schools? Yeah okay FREAK.

So, you then go on to speak about how a bunch of mere mortals travelled to different countries to speak about the "word of god"... now as far as I can gather on the evidence produced (which em, you've produced) none of these people are god, or gods if you will. So, are they spreading mans interpretation of gods word or are they spreading THEIR word, after all god doesn't necesserily have to be a catholic, to believe in himself; it is their interpretation of his teachings. I shall spell this out further as you seem to have real trouble following; GOD or JESUS didn't set up CATHOLICISM, CATHOLICISM is based on their teachings, which means it is MANS WORD. So scrap your little "speaking the truth of god" crap as you truely do look like a gullible idiot, rambling on nonsense completely missing a VERY obvious point.

When talking about "speaking the truth of god" you followed later on by saying 'People inherently want control over absolutely everything. Mankind wants to be their own gods', now I ain't no genius but that sounds like you have left the gate open for people/groups like, hrmmm, gheeey, I dunno the CATHOLIC CHURCH to maybe use this mentality? But no, of course you are sure they haven't. Can you honestly say you know the godsquad that were around 2,000 years ago? Retarded. You then say that mankind becomes arrogant and rejects the teachings of god and then yap on about it being his own creation... I'm sorry, but are you aware of logic, common sense and fact? now I know god hasn't been disproven, though I am sure you are aware that he HASN'T been proven either, which basically put's a giant X through your arguement.

'As for killing pagans. That isn't advocated in Christianity and most Christians would condemn it.' No because noone was ever killed in the name of christianity... were you dropped as a child, or did you progressively get stupid? Your telling me that the catholic church has never killed anyone suspected of say, witchcraft? If you are, you are completely ill-informed about your religion, you not only believe in the little fairy in the clouds (I am getting insensitive now) but you also believe in a religion that you obviously know NOTHING about, which labels you very pathetic sir.

As for this ****e, 'Eh? As for condoms. Yes premarital sex is wrong in Christianity. If you are claiming people are dying because of heeding the Pope's command, why aren't they abstaining from sex until marriage which the Pope also decrees? How can this be motivated by the Church if it is caused by disobedience to the Church? Do you realise how little sense this makes.' - are you that stupid? Alright, lets play it by church rules.... Say you were born to parents who had aids, you were baptised, your sins have been forgiven, you have a new slate and you are a commandment abiding christian, WTF DO YOU STILL HAVE AIDS? 'but your point is just poor' - go f*** yourself, you obviously care little for the suffering in the world you hypocritical son of a ***re, you can honestly sit there and believe that sick suffering children, innocent women who have been raped, people who have been infected because of lack of clean needles, people who have done NOTHING against your church who are full believers should suffer for sins they have no commited? You sad, SAAAAD individual.

You then harp on about a load of men that have supposedly witnessed god, the history of a state that is now one of the most evil governments in the world and the right of the people who do believe in christianity to have their kids subject to it at school; now do you think that is fair, 4 year old Timmy sitting in a classroom going "my parents believe this, it is taught in school; it must be fact!" - that is not faith dumbdumb, that is recruiting ill-informed people into your religion from an age where they cannot make serious choices in life, a religion and a "faith" a so called "way of life". (because us atheists and other religions have got it so frightfully wrong compared to super-religion)

You say I go on about how dangerous faith is, I see nothing about that in my post, AT ALL. I went on about how dangerous believing in the catholic church is and inherintly supporting what they have done/are doing/will do. You completely missed the point of my post; all you have seen is the arguement you want to see, hence my unsympathetic remarks to your obviously lower level of intelligence, I support faith (personally I don't believe in the god that christianity has painted) and respect it, it is one of those things that seperates us from the animals (as I previously said, douche) and one of the things that binds us together as beings, I was very careful to avoid that predictable arguement that you hardcore bible freaks use, I am against the teachings of the catholic church and not that of faith. (read it again if you don't believe me)

As for the other people who will no doubt have a lesser opinion of me now after responding to Jakkass (finally see why you use that name) in a very unfriendly manner, sure enough producing enough fuel to further de-rail this arguement from its original purpose, I will say this, I do not object to the teachings of logic, love, forgiveness, common sense and understanding of other cultures and people in schools, not for a second, not once, though this does NOT require it to be taught by a bunch of pedo defending, backwards (you don't think they are backwards in their beliefs, like jesus knew wtf a condom was) believing and promoting religion.

Now I know this kinda doesn't count, because you were quoting and responding to Nick_Oliveri but 'Christians aren't taught to hate homosexuals.' is one of the most stupid quotes I think I have ever heard, you aren't taught to hate them? You are just taught to shun them and not be as forgiving as your religion implies? You hypocrits make me sick to my stomach.

BTW, just wondering, when you see someone like George W.Bush on TV saying "...God told me..." and "..I carry a messege from God..." and all that nonsense, do you believe him too? Well, if you don't, what makes him less believable than guys that were around 2,000 years ago that you have never had any contact or interaction with? If you do? Case solved, you are retarded.

Jah Bless
(hopefully this time Jakkass will read what I say before he infuriates me with his pointless response)

Dudess

Jakkass isn't catholic (christian does not automatically mean catholic).

Unconcerned

Ok, so maybe Jakkass is not a catholic, which brings me to my next question.....


Why the hell is he defending the teachings of the catholic church in schools? which I am afraid to tell you, is what they are taught in (atleast the VAST majority) Ireland. Now that is what this thread was originally strated over, then it went to an arguement (thanks Jakkass) on god, which is completely irrelivent; many religions teach the exact same morals, though they aren't in question in this instance, the catholic church is... as it is the one that would directly effect our children if they were to enter school now... please people keep track of the conversation at hand, otherwise this is just gona turn into a "is god real?" arguement all over again.

This isn't an arguement over "should 'gods' teachings be taught in school?", because if it was then surely the inclussion of all religions would be taught in school.... Please read the first post again.

philologos

Unconcerned wrote: »

Why the hell is he defending the teachings of the catholic church in schools? which I am afraid to tell you, is what they are taught in (atleast the VAST majority) Ireland.

I respect freedom of religion and the rights of parents to educate their children in religious and moral issues. Catholicism isn't that much different from other Christian denominations in my book.

Unconcerned wrote: »

Now that is what this thread was originally strated over, then it went to an arguement (thanks Jakkass) on god, which is completely irrelivent;

You're welcome. However, I believe the discussion naturally went towards God due to other people bringing it in.

Unconcerned wrote: »

many religions teach the exact same morals, though they aren't in question in this instance

Really which ones?

Unconcerned wrote: »

the catholic church is... as it is the one that would directly effect our children if they were to enter school now... please people keep track of the conversation at hand, otherwise this is just gona turn into a "is god real?" arguement all over again

Fair enough. I've already argued that I think more non-denominational schools should be built. I also think that Catholic schools should remain for parents who want to raise their children in a school with a Catholic ethos.

Unconcerned wrote: »

This isn't an arguement over "should 'gods' teachings be taught in school?", because if it was then surely the inclussion of all religions would be taught in school.... Please read the first post again.

Nobody said it was. I think Catholic teachings should be taught in Catholic schools, and for those who oppose initiatives should be set up to build new non-denominational schools.

Dades

Unconcerned wrote: »

please people keep track of the conversation at hand, otherwise this is just gona turn into a "is god real?" arguement all over again.

... says the guy who just let rip a vein-throbbing pedophiles/homosexuality/condoms/aids rant. :pac:

The thread is concerned with the idea that children cannot grasp the concepts taught to them in religion class, and so religion should be removed from schools.

Perhaps you should read the OP.