Should teaching children extreme religious belief be tolerated

dcmraad

If you view the opinions of some people XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX you will be led down a garden of eden path where any form of logic is thrown out of the window XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX because what they believe in is so laughably stupid, that when the realisation hits them a pre programmed reset switch pops in their heads.

Yet these people (some of whom are so called spiritual leaders in their deluded little world) have access to the minds of children, have the ability to destroy a childs life with indoctrination, and legally are allowed to do this.

I have a few questions for the religious here, (banned from christianity). Please answer as if god was judging you on your reply

(1) If god is real why is only 17% of the world pop. christian, surely if he existed as omnipetent we would all be the same. Why is there over 35,000 different sects of christianity.

(2) If you believe in god only because of the bible, and your own scholars tell you that they do not know who wrote it, or when is was written, or if any of it is based on any facts. (3 gospels are copies of 1 book).


The idea that omnipotent deities would need devotion, persecution, pain, and death from us to exist is farsical as a belief.

Beruthiel

Teaching a vulnerable, trusting child extreme views on anything (religion, racism, bigotry, intolerance) is tantamount to child abuse.

robindch

dcmraad wrote: »

Should teaching children extreme religious belief be tolerated

I'm with Beruthiel on this one. Though there's no easy way to balance the rights of the parents to raise their children as they wish to against the right to expect honesty that children should have (but don't).

dcmraad wrote: »

Why is there over 35,000 different sects of christianity.

Because religion is the product of evolution which does not, unlike an honest approach to accuracy, tend to converge to a single optimal solution.

Zombrex

It comes down to a wider question of how we define "harm" in relation to children. This notion largely depends on the society it finds itself in. For example, not all that long ago it was considered ok to simply not give your children an education. Now that is considered criminal.

The difficulty is that on an issue like this you require broad consensus, and most theists simply do not believe that raising their children to believe what they believe is, or even can be, harmful. It is the problem when you believe you are following the divine instructions of the benevolent creator(s) of the universe.

I think as religion continues to fall out of favor with people in the west and atheism or new agism (un-grouped general notions of the supernatural) continue to rise you will slowly see a sea change in attitudes, where people will look at a Catholic dragging their child to Church similar to how we today view the more nutty members of theism such as a JW refusing to let their child go out tricker treating.

Humans are ultimately social creatures, we follow trends in society. If it becomes socially unacceptable in a general sense to raise your child as your religion I think you will find the remaining theists stop doing it even if they themselves remains theists.

MalteseBarry

Beruthiel wrote: »

Teaching a vulnerable, trusting child extreme views on anything (religion, racism, bigotry, intolerance) is tantamount to child abuse.

No it's not. Child abuse is far worse, and if you really think teaching a child about your own storngly held views is tantamount to child abuse, I'd suggest your values are a little skewed.

If only those in charge of Artane had stuck to teaching the children about their views on god and the roman catholic church, that would have been ok. That they brutalised and abused them in other ways was far worse than merely teaching them about their god.

Count Duckula

MalteseBarry wrote: »

No it's not. Child abuse is far worse, and if you really think teaching a child about your own storngly held views is tantamount to child abuse, I'd suggest your values are a little skewed.

If only those in charge of Artane had stuck to teaching the children about their views on god and the roman catholic church, that would have been ok. That they brutalised and abused them in other ways was far worse than merely teaching them about their god.

Sexually abusing a child will likely cause that child to grow up sexually repressed and ashamed of their own bodies and desires. Indoctrinating them into certain religions will have the exact same effect.

Of course, there are some religions (*cough**cough*) that will seemingly try and do both.

Daegerty

MalteseBarry wrote: »

No it's not. Child abuse is far worse, and if you really think teaching a child about your own storngly held views is tantamount to child abuse, I'd suggest your values are a little skewed.

I cant believe that people would compare the two. Atheists are so full of sh1t

Zombrex

It should be clarified that "child abuse" is a much broader subject than sexual abuse, though the term child abuse has been so closely associated with the Catholic sexual abuse scandals recently this is some time forgotten.

If anyone things that not providing an systematic education to your child is child abuse (as I do) this point should be clear.

MagicMarker

Daegerty wrote: »

I cant believe that people would compare the two. Atheists are so full of sh1t

Which atheists?

Zombrex

MagicMarker wrote: »

Which atheists?

well I just had a big lunch, so I'm getting there...

cavedave

Beruthiel


Teaching a vulnerable, trusting child extreme views on anything (religion, racism, bigotry, intolerance) is tantamount to child abuse.

Why these four? They happen to be taboos that many of us share but what about other dangerous ideas? I might dislike parents teaching their kids views I find stupid but how bad do the views have to be before I can make them stop?

For example the parents in this documentary are in my view really bad people for teaching their children to be Nazis. Do you think they are bad enough that the children should be taken into care for teaching a political philosophy? As opposed to physical, sexual abuse or neglect which i presume most people would be ok with taking children into care because of.

kylith

Child abuse is not just beating or sexually assaulting children, there is also emotional abuse.

Some children are traumatised by the idea that they are sinful, and that they will burn in hell forever when they die. I've heard of at least one child who became obsessed with the idea of dying in their sleep because of the line "If I die before I wake" in a prayer, thinking that if it's important enough to put in a prayer then it must be a real possibility. Other children have been, as said above, given a very distorted view of their bodies and of sexuality because of religion's attitude.

If a young person is already confused about their sexuality, maybe trying to come to terms with realising that they're gay, is it not traumatic for them to have religious people say that they're not normal? That they're sinful, evil, wrong, unnatural, responsible for the evils of the world? (some people are blaming lesbians for the earthquake in Christchurch : link) Isn't that abusive?

MalteseBarry

Count Duckula wrote: »

Sexually abusing a child will likely cause that child to grow up sexually repressed and ashamed of their own bodies and desires. Indoctrinating them into certain religions will have the exact same effect.

Of course, there are some religions (*cough**cough*) that will seemingly try and do both.

Actually, sexual abuse will likely cause a child to grow up with psychiatric problems, often be a factor in substance abuse and can lead to prematuer death either as a result of substance abuse or suicide.

To equate brutal physical abuse, or even non brutal physical abuse, of chidren to teaching them about ones own beliefs, is extraordinary and bizarre. Ask some of the survivors of physical abuse, who were beaten up, tortured and raped, what they think as to whether the two can be equated.

Mark Hamill

MalteseBarry wrote: »

No it's not. Child abuse is far worse, and if you really think teaching a child about your own storngly held views is tantamount to child abuse, I'd suggest your values are a little skewed.

Child abuse extends beyond the physical. Emotionally and intellectually stunting an individual beyond almost all hope of recover is abuse in my opinion.

kylith

MalteseBarry wrote: »

Actually, sexual abuse will likely cause a child to grow up with psychiatric problems, often be a factor in substance abuse and can lead to prematuer death either as a result of substance abuse or suicide.

To equate brutal physical abuse, or even non brutal physical abuse, of chidren to teaching them about ones own beliefs, is extraordinary and bizarre. Ask some of the survivors of physical abuse, who were beaten up, tortured and raped, what they think as to whether the two can be equated.

Why not ask the people who have developed psyciatric problems, substance abuse problems, depression, alcoholism etc that stems from years of emotional abuse and neglect. Sexually assault a child and yes, they will probably wind up with problems. Tell your child daily that they are worthless, useless, sinful and will burn in hell for all eternity and they will likely wind up with problems too.

No-one is seeking to downplay the horrors of childhood physical and sexual abuse, just to highlight that it's not the only form of abuse.

MagicMarker

MalteseBarry wrote: »

No it's not. Child abuse is far worse

What is child abuse then?

marienbad

Why do discussions like this immediately gravitate to the extremes ? Comparing ''extreme religious views'' to child abuse in this country is just wrong.

To any atheist any religious view is extreme anyway. Never mind if it is just one god, a virgin birth, or Santa Clause at christmas.

What we need to do is to get religion out of the schools and things will change. I voted just now in my local primary school and I was astonished anew at the pervasiveness of religion and religious imagery still present.

After that just apply the law of the land , no hate speech , no genital mutilation, no genital mutilation tourism etc etc. After that let life , no censorship ,the world, movies books ''the internets'' have their way and see what happens.

It is interesting that all the upheaval in the middle east is not driven by religious fanaticism but by social and economic concerns, and informed by facebbok twitter etc. Who would have predicted that. This is not to preclude it descending into such fanaticism.

To the poster using the example of the child afraid to sleep at night. All I can say is -rubbish . I am not denying the truth of your story but with all due respect , it is meaningless. What frightens one child makes another laugh. Would you ban fairy tales , Babi ( really traumatic that one), the list is endless. It is just astonishing the ability of children to absorb and discard information as they grow. The trick is to have them exposed to as many sources of conflicting information as possible and they will work it out in the end.

MagicMarker

marienbad wrote: »

To any atheist any religious view is extreme anyway.

Why do people continue to speak for all atheists when it's clear they haven't got a clue?

marienbad

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why do people continue to speak for all atheists when it's clear they haven't got a clue?

How so ?

Zombrex

marienbad wrote: »

What frightens one child makes another laugh. Would you ban fairy tales , Babi ( really traumatic that one), the list is endless.

That is what part of being a good parent is about, knowing what traumatizes your children. Its why we don't let 10 year olds watch 18 movies.

marienbad wrote: »

It is just astonishing the ability of children to absorb and discard information as they grow. The trick is to have them exposed to as many sources of conflicting information as possible and they will work it out in the end.

Which isn't what happens if you raise your children in your religion, they don't get exposed to conflicting information they get exposed to the doctrine of one particular church or religious view point.

For anyone who doubts that religious upbringing "works" you just need to look at the rate at which people stay in the religion of their parents, irrespective of whether it is true or not.

If people don't think that is necessarily bad that is a different argument, but there is no denying this happens.

MalteseBarry

kylith wrote: »

Why not ask the people who have developed psyciatric problems, substance abuse problems, depression, alcoholism etc that stems from years of emotional abuse and neglect. Sexually assault a child and yes, they will probably wind up with problems. Tell your child daily that they are worthless, useless, sinful and will burn in hell for all eternity and they will likely wind up with problems too.

No-one is seeking to downplay the horrors of childhood physical and sexual abuse, just to highlight that it's not the only form of abuse.

It's not either or.

Of course emotional abuse is harmful, and of course sexual and physical abuse is harmful.

What we were talking about was not emotional abuse, but a poster made the point that to teach a child about ones own sincerely held religious views was equivalent to physically abusing a child.

I simply don't agree with that statement, and find it hard to think that there are many who believe that the teaching of ones sincerely held religious views is equivalent to the sexual, physical and emotional abuse in the indistrial schools and orphanages run by the RC church in the past.

MagicMarker

marienbad wrote: »

How so ?

Seriously? I thought I was pretty clear.

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

I am not denying the truth of your story but with all due respect , it is meaningless. What frightens one child makes another laugh.

:rolleyes:

Religion purports to be true, and parents who indoctrinate their children tell them that's the case.

That's the difference between fiction which admits it and fiction which purports to be true: given that a two-hour horror film can traumatise a child, imagine what this will do to a child: an early lifetime of being taught about sin, he immorality of sex, the power of God to know what you're thinking, the countless crimes in the Bible and the eternal punishment for breaking God's insane laws, and then being told 'oh yeah, this is all 100% real, and you have no choice but to go along with it or else'.

Mark Hamill

MalteseBarry wrote: »

What we were talking about was not emotional abuse, but a poster made the point that to teach a child about ones own sincerely held religious views was equivalent to physically abusing a child.

Poster said to teach extreme views to a vulnerable trusting child is tantamount to child abuse, not to teach a child about your own strongly held views. There is a massive difference between these two statements.

marienbad

Wicknight wrote: »

That is what part of being a good parent is about, knowing what traumatizes your children. Its why we don't let 10 year olds watch 18 movies.


Which isn't what happens if you raise your children in your religion, they don't get exposed to conflicting information they get exposed to the doctrine of one particular church or religious view point.

For anyone who doubts that religious upbringing "works" you just need to look at the rate at which people stay in the religion of their parents, irrespective of whether it is true or not.

If people don't think that is necessarily bad that is a different argument, but there is no denying this happens.

Hello Wicknight , I actually was taking a longer view. I agree with you in the shorter term , most if not all children inherit their parents beliefs but with just a little less passion and intensity. Is'nt this really the story of the western world since the enlightment ?

As long as we make the State and the schools secular and reduce any form of censorship the children will inevitably be exposed to contrary views.

Ireland is a classic example (even without the accelerant of the child abuse scandals) . Once the age of television dawned McQuaid's day was done . It may have taken 40 years but there is no going back.
In todays world with a multiplicity of platforms that time would be so much shorter as we are seing in the middle east.

10 year olds and 18 movies is another subject altogether though.

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

How so ?

Not really, or maybe I am a bit dense, can you indulge me ?

kylith

MalteseBarry wrote: »

What we were talking about was not emotional abuse, but a poster made the point that to teach a child about ones own sincerely held religious views was equivalent to physically abusing a child.

If your sincerely held religious view is that humans are sinful from birth, some people's sexual orientation is evil, the human body is to be reviled, and everyone deserves to be burned in a lake of fire for all eternity then I would believe that teaching that religious viewpoint is abusive as you are teaching a child to hate themselves and other people, which is injurous to one's mental wellbeing.

dcmraad

robindch wrote: »

Because religion is the product of evolution which does not, unlike an honest approach to accuracy, tend to converge to a single optimal solution.

I know that, but how does that equate in the minds of the religious. Thats why I asked the question.

We know that we invented religion, so why does it still exist.

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Religion purports to be true, and parents who indoctrinate their children tell them that's the case.

That's the difference between fiction which admits it and fiction which purports to be true: given that a two-hour horror film can traumatise a child, imagine what this will do to a child: an early lifetime of being taught about sin, he immorality of sex, the power of God to know what you're thinking, the countless crimes in the Bible and the eternal punishment for breaking God's insane laws, and then being told 'oh yeah, this is all 100% real, and you have no choice but to go along with it or else'.

I dont have to imagine, I was that child and all that you say can be true to a greater or lesser extent . But it dos'nt invalidate what I am saying .
Not unless you want to make the teaching of religion illegal both at home and at school. And as that is not on, the best we can do is to campaign to have religion removed from the classroom and provide an alternative view in the wider world .After that people begin to reason for themselves bit by bit.

The reason Ireland went from 99% mass attendance in the 50's and 60's to the 30's or whatever it is now IMHO is free education and television/media .

cavedave

kylith

If your sincerely held religious view is that humans are sinful from birth, some people's sexual orientation is evil, the human body is to be reviled, and everyone deserves to be burned in a lake of fire for all eternity then I would believe that teaching that religious viewpoint is abusive as you are teaching a child to hate themselves and other people, which is injurous to one's mental wellbeing.

Say I held a controversial view. One that might make a child hate themselves and other people and so be injurious to their mental well being.

Take this list from Stephen Pinker of ideas that might be too dangerous to discuss.

Take one that could easily have the result you describe

Do men have an innate tendency to rape?

there are many others you could take from the list that would have the same effect and support.

Many people argue this is not a reasonable thing to investigate "some people argue that investigating rape from an evolutionary perspective justifies or legitimizes rape"

This slate piece goes into the argument but for example "Neil Malamuth and his colleagues found that one-third of men admit that they would engage in some type of sexual coercion if they could be assured they would suffer no negative consequences"

It is reasonable to expect that teaching a child this might cause them some mental anguish. Most children would have trouble differentiating from general trends and specific culpability.

If something was true (or at least arguable in a rational scientific discussion) but had the negative effects you describe would it still be abuse to talk about it?*

*actually this might be a dumb argument as no one will teach their kids about rape. But change it to environmentalism. We teach kids about climate change. Something that makes them feel guilty hate other people and something they can do nothing about.

ShooterSF

cavedave wrote: »

*actually this might be a dumb argument as no one will teach their kids about rape. But change it to environmentalism. We teach kids about climate change. Something that makes them feel guilty hate other people and something they can do nothing about.

Either way you can at least claim you are teaching factual research. That's different to teaching something that's make believe, whose only purpose is to scare them into following a religion.

Ghost Buster

Perhaps a personal perspective here might help?
First of all I think the term 'child abuse' may technically be correct for the indoctrination of children but unfortunately it has very very strong connotations here in Ireland. Could there be a grading system on child abuse with indoctrination of children being 'abuse light?:rolleyes:

Any hew. Im 40 and so grew up through the latter end of the hay day of the Churches power in this country. I got the whole hog of fear, hell, eternal agony and all the fun stuff associated with this particular loving God. This was coupled with a strong rural culture of deference to Nuns, Priests and Bishops.
I then followed the usual path of many I suspect from ultra devout alter boy to a la carte catholic to lapsed catholic and eventually to atheist and defecting via countmeout.ie
The effect my religious up bringing had on me is still evident. Although having been an atheist for over ten years now and being second hand witness to and some what affected by the whole Church abuse scandal I still have to struggle some what against an impulse to be deferential in the presence of any clergy. I actually prefer not to have dealings with Nuns and Priest due to conflicting inclinations to shout at them and defer to them simultaniously.

Thats me now all grown up, opinionated and comfortable with myself... and still conflicted in the presence of clergy!
The inner turmoil and not inconsiderable catholic guilt I went through in the years between lapsed catholic and reconciled atheist was not a very nice time for me at all.
As unpleasant and all as was/ is for me it still pales against the least case of what we in Ireland think of when we hear the term child abuse.

PDN

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Perhaps a personal perspective here might help?
First of all I think the term 'child abuse' may technically be correct for the indoctrination of children but unfortunately it has very very strong connotations here in Ireland. Could there be a grading system on child abuse with indoctrination of children being 'abuse light?:rolleyes:

Any hew. Im 40 and so grew up through the latter end of the hay day of the Churches power in this country. I got the whole hog of fear, hell, eternal agony and all the fun stuff associated with this particular loving God. This was coupled with a strong rural culture of deference to Nuns, Priests and Bishops.
I then followed the usual path of many I suspect from ultra devout alter boy to a la carte catholic to lapsed catholic and eventually to atheist and defecting via countmeout.ie
The effect my religious up bringing had on me is still evident. Although having been an atheist for over ten years now and being second hand witness to and some what affected by the whole Church abuse scandal I still have to struggle some what against an impulse to be deferential in the presence of any clergy. I actually prefer not to have dealings with Nuns and Priest due to conflicting inclinations to shout at them and defer to them simultaniously.

Thats me now all grown up, opinionated and comfortable with myself... and still conflicted in the presence of clergy!
The inner turmoil and not inconsiderable catholic guilt I went through in the years between lapsed catholic and reconciled atheist was not a very nice time for me at all.
As unpleasant and all as was/ is for me it still pales against the least case of what we in Ireland think of when we hear the term child abuse.

With all due respect, changing one's mind on something that was taught to you as a child is bound to be difficult - but that hardly qualifies as child abuse.

I was instructed as a child to be an atheist, and when I broke free of that indoctrination there was inevitably guilt in going against the wishes of my family and those who I had been taught to respect as a child.

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

I was instructed as a child to be an atheist

Therein lies the problem. I think most of us here would object to that as much as to instruct the child to be religious. What's important is that the child is taught to think for itself.

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

With all due respect, changing one's mind on something that was taught to you as a child is bound to be difficult - but that hardly qualifies as child abuse.

I was instructed as a child to be an atheist, and when I broke free of that indoctrination there was inevitably guilt in going against the wishes of my family and those who I had been taught to respect as a child.

And with all due respect all teenagers and young adults at some point will go against the wishes of their family. But I dont think that getting your ear pierced, going out with the girl with a bad reputation or getting involved in a religious cult is quite the same as leaving a fear based religion which is integrated throughout your entire society. Your circumstance is not remotely the same unless your parents had been threatening to burn and torture you for the eternity of your afterlife for going against their wishes.
If you read my post i didnt just 'change my mind'. It took years to work myself through the oppressive BS.

Instructing your child to be an atheist is also wrong but I dont think you grew up thinking that the big nothing or physics or Richard Dawkins was going to get you.
My own 5 year old is , unfortunately doing the catholic school thing and when he asks me about God i just tell him the truth "No body knows if its real or not so just believe it when you see it". Sounds sensible to me.

dcmraad

PDN wrote: »

I was instructed as a child to be an atheist, and when I broke free of that indoctrination there was inevitably guilt in going against the wishes of my family and those who I had been taught to respect as a child.

Personal rant deleted.

Zombrex

It should be remembered that the child abuse charge, at least in its original guise as a statement from Dawkins wasn't simply that you teach your children.

PDN is right to point out that simply changing your mind about something you are taught as a child by your parents does not constitute child abuse.

But that isn't what was original meant either. Dawkin's example was of a child who was traumatized by notions that her non-Christian friends were going to suffer eternity in hell.

This can be expanded upon with the more general notions in Christianity such as sin, guilty and self loathing that goes part and parcel with Christianity (and other religions).

The Christian framework is not a healthy system to raise a child to believe. How much it constitutes abuse rather than simply bad parenting depends on the extent that this teaching extends to. A bit like scientology Christians tend not to expose people, including children, to the whole kit and koboodle lest they are overwhelmed by what is actually taught. Many Chrisitian parents say they don't teach their kids anything about hell for example until they are much older.

It is not simply teaching your children but what you teach them that matters.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

This can be expanded upon with the more general notions in Christianity such as sin, guilty and self loathing that goes part and parcel with Christianity (and other religions).

This isn't the Gospel. The rest of your post is built on this flawed assumption.

Ghost Buster

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't the Gospel. The rest of your post is built on this flawed assumption.

Oh thats ok. Its moon light, bunnys and lolly pops all the way so:D

Hang about.
The poster does not claim that sin, self loathing and guilt are in the gospel!
He merely suggest that they are notions found within Christianity and he is 100% correct.
Putting word in mouths eh?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't the Gospel. The rest of your post is built on this flawed assumption.

Unfortunately it is the Gospel, though I understand why you wouldn't be able to see that.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Unfortunately it is the Gospel, though I understand why you wouldn't be able to see that.

Not at all. You've left out the main purpose of the Gospel, which would hardly be referred to as "good news" if that was the case.* I'll let you figure out what you're missing (intentionally or otherwise!). It's pretty important, and changes the entire sentiment of your post if accepted to true.

* It's also curious that this view would be alien to be after 4 years as a Christian actively reading the Scriptures.

Zombrex

Ghost Buster wrote: »

The poster does not claim that sin, self loathing and guilt are in the gospel!

Its all right, I'm happy with that claim, notions of sin are found throughout the gospels, as are notions of humanities "fallen nature" as Christians like to put it and the guilt and self loathing that comes with that.

I've been on this forum long enough to see passed the usual Christian PR spin about Christianity being really about a loving relationship with God.

Its like the notion that Scientology is really about understanding and curing the mental blocks in our minds, and I don't think any of us, Jakass included, believe that :pac:

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I've been on this forum long enough to see passed the usual Christian PR spin about Christianity being really about a loving relationship with God.

That's PR spin? Or is that actually written in the Gospel? Is it the overriding theme of Christianity?

Believing that I am created in God's image, called to reflect Him, and that I am "fearfully and wonderfully made" for this purpose doesn't exactly bring self-loathing. Indeed it produces the opposite in people.

Its like the notion that Scientology is really about understanding and curing the mental blocks in our minds, and I don't think any of us, Jakass included, believe that :pac:

I don't believe in Scientology, but I don't aim to intentionally distort its teachings as is done here in respect to Christianity and other faiths. Indeed, if I am to criticise Scientology, I won't do it before adequately studying it. The same is true of any faith or thinking different to that of my own

A large number of atheists on this forum (not all) honestly don't know what they are criticising.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. You've left out the main purpose of the Gospel, which would hardly be referred to as "good news" if that was the case.*

As we have been over before on this forum, most of not all religions follow a specific pattern.

1. Convince a person that they are bad, troubled, have problems
2. Convince a person that these are caused by X
3. Convince a person that religion Y is the only thing that can help.

Christianity certainly does.

The "good news" in Christianity is that Christianity can help, but first it has to convince a person of the sin, guilt and self loathing. Otherwise what is there to help with.

Christianity lays down a particular framework that includes concepts like sin, the Fall of man, God's justice and concepts of the correct way to behave in the eyes of God.

The "good news" that you speak of is merely the tip of the iceberg. You see it as the main event because you have already accepted all the other elements of the framework as simply the way things are.

Using Scientology again as an example since both you and I don't accept it. If you believed that all mental problems are caused by alien souls trapped in the bodies of humans then it would be natural to see Scientology as an "answer" to this problem.

The issue of course is the problem only exists in Scientology doctrine. Scientology has to lay this ground work first, often subconsciously and through manipulate, and when the person is sitting there going "Man, what am I going to do about all these negative emotions in my mind" Scientology says "Good news! We have the solution"

The same with Christianity. Christians tend to view Christianity as the good news to a set of problems such as sin and the fallen nature of humanity and God's divine plan, but ignore or simply don't realize that these things themselves only exist in Christianity's (and the Jewish based religions) notions of how the world is in the first place.

Christianity is the good news to a problem it invented.. As most religions are.

So again this is what Christianity is about, though I appreciate why you would not see that or accept it.

Dades

Good and interesting post, wick.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

That's PR spin? Or is that actually written in the Gospel? Is it the overriding theme of Christianity?

Its PR spin. It is more difficult to convince people straight out of the negative aspects of Christianity than it is of the "postive" aspects.

Christians want to present the religion as a solution. It is easier to do this when the person already thinks there is a problem. It is harder to convince someone straight out that there is a problem in the first place.

It is why Christianity, like most religions, target areas where people tend to have hang ups anyway, such as sex. Feeling funny about sleeping with that girl last night? Feeling a bit guilty but don't know why? Its because it was a sin! Good news though, read the gospels they will tell you how to deal with this.

It is much more difficult to come right out and just tell someone that something they don't think is wrong actually is, which is why Christianity is losing ground on issues such as living together before marriage and homosexuality, issues were people tend to no longer have as many guilty hangups any more that Christianity can play off.

Jakkass wrote: »

Believing that I am created in God's image, called to reflect Him, and that I am "fearfully and wonderfully made" for this purpose doesn't exactly bring self-loathing. Indeed it produces the opposite in people.

Correct. You believe that because you already had the self loathing. As you say Christianity is the "good news" to a problem it attempts to explain within its own particular framework.

This is why you see it as purely the good news part, unaware or ignoring the part the explained your guilt or bad feelings in the first place.

To produce this effect Christianity spends a great deal of time trying to convince people that particular things are bad and they should feel bad about them. Again it targets issues people tend to feel bad about anyway.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe in Scientology, but I don't aim to intentionally distort its teachings as is done here in respect to Christianity and other faiths. Indeed, if I am to criticise Scientology, I won't do it before adequately studying it. The same is true of any faith or thinking different to that of my own

By all means study it, but when you come to the conclusion as most do that it is a scheme to make its inventor rich, I wonder if you will pause and think "This is distorting what Tom Cruise said was the purpose of Scientology"

Jakkass wrote: »

A large number of atheists on this forum (not all) honestly don't know what they are criticising.

I think most of the atheists on this forum know more about what they are critizing that you Jakkass, they have the advantage of studying Christianity from the outside and seeing the whole package, not just the PR spin.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

As we have been over before on this forum, most of not all religions follow a specific pattern.

1. Convince a person that they are bad, troubled, have problems
2. Convince a person that these are caused by X
3. Convince a person that religion Y is the only thing that can help.

As far as I see it there are certain elements of Christianity (which you have left unacknowledged) that would mark it clearly off as unique from other faiths.

Wicknight wrote: »

The "good news" in Christianity is that Christianity can help, but first it has to convince a person of the sin, guilt and self loathing. Otherwise what is there to help with.

Again. Teaching that people are fearfully and wonderfully made in order to follow God and that they can clearly form a relationship with their Creator is not "self-loathing".

Sin is an acknowledgement that humans do things that are wrong. Repentance is acknowledging that people do wrong. I've yet to see how either of these things produce "self-loathing" rather than an honest acknowledgement and a desire to improve.

In the interest of generating discussion: If your view is that we shouldn't acknowledge wrongs and aim not to repeat them is "self-loathing" then quite frankly I would see this as wholly delusional and completely out of step with reality. If this is your problem with Christianity, it seems your problem with Christianity is that it tells honest truth about reality.

Complaining about guilt is equally delusional. Guilt is when our moral conscience tells us what we are doing is wrong. Guilt calls us to be accountable. I'm thankful that I can deduce that I've done wrong by my conscience and aim to put it right, with God and those I've wronged.

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity lays down a particular framework that includes concepts like sin, the Fall of man, God's justice and concepts of the correct way to behave in the eyes of God.

You mean that Christianity proposes a moral philosophy? How astounding? Is utilitarianism harmful for the same reason?

Wicknight wrote: »

The "good news" that you speak of is merely the tip of the iceberg. You see it as the main event because you have already accepted all the other elements of the framework as simply the way things are.

If people don't accept the realities that people do things wrong, and that in being accountable for ones actions one can resolve to avoid such actions? If so there is no other way to respond other than to say that you don't like reality. If you can't accept that people do things wrong, and that people can resolve such things then that's all one can say of this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Using Scientology again as an example since both you and I don't accept it. If you believed that all mental problems are caused by alien souls trapped in the bodies of humans then it would be natural to see Scientology as an "answer" to this problem...

I'm not going to deal with Scientology unless I can say I'm adequately qualified to deal with it. I think this is fair.

Wicknight wrote: »

The same with Christianity. Christians tend to view Christianity as the good news to a set of problems such as sin and the fallen nature of humanity and God's divine plan, but ignore or simply don't realize that these things themselves only exist in Christianity's (and the Jewish based religions) notions of how the world is in the first place.

See above. If you think that humans doing what is clearly wrong is only something that exists conceptually then I have to say you're out of touch with how things work.

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity is the good news to a problem it invented.. As most religions are.

Christianity invented the wrongdoing of man. Again, as I've said above, this is delusional.

Wicknight wrote: »

So again this is what Christianity is about, though I appreciate why you would not see that or accept it.

Christianity is about acknowledging that humans have done wrong, and in doing this have strained our relationship with God. Through Jesus, we can restore our relationship with God living as we were created to be. There is no self-loathing, all this is is dealing with a real world problem. As I've said numerous times in your post, if you can't accept that people have done what is wrong all you need to do is look around you, read the newspaper, think over your own life.

Christianity says nothing more about the truths of reality than the world proclaims in and of itself through experience. It's difficult to teach people the actual truth about human experience? If people wish to remain ignorant of the basic fact that people have done wrong since the beginning of time then one has to question how much or how little they are acquainted with reality. (I also clearly acknowledge that people have done a great deal of good also, using their consciences)

Edit: I'll probably respond to you tomorrow. I'm trying and spend less time on boards.

Ghost Buster

Jakkass wrote: »

As far as I see it there are certain elements of Christianity (which you have left unacknowledged) that would mark it clearly off as unique from other faiths.
Yup. It is unique because it is Christianity. Islam is unique because its Islam. Pastafarianism is unique because it is Pastafarianism


Again. Teaching that people are fearfully and wonderfully made in order to follow God and that they can clearly form a relationship with their Creator is not "self-loathing".

Sin is an acknowledgement that humans do things that are wrong. Sin is something you are born with though... in your faith. Repentance is acknowledging that people do wrong. I've yet to see how either of these things produce "self-loathing" rather than an honest acknowledgement and a desire to improve.

In the interest of generating discussion: If your view is that we shouldn't acknowledge wrongs and aim not to repeat them is "self-loathing" then quite frankly I would see this as wholly delusional and completely out of step with reality. If this is your problem with Christianity, it seems your problem with Christianity is that it tells honest truth about reality.

Complaining about guilt is equally delusional. Guilt is when our moral conscience tells us what we are doing is wrong.Again. We're born sinful and guilty.. thats a bit rough eh? Guilt calls us to be accountable as new born babies. I'm thankful that I can deduce that I've done wrong by my conscience and aim to put it right, with God and those I've wronged.



You mean that Christianity proposes a moral philosophy? How astounding? Is utilitarianism harmful for the same reason?



If people don't accept the realities that people do things wrong before birth, and that in being accountable for ones actions one can resolve to avoid such actions? If so there is no other way to respond other than to say that you don't like reality. If you can't accept that people do things wrong, and that people can resolve such things then that's all one can say of this.


I'm not going to deal with Scientology unless I can say I'm adequately qualified to deal with it. I think this is fair.



See above. If you think that humans doing what is clearly wrong is only something that exists conceptually then I have to say you're out of touch with how things work.



Christianity invented the wrongdoing of man. Again, as I've said above, this is delusional.



Christianity is about acknowledging that humans have done wrong before birth, and in doing this have strained our relationship with God. Through Jesus, we can restore our relationship with God living as we were created to be. There is no self-loathing, all this is is dealing with a real world problem. As I've said numerous times in your post, if you can't accept that people have done what is wrong all you need to do is look around you, read the newspaper, think over your own life.

Christianity says nothing more about the truths of reality than the world proclaims in and of itself through experience. It's difficult to teach people the actual truth about human experience? If people wish to remain ignorant of the basic fact that people have done wrong since the beginning of time then one has to question how much or how little they are acquainted with reality. (I also clearly acknowledge that people have done a great deal of good also, using their consciences)

Edit: I'll probably respond to you tomorrow. I'm trying and spend less time on boards.

Did a bit of post fixing there for ya in red.:)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

As far as I see it there are certain elements of Christianity (which you have left unacknowledged) that would mark it clearly off as unique from other faiths.

What, other than you believe it is actually true?

Jakkass wrote: »

Again. Teaching that people are fearfully and wonderfully made in order to follow God and that they can clearly form a relationship with their Creator is not "self-loathing".

Yes actually it is. Because you will notice Christianity doesn't actually teach that we are still wonderfully made. The concept of the Fall is central to all Christian doctrine. It is why Jesus was here in the first place.

Again

1. There is something wrong with us (we are sinful and rebel against God)
2. This is why (the fall, free will, our sinful nature)
3. This is the only thing that will help (accept Christianities version of reality, repent for your sins, develop relationship with God through the Christian framework)

Pretty simple really, but you can't get to 3 without first teaching 1 and 2. Which Christianity does, in various subtle and not so subtle ways.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sin is an acknowledgement that humans do things that are wrong.

No, it is more than that. It is a framework explaining what these "wrong" things are and why they are wrong in the first place. They go against God's wishes. According to who? Well Christianity of course.

Jakkass wrote: »

Repentance is acknowledging that people do wrong. I've yet to see how either of these things produce "self-loathing" rather than an honest acknowledgement and a desire to improve.

If you are prepared to actually look Jakkass it is easy to see. For example in Christianity people repent for things a lot of other groups see nothing wrong with, such as sex before marriage or homosexuality.

Christianity gets them to do this by nurturing a system of self-loathing, praying on the issues people tend to have anyway. You are sinful. What you want to do is sinful. It is wrong. You should not want to do it. You want to do it because there is something wrong with you. Your nature is sinful.

I in no way wish to portray Christianity as the only religion that does this, nor does it do it in a blatantly conscious way. Christianity piggy backs on top of the natural hang ups we all have about how to act "correctly" in society.

Jakkass wrote: »

In the interest of generating discussion: If your view is that we shouldn't acknowledge wrongs and aim not to repeat them is "self-loathing" then quite frankly I would see this as wholly delusional and completely out of step with reality.

Again you are missing the wood for the trees. You are saying should we not point out what is wrong and tell others it is wrong (ie what goes against God's plan for us), where as the real question is actually why do you think it is wrong in the first place? How much of that answer is shaped by Christian doctrine without you even knowing it?

All humans have an evolved sense of wrongness, though more often than not this comes with no clear explanation why something is wrong. Religions manipulate this to place their explanation between this fuzzy sense of wrong and our rational mind. They can uses this to shape the very essence of what we think is wrong and why.

Christianity, like a lot of things, gets you to think these things like sexual relations outside of marriage are wrong, or lustful thoughts are wrong and gets you think they are wrong in the first place by, among other things, nurturing a system of self loathing.

You can also use this technique to sell deodorizer and expensive clothes. It is very easy in humans to effect a persons sense of correct and incorrect behavior by manipulating their inherent hangups with regard to particular subjects. If you pray on an inherent hang up someone has at their body shape you can make them buy your corn flakes. If you pray on an inherent hang up they have to sexual relations with the opposite sex you can make them abstain for sex all together.

Religions do this better than most, but ultimately the control religions exert over people comes down to rather simple processes of manipulation.

Jakkass wrote: »

If this is your problem with Christianity, it seems your problem with Christianity is that it tells honest truth about reality.

Who's truth? Where did you find out what was and wasn't a sin in the first place?

Jakkass wrote: »

Complaining about guilt is equally delusional. Guilt is when our moral conscience tells us what we are doing is wrong. Guilt calls us to be accountable. I'm thankful that I can deduce that I've done wrong by my conscience and aim to put it right, with God and those I've wronged.

Yes but guilt like all emotions is a fuzzy concept. A fuzzy concept that religion is all to happy to take advantage of by providing an rapid all encompassing explanation for why you feel guilty, something that is often difficult to actually find out.

You slept with that girl last night. Feeling a bit bad about it. Not quite sure why?

Is it because humans have developed a complex set of instincts that attempt to guide us towards forming social bonds with people for the purposes of reproduction that sometimes conflict with our other desires such as not actually having a kid right now and not wanting to call her back.

Or is it because sex outside marriage is wrong, what you did was wrong in the eyes of the Lord and that is why you feel guilty.

People have a tendency to accept explanations given to them by large groups in society that fit narratives they have already heard repeated. I had a fuzzy notion that Christianity does like sex outside of marriage and I had sex outside of marriage and now I feel bad so maybe I'll look more into this, maybe I'll do an Alpha course.

The real explanations for why we feel particular things such as guilt after sexual encounters tend to be a lot more complex than the religions explanation. You could write a book on the complex instinctive reactions that go on in modern humans who have sexual relations with birth control that prevents reproduction. On the other hand Christianity can dumb it down to one sentence "Sex outside marriage is wrong, you know it is wrong that is why you feel bad"

We like simple explanations over complex ones.

Jakkass wrote: »

You mean that Christianity proposes a moral philosophy? How astounding? Is utilitarianism harmful for the same reason?

Christianity proposes it is in contact with the divine creator of the universe who has created us for a specific reason and all the bad in the universe is causes when we go against this specific plan.

Bit different to utilitarianism I think.

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity invented the wrongdoing of man. Again, as I've said above, this is delusional.

No Christianity invented an explanation for the wrong doing of man, and then provided the solution.

Again lets use Scientology. People have mental problems, that is accepted. Do people have mental problems for the reasons Scientology say they do? Probably not. But unless Scientology can convince you of that they can't convince you they are the solution.

Do people do wrong? Yes. Do they do wrong for the reasons Christianity says they do, and is "wrong" defined in the way Christianity says it is?

Unless Christianity can convince someone of this they can't put themselves forward as the solution.

Its interesting that you seem rather unable to divorce the general notion that people do wrong or bad things from the Christian explanation frame work for this. It seems Christianity has done quite a number on you, as it does on a lot of people. But you are left in the position where the only version of reality you consider is the one Christianity presents. Which is why you seem unable to even consider the difference between People do wrong and People do wrong for the reasons Christianity say they do

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity is about acknowledging that humans have done wrong, and in doing this have strained our relationship with God.

Christianity is about convincing you humans have done wrong because of the reason Christianity says they did and then providing a solution to this problem within the same framework. It uses that framework to decide what is "wrong" as well, which has lead to conflicts in modern time between Christianity and the rest of society when people no long accept at a basic level that certain things are wrong, such as non-marriage sexual relationships or abortion. It is easy for someone to say "Well Christianity says murder is wrong and that is what most people feel as well" as if that validates Christianity. Things get more tricky for the religion on issues where people do not automatically and instinctively feel there is actually something wrong here. Christianity then has to convince them of this, which is where the guilt and self-loathing comes in.

Jakkass wrote: »

Through Jesus, we can restore our relationship with God living as we were created to be.

Who said we need to restore our relationship with God in the first place?

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Good and interesting post, wick.

And inaccurate.

Self-loathing certainly doesn't figure in Christianity as I understand it. And Christianity does teach that we are wonderfully made.

But hey, why listen to Christians stating what they believe when Wicknight thinks he knows better than they do what they believe?

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

And inaccurate.

Self-loathing certainly doesn't figure in Christianity as I understand it. And Christianity does teach that we are wonderfully made.

But hey, why listen to Christians stating what they believe when Wicknight thinks he knows better than they do what they believe?

Indeed. Depending on what particular strain of the cult they are they will contradict each other and them selves or have a different translation of the bible any how.