Is Religion an abuse of childhood?

py2006

...not to be mistaken with child abuse which is obvious something separate.

I've heard Dawkins use that phrase in relation to overly religious people teaching their children that if they don't believe or do a bad thing they will be tortured in hell for eternity or something along those lines.

But with regards to religion in general, as in the indoctrination of babies and the religious classes in school and the various ceremonies etc.

My own opinion is that it is largely harmless (when its not fanatical). Most of us have been brought up in a religion in this country and a lot of us choose not to practice. Do you think many people agree with Dawkins on this 'abuse of childhood' statement? Although, he was referring to the more extreme teachings.

What is your opinion on this?

MayoSalmon

Yes, but so is feeding your child processed food 7 nights a week.

eviltwin

depends on the religion

mezuzaj

Abuse??? What teaching your child not to kill, not to steal, to be faithful, respect your parents, rest on a Sunday.

While many Religious teachings have a very human/secular side, I would not say its abuse. Anyway religious teaching in schools today is so watered down.

With more and more people have not exposure to Philosophy religion is one of the last elements that opens a mind.

Pherekydes

mezuzaj wrote: »

Abuse??? What teaching your child not to kill, not to steal, to be faithful, respect your parents, rest on a Sunday.

Can't you teach your children these things anyway?

Who mans the hospitals on Sundays?

While many Religious teachings have a very human/secular side, I would not say its abuse.

I'm baffled!

With more and more people have not exposure to Philosophy religion is one of the last elements that opens a mind.

I've always found that religion strives to close minds to further learning.

mezuzaj

I don't think Children should be forced to learning a religion against their parents/or their wishes. But I would not say its abuse, My kids went to a school where they were the only Catholics, They found it really interesting learning about the faith of the other kids and the other kids were interested in them.

I think a school that teaches no religion at all is missing something.

I raised my Kids Catholic and we go to mass every sunday, pray together. But I always make it clear that they have a choice. So if they don't want to pray or come to mass with us there is no argument.

wretcheddomain

mezuzaj wrote: »

Abuse??? What teaching your child not to kill, not to steal, to be faithful, respect your parents, rest on a Sunday.

While many Religious teachings have a very human/secular side, I would not say its abuse. Anyway religious teaching in schools today is so watered down.

With more and more people have not exposure to Philosophy religion is one of the last elements that opens a mind.

This entire post presupposes that religion is the chief way to inculcate these ethical values in children - we all know that isn't true.

I think there's something profoundly insecure on the parents part, while also deeply unfair to the child, to indoctrinate one particular set of mythical stories about a deity.

This would be equally as horrendous should parents start inculcating the values of Marxism into their children as they believe it will better the child in the long run.

If you disagree on the political aspect then you must necessarily agree that religion is the same. In this sense, it's an abuse of the child's malleable and suggestive mind to act in this way.

Hannibal Smith

Religion is just a code by which to live. We have laws to govern our way of life and I see religion as a milder form of this. Perhaps even a lazier form. You must do such and such because it says so in the rule book.

But I think it depends how a child is introduced to religion. If you chose bring your child up in your faith I see it like a tribal thing and keeping your children in line with your tribe. However as long as they are free to explore other possibilities and beliefs and to follow a code that best suits them I don't see how it can be an abuse of childhood.

A religion can have a lot of good qualities if you broaden your interpretation of it. Praying is like meditation and knowing how to take time out when you're stressed can be a good thing and the morals and ethics behind religion can be equally good. Most of the time its how the institutions are run that are the real problem.

As long as a child isn't lead up the garden path...ie pray for something and it'll happen. ..then I don't see the problem.

swampgas

Most adults believe their own beliefs to be the correct one, and everyone else's to be misguided or wrong.

Religious parents usually believe that passing on their religion is very important, because they think their religion is The Truth - well, at the very least they think their religion is a positive thing to have.

Atheists may consider religion to be negative, and may prefer that their children are taught how to think critically. In their eyes, critical thinking, science, secular ethics etc., is The Truth.

In a secular state, adults are allowed to have whatever beliefs they like. What's a bit harder to tolerate is seeing children brought up with what you consider to be faulty beliefs - and that works both ways. Religious people may consider it a terrible thing that atheists don't teach their children to follow God, and atheist people may consider the religious indoctrination of children to be tantamount to abuse.

The problem is that if adults cannot agree on religion, they certainly will not be able to agree on what religious beliefs (or none) should be taught to children. From my own rather anti-theistic perspective, I feel that only when the adults become enlightened enough to outgrow religion will the children be spared in turn. I'm sure that religious people have the opposite view!

Is religion an abuse of childhood? Maybe. I consider religion an abuse of the mind, for adults and children alike, but I can't see how anything much can be done about parents teaching their kids to believe what they believe themselves without trampling all over the rights of parents in general.

groucho marx

No I dont.
Will be bringing my child up in the religion I was brought up in.
Very sweeping statement of an argument though,if you have children bring them up in or out of a religion which suits your beliefs or non beliefs. Its the parents and nobody elses business to judge upon.

wupucus

Religion's are for the most part built on fear, fear of upsetting "your God" , fear of the consequences of your actions, what punishment shall be delivered by god. this is no way to educate a child, telling him/her that their whole life must be governed by fear of breaking these rules that we have decided are god's rules ! the exception to this is catholicism, this is built on shame and guilt, that way you can punish youself, eat yourself up with guilt because of some perfectly normal instinctual behaviour, that some pope decided god didnt approve off. this way you save God the job of piunishing you, very easy to keep the people in line if they feel guilty about their every thought and desire. somebody actually thinks it is correct to imbue this way of thinking in small children?

mezuzaj

wretcheddomain wrote: »

This entire post presupposes that religion is the chief way to inculcate these ethical values in children - we all know that isn't true.

I think there's something profoundly insecure on the parents part, while also deeply unfair to the child, to indoctrinate one particular set of mythical stories about a deity.

This would be equally as horrendous should parents start inculcating the values of Marxism into their children as they believe it will better the child in the long run.

If you disagree on the political aspect then you must necessarily agree that religion is the same. In this sense, it's an abuse of the child's malleable and suggestive mind to act in this way.

Thats your view. But you need to open your child's mind to all possibilities, not limit them. Teaching you child the religion you belief in is not wrong. I don't believe Christ is a myth, so to me his live and teachings have values which I teach to my children. If they don't want to listen or practice their faith then so be it. But faith is a major part of my life, am i to bring up my children without teaching them my faith?

My Daughter, 15, came home one day and said she had fallen in love with an 19 year old, they met at music class. Well I said, you had better bring him home, he was an atheist, never baptised, from Divorced Family, however a really good person. We set the rules around the dating, as any parents would do. But he was very respectful and is practically part of the family. Then one day he decided to get baptised and become a Catholic. His reasons were because he found something from the way we lived as a family. We didn't teach him or ask him to pray, he didn't go to a religious school. He simply was not raised at all with religious environment. He had good parents, he was a good man. But he himself says he was happier having a faith than without it.

You can be a good person without religion. However you can also be a good person with Religion. I teach my children my faith and give them the liberty to decide. We are not fanatics.

JimiTime

I find these kinds of questions and the hyperbole used exemplify a rather authoritarian, Stalinesque view that ironically hides itself beneath the guise of liberty. Regularly I see people make ignorant proclamations which I believe are born out of bad experiences they had themselves, simple ignorance, or adolescent angst. Propaganda like terms are rather disgustingly thrown about like 'child abuse' etc. Using such a term in this manner is not only the height of ignorance, but wholly irresponsible. Of course, its all about the children right? In reality, its just a passive aggressive way to attack and belittle what you don't understand or hate. Atheists who sway their kids away from Christ are not doing right by their children, but they are not abusing them. Christ is the life, our salvation, the way to God and everlasting life, yet it is not abuse to believe this untrue and in turn influence your children to hold such a view. All one does by introducing terms like 'child abuse' etc, is undermine actual child abuse. While some atheists get self righteous about the 'religious instruction is child abuse' thing, It is still the religious people of the world that make up the majority of the self sacrificial work for those in need. Confident, upstanding, secure people, raised in a loving home by loving parents of faith who are allegedly child abusers if some atheists are to be believed. I think the accusations of child abuse etc are vile. Thoughtless at best, hateful and inflammatory at worst.

nozzferrahhtoo

mezuzaj wrote: »

Abuse??? What teaching your child not to kill, not to steal, to be faithful, respect your parents, rest on a Sunday.

I think the OP was asking about whether religion is abuse. Not whether individually cherry picked ideas from your particular religion may or may not have merit in them.

Not killing and not stealing for example have nothing to do with religion per se. They just happen to be ideas that religion has assimilated along the way it seems.

Vivisectus

Once upon a time I ended up in Las Vegas on some dreadful company convention. I met some followers of Harold Camping. They were handing out flyers to all the sinners on the strip. The youngest looked about ten. Another one looked around 13, and two of them seemed to be in the 14-17 range.

They were not in school, as there was no point: God was going to destroy the world pretty soon, and only a select few would be spared, if they were really really good.

They looked absolutely terrified.

I was shocked at the clear evidence of abuse I was seeing right in front of me. These kids were told that their lives were going to be disrupted any moment and that they would most likely die. That some dysfunctional parent of a god would soon wipe almost everyone out, probably including them, and that this was a good thing. They were denied normal schooling, normal socialization, taught to fear the world and to keep themselves apart from unbelievers as if they carry an infectious disease.

I remember wondering what it must feel like to be 15 and living like that. The fear that you will be eternally condemned because of petty little flaws. Worse: feeling doomed because of the hormonal urges for Betty who sits two pews down from you that you have been experiencing.

It made me wonder what we are allowing in the name of religious freedom, and where we should draw the line. I never came up with a satisfactory answer to that question, but I do know one thing: that was child abuse, and it was going on in plain view, and it was ugly as hell.

Cabaal

Is it abuse of childhood?

In many respects yes,

How many children grew up to be adults who have a very unhealthy attitude when it comes to sex, masturbation and their genitals. They see all these things as dirty and wrong. Thats not normal.

Religion has been used to twist people's views of their own body's and twist their view of the normal, natural impulses they would have growing up.

People may say that times have moved on, but I know a few 20 and 30 year old's who still have very abnormal views of their own body's and sex because of religions upbringing.

Thats abuse in my view,

lazygal

I think my parents now regret going through the catholic motions for us when we were children. I don't class it as abuse, but its taken me a long time to shake off the indoctrination, especially around sins and punishment for religious transgressions. I don't want my children to be making up sins for first communion or worrying about saying the right words in prayers. I'm fully aware they might feel left out during sacraments in school if they have to go to a catholic school but we'll do a trip to Disneyland and give them money if they want to feel like marking some sort of occasion at that time. I feel when they are adults they will appreciate that we didn't do the a la carte catholic stuff just because its easier to go with the flow.

wretcheddomain

mezuzaj wrote: »

Thats your view.

I didn't know - next time I'll make sure not to write my own view on a public forum.

But you need to open your child's mind to all possibilities, not limit them. Teaching you child the religion you belief in is not wrong. I don't believe Christ is a myth, so to me his live and teachings have values which I teach to my children. If they don't want to listen or practice their faith then so be it. But faith is a major part of my life, am i to bring up my children without teaching them my faith?

All possibilities? Teaching one particular faith as 'gospel' is opening the child to 'all possibilities'? Wouldn't it be less limiting were you to teach about all the various religions and how they all aim to avoid murder, theft etc.

Moreover, you're not 'teaching' the child, you're preaching to the child and enforcing your faith, practices and constraints on the child. As I said, opening all possibilities would include teaching your child about your faith but if you were to be as open as you claim, then you'd teach about all of them instead of preaching one as gospel and forcing the teachings and customs of baptism etc. on the child.

My Daughter, 15, came home one day and said she had fallen in love with an 19 year old, they met at music class. Well I said, you had better bring him home, he was an atheist, never baptised, from Divorced Family, however a really good person. We set the rules around the dating, as any parents would do. But he was very respectful and is practically part of the family. Then one day he decided to get baptised and become a Catholic. His reasons were because he found something from the way we lived as a family. We didn't teach him or ask him to pray, he didn't go to a religious school. He simply was not raised at all with religious environment. He had good parents, he was a good man. But he himself says he was happier having a faith than without it.

Completely worthless anecdote. There are as many stories like this as there are the opposite, so we can cancel them all out.

You can be a good person without religion. However you can also be a good person with Religion. I teach my children my faith and give them the liberty to decide. We are not fanatics.

Again, you're preaching the faith to your child and inculcating it as the absolute truth of the world - that's a vast chasm of difference from teaching about your faith to your child while teaching about other faiths on an equal footing. The moment you start baptising or circumcising your child etc. is where it draws the line for me.

Yes - you can be a good person with religion but you could be a better person with religion if you stopped foisting your views on the suggestive mind of a child, all so you can feel more secure in your faith.

magicbastarder

teaching a child a religion is faintly ludicrous.
telling a parent they should not teach their child what they believe is faintly ludicrous.

Vivisectus

magicbastarder wrote: »

teaching a child a religion is faintly ludicrous.
telling a parent they should not teach their child what they believe is faintly ludicrous.

Here lies the rub for me too: i would love to think of a law that would not allow parents to teach their children horrific things. But I cannot think of any way to achieve that without creating a law that would be either far too vague and subjective to be useful, or draconian.

Penn

mezuzaj wrote: »

With more and more people have not exposure to Philosophy religion is one of the last elements that opens a mind.

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

wretcheddomain

magicbastarder wrote: »

teaching a child a religion is faintly ludicrous.
telling a parent they should not teach their child what they believe is faintly ludicrous.

That's not the argument, it's a contorted version.

Parents should teach their child about their faith but the question is should the parent impose their faith, practices, and customs on the child i.e. circumcision etc.

If you grant male circumcision due to the parents faith then you have no moral problem with female circumcision due to a parents faith.

By all means teach, but imposing draws a line.

Cabaal

wretcheddomain wrote: »

If you grant male circumcision due to the parents faith then you have no moral problem with female circumcision due to a parents faith.

Funny thing is, most circumcision in the USA isn't done for religious beliefs,

Well it is...but in a round about way, basically most circumcisions stem from backwards views about masturbation....Here's an entertaining video to explain it all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng

Kellog (the guy that invented cornflakes) has alot to answer for.

But yeah I'd agree with you, unless there is a medical need for circumcision it shouldn't be done to any child....regardless of religious belief, after all its only a hop skip and a jump to female genital mutilation, which as we know is done in some cultures for religious reasons/beliefs

Delirium

py2006 wrote: »

...not to be mistaken with child abuse which is obvious something separate.

I've heard Dawkins use that phrase in relation to overly religious people teaching their children that if they don't believe or do a bad thing they will be tortured in hell for eternity or something along those lines.

But with regards to religion in general, as in the indoctrination of babies and the religious classes in school and the various ceremonies etc.

My own opinion is that it is largely harmless (when its not fanatical). Most of us have been brought up in a religion in this country and a lot of us choose not to practice. Do you think many people agree with Dawkins on this 'abuse of childhood' statement? Although, he was referring to the more extreme teachings.

What is your opinion on this?

On some level it must be. The whole sinner mentality can't be good for a persons self-esteem/worth. To tell kids that they must try to get in the good books of their deity or suffer eternal torment. To instill the idea that sex is almost purely a reproductive function (i.e. get married + have babies otherwise no sex). Nevermind if you're gay where it's a life of celibacy for you lest you have a relationship that is viewed as an abomination by some members of the religion.

It really depends on the parents I think. If it's like what a lot of parents here are like, essentially only paying lip-service, then it probably isn't that harmful by any measure. But if you end up with "fire and brimstone"/"God hates fags" parents then it can't be good for the child.

I think it's better now that there is more diversity visible in society in Ireland. It pushes everyone to examine their worldviews (not saying that eveyone will) moreso than when it is just one ideology/theology/philosophy almost entirely dominating society.

To answer the question, no as a general statement it isn't an abuse of childhood but it can be in some situations.

lazybones32

py2006 wrote: »

...not to be mistaken with child abuse which is obvious something separate.

I've heard Dawkins use that phrase in relation to overly religious people teaching their children that if they don't believe or do a bad thing they will be tortured in hell for eternity or something along those lines.

But with regards to religion in general, as in the indoctrination of babies and the religious classes in school and the various ceremonies etc.

My own opinion is that it is largely harmless (when its not fanatical). Most of us have been brought up in a religion in this country and a lot of us choose not to practice. Do you think many people agree with Dawkins on this 'abuse of childhood' statement? Although, he was referring to the more extreme teachings.

What is your opinion on this?

I was raised as a nominal Catholic and never was threatened with hell at home, school or Mass. Hell was a place where bad people went...heard nothing more than that.
I pay little attention to Dawkins; he seems more interested in religion than most religious people themselves. Having a fanatical parent will damage almost any child, whether the parent is religious or not. One parent may use the threat of hell in order to get the child to comply, another parent will use the threat of violence, violence or some other punishment to guarantee compliance. Bad parenting isn't specific to religious zealots but Dawkins will use any and all means to attack Religion.

People will spend their life benefiting from their parents influence, or trying to get over it.

Vivisectus

lazybones32 wrote: »

I was raised as a nominal Catholic and never was threatened with hell at home, school or Mass. Hell was a place where bad people went...heard nothing more than that.
I pay little attention to Dawkins; he seems more interested in religion than most religious people themselves. Having a fanatical parent will damage almost any child, whether the parent is religious or not. One parent may use the threat of hell in order to get the child to comply, another parent will use the threat of violence, violence or some other punishment to guarantee compliance. Bad parenting isn't specific to religious zealots but Dawkins will use any and all means to attack Religion.

People will spend their life benefiting from their parents influence, or trying to get over it.

I find that an odd line of reasoning. You can argue that you were hit with a belt when you were a kid, and came out OK because your parents did not hit you too hard or too often. Bad parenting is not limited to people who hit kids with belts: some will use it, some will use other means to force compliance.

So it must be just fine to hit kids with belts, and we cannot say that it is something which on the whole increases the chances of bad outcomes.

mezuzaj

Penn wrote: »

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

Of course you can question religion. What do you think theology tries to do.

gctest50

mezuzaj wrote: »

Of course you can question religion..... .

Ok , get your God to do something for the craic

2000 years of praying n all yer owed one by now

lazybones32

Vivisectus wrote: »

I find that an odd line of reasoning.

In order not to be infracted for taking the thread off topic, I will be brief: which part exactly do you not understand? Parents using violence; using the threat of violence; or another method to ensure compliance? Violence can be more than physical and the OP specifically mentioned the threat of hellfire.

Vivisectus

lazybones32 wrote: »

In order not to be infracted for taking the thread off topic, I will be brief: which part exactly do you not understand? Parents using violence; using the threat of violence; or another method to ensure compliance? Violence can be more than physical and the OP specifically mentioned the threat of hellfire.

It is not that I do not understand, it is just that I find it a strange line of reasoning. A bit like saying "Murderers use cars to kill people too, and people kill with knives as well, so there is no point legally banning machine-guns".

Do you understand what I am trying to say? It may be true that you can teach kids that people go to eternal torture if they do not obey the big man in the sky without leaving them severely emotionally scarred. You can also responsibly own a machine-gun without ever hurting anyone.

But does that mean that the threat of eternal torture is wise, even if it is severely bowdlerized?

lazybones32

Vivisectus wrote: »

It is not that I do not understand, it is just that I find it a strange line of reasoning. A bit like saying "Murderers use cars to kill people too, and people kill with knives as well, so there is no point legally banning machine-guns".

Do you understand what I am trying to say? It may be true that you can teach kids that people go to eternal torture if they do not obey the big man in the sky without leaving them severely emotionally scarred. You can also responsibly own a machine-gun without ever hurting anyone.

But does that mean that the threat of eternal torture is wise, even if it is severely bowdlerized?

It's not a line of reasoning: the example was given of children being threatened with hellfire by parents to ensure compliance and I added that some parents ensure compliance by using violence, the threat of violence or some other form of punishment. I'm not advocating or approving any particular approach but stating that these forms are employed by parents, regardless of their religion.
If eternal torture is an aspect and possibility of each religion, then it should be taught. There is no way to legislate against a parent from telling their child they may go to hell.

Corkfeen

lazybones32 wrote: »

It's not a line of reasoning: the example was given of children being threatened with hellfire by parents to ensure compliance and I added that some parents ensure compliance by using violence, the threat of violence or some other form of punishment. I'm not advocating or approving any particular approach but stating that these forms are employed by parents, regardless of their religion.
If eternal torture is an aspect and possibility of each religion, then it should be taught. There is no way to legislate against a parent from telling their child they may go to hell.

Would you say it's particularly fair on a person just entering puberty that they are under the impression that masturbation will damn them to hell. Or for a person struggling with their sexuality to be under impression that they are inherently disordered. My current place for drawing the line is that the education system should not be responsible for indoctrinating students. If a parent wishes to teach rubbish or bigoted views, go for it. The state should not.

lazybones32

Corkfeen wrote: »

Would you say it's particularly fair on a person just entering puberty that they are under the impression that masturbation will damn them to hell. Or for a person struggling with their sexuality to be under impression that they are inherently disordered. My current place for drawing the line is that the education system should not be responsible for indoctrinating students. If a parent wishes to teach rubbish or bigoted views, go for it. The state should not.

Is it fair to tell a child that breaking the law will incur punishment?

Corkfeen

lazybones32 wrote: »

Is it fair to tell a child that breaking the law will incur punishment?

I don't think warped understandings of sex is beneficial for anyone's mental health. I said parents should be free to teach such warped views but that doesn't make them in any way less warped.

lazybones32

Corkfeen wrote: »

I don't think warped understandings of sex is beneficial for anyone's mental health. I said parents should be free to teach such warped views but that doesn't make them in any way less warped.

Masturbation isn't sex and the teaching isn't warped; it's what could be called 'vanilla', by today's standards.

Which do you think is a bigger issue today? Young boys being afraid to masturbate or masturbating too much and having a warped view of sex?

Corkfeen

lazybones32 wrote: »

Masturbation isn't sex and the teaching isn't warped; it's what could be called 'vanilla', by today's standards.

Which do you think is a bigger issue today? Young boys being afraid to masturbate or masturbating too much and having a warped view of sex?

Eh, the stance on homosexuality is clearly warped. It's a very serious issue in the world today. Promising hell and damnation isn't ever a healthy way to instill any values tbh. Thanks for informing me that masturbation isn't sex, I really needed you to explain that.

Out of interest where do you stand on proper sex ed? Far more likely to develop healthy and informed understandings than biblical doom.

gctest50

lazybones32 wrote: »

Which do you think is a bigger issue today? Young boys being afraid to masturbate or masturbating too much and having a warped view of sex?

The RCC and fans having way too much of an obsession with young boys and what they do

lazybones32

Corkfeen wrote: »

Eh, the stance on homosexuality is clearly warped. It's a very serious issue in the world today. Promising hell and damnation isn't ever a healthy way to instill any values tbh. Thanks for informing me that masturbation isn't sex, I really needed you to explain that.

Out of interest where do you stand on proper sex ed? Far more likely to develop healthy and proper understandings than biblical doom.

Do you know what the Christian stance on homosexuality is? I guess you don't (and don't want to know) but will you still criticise them for 'preaching' what you incorrectly accuse them of?

I don't know what "proper sex-ed" is. Whatever model they are using either side of Ireland doesn't seem to work, seeing as teen pregnancies are still pretty high, despite the education and often free distribution of contraceptives.

lazybones32

gctest50 wrote: »

The RCC and fans having way too much of an obsession with young boys and what they do

I am concerned that they may have a warped view of sex and women due to the increased exposure to porn.
Good on you for trying to make light of sexual abuse...you're a funny boy/girl.

gctest50

lazybones32 wrote: »

Good on you for trying to make light of sexual abuse...you're a funny boy/girl.

I'm not making light of sexual abuse , I'd happily support execution for all the convicted ones.

And I'd be much happier if religion was kept out of schools,

As an added bonues it would keep extra distance between the percentage of priests that are paedos and the kids

lazybones32 wrote: »

I am concerned that they may have a warped view of sex and women due to the increased exposure to porn.

And have you done much research into this ?

Spend a lot of time concerned about it ?

.

SpaceTime

lazybones32 wrote: »

Do you know what the Christian stance on homosexuality is? I guess you don't (and don't want to know) but will you still criticise them for 'preaching' what you incorrectly accuse them of?

I don't know what "proper sex-ed" is. Whatever model they are using either side of Ireland doesn't seem to work, seeing as teen pregnancies are still pretty high, despite the education and often free distribution of contraceptives.

Most flavours of Christianity take a very negative view of homosexuality. Most of the more 'liberal' branches seem to take a totally hypocritical and patronising view of being all tolerant on one hand while condemning homosexual acts as a really serious sin.

The less liberal denominations take extremely hard lines on it.

So, I'm not sure which rose tinted glasses you're looking at it through if you think it's in anyway gay-friendly.

Even to suggest that there's a 'Christian' view on it is confusing as there are many varying views but they're predominantly very negative.

shruikan2553

SpaceTime wrote: »

Most flavours of Christianity take a very negative view of homosexuality. Most of the more 'liberal' branches seem to take a totally hypocritical and patronising view of being all tolerant on one hand while condemning homosexual acts as a really serious sin.

The less liberal denominations take extremely hard lines on it.

So, I'm not sure which rose tinted glasses you're looking at it through if you think it's in anyway gay-friendly.

Even to suggest that there's a 'Christian' view on it is confusing as there are many varying views but they're predominantly very negative.

Sure its ok to be gay, just dont do anything gay related as thats a sin and you'll go to hell. But you're fine as long as you dont do anything. How much more tolerant can you expect?

But dont mention the divorce, sex before marriage things as nobody follows that.

Corkfeen

lazybones32 wrote: »

Do you know what the Christian stance on homosexuality is? I guess you don't (and don't want to know) but will you still criticise them for 'preaching' what you incorrectly accuse them of?

I don't know what "proper sex-ed" is. Whatever model they are using either side of Ireland doesn't seem to work, seeing as teen pregnancies are still pretty high, despite the education and often free distribution of contraceptives.

I'm perfectly aware, they view homosexual acts as the sin. So the only way to be a good Catholic is to remain celibate. Otherwise they are engaging in intrinsically disordered acts. So feck yes, a warped attitude to sex right there. So I'm perfectly correct.

In relation to sex ed, it's pretty average in Ireland. It's barely touched upon as many students will back up. For example, I Left Irish second level 4 years ago. Proper usage of condom was never taught which actually accounts for majority of its failure rate.

Another aspect is inclusiveness, there are still sex education groups in this country that teach not having sex as the only stance. This doesn't work. Plus the same groups fail to acknowledge other sexual orientations.

So I view it as pretty important for sex ed to be founded in fact and be inclusive, informative and to encourage tolerance rather than fears and phobias.

SpaceTime

lazybones32 wrote: »

I am concerned that they may have a warped view of sex and women due to the increased exposure to porn.
Good on you for trying to make light of sexual abuse...you're a funny boy/girl.

I'm not even sure where to start on this! Condemning masturbation as a sin is about as ridiculous as condemning drinking cups of tea.

If anything causing people to be guilt ridden and oppressed about something that is a totally harmless activity that almost everyone does is far more likely to cause them to have warped views of sex.

You're also deliberately conflating what's a very, very normal activity with extreme porn consumption.

You might as well condemn sneezing!

Corkfeen

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm not even sure where to start on this! Condemning masturbation as a sin is about as ridiculous as condemning drinking cups of tea.

If anything causing people to be guilt ridden and oppressed about something that is a totally harmless activity that almost everyone does is far more likely to cause them to have warped views of sex.

You're also deliberately conflating what's a very, very normal activity with extreme porn consumption.

Only reason I mentioned it tbh was because I was a bit religious during my childhood. Thought I was eternally doomed when I started puberty. Frightening to think of what sad views I'd have if I remained religious, luckily it ceased pretty early on. Sorry for too much information...

lazybones32

gctest50 wrote: »

And have you done much research into this ?

Spend a lot of time concerned about it ?

.

I read a bit.

No. A few moments after witnessing it. Then I move on.

SpaceTime

I just think that they're worryingly fixated on other people's sexuality and sexual behaviours.

That's just not healthy.

I think we're being trolled though.

lazybones32

SpaceTime wrote: »

Most flavours of Christianity take a very negative view of homosexuality. Most of the more 'liberal' branches seem to take a totally hypocritical and patronising view of being all tolerant on one hand while condemning homosexual acts as a really serious sin.
Even to suggest that there's a 'Christian' view on it is confusing as there are many varying views but they're predominantly very negative.

[/QUOTE]

The Christian view...
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

From the Catechism.

If you've ever been to Mass, have you heard the priest advocating violence of any sort against homosexuals?

SpaceTime

lazybones32 wrote: »

The Christian view...
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

From the Catechism.

If you've ever been to Mass, have you heard the priest advocating violence of any sort against homosexuals?

So basically they see it as a disorder to be pitied and a 'trial' which they suffer.

Also that is the Catholic view not the 'Christian' view which varies enormously.

Sorry: still warped and ridiculous view that's completely out of line with 21st century social norms and law.

As for advocating violence, that's not necessary to ensure social exclusion and to drive someone to depression due to guilt.

These kinds of notions about homosexuality are every bit as wrong as racism or gender discrimination.

lazybones32

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm perfectly aware, they view homosexual acts as the sin. So the only way to be a good Catholic is to remain celibate. Otherwise they are engaging in intrinsically disordered acts. So feck yes, a warped attitude to sex right there. So I'm perfectly correct.

We view heterosexual acts outside of Marriage as sin too but neither are beyond forgiveness.



[/QUOTE] to encourage tolerance rather than fears and phobias.[/QUOTE]
Were you told in school that being gay/lesbian/bi was wrong and you were going to burn forever because of it? I never heard it in school, home or Church but it seems others did (?)

Sorry, I can't figure this multiquote thing out

gctest50

SpaceTime wrote: »

I just think that they're worryingly fixated on other people's sexuality and sexual behaviours.

That's just not healthy.

I think we're being trolled though.

It always seems like trolling, I don't think some of them do it out a desire just to troll though ( it does give other ones more motivation to troll .)

Its like a weird version of Geschwind Syndrome


.