Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mary says YES!
Options
Comments
-
Simple : a question about a fact. Do you support Ireland or Argentina?
As opposed to a speculative question : do you think I support Ireland or Argentina?
You refused to reply to a simple question, instead dodging like mad about "faith vs truth" when you know well - if you are honest - that children in Infants' class are taught the stories about Jesus and Mary as being facts. That you try to dilute that with a spell about "other people's truths" just shows you're not being honest, no matter how you deny it.
I AM being honest with you when I tell you that children in infant classes are not taught the stories about Jesus and Mary as facts. I'm not trying to dilute anything or avoid anything! I'm stating as a fact, and I am being honest with you, and as straightforward with you as I can be - children are not taught these stories as facts.And what's the point in that? I have no way of knowing, which was the distinction I was making about factual vs speculative questions.
So my opinion is worth very little in this case, and I don't see why you put so much importance on hearing what it might be. Possibly because you're hoping to be able to object to it, and maybe even get me banned for speculating about your motives? (But of course that's purely speculative too, and therefore worth very little either)
Of course I want to hear your opinion! The reason I put so much importance on your opinion is because I believe that it's important to listen to people if we're ever to have any hope of understanding each other, so no, I don't want to object to your opinion, I'd rather hear your opinion first and then I can form a judgement of your opinion. I may object to some elements of your opinion, I hope I agree with more of it, as it means we're getting somewhere, we're reaching an understanding (even if we may disagree on our proposals, at least we understand each other!). Have you seen how the abortion thread has dragged on in a circular and pointless fashion? I'd rather we didn't.
I'd just like to make sure you know too that I would never want to see you banned, that's point scoring, and it's nasty. It's the speculation based upon a lack of evidence that irritates me. That's just gossip, scaremongering, or passing judgement without any real basis for your claims, like when you speculated that I was an unfit parent. I didn't take it badly because I understood you were basing your opinion on your own standards, so I understood where you were coming from.And yet you are. You continue to insist that catechism classes don't teach New Testament stories as true, when you know they do. You attempt a dodge about "faith" but you can hardly fail to know that children of 6 are not taipught about Jesus' conception, birth and life in anything like the way they learn about Old Tetament stories.
I've already stated that what is taught in the religious curriculum is taught as true. It's tailored for SIX YEAR OLDS (as opposed to adults who might read sexual connotations into children's stories), so yes, they tend to leave out the parts of the Bible that include themes like rape, sodomy, murder, incest and so on, and they word the stories of the Bible in a way that appeals to a six year old child's cognitive abilities.
I've done the same for my own child, y'know, related the stories of the Bible to him in a way that he understands. I've also introduced him to other religions and he seems quite adept at being able to distinguish fact from fantasy. He's even tried to use his knowledge of that distinction to his advantage when he hints about asking Santa for an iPhone for Christmas. He is by no means unique in this regard. I've met plenty of six year olds who could do the same, and I've met a frightening number of adults who couldn't. They would be the type of adult who would interpret concepts literally.
Often made for very awkward discussion.Irrelevant, because I didn't say they were abused for what they believed, I said that sending this sort of message of passivity when being asked to do something worrying by a trusted adult is unfortunate, given that abusers use exactly this sort of technique when grooming their future victims.
Again, that's an interesting interpretation of the story, but your claims are predicated on your misinterpretation of the story, misconstruing it's intent, in order to make a rather spurious claim.
How do you feel about children being told the story of how Jesus turned water into wine, or that Jesus rose from the dead?
Alcoholic zombie bastard!
That's what happens when you choose to cry wolf and rip the piss out of something - when you claim to have a genuine grievance, people are skeptical about whether you're actually being serious, or is this just another attempt at taking the piss, and a rather despicable attempt using the potential for children to be sexually abused to do so.0 -
-
This is a lie. Either that or you don't understand your own religion.One eyed Jack wrote: »I AM being honest with you when I tell you that children in infant classes are not taught the stories about Jesus and Mary as facts. I'm not trying to dilute anything or avoid anything! I'm stating as a fact, and I am being honest with you, and as straightforward with you as I can be - children are not taught these stories as facts.I've already stated that what is taught in the religious curriculum is taught as true. It's tailored for SIX YEAR OLDS (as opposed to adults who might read sexual connotations into children's stories), so yes, they tend to leave out the parts of the Bible that include themes like rape, sodomy, murder, incest and so on, and they word the stories of the Bible in a way that appeals to a six year old child's cognitive abilities.
How do you feel about children being told the story of how Jesus turned water into wine, or that Jesus rose from the dead?
Wait. Are you now claiming that Catholics don't believe that Jesus performed real miracles, or that he rose from the dead?
Maybe you actually weren't lying just now, and you genuinely don't know what the catholic religion teaches as fact and what it doesn't.
So. What do you think the official line is on the Eucharist then? Jesus' real body and blood, or just a symbol? 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This is a lie. Either that or you don't understand your own religion.
Or, more likely, you just don't understand the idea of religious education and faith formation in Irish Roman Catholic ethos schools.Wait. Are you now claiming that Catholics don't believe that Jesus performed real miracles, or that he rose from the dead?
No, I never made any such claims.Maybe you actually weren't lying just now, and you genuinely don't know what the catholic religion teaches as fact and what it doesn't.
It's no surprise that you'll believe what you want when it suits you. Throughout this thread it's been claimed that children believe what they're told. I argued that they don't. They believe what suits them, as do adults.So. What do you think the official line is on the Eucharist then? Jesus' real body and blood, or just a symbol?
The official line on the Eucharist is probably explained on that website you linked to earlier that explained many of the official lines, doctirines, dogmas and beliefs contained in the Roman Catholic Catechism.
It may not make any mention of how religious beliefs and stories from the Bible are taught as fact in Irish Roman Catholic ethos schools, so it in no way provides evidence for your earlier claims, but it might be useful for increasing your knowledge and understanding of Roman Catholicism. Mine is fine btw.
I'd be loathe to profer a smiley as that'd just be smug, patronising behaviour. I entered this discussion with the best will in the world, but it's since become obvious that we're all just here to take the piss really. So, do you want an actual discussion, or do you just want to point score and take the piss?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
You're posting stuff that directly contradicts catholic teaching, and you're alleging that 6 year olds should be able to work this out for themselves.
Yes, and I posted evidence of same earlier in the thread -I'm familiar with that study, but they were specifically concerned with children from religious backgrounds vs. children from non-religious backgrounds, as opposed to objectively examining children's ability to be skeptical, which is the basis of how they form judgements (they offer some explanations as to why children raised with religion would appear to be less skeptical), but I believe that this study is often mistakenly presented as evidence that religious children (don't let Richard Dawkins ever hear you refer to 'a religious child'
) have any difficulty in distinguishing fact from fiction. Children process new ideas differently based upon previous experiences they can relate those concepts to, and that's why it appears that religious children aren't as skeptical as non-religious children.
Here's a more comprehensive analysis though of children's thinking -
Revisiting the Fantasy-Reality Distinction: Children as Naïve SkepticsAbstract
Far from being the uncritical believers young children have been portrayed as, children often exhibit skepticism toward the reality status of novel entities and events. This paper reviews research on children’s reality status judgments, testimony use, understanding of possibility, and religious cognition. When viewed from this new perspective it becomes apparent that, when assessing reality status, children are as likely to doubt as they are to believe. It is suggested that immature metacognitive abilities are at the root of children’s skepticism, specifically that an insufficient ability to evaluate the scope and relevance of one’s knowledge leads to an over-reliance on it in evaluating reality status. With development comes increasing ability to utilize a wider range of sources to inform reality status judgments.Remember "Blessed Mary ever Virgin" - is that all nonsense now too?
The explanation for that in Roman Catholic teachings is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church -Mary's virginity
496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed".146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:
You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church
Faith formation as part of religious education remember, as distinct from imparting religious beliefs as fact.If you claim it is, I have to point out to you that many catholic adults believe it, and it's really not sensible to expect 6 year olds to have better critical faculties than adults.
Based on this claim, I have to ask, how many adults and children have you spent any time with to really get to know them? It may not seem logical to hold the belief that six year olds may have better critical faculties than adults, but the very fact that as you point out yourself that adults may believe this stuff without question, while the most common question you hear children ask is "Why?", suggests that children may indeed have better critical faculties than adults.
My own theory on that is that it's because children don't hold as many prejudices as adults do by the time they reach adulthood. Children aren't embarrassed to ask the questions that adults are afraid to deal with. They don't have the same "concrete" thinking that adults do, because they don't have the same knowledge as adults, so they question far more of the world around them, whereas adults are more willing to accept what they're told as long as it fits in neatly with their already formed prejudices and biases.You're posting stuff that just doesn't correspond to the catholic religion, in fact contradicts it - and I can't see any evidence here or elsewhere for your claims.
Do you want the facts, or do you just want the version of the truth that suits you?0 -
-
-
-
-
Ah, so that was your evidence! Unfortunately for you it also finds that children subjected to religious indoctrination have a lower ability to form their own opinions than those who are not taught to believe in a religion.
The only thing that's unfortunate here is that when I answer one claim, you move the goalposts again to claim that my evidence doesn't support a different claim. This is the actual claim you made that I was posting my evidence in reply to -You're posting stuff that directly contradicts catholic teaching, and you're alleging that 6 year olds should be able to work this out for themselves.
I took your post to mean you were referring to the six year olds abilities to think critically, and the link I provided supports the claim that they are able to work out for themselves that what I have posted directly contradicts catholic teaching if they are presented with both narratives.So while no-one thinks that no children are ever able to withhold belief from crazy stories, that link definitely doesn't show that children who are told that Mary remained a virgin etc will know not to believe it.
You certainly did earlier? And there have been many posters here who have claimed that children do not think about things, that they simply believe what they're told and take it as fact. The evidence I linked to contradicts that claim. The link was never intended to show that children who are told Mary remained a virgin, etc, will know not to believe it, as that's a very specific claim. It's a bit like your earlier claims about six year olds that believe in Santa - you couldn't possibly know this for a fact, but it suits you to belleve it. It suits you to believe it because you're quite comfortable in ignoring the fact that those children have not yet been presented with an alternative theory as to how the presents appear under the Christmas tree.
That would be down to their unfit parents who chose not to inform them about the fact that they put the presents under the tree, and Santa does not come down chimneys, and Santa does not watch over them all year to assess whether they've been naughty or nice.
You should probably have a word with those parents who are lying to their children. Terrible stuff altogether to use emotional blackmail against their chidlren like that. Might want to have a word with them about the bogeyman and the Easter bunny too while you're at it since you're so concerned about stories that could have children believing in nonsense that could potentially be harmful to them.What are they meant to think about the Eucharist, btw? I asked you earlier but you didn't reply. Do you think they should use their critical faculties there and consider that Communion is not the body and blood of Christ, but only a symbol?
Choosing to read what suits you now too? I'm not surprised. I did answer your question earlier btw -So. What do you think the official line is on the Eucharist then? Jesus' real body and blood, or just a symbol?One eyed Jack wrote: »The official line on the Eucharist is probably explained on that website you linked to earlier that explained many of the official lines, doctirines, dogmas and beliefs contained in the Roman Catholic Catechism.
It may not make any mention of how religious beliefs and stories from the Bible are taught as fact in Irish Roman Catholic ethos schools, so it in no way provides evidence for your earlier claims, but it might be useful for increasing your knowledge and understanding of Roman Catholicism. Mine is fine btw.
I'd be loathe to profer a smiley as that'd just be smug, patronising behaviour. I entered this discussion with the best will in the world, but it's since become obvious that we're all just here to take the piss really. So, do you want an actual discussion, or do you just want to point score and take the piss?0 -
Advertisement
-
And again, neat dodge.One eyed Jack wrote: »The only thing that's unfortunate here is that when I answer one claim, you move the goalposts again to claim that my evidence doesn't support a different claim. This is the actual claim you made that I was posting my evidence in reply to -
I took your post to mean you were referring to the six year olds abilities to think critically, and the link I provided supports the claim that they are able to work out for themselves that what I have posted directly contradicts catholic teaching if they are presented with both narratives.
You certainly did earlier? And there have been many posters here who have claimed that children do not think about things, that they simply believe what they're told and take it as fact. The evidence I linked to contradicts that claim. The link was never intended to show that children who are told Mary remained a virgin, etc, will know not to believe it, as that's a very specific claim. It's a bit like your earlier claims about six year olds that believe in Santa - you couldn't possibly know this for a fact, but it suits you to belleve it. It suits you to believe it because you're quite comfortable in ignoring the fact that those children have not yet been presented with an alternative theory as to how the presents appear under the Christmas tree.
That would be down to their unfit parents who chose not to inform them about the fact that they put the presents under the tree, and Santa does not come down chimneys, and Santa does not watch over them all year to assess whether they've been naughty or nice.
You should probably have a word with those parents who are lying to their children. Terrible stuff altogether to use emotional blackmail against their chidlren like that. Might want to have a word with them about the bogeyman and the Easter bunny too while you're at it since you're so concerned about stories that could have children believing in nonsense that could potentially be harmful to them.
Choosing to read what suits you now too? I'm not surprised. I did answer your question earlier btw -
The funny thing is that you claim you're being honest, when you've been doing nothing but dodging replies the whole time.
Mental reservation is alive and well, clearly. 0 -
And your part in ensuring that consists of what, exactly?
Because from here all I can see is a dogged determination to ensure the Catholic Church gets as much control over children's education as possible, but maybe I'm wrong.
I'd be really interested to hear what steps you've taken to protect children, in general, not just your own, from abusers within the Catholic Church?
You'll accuse me of dodging, but I have no interest in posting that information on a public forum. I don't expect you to take my word for it, you've shown so far that no amount of information I've given you so far is acceptable for you even though I have backed it up with objective evidence.Oh, and I'm still interested in hearing your take on what children are expected to take away from religion classes about the literal truth, or not, of what the Eucharist is?
That's not what you asked me for the first two times, you asked me for the official line on the Eucharist -So. What do you think the official line is on the Eucharist then?
I suggested you check that website you linked to yourself earlier, as that is what children are expected to take away from religion classes. I have no reason to believe you are actually interested in my take on anything at this point.And again, neat dodge.
The funny thing is that you claim you're being honest, when you've been doing nothing but dodging replies the whole time.
I've been honest. You just don't like the honest answers you're being given as they don't fit neatly into your prejudiced ideas about people who are religious. When I'm dodging, I'll tell you I'm unwilling to answer your questions. I think I've been incredibly patient with you this far, but my patience tbh is fast wearing thin at this point because you're coming across as less interested in the discussion, and more interested in badgering.Mental reservation is alive and well, clearly.
And once again - beam in your own eye much?
I think this 'discussion' has run it's course for me at this point tbh. It's gotten to that 'head melt' point where it's just not interesting enough to be worth contributing to any more.0 -
-
-
So obviously that is why parents tell their children about Santa - because the child will clearly see straight through the story that the adult still believes. :rolleyes:One eyed Jack wrote: »What children are expected to believe, and what they actually believe, are two completely different things. That is the very basis of skepticism which leads to questioning in children.
Adults rarely possess this facility for critical thinking because their thinking is more concrete and solidified based upon how their prejudices and biases have been fed over the years. Their thinking is more informed by selection and confirmation bias, and they actually have to make an effort to think critically - they have to be taught how to think critically, to overcome their prejudices and biases.
It's relevant because you dismissed an official RCC website, claiming that what it said wasn't what was taught in Irish schools.One eyed Jack wrote: »My own take on the fundamental tenets of Catholicism is irrelevant here. What is relevant, is how the fundamental tenets of Catholicism are being imparted to children of parents who identify as Roman Catholic, because those children are being indoctrinated in loco parentis in Catholic ethos schools.
Of course you then went and used it to avoid answering the question about why you seemed to think that things that are taught as true as part of standard Catholic teaching will be understood not to be literally true by 6 year olds, but never mind, what's one more inconsistency in the web you've been weaving here?
And it's a bit late now to complain about something that was said - and discussed - way back. If you didn't want to engage, back then was the time to take the hump. Not now that you've been shown up so thoroughly. It just looks like you throwing your toys out of the pram at this stage. But sure, whatever, go ahead. 0 -
-
-
-
OEJ, thank you for your detailed if incomprehensible answer to my post.
You said:As I read it, that's making excuses for child abusers and holding parents responsible for them by allowing child abusers access to their children in their own homes.
I absolutely cannot see how you come to that conclusion from what was said. And you are accusing other people of being sensationalist!
After 16 pages we are no further forward and a lot of the argument is totally irrelevant to the original point, so I am bowing out. If this is a 'last man standing' debate, I think you will probably win
. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement