NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I was reading various threads over the last couple weeks, and I noticed something. It seems that, according to many of the denizens of NSG, religion is hazardous to the mind and body, and should be restricted when we talk about youth.

Now, this is a similar argument used for alcohol and cigarettes. Because of the inherent harm they may cause, we do not allow children to drink or smoke until they're 21 and 18 respectively (local laws may vary).

What do you think NSG, should there be a legal religious age? Should children not be allowed to participate in religion until they reach a certain age?

There will be a poll.

I think such an age would be even more unenforceable than the age restrictions you already mentioned. Despite my firm belief that religion is harmful, as a philosophical belief amongst many, allowing it to be regulated would allow other philosophical beliefs to be regulated. The thought that this could then rebound in overly religious areas making it illegal for a child to be taught about atheism is abhorant to me. The only logical solution is to make it impossible for the parents to filter belief systems from their children effectively by ensuring that no regulation forbids their growth or verbal destruction. That way children can only be so effectively indoctrinated without being isolated from the world, as simply living will incidentally introduce them to beliefs that oppose their parents, giving the child a chance to develop their own viewpoints.

So my answer is simple. No, there should be no religious age.

So, I was reading various threads over the last couple weeks, and I noticed something. It seems that, according to many of the denizens of NSG, religion is hazardous to the mind and body, and should be restricted when we talk about youth.

Now, this is a similar argument used for alcohol and cigarettes. Because of the inherent harm they may cause, we do not allow children to drink or smoke until they're 21 and 18 respectively (local laws may vary).

What do you think NSG, should there be a legal religious age? Should children not be allowed to participate in religion until they reach a certain age?

There will be a poll.

Naaa. That is all.:D

I think master, that you need, really need, to stop smoking those cheese doodles. :S

No, there should not be a religious age or whatever, if people wanna waste the life let em.

No, there should not be a religious age or whatever, if people wanna waste the life let em.

RoI, that's nonsense. Just because someone chooses being religious isn't tantamount to them wasting their lives.

RoI, that's nonsense. Just because someone chooses being religious isn't tantamount to them wasting their lives.

Well, it kinda is. If someone spends their life worshipping something that isn't real, then surely it's wasted.

Well, it kinda is. If someone spends their life worshipping something that isn't real, then surely it's wasted.

I'm fairly sure that that isn't -all- they do for their whole lives.

I'm fairly sure that that isn't -all- they do for their whole lives.

Monks, ect.

Monks, ect.

Do they enjoy their life? And again, pretty sure monks don't just sit on the bums praying all day. Some of them make buckfast, after all.

But mainly, do they enjoy their life? A life can't be wasted if it was enjoyed.

Monks, ect.

Have you ever met a monk?

I have.

Know what else they do? They teach. They provide counsel. They perform administrative work that either directly or indirectly helps the poor and needy. They safeguard media and artifacts of historical and archaeological value. They assist the community. They donate their time and effort to charities.

I see no waste here. In fact, I see a life that's more worthwhile than most of those who would cast such a judgment.

Well, it kinda is. If someone spends their life worshipping something that isn't real, then surely it's wasted.

That's your perception of them. It isn't necessarily how things are. To you they waste their lives, to them they're fulfilling their lives. Who's wrong? No one. I am not religious in any way, but I won't say religious people waste their lives. It's not a fair thing to say just because it isn't my reality. You should take counsel on this.

I don't see how anyone can enjoy being celebet.(spelling?)

I don't see how anyone can enjoy being celebet.(spelling?)

I don't see how anyone can enjoy sex. But this has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, since I'm an atheist!

I don't see how anyone can enjoy being celebet.(spelling?)

It isn't meant to be enjoyed. It's a personal sacrifice.

(celibate)

I don't see how anyone can enjoy sex. But this has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, since I'm an atheist!

You don't see... how anyone can enjoy it?

Well, it kinda is. If someone spends their life worshipping something that isn't real, then surely it's wasted.

Not quite as much as sitting on NSG posting for hours. :wink:

Monks, ect.

Hey if it wasn't for Monks we wouldn't have some of the best beers in the world.

You don't see... how anyone can enjoy it?

I think Jordi is being sarcastic, but I do actually know at least one person who feels exactly that way.

Not quite as much as sitting on NSG posting for hours. :wink:

:(

Well, it kinda is. If someone spends their life worshipping something that isn't real, then surely it's wasted.

Please provide evidence that the god I believe in is not real.

You don't see... how anyone can enjoy it?

Do you know what asexuality means? It is very real and some people are such. Google it.

Not quite as much as sitting on NSG posting for hours. :wink:

:D
Please provide evidence that the god I believe in is not real.
Please provide evidence that he is real.
Do you know what asexuality means? It is very real and some people are such. Google it.

I've heard of it, I've just never met anyone like it.

I don't know if it's a good thing or not for children to be in the main body of church. Very few are going to understand whats being discussed anyway. But Sunday School with just the basics can't be too harmful can it? Now there are extremists that teach children that hate of another race is a good & religious thing. That can't be anything but counter-productive.

I think Jordi is being sarcastic, but I do actually know at least one person who feels exactly that way.


I'm not. I cope with being in a relationship that requires sex, but I don't enjoy it. I enjoy physical intimacy, but I don't enjoy the whole sticky, close exertion thing. freaks me right out. I don't see how anybody can enjoy that texture over their skin, never mind what happens after the climax. yuck >> I just find it easy to accept that people do enjoy it, despite my bewilderment at it.

Update from the NS beta forum:

18+ - 3 votes, 7%
Maybe - 2 votes, 4%
No - 6 votes, 13%
Galloism's smoking cheese doodles - 35 votes, 76%

I'm not. I cope with being in a relationship that requires sex, but I don't enjoy it. I enjoy physical intimacy, but I don't enjoy the whole sticky, close exertion thing. freaks me right out. I don't see how anybody can enjoy that texture over their skin, never mind what happens after the climax. yuck >> I just find it easy to accept that people do enjoy it, despite my bewilderment at it.

My apologies. I thought you were being sarcastic to prove a point.

Ok, that makes two people I know that feel that way.

I've heard of it, I've just never met anyone like it.

Then I advise to refrain from passing judgement so easily. What people enjoy or not is not your or my problem. People who choose a celibate life aren't wasting it. People who choose to worship a divinity aren't wasting their lives by doing such. People who do not enjoy sex aren't wasting their life. Neo Bretonnia said it, it's all about personal choice. Remember that.

Then I advise to refrain from passing judgement so easily. What people enjoy or not is not your or my problem. People who choose a celibate life aren't wasting it. People who choose to worship a divinity aren't wasting their lives by doing such. People who do not enjoy sex aren't wasting their life. Neo Bretonnia said it, it's all about personal choice. Remember that.

No need to get tetchy. And I'll pass judgement on whoever I see fit tyvm.

Please provide evidence that he is real.


.....

No, that is not how debate works.

You made the claim that god is not real. Now you have to provide evidence for it.

If the only evidence you have is a lack of evidence for it, then that would have meant that nuclear energy was not real during the Middle ages, as we had no evidence for it.

No need to get tetchy. And I'll pass judgement on whoever I see fit tyvm.

I am not getting tetchy or whatever that word is. And you aren't entitled to pass judgement on anyone when you seem to be so terribly biased and uninformed. And I will call you on it every single time, tyvm.

No need to get tetchy. And I'll pass judgement on whoever I see fit tyvm.

?????

touchy?

I don't think her reacting to you passing judgment on people you know nothing about is especially touchy, anymore than if I were to pass judgment on all people who make Lord of the Rings references.

I am not getting tetchy or whatever that word is. And you aren't entitled to pass judgement on anyone when you seem to be so terribly biased and uninformed. And I will call you on it every single time, tyvm.

You're gonna follow me from thread to thread pointing out my flaws? gfi.

You're gonna follow me from thread to thread pointing out my flaws? gfi.

No, I'm not your keeper nor do I have the time to waste it in such matters as your bias and seeming ignorance on a subject. But if we're discussing the same topic and you espouse a biased view, I'll call you on it like I did here.

Your generalization was flawed.

?????

touchy?

I don't think her reacting to you passing judgment on people you know nothing about is especially touchy, anymore than if I were to pass judgment on all people who make Lord of the Rings references.

Nice, very good. But that falls flat on it's face as I didn't name my nation.

So, I was reading various threads over the last couple weeks, and I noticed something. It seems that, according to many of the denizens of NSG, religion is hazardous to the mind and body, and should be restricted when we talk about youth.

Now, this is a similar argument used for alcohol and cigarettes. Because of the inherent harm they may cause, we do not allow children to drink or smoke until they're 21 and 18 respectively (local laws may vary).

What do you think NSG, should there be a legal religious age? Should children not be allowed to participate in religion until they reach a certain age?

There will be a poll.
Uh, no. Not only is that unenforceable, it is a severe violation of First Amendment rights.

No, I'm not your keeper nor do I have the time to waste it in such matters as your bias and seeming ignorance on a subject. But if we're discussing the same topic and you espouse a biased view, I'll call you on it like I did here.
Fine, waste your own time. It's yours to waste after all.
Your generalization was flawed.

As is your spelling of generalisation. See, I can be bitchy too.

Nice, very good. But that falls flat on it's face as I didn't name my nation.

You totally missed Galloism's point. Read his post again.

Nice, very good. But that falls flat on it's face as I didn't name my nation.

I could pass judgment on everyone that uses a hammer and sickle symbol.

Really, I could do this all day. The point is, you admitted you suddenly pass judgment on huge groups of people you know nothing about, and have no reason to pass judgment on other than it's not the way that you live.

It's despicable.

Fine, waste your own time. It's yours to waste after all.

Yeah.... a teen.:rolleyes:

As is your spelling of generalisation. See, I can be bitchy too.

My spelling isn't flawed. Generalization is written with a 'z' in US English. You would know that if you actually knew your own language.

As is your spelling of generalisation. See, I can be bitchy too.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generalization

Double fail, Noun.

Trying to call someone on a fail and failing epically yourself when it's shown they didn't fail.

I could pass judgment on everyone that uses a hammer and sickle symbol.

Really, I could do this all day. The point is, you admitted you suddenly pass judgment on huge groups of people you know nothing about, and have no reason to pass judgment on other than it's not the way that you live.

It's despicable.
Now who's passing judgement? I'm not despicable.
Yeah.... a teen.:rolleyes:
What?


My spelling isn't flawed. Generalization is written with a 'z' in US English. You would know that if you actually knew your own language.

Seriously? wtf? Why be like that?


I know my own fucking language, it's an "S".

Seems to me it'd be a fundamental violation of the parents' religious rights to somehow force them to not expose their children in any way to religion.

Religion, like culture, is going to be a parental choice, and one that I support as long as it doesn't become abusive, and no, I don't think either are inherently abusive. Children turning into adults can make the choice to affirm or reject either.

Terrible idea. If you start regualting relegion, what else are you going to regulate? Thinking? Breathing?

Now who's passing judgement? I'm not despicable.

I said the act was despicable. Hence why I used the pronoun "it" instead of "you." Unless, of course, you're saying that you're a thing and not a person, but I don't think that you're an elaborate Turing test.

Seriously? wtf? Why be like that?


I know my own fucking language, it's an "S".

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14804410&postcount=39

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14804410&postcount=39

As someone who consistently spells words like realise, generalise, capitalisation and circumcision with an 's' rather than a 'z', I'd like to suggest that both of you dorks take your spelling nazism elsewhere.

I said the act was despicable. Hence why I used the pronoun "it" instead of "you." Unless, of course, you're saying that you're a thing and not a person, but I don't think that you're an elaborate Turing test.

Very well, it is not despicable.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14804410&postcount=39

Yeah, I saw that. Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary I believe.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14804410&postcount=39

Actually he is English so it is a "s"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/generalisation

Very well, it is not despicable.

The act of passing judgment on huge swaths of people without even having a reason or an informed opinion about those people, to scream from ignorance about something you've never even seen, is despicable.

However, this is turning into a huge threadjack, and I actually don't want to derail this thread, so lets get back to the topic.

Yeah, I saw that. Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary I believe.

Yes, and I'm American, and Nanatsu got her teaching from American tutors, hence she spells things the good old American way. It's not incorrect.

Back to the topic!

In answer to the poll, I think it's unfair to indoctrinate kids into religion, but the parents believe they are making the right choice and saving their children from hell/being reincarnated as a slug etc. Oh and RoI, even though I've got you on ignore, I can see your quoted posts. You can spell generalise with a Z, it doesn't matter.

Take it from a government employee; it's unenforceable. Hell, the smoking age is practically unenforceable, let alone the drinking age.

As someone who consistently spells words like realise, generalise, capitalisation and circumcision with an 's' rather than a 'z', I'd like to suggest that both of you dorks take your spelling nazism elsewhere.

Meh, not my fault everyone spells it wrongly.

Meh, not my fault everyone spells it wrongly.

oh my word seriously? Most boring thread jack ever.

I was trained that religion is a matter of utmost seriousness and should only be attempted by those of mature understanding, which means at least 13 and often older.

I am quite serious here.

My people only baptize adults because liddle kiddies just don't get it, and while it may be cute to dress up the tykes and "do the kid", which is what they often call infant baptism, it is meaningless and insulting to those who believe the action requires both understanding and the ability to make a binding decision.

And then you only get to take communion AFTER you are baptized.

A presbyterian scholar once wrote an article called "communion for dogs", back around 1989, and he said that in medieval chueches they used to let animals come in and sample the sacred host, bread and wine, because it got hot in the church in summer so they left the doors open and nobody wanted to deal with the hungry dogs, who then got to help themselves. The dog was thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, "Hoc est mea canem corpus".

The author said that baptizing infants and feeding them the host was like giving communion to dogs, since it was just as meaningless and offensive.

I happen to agree.

I think it's a fine idea to let them delay baptism and communion until they can get booze and cigarettes. Maybe we could incorporate those into first communion, and have some fun that way.

touchy?

English word, means basically the same thing.

Yes, and I'm American, and Nanatsu got her teaching from American tutors, hence she spells things the good old American way. It's not incorrect.

Back to the topic!
Old American way? wtf?

Old American way? wtf?

I've unblocked you for the sake of this post.

Seriously, are you that FUCKING STUPID that you can't understand different countries have different spelling systems and talk differently to you?

I was trained that religion is a matter of utmost seriousness and should only be attempted by those of mature understanding, which means at least 13 and often older.
Question though...what do you define as religion?

As in...would teaching my children aboriginal spirituality qualify? Because we do that through stories, much as Christian religion is taught to children, etc. Do children understand these stories as anything but stories? Not sure...my children believe they have a robotic uncle, they think that if you put pop rocks and soda in your mouth at the same time that your head will explode, and they also believe in the tooth fairy. What's one more imaginary being in such a pantheon of strange beliefs, and which qualify as religious versus just...something else?

I've unblocked you for the sake of this post.

Seriously, are you that FUCKING STUPID that you can't understand different countries have different spelling systems and talk differently to you?

Hang on, no one has quoted that post, how did you read it, if you had him blocked?

Hang on, no one has quoted that post, how did you read it, if you had him blocked?

Read the top part of my post again.

Hang on, no one has quoted that post, how did you read it, if you had him blocked?

Read the top part of my post again.

Shut.


Up.

Read the top part of my post again.

It says I have unblocked you for the sake of this post, I assumed you were talking about the one you quoted.

Shut.


Up.

Yes, more people saying this please. This was an interesting topic until it got all stupided up.

It says I have unblocked you for the sake of this post, I assumed you were talking about the one you quoted.

No I meant I unblocked him so I could talk to him and see exactly what he was saying.

Question though...what do you define as religion?

As in...would teaching my children aboriginal spirituality qualify? Because we do that through stories, much as Christian religion is taught to children, etc. Do children understand these stories as anything but stories? Not sure...my children believe they have a robotic uncle, they think that if you put pop rocks and soda in your mouth at the same time that your head will explode, and they also believe in the tooth fairy. What's one more imaginary being in such a pantheon of strange beliefs, and which qualify as religious versus just...something else?

First...

Holy smokes, I want a robotic uncle!

Second...

Sort of to expand on your thoughts...

The philosophy of childhood is somewhat fascinating to me. It's when we as people learn how to describe and evaluate the world, and while doing so, we build and adopt all of these explanatory constructs to help explain why and how the world works. As we grow, we shed these childhood tools, but I'd daresay to hold back any of the tools, be it the tooth fairy, Jesus or the glowing dog that lived under my bed, is foolish. Closing off a child's avenues of inquiry is foolish, and likely to stunt his or her growth as a person.

No I meant I unblocked him so I could talk to him and see exactly what he was saying.

kk

And now we have it out of our system and know the true spelling of generalisation is with an "s" and the Seppos spell it with a "z" we can go back to the OT and see people's views on a legal religious age.

Personally, I don't think there should be a legal religious age, after all some people wish to have the young children baptised at a young age so that if they die they will be in heaven rather than sent to hell, by stopping them from doing this because of their age you are stopping adults from practising their religion.

Question though...what do you define as religion?

As in...would teaching my children aboriginal spirituality qualify? Because we do that through stories, much as Christian religion is taught to children, etc. Do children understand these stories as anything but stories? Not sure...my children believe they have a robotic uncle, they think that if you put pop rocks and soda in your mouth at the same time that your head will explode, and they also believe in the tooth fairy. What's one more imaginary being in such a pantheon of strange beliefs, and which qualify as religious versus just...something else?

I do think stories are great, and kids can participate at a level they understand. So you can talk about communion as if you were sharing a PB&J sandwich, and it works at that level.

I tell all kinds of religious stories to kids and they all make me feel wiser, if not them. I tell tales of the Mullah Nasrudin, The Bel Shem Tov, the Desert Fathers, the Iroquois, and Clarence Jordan.

What?

You are acting like what you are, a 14 year old. I can't expect anything else.

Seriously? wtf? Why be like that?

Because you lashed out the same way. I grow tired of this.

I know my own fucking language, it's an "S".

Not if you don't know that in English, spellings with both 's' and 'z' ARE correct. My English education was imparted by American tutors, so I spell in American English. But even I, a *gasp* foreigner, know that generalise and generalize are accepted spellings of the word.

But this, as it has been stated, is NOT the topic.

I've unblocked you for the sake of this post.

Seriously, are you that FUCKING STUPID that you can't understand different countries have different spelling systems and talk differently to you?

Stop it.

You are acting like what you are, a 14 year old. I can't expect anything else.15- nearly 16.

Because you lashed out the same way. I grow tired of this.
When did I lash out?


Not if you don't know that in English, spellings with both 's' and 'z' ARE correct. My English education was imparted by American tutors, so I spell in American English. But even I, a *gasp* foreigner, know that generalise and generalize are accepted spellings of the word.

But this, as it has been stated, is NOT the topic.
What difference does it make if you're foriegn?

What difference does it make if you're foriegn?

Because she can speak English better than you?

Because she can speak English better than you?

She's been learning it longer than me.

I think such an age would be even more unenforceable than the age restrictions you already mentioned. Despite my firm belief that religion is harmful, as a philosophical belief amongst many, allowing it to be regulated would allow other philosophical beliefs to be regulated. The thought that this could then rebound in overly religious areas making it illegal for a child to be taught about atheism is abhorant to me. The only logical solution is to make it impossible for the parents to filter belief systems from their children effectively by ensuring that no regulation forbids their growth or verbal destruction. That way children can only be so effectively indoctrinated without being isolated from the world, as simply living will incidentally introduce them to beliefs that oppose their parents, giving the child a chance to develop their own viewpoints.

So my answer is simple. No, there should be no religious age.

Jord's nailed it...

15- nearly 16.

Then it's time you start pondering things the proper way.:wink:

When did I lash out?

When you suggested that I "I be bitchy too" in answer to one of my posts referring to yourself. I agree, I am a bitch which is why I will, when there's need, call people out on mistakes and generalizations like the one you made on Christians.

What difference does it make if you're foriegn?

I put great stock on learning and speaking other langauges properly. I respect languages. That's the difference that it makes. Once again, THIS is not the topic being discussed. From here on out, if you insist on discussing this particularity, I will ignore you in debate.

Then it's time you start pondering things the proper way.:wink:.
The proper way? Please don't be condecending.

Holy fuck you two are annoying. Seriously. Grow up, the both of you. "Oh I'm just getting the last word in, after this, you can't say anything because I got the last word, ha!"

*gags*

Holy fuck you two are annoying. Seriously. Grow up, the both of you. "Oh I'm just getting the last word in, after this, you can't say anything because I got the last word, ha!"

*gags*

Makes you wish there was a Legal Internet Debate age.

No, that is not how debate works.

You made the claim that god is not real. Now you have to provide evidence for it.

If the only evidence you have is a lack of evidence for it, then that would have meant that nuclear energy was not real during the Middle ages, as we had no evidence for it.

If there was a god would he let atrocaties like the hoolocuast happen? Would he let all those people stave in africa? The answer best be no otherwise he's one sick prick.

Makes you wish there was a Legal Internet Debate age.

*smiles, runs off*

While I would somewhat resent certain choices being made for me..such as being baptised (never happened)...I also appreciate the cultural decisions my own parents made for me. I was raised to respect other people's religions as long as they weren't pushing it on me, and when I flirted with Christianity for a brief moment as a teen, and then Islam even more briefly when I was 18, my parents didn't condemn me. I was clear about my own cultural membership, but I was also free to experiment.

For parents who are particularly religious, or have very strong cultural traditions, it would be very difficult to give a child that kind of freedom. The very fact of everday living according to certain religious principles or traditions would of course result in surrounding your children with these things.

However, I have seen children of extremely religious, or extremely traditional parents turn out quite fine. I suppose it comes down to the open mindedness of the parents, their conscious understanding of their own religious/cultural choices and their ability to actually communicate respectfully with their children. No law is going to cause that to happen.

I was trained that religion is a matter of utmost seriousness and should only be attempted by those of mature understanding, which means at least 13 and often older.

I agree with you to a certain extent. Children like the idea of God, even if they don't understand it. I wouldn't begrudge them that very idea. Of course, understanding of religion or praticing it should be done later on, when the mind can grasp basic concepts of it. That being said, no, there shouldn't be a legal age to practice religion.

Parents shouldn't teach their kids about religion, they should let em find out on there own and choose for themselves.

Parents shouldn't teach their kids about religion, they should let em find out on there own and choose for themselves.

Um...how does that work exactly? Letting kids 'find out on their own'? Would that entail listening to street preachers and then asking questions? Could parents answer those questions? Would religious parents need to be careful to only do religious things out of sight and earshot of their children? Yeah, maybe you could explain this further.

Um...how does that work exactly? Letting kids 'find out on their own'? Would that entail listening to street preachers and then asking questions? Could parents answer those questions? Would religious parents need to be careful to only do religious things out of sight and earshot of their children? Yeah, maybe you could explain this further.

Okay, I worded it wrong. Parents should not push there own ideas onto there kids. Free will and whatnot.

If there was a god would he let atrocaties like the hoolocuast happen? Would he let all those people stave in africa? The answer best be no otherwise he's one sick prick.

There are, in spite of what you hear, a number of ways of understanding why it is that Jesus goes to the cross and what it is that happens there. Not the physiological aspects of his dying mind you, although even that has been analyzed in great detail; but theologically what is happening. Why is it that God allows this death in such a tortuous way; and why does this happen to such a goodly and Godly man; and what does it ultimately accomplish?

One explanation the church has given through the years is a theological doctrine called substitutionary atonement. In this theory, Christ took our place on the cross to placate God, to pay for our sins. It is based on the primeval understanding that God requires blood sacrifice for sin. But I have always had some difficulty with that idea and its understanding of a God who must be paid.

Theologian Dorothee Sölle called it “sadistic theology” and I think she makes a good point. “The ultimate conclusion of [such] sadism,” she writes, “is worshipping the executioner.”Some wonder if this is not God, the ultimate child abuser expressed in this theology, a deity who would offer his own son as a ransom for human sin. It is Sophie’s Choice raised to an ultimate level.

Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor, questions the compassion of a Christian God who can stomach sacrificing his son. He recounts the story of Abraham and Isaac - Abraham standing over his son with a knife ready to sacrifice at God’s command the longed for, only child of his old age. Wiesel says that the main difference between Judaism and Christianity is that on Mount Moriah, the father did not kill his son, while on Golgotha, he did. And because of that Wiesel says he is eternally grateful that God made him a Jew.
http://www.fpcnyc.org/sermons/2005/web/050320.html

Solle goes on to say that the only answer to the Holocaust is that Jesus suffers with those who suffer, goes through it all with them, without ever justifying or explaining anything.

Life can be hell, full of meaningless pain, most of it caused by human free will, not by God. We can at least have some company and sympathy in the middle of that pain.

religion is hazardous to the mind and body, and should be restricted when we talk about youth.


That is one insane generalisation. Religion CAN be hazardous, but there are also studies to suggest it CAN be quite healthy. I rarely see such ridiculous comparisons.

There are, in spite of what you hear, a number of ways of understanding why it is that Jesus goes to the cross and what it is that happens there. Not the physiological aspects of his dying mind you, although even that has been analyzed in great detail; but theologically what is happening. Why is it that God allows this death in such a tortuous way; and why does this happen to such a goodly and Godly man; and what does it ultimately accomplish?

One explanation the church has given through the years is a theological doctrine called substitutionary atonement. In this theory, Christ took our place on the cross to placate God, to pay for our sins. It is based on the primeval understanding that God requires blood sacrifice for sin. But I have always had some difficulty with that idea and its understanding of a God who must be paid.

Theologian Dorothee Sölle called it “sadistic theology” and I think she makes a good point. “The ultimate conclusion of [such] sadism,” she writes, “is worshipping the executioner.”Some wonder if this is not God, the ultimate child abuser expressed in this theology, a deity who would offer his own son as a ransom for human sin. It is Sophie’s Choice raised to an ultimate level.

Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor, questions the compassion of a Christian God who can stomach sacrificing his son. He recounts the story of Abraham and Isaac - Abraham standing over his son with a knife ready to sacrifice at God’s command the longed for, only child of his old age. Wiesel says that the main difference between Judaism and Christianity is that on Mount Moriah, the father did not kill his son, while on Golgotha, he did. And because of that Wiesel says he is eternally grateful that God made him a Jew.
http://www.fpcnyc.org/sermons/2005/web/050320.html

Solle goes on to say that the only answer to the Holocaust is that Jesus suffers with those who suffer, goes through it all with them, without ever justifying or explaining anything.

Life can be hell, full of meaningless pain, most of it caused by human free will, not by God. We can at least have some company and sympathy in the middle of that pain.

But isn't he supposed to be all knowing? All caring?

That is one insane generalisation. Religion CAN be hazardous, but there are also studies to suggest it CAN be quite healthy. I rarely see such ridiculous comparisons.

Would you like to go back and reread the whole sentence instead of snipping the last half?

If there was a god would he let atrocaties like the hoolocuast happen? Would he let all those people stave in africa? The answer best be no otherwise he's one sick prick.

But isn't he supposed to be all knowing? All caring?

Only certain models of god portray her as all knowing and all caring. The ancient Greeks, for example had gods that were quite limited in their powers and quite immoral in their actions.

You are correct that an all powerful (omnipotent) and all-caring (omnibenevolent) god could, and would have, stopped the Holocaust. Yet the Holocaust happened. We can only conclude that if god exists, she is not all caring or all powerful, or neither.

However, it doesn't prove that god doesn't exist. It just proves that the picture that many people have of god is not right.

But isn't he supposed to be all knowing? All caring?

But He also gave us free will, freedom to act. Inside the human heart, to use something, there's potential for the greatest good and the greatest evil. We cannot blame a divinity for the horrible things we're capable of doing.

Would you like to go back and reread the whole sentence instead of snipping the last half?

I didn't say you personally were saying that.

I didn't say you personally were saying that.

Ah ok, well some have. Some in this thread even.

Only certain models of god portray her as all knowing and all caring. The ancient Greeks, for example had gods that were quite limited in their powers and quite immoral in their actions.

You are correct that an all powerful (omnipotent) and all-caring (omnibenevolent) god could, and would have, stopped the Holocaust. Yet the Holocaust happened. We can only conclude that if god exists, she is not all caring or all powerful, or neither.

However, it doesn't prove that god doesn't exist. It just proves that the picture that many people have of god is not right.

But He also gave us free will, freedom to act. Inside the human heart, to use something, there's potential for the greatest good and the greatest evil. We cannot blame a divinity for the horrible things we're capable of doing.


Tis immpossible to prove either way, but why believe in it if there's no proof?

Tis immpossible to prove either way, but why believe in it if there's no proof?

Why not believe in it? We will never be certain, but if a child believes in God, in an idea of Him/Her, who are we, as society to either ban or allow it? They will probably grow cynical by age 13. Let them enjoy their innocence.

Besides, I think it's silly how people jump to conclusions when it comes to religious beliefs. There are such a variety of said beliefs, from organised religious orthodoxy to some belief of the earth as a semi-sentinant, etc. Which religious beliefs would be 'okay' to teach to children and which wouldn't?

Why not believe in it? We will never ber certain, but if a child believes in God, in an idea of Him/Her, who are we, as society to either ban or allow it? They will probably grow cynical by age 13. Let them enjoy their innocence.

Why should they get it? Allot of people never had it anyway.

And I was cynical long before I reached thierteen, yet it is not banned here.

Why should they get it? Allot of people never had it anyway.

And I was cynical long before I reached thierteen, yet it is not banned here.

But a lot did have, the belief in a divinity, it and it's silly (not saying that you are) to posit that there should be a legal age to worship.

But a lot did have, the belief in a divinity, it and it's silly (not saying that you are) to posit that there should be a legal age to worship.

It is silly. People can follow whatever religion they want at any age.

I envy those with innocence.

Besides, I think it's silly how people jump to conclusions when it comes to religious beliefs. There are such a variety of said beliefs, from organised religious orthodoxy to some belief of the earth as a semi-sentinant, etc. Which religious beliefs would be 'okay' to teach to children and which wouldn't?

That's difficult to judge. But there are real problems. Some religious beliefs are profoundly harmful to a childs sense of self worth. Some people get all wishy-washy over a religion being empowering or giving them hope. How much hope does old testament christianity give to a girl? "hey, you're the source of all the worlds misery, you menstruate as a punishment, you're unclean, you're able to be bought and sold at will, and you know what? Shut the hell up. and get ready for a life of doing whatever your husband tells you." Sure this is an extreme example, but it's being used to illustrate an extreme point. Is it legitimate for parents to teach their child that as a religious belief?

That's difficult to judge. But there are real problems. Some religious beliefs are profoundly harmful to a childs sense of self worth. Some people get all wishy-washy over a religion being empowering or giving them hope. How much hope does old testament christianity give to a girl? "hey, you're the source of all the worlds misery, you menstruate as a punishment, you're unclean, you're able to be bought and sold at will, and you know what? Shut the hell up. and get ready for a life of doing whatever your husband tells you." Sure this is an extreme example, but it's being used to illustrate an extreme point. Is it legitimate for parents to teach their child that as a religious belief?

I've never met any "old testament Christians".......we pretty much call them Jews.

I've never met any "old testament Christians".......we pretty much call them Jews.

Dman it, you beat me to the punch.

I've never met any "old testament Christians".......we pretty much call them Jews.

The Jews weren't the only ones who stated this. The Catholics of the Middle Ages did too. What's more, women couldn't be taught to write and read for religious reasons and their hair needed to be tied and kept under bonnets because, accroding to the Church, "A woman's hair is the rope the Devil uses to tempt Man.".

I've never met any "old testament Christians".......we pretty much call them Jews.

I've tried to write out what I was -trying- to say about 12 times, so this is the revised but still unsatisfactory explanation to what I was meaning.


I wasn't talking about old testament christians, but there are certainly people who call themselves christians who emphasise the old testament. They aren't jews, because they still get on the whole jesus train and call themselves christians. It was the emphasis on the text I was talking about, not necessarily the identitification they applied to themselves.

I think that's the general idea behind Confirmation.

I think that's the general idea behind Confirmation.

In the case of Catholicsm, yes.

The Jews weren't the only ones who stated this. The Catholics of the Middle Ages did too. What's more, women couldn't be taught to write and read for religious reasons and their hair needed to be tied and kept under bonnets because, accroding to the Church, "A woman's hair is the rope the Devil uses to tempt Man.".

Because, as any schoolchild knows, it's all about protecting Men from themselves. What a hideously pessimistic view of humanity and life festered in those deserts all those thousands of years ago! Sin visited on infants by the simple fact of being born, the human body - supposedly made in the image of the Creator and Ruler of the Entire Universe - held to be a thing of shame to be hidden from view. :rolleyes: A human parent who treated his or her children the way the Abrahamic god has treated his would be watching a Child Services vehicle driving away from his or her house before you could say, "Thou shalt have no god before me."

Tis immpossible to prove either way, but why believe in it if there's no proof?

If it is impossible to prove ether way, that would mean that there is no proof for a lack of god. So, I could ask you why you believe there is no god if there's no proof.

Now, there are things that happen that people think is evidence for god. It's very hard to say for sure if they are or not. This is because god may or may not be supernatural, and it is impossible to get any scientific evidence for something like that. So, the evidence that does exist is not scientific.

I've tried to write out what I was -trying- to say about 12 times, so this is the revised but still unsatisfactory explanation to what I was meaning.


I wasn't talking about old testament christians, but there are certainly people who call themselves christians who emphasise the old testament. They aren't jews, because they still get on the whole jesus train and call themselves christians. It was the emphasis on the text I was talking about, not necessarily the identitification they applied to themselves.
I know what you meant, it was a joke. I'll try to remember that they don't translate well without tone of voice.

I know what you meant, it was a joke. I'll try to remember that they don't translate well without tone of voice.

my fault. I'm very serious at the moment. Had my debate hat on for too long, too many things on my mind. :P

In the case of Catholicsm, yes.

And similar rites in other religions. Honestly, I don't think many religions encourage people to rush in to it; accepting that faith requires real consideration and thought beyond what you're taught as a child. In fact, a lot of them likely discourage people from committing to the faith without proper consideration because it can be such a monumental decision.

Personally, the thought of a minimum religious age is laughable because it's not only completely unenforceable but also gives government dangerous control over thought. I assume atheists and agnostics would be included as well, but for some reason I figure it would be more of an attempt to indoctrinate children against religion than anything honest.

If it is impossible to prove ether way, that would mean that there is no proof for a lack of god. So, I could ask you why you believe there is no god if there's no proof.

Now, there are things that happen that people think is evidence for god. It's very hard to say for sure if they are or not. This is because god may or may not be supernatural, and it is impossible to get any scientific evidence for something like that. So, the evidence that does exist is not scientific.

But, there's no proof of him. There's more proof of him not existing in my eyes. What has he ever done? How has he proven himself? How has he helped?

Because, as any schoolchild knows, it's all about protecting Men from themselves. What a hideously pessimistic view of humanity and life festered in those deserts all those thousands of years ago! Sin visited on infants by the simple fact of being born, the human body - supposedly made in the image of the Creator and Ruler of the Entire Universe - held to be a thing of shame to be hidden from view. :rolleyes: A human parent who treated his or her children the way the Abrahamic god has treated his would be watching a Child Services vehicle driving away from his or her house before you could say, "Thou shalt have no god before me."

:tongue:

Know what else [monks] do? They teach. They provide counsel. They perform administrative work that either directly or indirectly helps the poor and needy. They safeguard media and artifacts of historical and archaeological value. They assist the community. They donate their time and effort to charities.
They make kick-ass beer.

And Buckfast.

I was trained that religion is a matter of utmost seriousness and should only be attempted by those of mature understanding, which means at least 13 and often older.

I am quite serious here.

My people only baptize adults because liddle kiddies just don't get it, and while it may be cute to dress up the tykes and "do the kid", which is what they often call infant baptism, it is meaningless and insulting to those who believe the action requires both understanding and the ability to make a binding decision.

And then you only get to take communion AFTER you are baptized.

A presbyterian scholar once wrote an article called "communion for dogs", back around 1989, and he said that in medieval chueches they used to let animals come in and sample the sacred host, bread and wine, because it got hot in the church in summer so they left the doors open and nobody wanted to deal with the hungry dogs, who then got to help themselves. The dog was thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, "Hoc est mea canem corpus".

The author said that baptizing infants and feeding them the host was like giving communion to dogs, since it was just as meaningless and offensive.

I happen to agree.

I think it's a fine idea to let them delay baptism and communion until they can get booze and cigarettes. Maybe we could incorporate those into first communion, and have some fun that way.

Just to let you know, in the Roman Catholic Church, children don't get to receive communion until they've reached about 7-8 years old (my niece, who is 8, just had her First Communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Communion) a couple of weeks ago).

And Buckfast.

Goddamn Buckfast...

Okay, I worded it wrong. Parents should not push THEIR own ideas onto THEIR kids. Free will and whatnot.

Fixed it for you. :tongue:

BTW, you're wrong. Parents have a responsibility to raise their children the best way they know how. If the best way they know how involves some sort of spirituality, then so be it. I'm glad my parents raised me Catholic (Roman Catholic, to be precise), as I feel they taught me good morals and a respect for others. Could they have taught me the same things without religion? Possibly, but then it might not have sunk in as well.

Goddamn Buckfast...
'mon the Buckie!


Parents have a responsibility to raise their children the best way they know how. If the best way they know how involves some sort of spirituality, then so be it.
Damn straight.

If folks want to restrict religious believers from bringing up their children in their religion, then presumably they'd want to restrict any parent from bringing up any child in any belief-system whatsoever?

I also find the implicit suggestion that kids who are brought up in a religion are necessarily indoctrinated as rather silly. First off, there's plenty of individuals like myself who were brought up in a very religious family, yet have no religious inclinations whatsoever, and secondly, there's plenty of genuine young believers who do genuinely believe; weren't forced into it.

I can't see a any kind of religious age being enforceable. And what would it even achieve?
I think that's the general idea behind Confirmation.
Didn't stop me from jumping ship ;)
They make kick-ass beer.

And Buckfast.

Buckfast, ugh. Damn, even typing it tastes awful.

'mon the Buckie!

lol. I haven't heard 'mon in bare time. I thought it died out.

Also, this raises the question, would the parents still be allowed to teach the kids their religion at home, and just be banned from taking them to church/mosque/synagogue etc or what?

Also, this raises the question, would the parents still be allowed to teach the kids their religion at home, and just be banned from taking them to church/mosque/synagogue etc or what?

Dunno, I'm kind of hazy on specific rules at this point.

Basically, this thread is in response to certain assertions made by various posters over the last couple of weeks that children should not allow religion to impact their life and care. Also, there were a couple of even more interesting posters who said that religion is hazardous in of itself.

Ergo, I was just querying whether it should be restricted to adults as a hazardous substance, like cigarettes and alcohol.

I'm an atheist and there should be no religious age. However, that doesn't mean parents should be immune from restricting their children from vital medical treatment due to religious reasons imo.

However, that doesn't mean parents should be immune from restricting their children from vital medical treatment due to religious reasons imo.

And you nailed it.:)

I'm an atheist and there should be no religious age. However, that doesn't mean parents should be immune from restricting their children from vital medical treatment due to religious reasons imo.

But surely that is FSM as your avatar.