(May 18, 2017 at 2:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 18, 2017 at 2:02 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: bold mine

Isn't enough that you/christians believe that they are? Isn't that one of the motives for infant baptism? It does not need to be taught to the child. You already believe it and that will come through in interaction with the child. 

I've heard parents teach their infants to pray from the time they can talk, pray to be forgiven for sin, even before the child can understand what they are saying.

(my bold)

Yes it is true that we do, but again, to most of us that is at its core simply the religious way of saying/explaining that none of us humans are perfect. That's the underlying principle, and I don't think anyone can disagree with it. I mean, do you think there is any fully functioning, grown human being who has never done anything wrong in his life? Never been rude to someone, never lied, never done anything selfish or petty, etc? No? We agree then that imperfection of that sort is the human condition. The difference lies in the way we explain it or word it. But the principle itself is one that we agree on.     

And even considering that, as far as I'm aware, the vast majority of Christian parents nonetheless view their babies and young children as precious and innocent, not as tainted and impure. Albeit knowing they won't be perfect, that's not how we view our babies and young children, and certainly not how we treat them or talk to them.

We're not talking about adults, were' talking about infants/children. 

At that point in their development they don't need to know about sin, let alone comprehend it. All they need to be taught is the morality of right from wrong as the parents/society sees it. Not that wrong = sin. They can't understand what sin entails. If wrong is equated with sin then I think you've given the child a burden that they will remember but don't deserve. Wrong should be considered a unknowing mistake. Example: Two year old's lie by unknowing mistake, not to commit sin. 

We're not talking about perfection, no human is perceived as perfect. We're talking about the perception of sin. By performing the ritual the child is perceived to have sin, not imperfection. There is a difference. If held by the parents/church/religion it can't help but color the interaction with the child. 

Sorry, in the context of this discussion you're going to have to tell me what you mean by innocent.

(May 18, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The universe is a mixture of chaos and order. The existence of chaos defines the existence of order, and vice versa. You want to champion half of that equation. You wish away the chaos because the lack of control that implies scares you. Departing from reason into a worldview based upon the mysterious interventions of a mysterious spook isn't making an existential choice, it's abandoning existence as it is for a fairy tale. You want reality to be simpler and cleaner than it is. You embrace the lie that it is. Existence and reason are messy business and that bothers you. Well, tough shit. Get over it. You haven't made a positive choice, investing in the efficacy of reason. You've plastered over the reality with your wishful thinking. And why? Apparently the true face of reality bothers you. Or maybe you're just following the primrose path that your investment in outdated metaphysics has led you to. Either way, I don't care. You are the enemy of reason, not its friend.

I can image pulling a pan from the dishwasher. When I hand it to my wife she’ll ask me if it is clean or dirty. If I reply that part of it is clean and part of it is dirty then I’m pretty sure she’ll tell me that that it’s a dirty pan. Other than that your thoughtless, incoherent rant deserves no reply.

(May 18, 2017 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 18, 2017 at 2:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (my bold)

Yes it is true that we do, but again, to most of us that is at its core simply the religious way of saying/explaining that none of us humans are perfect. That's the underlying principle, and I don't think anyone can disagree with it. I mean, do you think there is any fully functioning, grown human being who has never done anything wrong in his life? Never been rude to someone, never lied, never done anything selfish or petty, etc? No? We agree then that imperfection of that sort is the human condition. The difference lies in the way we explain it or word it. But the principle itself is one that we agree on.     

And even considering that, as far as I'm aware, the vast majority of Christian parents nonetheless view their babies and young children as precious and innocent, not as tainted and impure. Albeit knowing they won't be perfect, that's not how we view our babies and young children, and certainly not how we treat them or talk to them.

We're not talking about adults, were' talking about infants/children. 

At that point in their development they don't need to know about sin, let alone comprehend it. All they need to be taught is the morality of right from wrong as the parents/society sees it. Not that wrong = sin. They can't understand what sin entails. If wrong is equated with sin then I think you've given the child a burden that they will remember but don't deserve. Wrong should be considered a unknowing mistake. Example: Two year old's lie by unknowing mistake, not to commit sin. 

We're not talking about perfection, no human is perceived as perfect. We're talking about the perception of sin. By performing the ritual the child is perceived to have sin, not imperfection. There is a difference. If held by the parents/church/religion it can't help but color the interaction with the child. 

Sorry, in the context of this discussion you're going to have to tell me what you mean by innocent.

That's what we're saying though lol. We're saying that most parents don't tell their 2 year olds about sin.  

I don't remember how old I was when I started to hear the term, but I think probably around 6 or 7. At that point I already understood that there is a difference between right and wrong. I also already understood that no one is perfectly good. Being introduced to the concept of sin and coming to understand it was a process. It's not like my parents sat me down one day and started hitting me with all these heavy things about original sin and Hell.

Did you not go to church until you were 6 or 7? My mom took me as far back as I can remember, and there were kids masses, too, but still went most Sundays. (Kids masses were Wednesdays)
I was confirmed at age 7. You pretty much have to already know the doctrine to go through that ceremony, and that is the standard age to go through it. No Sunday School, or anything like that?

It's taught right form the pulpit, pretty regularly, to people of all ages.

I'm completely teasing, but I have to ask, what kind of Catholic are you? lol

(May 18, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Aroura Wrote: Did you not go to church until you were 6 or 7? My mom took me as far back as I can remember, and there were kids masses, too, but still went most Sundays. (Kids masses were Wednesdays)
I was confirmed at age 7.  You pretty much have to already know the doctrine to go through that ceremony, and that is the standard age to go through it.  No Sunday School, or anything like that?

It's taught right form the pulpit, pretty regularly, to people of all ages.

I'm completely teasing, but I have to ask, what kind of Catholic are you?  lol

I received first communion when I was 8, so my Mom started taking me regularly after that. Before then, I used to stay home on Sundays with my dad because he didn't go to church regularly back in those days. Prior to first communion, I only went during school when we had little 30 minute masses once a month (I went to a Catholic school), or when it was a Holy day like Christmas or Easter and it was a family event.     

I remember being in church when I was super young, but coming to understand everything that was going on was certainly a process.

---

Oh, and no. No Sunday school, just Catholic school from Kindergarten to 8th grade.

(May 18, 2017 at 8:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 18, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Aroura Wrote: Did you not go to church until you were 6 or 7? My mom took me as far back as I can remember, and there were kids masses, too, but still went most Sundays. (Kids masses were Wednesdays)
I was confirmed at age 7.  You pretty much have to already know the doctrine to go through that ceremony, and that is the standard age to go through it.  No Sunday School, or anything like that?

It's taught right form the pulpit, pretty regularly, to people of all ages.

I'm completely teasing, but I have to ask, what kind of Catholic are you?  lol

I received first communion when I was 8, so my Mom started taking me regularly after that. Before then, I used to stay home on Sundays with my dad because he didn't go to church regularly back in those days. Prior to first communion, I only went during school when we had little 30 minute masses once a month (I went to a Catholic school), or when it was a Holy day like Christmas or Easter and it was a family event.     

I remember being in church when I was super young, but coming to understand everything that was going on was certainly a process.

---

Oh, and no. No Sunday school, just Catholic school from Kindergarten to 8th grade.

Right, well of course kids don't fully understand it even at age 7 when the church says you can.  But your personal example seems a bit funny to give considering you are basically saying you didn't get normal exposure to it prior to age 8.

Most kids hear about it and learn about it well before age 8.  Look, the RCC says kids can be confirmed at age 7. Before you can be confirmed, you have to learn a TON of stuff and be able to recite it back. It's not a one week program.  
Most Christian children hear the word sin from they day they are born.  It's just part of the Christian vocabulary.  I'm glad you weren't exposed to it terribly young, though, you also aren't getting the nuanced meanings here.

Like, if I say I'm sad, or morose, grieving, or melancholy, they all technically mean pretty much the same thing, but they all have different flavors, and mean something slightly different.  

Sin is not directly equal to misbehavior, wrong, etc.  It has it's own very specific meaning, even more so than the sad example.

Just spinning my wheels, though.  

Edited to add, Wait I somehow missed your addition.  You went to Catholic School starting in Kindergarten and never heard of sin?    Hm.  sI went to a Catholic School as well, and it was a good one.  I have no resentment about it, I got a good education there.  But religious studies were part of the curriculum.  Like 1 hour a day, and sin is certainly discussed in at least first grade.  Kinder I don't remember much except sleeping and eating snacks, lol.

(May 18, 2017 at 8:40 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 18, 2017 at 8:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I received first communion when I was 8, so my Mom started taking me regularly after that. Before then, I used to stay home on Sundays with my dad because he didn't go to church regularly back in those days. Prior to first communion, I only went during school when we had little 30 minute masses once a month (I went to a Catholic school), or when it was a Holy day like Christmas or Easter and it was a family event.     

I remember being in church when I was super young, but coming to understand everything that was going on was certainly a process.

---

Oh, and no. No Sunday school, just Catholic school from Kindergarten to 8th grade.

Right, well of course kids don't fully understand it even at age 7 when the church says you can.  But your personal example seems a bit funny to give considering you are basically saying you didn't get normal exposure to it prior to age 8.

Most kids hear about it and learn about it well before age 8.  Look, the RCC says kids can be confirmed at age 7. Before you can be confirmed, you have to learn a TON of stuff and be able to recite it back. It's not a one week program.  
Most Christian children hear the word sin from they day they are born.  It's just part of the Christian vocabulary.  I'm glad you weren't exposed to it terribly young, though, you also aren't getting the nuanced meanings here.

Like, if I say I'm sad, or morose, grieving, or melancholy, they all technically mean pretty much the same thing, but they all have different flavors, and mean something slightly different.  

Sin is not directly equal to misbehavior, wrong, etc.  It has it's own very specific meaning, even more so than the sad example.

Just spinning my wheels, though.  

Edited to add, Wait I somehow missed your addition.  You went to Catholic School starting in Kindergarten and never heard of sin?    Hm.  sI went to a Catholic School as well, and it was a good one.  I have no resentment about it, I got a good education there.  But religious studies were part of the curriculum.  Like 1 hour a day, and sin is certainly discussed in at least first grade.  Kinder I don't remember much except sleeping and eating snacks, lol.

Confirmation doesn't happen at 7. You're probably thinking of first communion, which is what I had when I was 8. We had confirmation at 14. 

The RCC has established the age of reason as being 7. That means by then a person is old enough to understand right from wrong and can begin to have some level of accountability and can begin to feel and express remorse. 

As I said, I don't remember exactly how old I was when I first started hearing the word "sin", but I'm assuming first grade so age 6-7 like I said earlier. From what I remember, Kindergarten was mostly fun and games. By the time I did have first communion (age 8) I knew that sin = bad actions. And I knew that bad actions were contrary to God's will. But I certainly didn't understand all the nuances of sin such as venial sin, serious sin, mortal sin, original sin, and culpability until much later. 

What I'm trying to get at here is that I certainly wasn't instilled with the fear of Hell or told I was unclean or was sat down and given these heavy talks about original sin, etc, when I was a little kid. Learning about all these things was a process. It started with learning the basic meaning of the word sin, and went from there. 

It just seems like some of you are trying to push this idea that Christian parents generally scare and traumatize their toddlers and very young children with deep talks about sinfulness and Hell, which simply isn't the case.

(May 18, 2017 at 9:18 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It just seems like some of you are trying to push this idea that Christian parents generally scare and traumatize their toddlers and very young children with deep talks about sinfulness and Hell, which simply isn't the case.

My folks just said not to touch it or you go blind :-)

(May 18, 2017 at 9:18 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 18, 2017 at 8:40 pm)Aroura Wrote: Right, well of course kids don't fully understand it even at age 7 when the church says you can.  But your personal example seems a bit funny to give considering you are basically saying you didn't get normal exposure to it prior to age 8.

Most kids hear about it and learn about it well before age 8.  Look, the RCC says kids can be confirmed at age 7. Before you can be confirmed, you have to learn a TON of stuff and be able to recite it back. It's not a one week program.  
Most Christian children hear the word sin from they day they are born.  It's just part of the Christian vocabulary.  I'm glad you weren't exposed to it terribly young, though, you also aren't getting the nuanced meanings here.

Like, if I say I'm sad, or morose, grieving, or melancholy, they all technically mean pretty much the same thing, but they all have different flavors, and mean something slightly different.  

Sin is not directly equal to misbehavior, wrong, etc.  It has it's own very specific meaning, even more so than the sad example.

Just spinning my wheels, though.  

Edited to add, Wait I somehow missed your addition.  You went to Catholic School starting in Kindergarten and never heard of sin?    Hm.  sI went to a Catholic School as well, and it was a good one.  I have no resentment about it, I got a good education there.  But religious studies were part of the curriculum.  Like 1 hour a day, and sin is certainly discussed in at least first grade.  Kinder I don't remember much except sleeping and eating snacks, lol.

Confirmation doesn't happen at 7. You're probably thinking of first communion, which is what I had when I was 8. We had confirmation at 14. 

The RCC has established the age of reason as being 7. That means by then a person is old enough to understand right from wrong and can begin to have some level of accountability and can begin to feel and express remorse. 

As I said, I don't remember exactly how old I was when I first started hearing the word "sin", but I'm assuming first grade so age 6-7 like I said earlier. From what I remember, Kindergarten was mostly fun and games. By the time I did have first communion (age 8) I knew that sin = bad actions. And I knew that bad actions were contrary to God's will. But I certainly didn't understand all the nuances of sin such as venial sin, serious sin, mortal sin, original sin, and culpability until much later. 

What I'm trying to get at here is that I certainly wasn't instilled with the fear of Hell or told I was unclean or was sat down and given these heavy talks about original sin, etc, when I was a little kid. Learning about all these things was a process. It started with learning the basic meaning of the word sin, and went from there. 

It just seems like some of you are trying to push this idea that Christian parents generally scare and traumatize their toddlers and very young children with deep talks about sinfulness and Hell, which simply isn't the case.

Honestly, I wasn't actually traumatized by it (much) either.

However,and I'm completely serious here, when you do have kids, which I know you want, look out for the Good News Club and similar organizations.  They will tell you that they are just a Christian afterschool program, and they welcome kids of all backgrounds, but their actual goal is to convert children.

That one in particular is in schools all across the US.  They still view Catholics and Protestants and Baptists as a bunch of fallen away sinners, and will try to turn your kid evangelical.  They use the tools of shame, fear (and sin in those contests) to take your child away from your religion.  It's no joke.  Thousands and thousands of small children (they prefer 5 to 7 year olds) are exposed to really horrible ideas, such as that they are currently destined for hell due to original sin.  You can think that all Christians are as easy going as you, but that simply isn't the case.   These are real things, real issues.  It didn't happen to me, it didn't happen to you, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.





And their 6 colors.  Lovely stuff, really.


This is a HUGE movement right now.  Again, I'm glad that many Christians don't teach their kids this kind of thing.  But many DO.

---

P.S. There is no need for you to get defensive, CL.  You said you don't even believe this kind of doctrine, were not taught it, and do not plan to teach it to your kids.  Great, wonderful, fabulous.  As I stated at the very outset of this conversation, it ISN'T CATHOLIC DOCTRINE in particular I am talking about.  It's evangelical.  I said it immediately, and it is still what I'm talking about.

You have no reason to defend every Christian.  Some of them teach some really fucked up shit, which is no reflection on you personally, or on your beliefs in particular.  You are taking this idea that we were discussing, that did not even really apply to you, as if we were criticising you.

I'm not out to say all Christian parents, or even most, do this.  No one did.  Everyone who agreed with me even specified the exact doctrine and organizations we were disgusted with. Original sin in general, yes kind of.  But specifically this way of teaching it.

So tell me, do you think this is wrong to teach kids?  The stuff linked up above?  If so, then yeah, we are in agreement, and no one is picking on your beliefs!

(May 18, 2017 at 12:31 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 11:40 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Actually, they don't. They say that a sin is "...doing what is wrong or not doing what is right according to God's rules" (emphasis is mine, from the allaboutgod.com site).

Original sin, according to aboutcatholics.com: "Original Sin is the sin inherited by all humankind from Adam in his disobedience of God’s command not to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge" (emphasis is mine). That's a far cry from "acknowledgement that we're all bound to do something wrong at some point in our life." The very idea that anyone can inherit a wrongdoing of any kind is repugnant and morally bankrupt. No reasonable law will ever require me to serve time for a murder committed by my grandfather, but some guy in a funny hat can claim I inherited the wrongdoing of a guy who allegedly lived thousands of years ago.

The story of genesis is viewed as symbolic. The sin of Adam and Eve symbolizes the human condition. One that you and I both agree with - that none of us are perfectly good and that the potential to do wrong exists in all of us.  

As for the definition of sin, it seems you're being disagreeable and obtuse on purpose. Nothing you're posting is contradicting anything I said in several different ways now - that sin is the religious term for wrong.

On both of these points you're disagreeing with the tenets of your own church yet I'm the one being disagreeable and obtuse. Mmmm-kay.