Catholic_Lady Wrote:Well that's not fair. I never said you're not justified I'm thinking it happens too much. One time would be too much.

Since you apparently missed my post #143, I'll repeat that there are nearly 4,000 Good News Clubs in elementary schools across the USA. Imagine how many Evangelicals there are who don't participate in Good News Clubs but teach their small children the same thing. One time would be too much, but I wouldn't think it was something Christians should own if it was one time. They're getting the idea that they should do this from the Bible, it's not like it doesn't have anything to do with their religion. There are at least tens of millions of children in the USA getting this kind of indoctrination. It shouldn't fall on the 3% of Americans who are atheists to bear the burden of being most of the ones willing to point out what's happening, or even acknowledge that it's both a real problem and a Christian problem.

I don't see how it compromises your Americanized version of Catholicism to acknowledge that there are child-rearing practices that are not uncommon among evangelical fundamentalists which are very problematic and should be opposed by Christians who don't think a modern understanding of child development is a scheme cooked up by the devil to trick good Christians into spoiling their children with all this 'spare the rod' newfangledness.

And maybe acknowledge how often children get beaten with the 'spare the rod, spoil the child' quote from Proverbs as a justification. And how it is used to justify a continuum of punishment from mild spanking to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lydia_Schatz

The deaths of three homeschooled children in different parts of the country have been linked to the book How to Train up a Child by an evangelical couple named Pearl as a biblical guideline to child-rearing that sold over half-a-million copies. I'm sure most of the parents who adopted the guidelines outlined in the book on whipping children with plastic tubing did so correctly without causing fatalities.

I don't knowingly hang out with people who mistreat their children either, but I wouldn't, would I? I'm glad you don't either, but you've got to take off those rose-colored glasses that let you think it's because it's rare. There are large segments of our society who think preaching hellfire to six-year olds is not only fine but important. They're not a majority of Americans or Christians, but a majority of fundamentalist evangelicals would say 'yes' to 'teach small children about sin and hell' and there are over 40 million of them in this country. It's far from rare. Way too far.

Wikipedia Wrote:In Nigeria, some African Pentecostal pastors have incorporated African witchcraft beliefs into their brand of Christianity resulting in a campaign of violence against young Nigerians. Children and babies branded as evil are being mistreated, abandoned, and even murdered. The preachers make money out of the fear providing costly exorcism services of their parents and their communities.[8]

In Angola, many orphaned children are accused of witchcraft and demonic possession by relatives in order to justify not providing for them. Various methods are employed: starvation, beating, unknown substances rubbed into their eyes or being chained or tied up.[9]

In Congo, it is estimated that there are 25,000 homeless children living on the streets of the capital city. Of these, 60% were expelled from their homes because of allegations of witchcraft. Accusations of witchcraft is the only justifiable reason for the refusal to house a family member, no matter how distant the relation.[10]

In Gambia, about 1,000 people accused of being witches were locked in detention centers in March 2009. They were forced to drink a dangerous hallucinogenic potion, according to Amnesty International.[11]

In the Nigerian states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River about 15,000 children were branded as witches and most of them end up abandoned and abused on the streets.

(May 15, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

I'm guessing you already got the answer to these questions, and it seems like you have accepted the answers or at least have seen the other side's perspective better. But I have to say: what took you so long to get to this point? Why would you even find this confusing? You could have an utter lack of exposure to atheist thought, but you should still reason this out on your own, given you're an intelligent and educated person. Something to do with personality types then? I don't know.

(May 15, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 1. It seems many of you hold the opinion that morality is subjective. Meaning there is no real, set in stone, right or wrong. Basically, if one person thinks a particular act is good, and another person thinks that same act is bad, nether one of these 2 people is actually correct. It's all just a matter of opinion, like one person thinking red is the best color and another thinking blue is. 

I believe morality is subjective. That doesn't mean it's arbitrary. It refers to what works for us, as a society of individuals, what makes us collaborate, build together so that all of us would live a good life. I'd say it's somewhat like science: You don't always know with 100% certainty the correct answer, but you do your best.

Quote:2. It also seems many of you hold the opinion that people don't actually have free will. Their acts are purely a result of circumstances and are not freely chosen. Basically the person could not have acted any differently because their action was only a result of their own inherent nature and whatever circumstances put them in the position to commit that act.

I personally don't believe in the "free will" preached by Christianity - i.e. the freedom to choose between "good" and "evil" at every step of your private ongoing life. I believe a human being is mostly the result of his DNA + social experience (i.e. what he learned from life, values, how he should behave, etc.). That doesn't absolve him of accountability - on the contrary, accountability contributes to his social experience.

Quote:So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior

If right and wrong are subjective, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Anybody (who is not mentally ill) has the possibility of adjusting his behaviour.

Quote:- then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way?

Because of the lack of accountability.

Quote:So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc?

I'm angry that not everybody respects the social norms & laws, and that they are affecting our lives.

(May 19, 2017 at 10:41 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

I'm guessing you already got the answer to these questions, and it seems like you have accepted the answers or at least have seen the other side's perspective better. But I have to say: what took you so long to get to this point? Why would you even find this confusing? You could have an utter lack of exposure to atheist thought, but you should still reason this out on your own, given you're an intelligent and educated person. Something to do with personality types then? I don't know.

I do understand and accept the responses given to me.

The reason I didn't know and had to ask, is because if humans don't have moral free will of any kind, I feel like I would kinda look at a human murdering someone in the same way that I'd look at a bear killing someone in the woods. I'd feel very sorry for the person and the sad situation. but I wouldn't feel anger towards the bear, bc I wouldn't hold him morally responsible for what he did. I guess I figure if i saw people as not being morally responsible for murder or whatever else, I would also not feel angry at them.

---

(May 19, 2017 at 10:03 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Catholic_Lady Wrote:Well that's not fair. I never said you're not justified I'm thinking it happens too much. One time would be too much.

Since you apparently missed my post #143, I'll repeat that there are nearly 4,000 Good News Clubs in elementary schools across the USA. Imagine how many Evangelicals there are who don't participate in Good News Clubs but teach their small children the same thing. One time would be too much, but I wouldn't think it was something Christians should own if it was one time. They're getting the idea that they should do this from the Bible, it's not like it doesn't have anything to do with their religion. There are at least tens of millions of children in the USA getting this kind of indoctrination. It shouldn't fall on the 3% of Americans who are atheists to bear the burden of being most of the ones willing to point out what's happening, or even acknowledge that it's both a real problem and a Christian problem.

I don't see how it compromises your Americanized version of Catholicism to acknowledge that there are child-rearing practices that are not uncommon among evangelical fundamentalists which are very problematic and should be opposed by Christians who don't think a modern understanding of child development is a scheme cooked up by the devil to trick good Christians into spoiling their children with all this 'spare the rod' newfangledness.

And maybe acknowledge how often children get beaten with the 'spare the rod, spoil the child' quote from Proverbs as a justification. And how it is used to justify a continuum of punishment from mild spanking to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lydia_Schatz

The deaths of three homeschooled children in different parts of the country have been linked to the book How to Train up a Child by an evangelical couple named Pearl as a biblical guideline to child-rearing that sold over half-a-million copies. I'm sure most of the parents who adopted the guidelines outlined in the book on whipping children with plastic tubing did so correctly without causing fatalities.

I don't knowingly hang out with people who mistreat their children either, but I wouldn't, would I? I'm glad you don't either, but you've got to take off those rose-colored glasses that let you think it's because it's rare. There are large segments of our society who think preaching hellfire to six-year olds is not only fine but important. They're not a majority of Americans or Christians, but a majority of fundamentalist evangelicals would say 'yes' to 'teach small children about sin and hell' and there are over 40 million of them in this country. It's far from rare. Way too far.

Yes, it is horrible. All of it. Any bit of it is too much. No disagreement there, as im sure you all know.

But my issue is this: are you trying to say then that these acts/belief represent mainstream Christianity? Because thats the impression im getting, and the generalization is the only thing ive objected to. (EDIT TO ADD: I reread your post, and sorry... you did indeed acknowledge that this isn't mainstream behavior in Christianity, but might be mainstream in evangelicals specifically. Are you trying to say I should be more vocal about it? Raise awareness, etc?)

There are more than 2 billion of us world wide. I just don't like being put into a box with the most horrible people out of the group. I also find irony in so many people being quick to say "not all Muslims ________", and being super quick to shut down any generalization or criticism of Islam, yet have no problem doing it to christians. No one wants to be generalized or put into a box. Not Muslims and not us Christians either.

I believe moral standards evolved under the influence of social pressures. Our species seems to have a survival instinct, and over time we recognized certain actions as conducive to that survival.

This is subjective only in that different societies come to different conclusions. As we evolve into a global society so will our conclusions. For instance, in the west, we recognize intellectual property. China does not. China’s desire to get along with the west will give it an objective reason to respect our standards, while we in the west wanting to get along with China have an objective reason not to judge their society based on our standards as long as they don’t plagiarize what we consider to be ours.

(May 19, 2017 at 11:27 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: I believe moral standards evolved under the influence of social pressures. Our species seems to have a survival instinct, and over time we recognized certain actions as conducive to that survival.

This is subjective only in that different societies come to different conclusions. As we evolve into a global society so will our conclusions. For instance, in the west, we recognize intellectual property. China does not. China’s desire to get along with the west will give it an objective reason to respect our standards, while we in the west wanting to get along with China have an objective reason not to judge their society based on our standards as long as they don’t plagiarize what we consider to be ours.

Do you think eventually, if the world got sooo overpopulated that an individual's survival depended on there being less people so that there could be enough resources left for us personally, we'd eventually evolve to believe it's immoral to help save someone who's dying? Assuming they are a complete stranger and not friend or family I mean - just some random person.

(May 19, 2017 at 11:41 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 11:27 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: I believe moral standards evolved under the influence of social pressures. Our species seems to have a survival instinct, and over time we recognized certain actions as conducive to that survival.

This is subjective only in that different societies come to different conclusions. As we evolve into a global society so will our conclusions. For instance, in the west, we recognize intellectual property. China does not. China’s desire to get along with the west will give it an objective reason to respect our standards, while we in the west wanting to get along with China have an objective reason not to judge their society based on our standards as long as they don’t plagiarize what we consider to be ours.

Do you think eventually, if the world got sooo overpopulated that an individual's survival depended on there being less people so that there could be enough resources left for us personally, we'd eventually evolve to believe it's immoral to help save someone who's dying? Assuming they are a complete stranger and not friend or family I mean - just some random person.

We're already getting there, re: euthanasia.

(May 19, 2017 at 11:41 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 11:27 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: I believe moral standards evolved under the influence of social pressures. Our species seems to have a survival instinct, and over time we recognized certain actions as conducive to that survival.

This is subjective only in that different societies come to different conclusions. As we evolve into a global society so will our conclusions. For instance, in the west, we recognize intellectual property. China does not. China’s desire to get along with the west will give it an objective reason to respect our standards, while we in the west wanting to get along with China have an objective reason not to judge their society based on our standards as long as they don’t plagiarize what we consider to be ours.

Do you think eventually, if the world got sooo overpopulated that an individual's survival depended on there being less people so that there could be enough resources left for us personally, we'd eventually evolve to believe it's immoral to help save someone who's dying? Assuming they are a complete stranger and not friend or family I mean - just some random person.

It could be argued that it is impractical to help save someone who's dying or prevent abortion in such extremely implausible drastic situations. Immoral or not, can't say. Practical is not equivalent to moral.

Morality seems to be mainly innate in some way, with certain variations due to varying personality and/or environmental factors. Practicality is about what works for an individual or group as a whole, and is typically purely based on reason rather than innate intuitive feelings that something is right or wrong.

(May 19, 2017 at 11:52 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 11:41 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Do you think eventually, if the world got sooo overpopulated that an individual's survival depended on there being less people so that there could be enough resources left for us personally, we'd eventually evolve to believe it's immoral to help save someone who's dying? Assuming they are a complete stranger and not friend or family I mean - just some random person.

We're already getting there, re: euthanasia.

This is true.

Do you think we'll ever get to the point of euthenizing (without their consent) old people or mentally handicapped people who are just draining resources and not contributing to society?

If so, do you think that would be ok?

(This is not meant to be rhetorical btw. I genuinely think it's interesting to talk about this subject and hear opinions on it)

---

Quote:

(May 19, 2017 at 10:03 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Since you apparently missed my post #143, I'll repeat that there are nearly 4,000 Good News Clubs in elementary schools across the USA. Imagine how many Evangelicals there are who don't participate in Good News Clubs but teach their small children the same thing. One time would be too much, but I wouldn't think it was something Christians should own if it was one time. They're getting the idea that they should do this from the Bible, it's not like it doesn't have anything to do with their religion. There are at least tens of millions of children in the USA getting this kind of indoctrination. It shouldn't fall on the 3% of Americans who are atheists to bear the burden of being most of the ones willing to point out what's happening, or even acknowledge that it's both a real problem and a Christian problem.

I don't see how it compromises your Americanized version of Catholicism to acknowledge that there are child-rearing practices that are not uncommon among evangelical fundamentalists which are very problematic and should be opposed by Christians who don't think a modern understanding of child development is a scheme cooked up by the devil to trick good Christians into spoiling their children with all this 'spare the rod' newfangledness.

And maybe acknowledge how often children get beaten with the 'spare the rod, spoil the child' quote from Proverbs as a justification. And how it is used to justify a continuum of punishment from mild spanking to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lydia_Schatz

The deaths of three homeschooled children in different parts of the country have been linked to the book How to Train up a Child by an evangelical couple named Pearl as a biblical guideline to child-rearing that sold over half-a-million copies. I'm sure most of the parents who adopted the guidelines outlined in the book on whipping children with plastic tubing did so correctly without causing fatalities.

I don't knowingly hang out with people who mistreat their children either, but I wouldn't, would I? I'm glad you don't either, but you've got to take off those rose-colored glasses that let you think it's because it's rare. There are large segments of our society who think preaching hellfire to six-year olds is not only fine but important. They're not a majority of Americans or Christians, but a majority of fundamentalist evangelicals would say 'yes' to 'teach small children about sin and hell' and there are over 40 million of them in this country. It's far from rare. Way too far.

Yes, it is horrible. All of it. Any bit of it is too much. No disagreement there, as im sure you all know.

But my issue is this: are you trying to say then that these acts/belief represent mainstream Christianity? Because thats the impression im getting, and the generalization is the only thing ive objected to. (EDIT TO ADD: I reread your post, and sorry... you did indeed acknowledge that this isn't mainstream behavior in Christianity, but might be mainstream in evangelicals specifically. Are you trying to say I should be more vocal about it? Raise awareness, etc?)

There are more than 2 billion of us world wide. I just don't like being put into a box with the most horrible people out of the group. I also find irony in so many people being quick to say "not all Muslims ________", and being super quick to shut down any generalization or criticism of Islam, yet have no problem doing it to christians. No one wants to be generalized or put into a box. Not Muslims and not us Christians either.

Mister agenda, just wanted to let you know that I'm reconsidering my response above.

On one hand i think the world would be a better place if there was more accountability being taken so that things can be addressed and fixed.

On the other hand, I feel like it's not fair to ask someone who has nothing to do with something to have any sort of answer for it. Especially since we are talking about fundamentalist evangelicals, of which I am not.

Thoughts?