This Has to Stop

[Astonished]

Christianity is belief in Jesus and His teachings. 

Modern Christianity is . When Christianity started it was as much about weather or not their was a jesus what if anything he taught was really his teachings . And lots and lots of squabbling about the most basic tenets of the religion . Almost as if Christianity was just a re hatch of already previously thought up idea's jumbled in one set of idea's .  Then due to it's own instability torn apart again.

Even if you want to believe in his teachings, you have to pick and choose because the whole tale is an inconsistent mess. So you can't really say you're following a person if you don't have a consistent model. Why is it no one can just admit that they're their own moral compass reader? It's not as if a religious figure is a paragon of virtues anyway, or the originator of good ideas. It seems as if the main problem with that is tying the ideas to a person rather than giving the ideas themselves the credit. And the identity of the speaker or creator is irrelevant to the content or value of the concepts they put forth. Even the wishy-washy Xchans who half-ass their indoctrination manage to blind their kids to this.

[Nay_Sayer]

He did say he didn't want you to get run over by a bus.  What more do you want?

No, he said he'd rather me get run over by a bus than see me teach my kids about my faith.

I know you're completely unaware of the difference between teaching and indoctrination.  

I still love you.

[Rev. Rye]

Honestly, creationist broilerplate is nowhere near the worst sort of picture books I've ever heard of.

Just to use two examples:




This was written by Richard Cohen, famous ex-gay "counselor," telling the story of a boy who gets molested by his uncle, but it's all good because a counselor told him it doesn't mean he has to be gay. Yes, the trust issues, the warped family dynamic that comes across as a direct result of getting outed (seriously, they don't even arrest the uncle who molested him), and even the potential physical issues that would come from adults having sex with children, are really just small potatoes. Just tell him he doesn't have to be gay, and it's all good.

And another book I discovered recently is Melanie's Marvelous Measles by Stephanie Messenger. It's an anti-vaxxer story that flat-out encourages people not only to not vaccinate their kids, but to actively encourage kids to court infectious diseases; the plot involves a girl named Melanie who is sick due to measles. A friend of hers, named Tina, hears about it and her mother encourages her to have a slumber party at Melanie's house. Yes, just like that episode of South Park. No, there's no "ooky mouth" scene. Surprisingly, she doesn't get infected, and later says “Maybe I’ll be lucky enough to catch measles next time someone we know has them!” Yes. This book is actively encouraging kids to court diseases that could potentially kill them.

Case in point: Roald Dahl had a daughter named Olivia who died of measles; apparently, in 1962, there was a local outbreak, and, at the time, they were honestly more concerned about their son Theo (who was, after all, a baby, and one who had had enough health scares in his life so far that Dahl actually stepped in and helped invent a device that could actually help him). A friend in America sent them gamma globulin, the closest thing to a preventative measure, and at the time, far more widely available there than the UK. That friend said “Let the girls get measles. It will be good for them.” Then, Olivia wound up getting it. At the time, they expected the disease would run its course and she'd eventually recover. She died on 17 November 1962. Dahl eventually wound up being an outspoken proponent of vaccination, at one point, even writing an account of Olivia's last days as an object lesson as to why it's a good idea. Fans of Roald Dahl may remember that he wrote a book called George's Marvelous Medicine. If Messenger titled her book specifically as a shout-out to George's Marvelous Medicine, this makes it even more enraging than it is already. If she knew about Olivia's death and still gave it that title intentionally, she has earned my undying fury. Part of me seriously considers emailing her to confirm or deny it, but, given that Site Advisor treats her website as a "Malicious Site," it's probably for the best I don't ask.

Seriously, creationist kid's books aren't that horrible by comparison.

[Astonished]

No, he said he'd rather me get run over by a bus than see me teach my kids about my faith.

I know you're completely unaware of the difference between teaching and indoctrination.  

I still love you.

And all this time, I honestly couldn't tell if she was just being a bitch and twisting my words on purpose or was just genuinely that ignorant.

[Succubus]

Christianity is belief in Jesus and His teachings.

And what exactly, were Jesus teachings? What among his nauseating platitudes did he actually say that wasn't already covered? The golden rule? The Egyptians, the Chinese, the Greeks, the Indians, the Persians all covered that long before your water walking necromancer appeared in the story books. So tell me why didn’t ya man give us a proper revelation. For example, 'Pi is a never ending decimal' or
'A body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force. Now that, would definitely get my attention. What did he tell us we didn’t already know?

[emjay]

I love my parents, certainly wouldn't wish any harm on them, and know that they meant no harm in teaching me about Jesus as I grew up. But nonetheless, I believe it is wrong to do that... and all I wish was that they and other theists would understand why. Children are both trusting and lack the mental competence to make informed decisions about what they hear, therefore information imparted to children at a young age is implanted rather than coming as the result of a reasoned, rational decision making process. Either way produces beliefs, but the former slips them in by the back door. I wish theists could understand that... it is as if theists have no respect at all for how someone comes to believe something... as if an extreme example, where belief comes about through hypnosis - the ultimate in slipping beliefs in through the back door - would be perfectly acceptable to them.

So that's the question I'd ask theists; do you believe that when the Bible says 'whoever believeth in me will have eternal life', it means 'whoever believeth in me, by whatever method, informed and consenting or not, will have eternal life'? Or do you think it means 'whoever believeth in me, through their own will and endeavours, will have eternal life'? I'd opt for the latter if I was a theist. It also seems a moot point anyway for theists to spend all this effort priming/indocrinating their children into their faith; not only does it diminish the child's say in the belief that results, but theists are always going on about how perfectly acceptable Abraham's attempted sacrifice was because the child was innocent and would therefore go to heaven anyway. Likewise, supposedly anyone who does not know about Jesus would also go to heaven by default. These being the case, why not just let the child grow up and make an informed and uninfluenced decision, sans any emotional baggage/indoctrination/bias, when they reach adulthood and can competently think for themselves? By your own logic they wouldn't go to hell anyway as children and/or not knowing about it. Then the belief, if one results in adulthood, would be entirely of their own making and not someone else's, which I personally think, if god exists, would be what he'd want.

[Nay_Sayer]

I know you're completely unaware of the difference between teaching and indoctrination.  

I still love you.

And all this time, I honestly couldn't tell if she was just being a bitch and twisting my words on purpose or was just genuinely that ignorant.

Likely a bit of both

[Amarok]

And all this time, I honestly couldn't tell if she was just being a bitch and twisting my words on purpose or was just genuinely that ignorant.

Neither but you are being a douche . And i generally agree with you on most things .

[Astonished]

And all this time, I honestly couldn't tell if she was just being a bitch and twisting my words on purpose or was just genuinely that ignorant.

Neither but you are being a douche . And i generally agree with you on most things .

Again, never said I wasn't. But I give even better than I get, so while someone may be being bitchy with me, I'll definitely reciprocate with even more ferocity.

[Catholic_Lady]

Neither but you are being a douche . And i generally agree with you on most things .

Again, never said I wasn't. But I give even better than I get, so while someone may be being bitchy with me, I'll definitely reciprocate with even more ferocity.

Lol after all the heinous stuff you said to me, I'm the one being bitchy with you... interesting