Do Christian Parents Abuse their Children?

[John V]

Sure, here's some:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

No, an article from a biased source paraphrasing other articles without linking to the source isn't evidence. If a theist presented something similar from religionfiles.org or some such, the atheists here would appropriately reject it.

Let's go to a more neutral source:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are...-atheists/



As you can see, you're partially correct. Atheists are only 1 in 100 Americans (Kind of surprising; thought it was higher), but only 1 in 1000 among American prisoners.

First a question - is prison representation a fair measure of whether a "child is ill equipped to make their own way in the world when they go out on their own"?

If so, then we'd apparently do best if everyone were Pentecostal. The atheist ratio is 10:1, but the Pentecostal is 35:1.

Your argument is against Christians in general. Protestants and Catholics make up most US Christians. Protestants are underrepresented in prison, while Catholics are equally represented. So, while we'd be best off as Pentecostal, Christianity in general isn't churning out felons.

Of course, correlation doesn't prove causation. I doubt that American Indian religions per se turn people into criminals. I'd guess that it has more to do with poverty and perhaps discrimination. Maybe Pentecostals and atheists have more education and wealth than other groups, and that's why they look so good.

Plus, those stats are on religion reported today. We don't know about conversions.

So, you need to do better on evidence.

Or send your kids to a Pentecostal school.  

[SteveII]

If you think that your posts made any kind of argument, you are really bad at this. "Dawkins said so" is not an argument. Exactly, Richard Dawkins' assertion. You repeating it does not magically turn it into an argument. Most of his arguments are against extreme examples or caricatures of Christianity. The rest are badly reasoned. Even atheist philosophers blanch at his books. 

First, Jesus being crucified is one of the most attested to facts of the ancient world. Most atheist historians think that it happened. This fact alone completely obliterates the thesis that to teach it to children is "in short, child abuse" or could lead to "mentally handicapped". Second, you are continuing to fail to tell us HOW this is abuse even if the parents or school was wrong. 

You admitted your Biblical IQ was low in your quaint little story. Since it was clear you have no background in systematic theology or biblical hermeneutics, your analysis couldn't have been thorough...but it does not matter--I granted you (for the sake of this argument only) that you found stories that raise moral questions. The fact that  you did not find any meaning in the NT, is an individual matter (because millions do). You are going to have to list out some of the "unwholesome teachings" that rise to the level of abuse. Simply asserting that there are some (over and over) is horrible discussion/argumentation skills. 

You did NOT give an argument. You said that Dawkins says it. Actually I have The God Delusion open. What page does Dawkins say specifically that "Christians abuse their children" in the same blanket way that you said it? Perhaps with that, we can get some details and you can avoid breaking the rules.

I don't use "Dawkins said so" as a support for his argument. That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "the bible says so - so it must be true". See? It doesn't make any sense.

There is no historical proof of JC's life let alone how he died. How then can anyone state there were 14 or 15 or 12 or any "stations of the cross"? This is an absurdity. You don't even know what you had for lunch a year ago, how would anyone know what JC did 2,000 years ago?

"The fact that  you did not find any meaning in the NT, is an individual matter" - No, it is a matter of simple logic. Unless you do a great deal of mental gymnastics, there is little to no consistent, coherent meaning in the bible. It's why I had to read the NT 3 times - just to make sure I wasn't missing something.

He does not say it in the god delusion. He says it in interviews and in articles.

I have defined unwholesome thoughts, words and actions as being those that harm or kill living beings. Your god is responsible for the death of millions of living beings in one supposed act of his - the great flood. But this is just one of his many heinous crimes.

I didn't think you had an argument. What's worse is that you don't even realize it. A parting lesson on arguments:

1. troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
2. BBZ has now posted two threads with very provocative titles with no attempt to justify them--using them as a platform to complain about other aspects of religion not related to the thread title.
3. Whereas one such thread could be a misstep, two is a pattern.
4. Therefore BBZ is a troll.

Logically sound. Conclusion follows from the premises.

[Fake Messiah]

No, SteveII, Bow Before Zeus is not a troll it's you who is a bully or at least trying to be one which speaks volumes of abuse you must have gone trough creating angry and uncertain character that you are today. We already talked about Christian abuse in schools and churches and indeed people are talking about them for decades, for instance what comes in my mind is song "It's a sin" by Pet Shop Boys which is all about abuse those two guys (and kids there) went trough in Catholic school.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yeah I was getting trolly vibes from BBZ as well. The BS he spews seems too obnoxious to be serious.

[ƵenKlassen]

I know I'm a little tardy to the party, but like, what a load of nonsense.

I know most religion is garbage and teaching people it is bad, but it's not a abuse.

Also, just because a famous person says something does not mean that it's 100% correct, okay?

[John V]

We already talked about Christian abuse in schools and churches and indeed people are talking about them for decades, for instance what comes in my mind is song "It's a sin" by Pet Shop Boys which is all about abuse those two guys (and kids there) went trough in Catholic school.

Move goalposts much? OP isn't about such abuse. It says that merely raising a child as a Christian is abuse.

[Catholic_Lady]

I know I'm a little tardy to the party, but like, what a load of nonsense.

I know most religion is garbage and teaching people it is bad, but it's not a abuse.

Also, just because a famous person says something does not mean that it's 100% correct, okay?

I can respect this. Even though I obviously disagree with you that my faith is bad or garbage (It's been an incredibly positive thing in my life), I respect that you acknowledge that it isn't child abuse and that we aren't child abusers. It seems most atheists here think it's nonsense to accuse Christian parents of child abuse, and i appreciate those that called out the BS that is this thread - Boru and Magi that i can think of off the top of my head, though I know there are others.

Unfortunately though, it's the obnoxious ones making ridiculous claims that stand out.

---

.
With that being said, I have a question for those who think we are all abusing our children. Should we go to jail then, for child abuse charges? When I have a child, should it be illegal for me to convey my beliefs to him? Are my mom and dad criminals?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Dawkins is a very good biologist, and listening to him teach what he knows is a treat.

However when it comes to his ill concealed hatred of religion I take a much more cautious approach.

I agree completely. Dawkins has a very good reputation as a biologist but he is a very poor theologian and/or philosopher. As for William Lane Craig...not a fan...his debating style is cringe-worthy and the way he does apologetics is very shallow. Both sides can choose better role models, as it were. If I were an atheist, I would be inclined towards Nagel and Quine, because I despise Dennett. Historically, I think the existentialist are best, thinkers such as Sartre and Nietzsche.

As believers, I don't think we can do much better than Alvin Plantinga and David Bentely Hart (as contemporatries). Fesser and Maverick Philosopher are strong contenders as well. And historically, I would defer to Aquinas, but we could even reach back to the pagan traditions Plotinus IMHO. In the Eastern traditions I would look to Lao Tzu as a more mystical approach - similar to The Cloud of Unknowing. Whitehead is a possibility at least for Open Theism (which I don't endorse).

How about transubstantiation? This is a physical impossibility. We have known from the time alchemy became chemistry that one element cannot change into another. So how to you reconcile the physical impossibility of transubstantiation with the catholic church's insistence that it literally happens?

That's because naturalism has abandoned Aristotelian causes to answer the question of what something is. You are correct that the host remains chemically the same; however, the blessing of the priest changes the final and efficient causes. The host gains God's purpose of nourishing and restoring the souls of the penitents. This is true even in Lutheranism, except that they believe that the piety of the penitent is the efficient cause of the hosts change as an instrument of God's purpose (final cause). IMHO other Christian sects that see communion as a purely symbolic act (and the Catholic tradition as empty ritual) have abandoned something beautiful. That is partly why I am attracted to RC even if I have not fully embraced it.

[LadyForCamus]

It certainly would be if I were trying to compare the two men.  Please, don't misunderstand; I have the utmost respect and admiration for Dawkins.  I'm just saying it's not unreasonable to think that a Theist may have a personal distaste for an outspoken anti-theist.  It's personal for her.  It doesn't mean she is trying to start trouble on the forums.  That's all I'm saying.

What I don't understand is why does she garner so much respect around here.

I have known CL for approximately two years, and during that time she has never treated me with anything other than kindness and respect.  She has shared a lot of painful personal experiences with us here, and I have shared painful personal experiences with her.  She communicates with me as one person speaking to another person; not as a Christian speaking to an atheist.  She has never preached to me, talked at me without listening, or pushed her beliefs on me in any way.  Why wouldn't I respect her?  I don't have a need to resent theists as a default simply because of their beliefs.  Do we disagree on pretty much everything that involves religion and politics?  Yes, lol.  But I find her to be a lovely and sincere individual, and I'm glad she's with us.  She also has a great sense of humor.  😁

[Catholic_Lady]

What I don't understand is why does she garner so much respect around here.

I have known CL for approximately two years, and during that time she has never treated me with anything other than kindness and respect.  She has shared a lot of painful personal experiences with us here, and I have shared painful personal experiences with her.  She communicates with me as one person speaking to another person; not as a Christian speaking to an atheist.  She has never preached to me, talked at me without listening, or pushed her beliefs on me in any way.  Why wouldn't I respect her?  I don't have a need to resent theists as a default simply because of their beliefs.  Do we disagree on pretty much everything that involves religion and politics?  Yes, lol.  But I find her to be a lovely and sincere individual, and I'm glad she's with us.  She also has a great sense of humor.  😁

.
Aww, this was really nice of you. Thank you.   
The feeling's mutual. You've never been mean to me or treated me badly. There is mutual respect there.