Do Christian Parents Abuse their Children?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some of us simply believe that marriage, as a civil institution, has an objective essential character, i.e. that it cannot be whatever people want it to be. No proponent of gay-marriage, or any other type of pretend marriage, has actually defined that unique relationship by any essential quality that would distinguish it from business partners ships, roommates, caregiving relationships, or even just drinking buddies.

[Catholic_Lady]

Personally I'm in favor of same sex couples getting all the same legal benefits, etc. Though as far as getting married in the Church goes, I agree that it should be reserved for one man and one woman who weren't previously married and who went through all the pre cana preparations and were approved by the pastor.

I had a friend who knocked up his girlfriend and they immediately tried to get married in the Catholic church. The priest made them wait until after she had the baby before he agreed to marry them, just to make sure their intentions for marriage was a legitimate, well thought out decision to want to be together for life, and not something they were just rushing into bc they were expecting. That's how seriously we take marriage in the church.

[vulcanlogician]

But your person A/B experiment is not a fair experiment. Clearly [A] is the preference because he follows his unethical thinking with ethical thinking. So ethical thoughts win out again. I'm still choosing the person that has more ethical thinking processes.

The point I was trying to make is that the person with the most ethical thought processes (ie has 100% ethical thoughts and 0% unethical thoughts) is the best preference as he is uncapable of any unwholesome words/actions. Purely because of his different thought processes - ie ethical only thought processes.

I see your point. An unethical action WILL NOT happen unless it is preceded by violent or malicious thought. I agree that the best case scenario is to basically be locked in the room with Buddha.

I just find it hard to hold people accountable for their thoughts. The causes of their thoughts often have to do factors outside of their control (upbringing, treatment by others, environmental factors, etc.) In your line of thinking, a person who has a violent thought but then counters it with a nonviolent thought has behaved unethically. I disagree. I think he has behaved ETHICALLY, despite his having had the thought.

As I said before, I agree with you that cultivating benevolent thinking is GOOD. I just don't see having a malicious thought as BAD.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'd say daydreaming about doing horrible things to other people is pretty bad.

[Drich]

Oh, the irony...

What if the difference between say growing up deeply religious, and say growing up deeply scientific/predilection to science but being outdated and or simply wrong in everything you think to be 'fact?'

before you answer.

Do you assume there will NEVER be any up and coming scientific change that would have you through out what you currently define as foundational belief?

Do you/Can you follow?

Let's say you were a "scientific fellow" of the mid 1400, and was not privy to Darwin or Columbus, but as you and your circle thinks now, no God, raising your children is child abuse, and for all of the same reason... It's just some on 600 years from now can identify your version of "reality" is as backwards as you view the church... Then if that is the case, isn't raising you children in ever changing scientific fact just as WRONG as raising you kids in the Church UNLESS! UNLESS scientific accuracy is not the goal, but rather the goal being a social order without God?

On the surface you seem to be taking the intellectually high road, but the problem with that is very little scientific 'fact' can stand up to scrutiny after a few hundred years, making 'facts' of science little more than popular fiction. So then unless ALL of society had adopted this popular fiction as absolute fact, then if you are right about God there isn't an intellectual 'high road.' As all fact simply succumb to "new pop facts." If this is the case then there is no more 'rightness'/stability in believing in science. leaving you with a simple expression of faith or a want to believe in science over God.

Now if all you have is a want or desire for science to be more true than God, then how is it your children are not being abused mentally when subjected to this form of indoctrination verse any form of religious indoctrination?

I would have thought that after all your time here you would understand the basics of what science is. Apparently not. It's a method, Drich -- a method!.

And I described it as such a method of perpetual wrongness. a series of popular beliefs/facts. Hole in ozone caused by cfc's, global warming, global cooling cause by the same thing. which again is no different than electing to believe in the facts/methods of the bible. because given enough time there is nothing separating belief/faith in a given system (science religion) than simple faith. It would be one thing if 'science could hold up to any scrutiny milliena after millennia, but that is not the case. which make belief in one or the other a demonstration of faith. where science is concerned this demonstration of faith is found in what you currently believe is true, or what will replace it will be true. when in fact your 'system of discovery' is corrupt and 'discovery is often sold to whom ever funds the endeavor.

And because of that method 'facts' (you really meant hypotheses and theories, but never mind) are sometimes eventually known to be wrong or are altered to accommodate additional, previously unknown facts.

Show me one absolute scientific truth that has never changed.

You always characterize this as a weakness of science, when in fact it is its crowning glory.

it is a weakness because it shows 'science' is for sale.

No one who really understands the rudiments of science are the dogmatist straw men you enjoy jousting because they understand the tentative, falsifiable nature of scientific conclusions. That you are a dogmatist with no clue about the scientific project is well known on these boards. But don't paint others with that brush. Try to at least clear that low bar of honesty.

yet those same b-holes would look at religion as ridged unforgiving unchanging. they would cherry pick passages to lock God into a little box giving him and the practice of Christianity strict definitions and point to rules that no longer have meaning inorder to find abuse, when a general belief in science is protrayed as almost lackidasical when the roles of the two should be reversed.

You can't question all might science, you can't question popular belief? do you even know what the secondary belief to Darwinism is/was? It make a whole helleva lot more sense than Darwinism does and it not only explains the fossil record it also take away/explains why there are no missing links.

Yet anyone who would subscribe to this fully scientific theory would be laughed out of your little pop culture club. This is another evidence that your "precious" is for sale, because there are no other legitimate competing theories allowed. there can only be one till someone with more money and funding comes along and knocks down the king of the mountain!

As for parents 'indoctrinating' their children with science, if you're talking about people teaching their kids about the method, that's the opposite of indoctrination.

Jesus Help me... You clearly never looked up the word indoctrination. Or better yet you have never critically challenged anything you've been taught with a scientific label.

Do you/can you follow?

But I agree with you on one point: if parents taught as dogma this or that scientific hypothesis or theory, they would be doing their children a disservice, and that would be an example of stupid parenting since they would be denying their children the wonders of examining the evidence and arguments for themselves.

It would almost be as stupid as indoctrinating one's kids to believe in and worship a resurrected Jew.

...and you do not see this happening now?

Have you EVER challenged Darwinism? have you ever challenged it enough to seek out other scientific theories that explains our fossil records? Once you were told that the sky is falling by al gore did it scare you? did you notice the planet getting warmer? when you were told "because science, there can be no God" did you stop looking?

Don't look now sport but teaching science is to teach you little retard to not think critically in the exact same way many of you ascribe to the church. You have unwittingly replace God of the gaps with "science' of the gaps. Science has become the all powerful unquestionable catch all and you a-hole are so complacent you don't even know you have been indoctrinated to only except 'fact' with the "Science" brand label on it.

You d-bags are way way worse off than some poor christian who answers everything "because God" reluctantly/out of faith. Because you answer the sameway "because science" but your conclusion is of one made from blind faith. You can't/are not allowed to consider that you are wrong.

---

Oh fuck Drich is here. What a waste of an interesting thread.

Oh, hammy, worry not I won't challenge you directly and force you to think.. you can just keep sniping comments from afar safe distance.

[possibletarian]

But your person A/B experiment is not a fair experiment. Clearly [A] is the preference because he follows his unethical thinking with ethical thinking. So ethical thoughts win out again. I'm still choosing the person that has more ethical thinking processes.

The point I was trying to make is that the person with the most ethical thought processes (ie has 100% ethical thoughts and 0% unethical thoughts) is the best preference as he is uncapable of any unwholesome words/actions. Purely because of his different thought processes - ie ethical only thought processes.

I see your point. An unethical action WILL NOT happen unless it is preceded by violent or malicious thought. I agree that the best case scenario is to basically be locked in the room with Buddha.

I just find it hard to hold people accountable for their thoughts. The causes of their thoughts often have to do factors outside of their control (upbringing, treatment by others, environmental factors, etc.) In your line of thinking, a person who has a violent thought but then counters it with a nonviolent thought has behaved unethically. I disagree. I think he has behaved ETHICALLY, despite his having had the thought.

As I said before, I agree with you that cultivating benevolent thinking is GOOD. I just don't see having a malicious thought as BAD.

I'd say daydreaming about doing horrible things to other people is pretty bad.

Thoughts just pop into our head I'm not sure we have any control over that, whether the consciousness has some kind of veto power over that, or if it's just another thought that's popped into the head I'm not sure. Either way if it's the good and not the bad that is done and has precedent then I agree no ethics have been broken.

I would agree CL, daydreaming about nasty things happening to that particular person who irks you is best avoided if possible.

[vorlon13]

Personally I'm in favor of same sex couples getting all the same legal benefits, etc. Though as far as getting married in the Church goes, I agree that it should be reserved for one man and one woman who weren't previously married and who went through all the pre cana preparations and were approved by the pastor.

I had a friend who knocked up his girlfriend and they immediately tried to get married in the Catholic church. The priest made them wait until after she had the baby before he agreed to marry them, just to make sure their intentions for marriage was a legitimate, well thought out decision to want to be together for life, and not something they were just rushing into bc they were expecting. That's how seriously we take marriage in the church.

Appreciate your getting the details right on that.

Additionally, I'd note folks that aren't too concerned about that "weren't previously married" part have proven they do not have sincerely held religious beliefs.

[Catholic_Lady]

Personally I'm in favor of same sex couples getting all the same legal benefits, etc. Though as far as getting married in the Church goes, I agree that it should be reserved for one man and one woman who weren't previously married and who went through all the pre cana preparations and were approved by the pastor.

I had a friend who knocked up his girlfriend and they immediately tried to get married in the Catholic church. The priest made them wait until after she had the baby before he agreed to marry them, just to make sure their intentions for marriage was a legitimate, well thought out decision to want to be together for life, and not something they were just rushing into bc they were expecting. That's how seriously we take marriage in the church.

Appreciate your getting the details right on that.

Additionally, I'd note folks that aren't too concerned about that "weren't previously married" part have proven they do not have sincerely held religious beliefs.

If a divorced person wants to remarry in the Church, they have to apply for an annulment and get it approved.

---

I see your point. An unethical action WILL NOT happen unless it is preceded by violent or malicious thought. I agree that the best case scenario is to basically be locked in the room with Buddha.

I just find it hard to hold people accountable for their thoughts. The causes of their thoughts often have to do factors outside of their control (upbringing, treatment by others, environmental factors, etc.) In your line of thinking, a person who has a violent thought but then counters it with a nonviolent thought has behaved unethically. I disagree. I think he has behaved ETHICALLY, despite his having had the thought.

As I said before, I agree with you that cultivating benevolent thinking is GOOD. I just don't see having a malicious thought as BAD.

I'd say daydreaming about doing horrible things to other people is pretty bad.

Thoughts just pop into our head I'm not sure we have any control over that, whether the consciousness has some kind of veto power over that, or if it's just another thought that's popped into the head I'm not sure. Either way if it's the good and not the bad that is done and has precedent then I agree no ethics have been broken.

I would agree CL, daydreaming about nasty things happening to that particular person who irks you is best avoided if possible.

Yeah, thoughts that pop into your head are involuntary and therefore you can't be held accountable for them, even if they are bad thoughts. It's when you choose to start actively feuling that bad thought that it becomes wrong.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Whenever I see someone I picture in my head how that person would come at me like he wanted to kill me.. If it's a really tall guy I imagine I'll break his knees first, then fake a leg kick and go for the head or grapple to the ground and go for a choke. If it's a short or medium size guy I'll go in straight with a flying knee to the head because nobody expects that. It's more or less just a pass time and never with any malice behind it but mostly just to make sure it'll be easy to defend myself should it come to it(just in case). That aside, I agree with CL about things relating to marriage, it's pretty common for our people to go work abroad, our church now demands that anyone that wants to marry and work abroad needs to provide a certificate that they have no relations/marriage in the country they are working in to get married in our church.

[shadow]

FYI you misquoted me here Neo; I didn't write this post.

---

Is this the argument from sophisticated theology I smell?

Do this: Knowledge of God
Download and open it in whatever PDF reader you use. Now with the sidebar open, scroll up and down till you get fed up, then click a random page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?
Do it again, scroll up or down and click a page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?

Welcome to the seriously fucked up world of theology, sophisticated or otherwise.

The proper way to read a scholarly work is from beginning to end, taking notes, and occasionally consulting references. Scanning for content is a poor way to read anything serious, even on the internet. You might want to consider that your study habits are insufficient for educating yourself beyond the most shallow understanding.

Now tell me, how many Christians 'are' Christians due to reading Alvin Plantinga? As opposed to being Christians via having the silver chain yoked around their necks at four years old?

While that may not be the most common path to conversion, it does happen. At the same time there is nothing wrong with being born into a tradition, exploring it deeply, and weighting it on its merits. People like that, the kind who don't just scan for content that confirms what they already believe, are not the kind who just accept what has been presented to them. YMMV

---