morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Aroura]

I was Catholic, I know the doctrine.

That being said it isn't the Catholic thinking I find repulsive, but in particular the evangelical one.  That babies cry because they are full of sin, that a 2 year old saying "no" to his mom or dad is a sin (even if not held responsible), thinking that a 2 year old is willfully sinning is both ludicrous and sick, imvho.

So my comment was at Steve, not at you CL.

Where in the world did you get babies cry because of sin?!? Then you take the most innocuous scenario possible (saying "no") and claim that it is ludicrous. How about when the child hits another unprovoked? Does not share? Throws temper tantrums when they don't get what they want? Breaks/takes something intentionally and then runs (after being told 'no')? Are you seriously claiming a child is a clean/innocent slate and we can't view these actions as selfish, insolent, destructive, and/or hurtful until...when? What is the point when we can call a spade a spade? To me, these are objectively wrong motives no matter what the age of the child is or how well they understand their motives. Again, I don't think they are morally responsible, so it seems your objection comes from me calling a spade a spade rather than some conclusion I am drawing from it. 

BTW, I have had 5 two-year-olds myself as well as being the oldest of 7 siblings and having 13 nieces/nephews over 2. I am well acquainted with the age.

Yes, children hitting mom and refusing to share is still children learning how to be.  Learning where the boundries are.  It isn't sin, it's normal developmental steps.  Everyone goes through those phases, that's how we learn right from wrong.  That's why children need to be taught where the boundries are, and have that reinforced.  Not taught they are sinful just for testing to see where that boundry is.

You think their motives are objectively wrong, at 2, to misbehave at all.  You might know some children, but you are utterly ignorant about their actual psychology. It isn't calling a spade a spade, it's just flat out 100% wrong.

Of course I'm not claiming they are a clean innocent slate.  Children aren't blank slates at all.  Responsibility is beside the point in this discussion, the point is you see toddlers as willful "sinners", when that goes against everything we know about child psychology.

[Amarok]

---

Where in the world did you get babies cry because of sin?!? Then you take the most innocuous scenario possible (saying "no") and claim that it is ludicrous. How about when the child hits another unprovoked? Does not share? Throws temper tantrums when they don't get what they want? Breaks/takes something intentionally and then runs (after being told 'no')? Are you seriously claiming a child is a clean/innocent slate and we can't view these actions as selfish, insolent, destructive, and/or hurtful until...when? What is the point when we can call a spade a spade? To me, these are objectively wrong motives no matter what the age of the child is or how well they understand their motives. Again, I don't think they are morally responsible, so it seems your objection comes from me calling a spade a spade rather than some conclusion I am drawing from it. 

BTW, I have had 5 two-year-olds myself as well as being the oldest of 7 siblings and having 13 nieces/nephews over 2. I am well acquainted with the age.

Yes, children hitting mom and refusing to share is still children learning how to be.  Learning where the boundries are.  It isn't sin, it's normal developmental steps.  Everyone goes through those phases, that's how we learn right from wrong.  That's why children need to be taught where the boundries are, and have that reinforced.  Not taught they are sinful just for testing to see where that boundry is.

You think their motives are objectively wrong, at 2, to misbehave at all.  You might know some children, but you are utterly ignorant about their actual psychology. It isn't calling a spade a spade, it's just flat out 100% wrong.

Of course I'm not claiming they are a clean innocent slate.  Children aren't blank slates at all.  Responsibility is beside the point in this discussion, the point is you see toddlers as willful "sinners", when that goes against everything we know about child psychology.

Indeed infants and toddlers are not evil. They just have no sense of boundaries nor control over there impulses.  This is totally healthy and not a sign there possessed by magic cooties . Same as everything else we teach them.  Theists have some messed up views about infants .

[Catholic_Lady]

Where in the world did you get babies cry because of sin?!? Then you take the most innocuous scenario possible (saying "no") and claim that it is ludicrous. How about when the child hits another unprovoked? Does not share? Throws temper tantrums when they don't get what they want? Breaks/takes something intentionally and then runs (after being told 'no')? Are you seriously claiming a child is a clean/innocent slate and we can't view these actions as selfish, insolent, destructive, and/or hurtful until...when? What is the point when we can call a spade a spade? To me, these are objectively wrong motives no matter what the age of the child is or how well they understand their motives. Again, I don't think they are morally responsible, so it seems your objection comes from me calling a spade a spade rather than some conclusion I am drawing from it. 

BTW, I have had 5 two-year-olds myself as well as being the oldest of 7 siblings and having 13 nieces/nephews over 2. I am well acquainted with the age.

Yes, children hitting mom and refusing to share is still children learning how to be.  Learning where the boundries are.  It isn't sin, it's normal developmental steps.  Everyone goes through those phases, that's how we learn right from wrong.  That's why children need to be taught where the boundries are, and have that reinforced.  Not taught they are sinful just for testing to see where that boundry is.

You think their motives are objectively wrong, at 2, to misbehave at all.  You might know some children, but you are utterly ignorant about their actual psychology. It isn't calling a spade a spade, it's just flat out 100% wrong.

Of course I'm not claiming they are a clean innocent slate.  Children aren't blank slates at all.  Responsibility is beside the point in this discussion, the point is you see toddlers as willful "sinners", when that goes against everything we know about child psychology.

You are right that hitting, not sharing, etc, are normal developmental steps. Nonetheless those things aren't right, which is why we should teach them not to do those things, as you said.

And as you both said, young children are not morally responsible. I think you both agree and are just arguing over terminology.

[Aroura]

No, we don't agree. Because I don't agree they are willful sinners, or that what they are doing it is objectively wrong.  Yes, children's behavior needs correcting.  But it is decidedly harmful to teach them, in addition to normal correction, that the reason they are like this is that they are born tainted sinners.  That addition make all the difference.

I do appreciate you trying to make peace, CL, but teaching children they are born evil and the only thing that can erase that evil is belief in Jesus, (NOT their own behavior or other choices), is vile to me.

I've sadly had dealings with groups such as The Good New Club.

[Amarok]

No, we don't agree. Because I don't agree they are willful sinners, or that what they are doing it is objectively wrong.  Yes, children's behavior needs correcting.  But it is decidedly harmful to teach them, in addition to normal correction, that the reason they are like this is that they are born tainted sinners.  That addition make all the difference.

I do appreciate you trying to make peace, CL, but teaching children they are born evil and the only thing that can erase that evil is belief in Jesus, (NOT their own behavior or other choices), is vile to me.

I've sadly had dealings with groups such as The Good New Club.

Well said

[emjay]

No, we don't agree. Because I don't agree they are willful sinners, or that what they are doing it is objectively wrong.  Yes, children's behavior needs correcting.  But it is decidedly harmful to teach them, in addition to normal correction, that the reason they are like this is that they are born tainted sinners.  That addition make all the difference.

I do appreciate you trying to make peace, CL, but teaching children they are born evil and the only thing that can erase that evil is belief in Jesus, (NOT their own behavior or other choices), is vile to me.

I've sadly had dealings with groups such as The Good New Club.

I totally agree. It's potentially indoctrinating a lifelong sense of shame, just for being human, at a critical formative time and where they have no choice in the matter; they are not Christians... their parents are Christians... the children are not old enough to have made an informed decision about that, but they are nonetheless having a critical idea drummed into them about their very nature, and one which may have lasting psychological consequences if they do not become a Christian (I mean a real one... by informed choice).

[Catholic_Lady]

No, we don't agree. Because I don't agree they are willful sinners, or that what they are doing it is objectively wrong.  Yes, children's behavior needs correcting.  But it is decidedly harmful to teach them, in addition to normal correction, that the reason they are like this is that they are born tainted sinners.  That addition make all the difference.

I do appreciate you trying to make peace, CL, but teaching children they are born evil and the only thing that can erase that evil is belief in Jesus, (NOT their own behavior or other choices), is vile to me.

I've sadly had dealings with groups such as The Good New Club.

I don't think he thinks they are wilfully sinners either. That's what he meant by them not being morally accountable. But I'll let him speak for himself now lol.

[Whateverist]

Indeed Whateverist

almost none of our reasoning capacity comes to us from birth infants are irrational, illogical, impulsive, Insensitive , creatures most if none of this innate to us we have to learn it .

But please tell me how any of that is 'sin'.  Glad I'm not obliged to sign off on that like some poor believers.

[Aroura]

I am frankly nauseated by this doctrine.  As if a child learning how to behave (through often misbehaving) is sin.  

I sincerely hope you do not taint any little minds with this sick perversion that will instill in them an unnecessary self hate for the rest of their lives.  Ick.

Two-years-olds are absolutely willfully disobedient and do things to others that are intentionally wrong. You are confusing the child sinning with being held to account for those sins. I, and most Christians, do not hold a child morally responsible for their actions.

I'm just highlighting this for CL.  He absolutely said they willfully sinned.  His words, not mine.

[Amarok]

Let me be clear about two things clear

1. I am a moral realist I generally criticize moral objectivists (l especially wooter with his reformed voodoo ) on this site because they suck at defending it (seriously the holocaust example)

2. I'm a compatibilists I just find the libertarian accounts on this site awful