Telling children that they are going to hell is abusive?

[Fake Messiah]

There is no monster under the bed but there is a hell. That's one way the analogy is false.

Except you don't have any evidence for hell, so you are false.

Are you willing to use the power of the state and child welfare laws to prevent parents from teaching their children the Christian faith. If so, we have a very serious political problem.

Again you use logical fallacies (what else can you do when you don't have evidence?) This time it's Appeal to Extremes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

---

---

---

Not to mention that, at the time of the Fátima incident, Portugal was undergoing a kind of religious hysteria.  Funny how that works.

Boru

Never heard of that and I've read a lot about the subject. Any reference?

Yes.  Three little girls claimed that Mary spoke to them and people believed it. Thousands of people claimed that the sun danced in the sky.

If that's not a case of religious hysteria, it'll do til one comes along.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Suppose I had a child (I don’t) who was misbehaving.  Rather than try to correct their behaviour by some other means, I took them out into the garden, set their favourite toy on fire and told them, ‘I love you, but if you don’t be good, that’s what I’m going to do to you.’

Would that qualify as child abuse?

Boru

Yes it would. And where I live it's a criminal offence to threaten anyone in that manner. Why do you ask...? If you think that parents should be forbidden to teach Christianity to their children then it's really the start of a civil war. My kids are adults now but I have grandchildren.  I'd fight you over this issue although at my age I'd need a desk job. It's something right out of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. 

Is that what you meant? Hard to tell because you didn't explicitly finish your thought. You'd like to oppress Christians with the power of the state? Take their children away from them?

Then what - if any - is the moral difference between me telling I'm going to burn my child and me telling them that God is going to do the same thing?  If the first is abusive and criminal, why isn't the second?

My point is that religion is by its very nature abusive and immoral.  I'd prefer that the Church reform to the point where it doesn't abuse children.  But yes - I think the state has the right to remove a child from an abusive environment, whether that environment is secular or religious.

It's been a number of years since I've engaged in fisticuffs over religious matters, and I don't plan to take it up again (but I do think you should be more careful about extending offers to fight strangers).

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Would it convince millions? If suddenly someone is free of Parkinsons or cancer and that doesn't convince millions why would a regrown limb?  Wouldn't millions just say it was a trick by the Church looking to make some money.

I'm happy to be a test case for this.  I lost an eye when I was 17.  There are numerous photos of me with and without my eyepatch.  The incident in which I lost my eye was reported by news outlets around the world.  There are literally hundreds of people are can stand witness to the fact that my left eye is missing, including the surgeons who operated on me.

The day my eye grows back is the day I'll start believing in miracles.

Boru

[ColdComfort]

Yes it would. And where I live it's a criminal offence to threaten anyone in that manner. Why do you ask...? If you think that parents should be forbidden to teach Christianity to their children then it's really the start of a civil war. My kids are adults now but I have grandchildren.  I'd fight you over this issue although at my age I'd need a desk job. It's something right out of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. 

Is that what you meant? Hard to tell because you didn't explicitly finish your thought. You'd like to oppress Christians with the power of the state? Take their children away from them?

Then what - if any - is the moral difference between me telling I'm going to burn my child and me telling them that God is going to do the same thing?  If the first is abusive and criminal, why isn't the second?

My point is that religion is by its very nature abusive and immoral.  I'd prefer that the Church reform to the point where it doesn't abuse children.  But yes - I think the state has the right to remove a child from an abusive environment, whether that environment is secular or religious.

It's been a number of years since I've engaged in fisticuffs over religious matters, and I don't plan to take it up again (but I do think you should be more careful about extending offers to fight strangers).

Boru

Thanks at least for the honesty. And I wasn't talking about fisticuffs with strangers. I was talking about civil violence.

---

---

---

---

Never heard of that and I've read a lot about the subject. Any reference?

Yes.  Three little girls claimed that Mary spoke to them and people believed it. Thousands of people claimed that the sun danced in the sky.

If that's not a case of religious hysteria, it'll do til one comes along.

Boru

Not many believed that Mary spoke to those children: one boy, two girls btw. And the tens of thousands that saw the sun move were hardly in the glimpse of religious hysteria. So many were not religious at all.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And I wasn't talking about fisticuffs with strangers. I was talking about civil violence.

Based on my experience, it comes to the same thing.

Boru

[LastPoet]

Hmmm, empoverished Portugal, illiterate populace, three prophecies in hindsight and a dictatorship just in need to grab that harness over the people.

Are you tuga?

Not to mention that, at the time of the Fátima incident, Portugal was undergoing a kind of religious hysteria.  Funny how that works.

Boru

When it comes to times of war, illiterate indoctrinated people cling to anything. The first republic wanted to increase secularity and literacy methods, but due to war and other factors, dictatorship took place and they fully embraced and exxagerated the accounts. It served them well.

[ColdComfort]

Would it convince millions? If suddenly someone is free of Parkinsons or cancer and that doesn't convince millions why would a regrown limb?  Wouldn't millions just say it was a trick by the Church looking to make some money.

I'm happy to be a test case for this.  I lost an eye when I was 17.  There are numerous photos of me with and without my eyepatch.  The incident in which I lost my eye was reported by news outlets around the world.  There are literally hundreds of people are can stand witness to the fact that my left eye is missing, including the surgeons who operated on me.

The day my eye grows back is the day I'll start believing in miracles.

Boru

So if the miracle happens to you you'll believe but if it happens to others than not so much? An what would believe.? You wouldn't be likely to conclude that it was the God of Israel or of the Christians because Scripture is a bunch of trash. I don't want to put words in your mouth but it's a safe bet that's what you think. And I still don't get it. If someone has parkinsons or cancer one day but not the next how is that something that you would not bring you to believe in miracles. You're a very demanding guy it seems. Not just any seemingly miraculous cure will do. It has to be of a very specific type.

[LastPoet]

Hmmm, empoverished Portugal, illiterate populace, three prophecies in hindsight and a dictatorship just in need to grab that harness over the people.

Are you tuga?

Portugal was not a dictatorship at the time. It was a republic that was very anti-clerical. The secular authorities were hostile to the claims as was most of the Church and the Press.  Only in 1930 did the Church declare it 'worthy of belief". The prophecies were not made in hindsight. As one example, the warnings about Russia were made at a time when that country was an absolute theocracy quite some time before the Bolshevik victory. And the miracle of the sun was witnessed by 30,000 to 40,000 people. It was predicted beforehand not in hindsight. That's why so many people were there.   The testimony has been collected and written down. The crowd was a mix of Catholics, non-believers come to scoff, and just curious people.  

Was Portugal impoverished at the time or particularly illiterate compared to the rest of Europe? I never heard that but I don't see why it would matter.

The prophecies were vague enough to be read that way. The sun wobbling, it is an impossibility, most certainly wobbling heads. 30 to 40 thousand people there you say? Thats the account in the 1930s when dictatorship was in place and eager to use the powerfull mass control tool that is religion. They even said it "the portuguese people needs just the FFF. Fado Football and Fatima.

[ColdComfort]

Not to mention that, at the time of the Fátima incident, Portugal was undergoing a kind of religious hysteria.  Funny how that works.

Boru

When it comes to times of war, illiterate indoctrinated people cling to anything.  The first republic wanted to increase secularity and literacy methods, but due to war and other factors, dictatorship took place and they fully embraced and exxagerated the accounts. It served them well.

Portugal was at war. but it was not a dictatorship. The state did not embrace and exaggerate the claims. As I've already mentioned it was anti-clerical as was a great deal of the press. Contrary to what some here might believe the Catholic Church is not quick to accept these claims. In the case of Fatima, as I've already mentioned, thirteen years passed before it was deemed 'worthy of belief'. So at the time, the Church did not embrace it. It is still considered a private revelation. No Catholic is obliged to believe Mary appeared to these children.  

Even if what you say is true how does the state or the Church or anyone else get tens of thousands of people, Christians and non-Christians, to see what they saw about the sun?  This is well documented. Their testimony has been written down. Even Fake and the other guy would have to accept that is evidence.