Is indoctrination of children child abuse?

[Tommycat]

No. now you've gone off the deep end. Since belief is all about... well beliefs, then you can tailor your beliefs how you want to. That's the whole point of the protestant movement(being able to believe something other than what the Catholic Church decrees). As for which one is correct, that's a crap shoot. But Christianity has gone through a reformation and has splintered into wholly different sects. It's more like the vegetarians who eat eggs, or fish. There are things that can be excepted(yes, not accepted) based on what your brand of Christianity believes. So really, one is not more Christian than the other.

[VeniVidiVicous]

VVV: Um it's easy to point to religion and say "See they did bad things in the name of religion" and ignore the Atheists who did bad things because they didn't do it specifically IN the name of Atheism... But I can also point to how churches and religions have fed the poor. Christian Monks were the ones who created the first hospitals. And to this day many hospitals are run by churches(keeping costs down, and providing some essentially free services). What good has been done in the name of Atheism? It's easy not to do anything bad if you don't do anything at all.

 

Yes, yes, and Mao and Stalin killed more in the name of their 'infallible Communism and atheism' than all other religious wars combined. I don't buy that argument about religious wars one bit.

 

The amount of times Stalin's name comes up is unbelievable.

 

Look, Stalin was a brutal dictator with no morality whatsoever. You could argue that he was "Fighting a war in the name of atheism" but that's not seeing the real picture.

The fact of the matter is that this guy had a vison of an ideal communist society and religion was an obstacle to his vision hence he did his best to remove it from Russian society.

 

@Tommycat

 

I'm afraid if you want to play the balance game there's much more going against religion then there is for it but I get your point.

[Totenkopf]

No. now you've gone off the deep end. Since belief is all about... well beliefs, then you can tailor your beliefs how you want to. That's the whole point of the protestant movement(being able to believe something other than what the Catholic Church decrees). As for which one is correct, that's a crap shoot. But Christianity has gone through a reformation and has splintered into wholly different sects. It's more like the vegetarians who eat eggs, or fish. There are things that can be excepted(yes, not accepted) based on what your brand of Christianity believes. So really, one is not more Christian than the other.

 

Yeah, I pretty much concur. You tip your own hand, bart, by essentially condemning all of christianity (judaism and islam too apparently) as a bunch of gay hating murderers. Btw, nothing blasphemous in in stating that God reserves the right to judge people in the end by His own will and not our claim to understanding it. I don't recall it written anywhere that people that never even heard of God or Jesus were going to go to hell.

[Working Class Hero]

I don't follow these arguments at all. If "god" reserves the right to damn people to hell or allow them into heaven by ways we can't understand, why did he give us a supposedly holy book that describes exactly how to get into heaven?

 

I mean...why bother? If god is going to do what he wants regardless, why should we even try?

[Primogen]

Because that's not how it works, it's just wishful thinking. Consider that Heaven is literally the Kingdom of God, and as it is a Kingdom ruled directly by God, are you really surprised he wants a pledge of loyalty from you before he's going to allow you in?

[Totenkopf]

I don't follow these arguments at all. If "god" reserves the right to damn people to hell or allow them into heaven by ways we can't understand, why did he give us a supposedly holy book that describes exactly how to get into heaven?

 

I mean...why bother? If god is going to do what he wants regardless, why should we even try?

 

Not a whole lot different from having a death penalty for murder, but then leaving it up to a judge to decide if it will be applied in the end. The question doesn't seem to be one of punishment (which we arbitrarily visit upon ourselves), but rather of the severity and/or finality. If you look at the story of the people who wanted to stone the woman for adultery in the NT, Jesus tells them "let he w/o sin....". What is so hard to understand about a god who has rules, but is also willing to forgive. People do that too. Hell, how many grudges do people have b/c someone refused or just didn't bother to apologize for an offense..... As to following rules in general, why should we even hold ourselves to any human rules when they can change multiple times over the course of one's life or even by as simply as crossing into another's country. Just do what you want and try not to get caught. Anarchy ftw.

[Tommycat]

I'm afraid if you want to play the balance game there's much more going against religion then there is for it but I get your point.

Really? I don't think so. Keep in mind that when using the nebulous "religion" you also include the likes of Gandhi, as well as Mother Theresa. Then there are the local churches that feed the poor. How many of those people would have starved to death without them? Quite a few homeless shelters are run by religious groups. How many people have been saved by hospitals? How about the Red Cross/Red Crescent? Look at the things they have done. How many people would have drank themselves to death without Alchoholics Anonymous(yep a religious organization)? I still say religion comes out on top. And these examples are mostly from the Christian faith. There are other examples from Buddhism. Some of it is so ingrained into us that we forget that it's religious.

[VeniVidiVicous]

Really? I don't think so. Keep in mind that when using the nebulous "religion" you also include the likes of Gandhi, as well as Mother Theresa. Then there are the local churches that feed the poor. How many of those people would have starved to death without them? Quite a few homeless shelters are run by religious groups. How many people have been saved by hospitals? How about the Red Cross/Red Crescent? Look at the things they have done. How many people would have drank themselves to death without Alchoholics Anonymous(yep a religious organization)? I still say religion comes out on top. And these examples are mostly from the Christian faith. There are other examples from Buddhism. Some of it is so ingrained into us that we forget that it's religious.

 

Keep in mind you have to also include Islam and Judaism as well as Christianity. Hitler was a roman-catholic as well btw.

 

"Okay so there are local churches that feed the poor," how about all the priests that have raped children? I mean when they were starting to look suspect in certain areas the vatican would just move them around so that they wouldn't get caught and they'd have to get involved. This of course just allowed these priests to rape children in different areas.

 

"How many people have been saved by hospitals?" Another fair point (even though in the modern day first world there's not as many religous hospitals as there are simply hospitals) but i'd counter this with how many people are dying in Africa as we speak due to disinformation by the catholic church. I mean a lot of these people in the third world who didn't get the same standard of education you and I did have been told that condoms are a crime against god. They've also been told that using a condom makes it more likely to get aids. On another note, what about doctors who happen to perform abortions? I mean plenty of them have been targetted in America for commiting a sin against god right?

 

"How many people would have drank themselves to death without Alchoholics Anonymous(yep a religious organization)?"

I know of quite a few people that turned away from AA for that very reason, they didn't want a holy joe trying to convert them.

 

Now this is before we get into all the religous wars but i'll leave that off for now, i'm looking foward to your reply, this a good discussion.

[Wookiee Rrudolf]

Keep in mind that when using the nebulous "religion" you also include the likes of Gandhi, as well as Mother Theresa.

That's the problem. I mean "the nebulous religion".

We should be more concrete in discussion. The concept of religion is often idealized and so it has aspects that no real religion has. It's like composing puzzles from different sets. Placing aspects of different religions that are positive side by side and ignoring their negative aspects. It just can't give you the whole picture.

 

Then there are the local churches that feed the poor. How many of those people would have starved to death without them? Quite a few homeless shelters are run by religious groups. How many people have been saved by hospitals? How about the Red Cross/Red Crescent? Look at the things they have done. How many people would have drank themselves to death without Alchoholics Anonymous(yep a religious organization)?

When talking about the bad aspect of religions there are often examples given of single people who were good and religious or religious charity organizations. But the real question is would these people not help others if not for their belief? Would they not help if they were atheists or believed in other god/gods? Was the religion the real impulse for "do-gooders"?

[Tommycat]

Keep in mind you have to also include Islam and Judaism as well as Christianity. Hitler was a roman-catholic as well btw.

Yes, and Stalin was an Atheist. Both did their stuff for themselves not for a cause. Remember that that same church also kept many people SAFE during that terrible time. Nice bringing Islam into it. Are you saying that we should equate all Muslims with the terrorists? Then why oppose Gitmo?

 

"Okay so there are local churches that feed the poor," how about all the priests that have raped children? I mean when they were starting to look suspect in certain areas the vatican would just move them around so that they wouldn't get caught and they'd have to get involved. This of course just allowed these priests to rape children in different areas.

Same thing happens in schools. I don't see people condemning all public schools for the actions of a few teachers...

 

"How many people have been saved by hospitals?" Another fair point (even though in the modern day first world there's not as many religous hospitals as there are simply hospitals) but i'd counter this with how many people are dying in Africa as we speak due to disinformation by the catholic church. I mean a lot of these people in the third world who didn't get the same standard of education you and I did have been told that condoms are a crime against god. They've also been told that using a condom makes it more likely to get aids. On another note, what about doctors who happen to perform abortions? I mean plenty of them have been targetted in America for commiting a sin against god right?

Depends on your point of view. Some see the killing of the unborn as murder. Soooo I'm willing to call a draw on this even though the number of people killed by Christian attacks is significantly lower than the number of unborn were killed.

"How many people would have drank themselves to death without Alchoholics Anonymous(yep a religious organization)?"

I know of quite a few people that turned away from AA for that very reason, they didn't want a holy joe trying to convert them.

I know quite a few more who have gotten straight after going to AA. For obvious reasons I cannot name names(see the Anonymous part). But there's the combination of AA, NA, and OA that are helped by the groups.

 

Now this is before we get into all the religous wars but i'll leave that off for now, i'm looking foward to your reply, this a good discussion.

The largest wars are about power. Political wars, with "goals" of "religion" but in reality all about keeping or extending the power of those in charge. Religion is a passenger that they keep on just for some air of legitimacy among the masses.

 

That's the problem. I mean "the nebulous religion".

We should be more concrete in discussion. The concept of religion is often idealized and so it has aspects that no real religion has. It's like composing puzzles from different sets. Placing aspects of different religions that are positive side by side and ignoring their negative aspects. It just can't give you the whole picture.

Well the topic is attacking religion in general. So unless we narrow it down to specifically one religion which has only one sect, we're stuck speaking nebulously.

 

When talking about the bad aspect of religions there are often examples given of single people who were good and religious or religious charity organizations. But the real question is would these people not help others if not for their belief? Would they not help if they were atheists or believed in other god/gods? Was the religion the real impulse for "do-gooders"?

I have yet to see a single person doing good for atheists sake. Many of these people are encouraged to do good by their faiths. An atheist might do good. But the religious are encouraged by the groups to do the good deeds. Banding together as a group to do good.

[Primogen]

The largest wars are about power. Political wars, with "goals" of "religion" but in reality all about keeping or extending the power of those in charge. Religion is a passenger that they keep on just for some air of legitimacy among the masses.

 

This. You look at history, and for a long time the Catholic Church was less a religious organization and more a political one. Wars like the Crusades on Eastern Europe and the Middle-East only used religion as a pretense, the real goal was conquest. Those wars and others like it would have taken place, whether they were being done openly as 'God's work' or as just the power-hungry ravings of a lunatic.

[Wookiee Rrudolf]

Same thing happens in schools. I don't see people condemning all public schools for the actions of a few teachers...

I wouldn't say so. If principal of school know about child abuse by one of teachers then it's hard time for this teacher - looses job (never again can work as teacher), goes to jail and is stigmatized for the rest of life. Now a priest is being transferred to another church. But you are right in one thing - it's not a matter of religion itself, rather than people connected to it.

 

Depends on your point of view. Some see the killing of the unborn as murder. Soooo I'm willing to call a draw on this even though the number of people killed by Christian attacks is significantly lower than the number of unborn were killed.

(Christian) God never had problems with killing children. Abraham was supposed to sacrifice his son. OK, he was stopped. But Jephthah wasn't and God was pleased with sacrifice of his daughter. Not enough? What about slaughter of children? I can't give you exact quote (I don't have English version of Bible) but in Book of Repeated Law (did I mistranslate?) there is a part where God tells to kill every living being if a city doesn't surrender (or kill only men, women and children becoming slaves this way if they do surrender).

 

Well the topic is attacking religion in general. So unless we narrow it down to specifically one religion which has only one sect, we're stuck speaking nebulously.

What I meant was that flaws of one religion shouldn't be justified by another religion's quality in the same field.

 

I have yet to see a single person doing good for atheists sake. Many of these people are encouraged to do good by their faiths. An atheist might do good. But the religious are encouraged by the groups to do the good deeds. Banding together as a group to do good.

I saw a statistic material about level of charity and crime-rate among atheists and religious people. Too bad I can't find it any more... (you can easily guess why I'm not happy that I can't find it)

 

EDIT: It's not it, but it's better than nothing:

http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-121066.0.html

http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/12/26/atheism-theism-and-violence.htm

[Tommycat]

Ugh... those articles use supposition and a whole heck of a lot of apples and oranges comparisons. They fail to take into account other factors for crime. Such as the cultural ideals of Japan. Oh and countries with Sharia Law have the lowest crime. Does that mean we should all convert to Islam? NO, because religion/atheism is not why those nations are less violent. Correlation does not imply causation. The cause of crime has more to do with economics than faith. For example

 

Louisiana, with America's highest church attendance rate, has twice the national average murder rate.

The answer is simple. It also has a disproportionately poor population.

 

I mean Japan also has the highest suicide rate... Does that mean that Atheism leads to suicides? NO. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

Let me explain just how meaningless those statistics are with something else.

Japan has very few Black people. Louisiana has a much higher black population. Therefore the way to cut crime is to get blacks out of the neighborhoods. See how ridiculous that sounds when you just change it around a bit. It's still true, but it is bending the statistics to fit your need.

 

As for schools, that only happens when the situation hits the news. If you check the history of the teachers caught doing things, generally they have had at least another incident with another student. They may have even had to move to another state to avoid prosecution. Yet, there is not a condemnation of the school system as there is with religious leaders.

 

And God(the Christian one in this case) had specific reasons for the killing. And you missed the deaths of the first born... Again, though some were tests of faith. And you forgot about the story of Jonah. Where god commanded him to warn the people before his wrath fell on them, his refusal wreaked havoc on all around him until he did as he was told. Not to mention, that as of the New Testament, God seemed to become a bit more laid back and nice to everyone. He even offered up his only son to save those who could not keep from sinning.

 

If you want to be specific to a religion, you have to only condemn the one religion(or in the cases of modern religions, the specific sect... or in the case of WBC the specific church)

[Wookiee Rrudolf]

Ugh... those articles use supposition and a whole heck of a lot of apples and oranges comparisons. They fail to take into account other factors for crime. Such as the cultural ideals of Japan.

No, they don't. There is comparison of atheists and religious people in one country. So the cultural aspect is out. Still there is much, much less atheists in prison than in general population.

 

Oh and countries with Sharia Law have the lowest crime. Does that mean we should all convert to Islam?

I fail to see it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png

Japan and Western Europe are still on top.

 

Correlation does not imply causation.

Yes, correlation is not always causation. But even when it isn't it can provide a bigger picture.

The cause of crime has more to do with economics than faith. For example

Louisiana, with America's highest church attendance rate, has twice the national average murder rate.

 

The answer is simple. It also has a disproportionately poor population.

Another interesting observation Is society becoming more atheist as it is getting more wealthy or is the wealth growing as percentage of atheists in society increases? I'd be very interested in some serious studies to check it.

 

I mean Japan also has the highest suicide rate... Does that mean that Atheism leads to suicides? NO. Correlation does not imply causation.

In this case we should consider if it's a cultural or religious cause for this. For example do atheists suicide (or attempt to suicide) more often than religious people? How does it look in other countries? I don't have any data on the subject

 

As for schools, that only happens when the situation hits the news. If you check the history of the teachers caught doing things, generally they have had at least another incident with another student. They may have even had to move to another state to avoid prosecution. Yet, there is not a condemnation of the school system as there is with religious leaders.

Yes, and the situation hits the news when it's discovered by the teacher's superior or anybody else. While when priest's superior finds out about child abusing he stays quiet and only moves him elsewhere.

 

And God(the Christian one in this case) had specific reasons for the killing.

Sure he does It's called rationalization.

 

And you missed the deaths of the first born... (...) And you forgot about the story of Jonah. Where god commanded him to warn the people before his wrath fell on them, his refusal wreaked havoc on all around him until he did as he was told.

If I were to quote every senseless act of violence in the name of God or commanded by him I'd have to quote half the Bible I think that few examples of "Infinitely good God" doing or commanding something utterly evil should be enough for my point.

 

Again, though some were tests of faith.

A "test" you say? Why would God test anything? He's supposed to be omniscient. He should know the result from the beginning. Before the creation of the universe. Than why bother with testing? Well never mind. He has to have some reason otherwise it would be absurd. Wouldn't it? (I like rationalization a lot )

 

Not to mention, that as of the New Testament, God seemed to become a bit more laid back and nice to everyone. He even offered up his only son to save those who could not keep from sinning.

Yes, you're right. But why stop at New Testament. Apart from what's written in the Bible God is presented more and more "laid back" as you said and good-natured, forgiving etc. etc. as our society gets less violent, more humanised and, I'd say, civilized. (Yeah, sure correlation doesn't imply causation)

The death of Jesus... bloody sacrifice made by God to himself by himself to please his own anger caused by one act of disobedience that condemned thousands generations which had nothing to do with it. How nice of him...

 

If you want to be specific to a religion, you have to only condemn the one religion(or in the cases of modern religions, the specific sect... or in the case of WBC the specific church)

What I dream of would be to rate every single one religion with simple equations.

Does religion A satisfies the inequality:

good done to society/humanity/world, positive aspects > bad done to society/humanity/world, negative aspects

if not, then remove it and take another religion into consideration. I think not one of the "great" religions would pass the test (well maybe Buddhism).

[Primogen]

Yeah, because after Adam and Eve ate the apple, Humanity never did anything wrong ever again and were always good and righteous.

 

And I'd say Christianity -does- qualify there. But you seem to be holding religions to an interesting standard, saying that anything committed by someone who claims to be of a certain religion makes it that religion's fault, which is patently absurd. Yes, the Christian religion has been manipulated and abused by it's leaders, many, many times in the past. But there are two core Christian teachings.

 

1: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

2: Embrace Christ in both your heart and your actions.

 

If today, Beijing was nuked and millions died, and a group claimed responsibility saying it was the will of Buddha, would you blame Buddhism? I think we'd all say 'No, those guys are off their bloody gourd.' Or something of the kind. Evil doesn't need religion to exist.

[Wookiee Rrudolf]

If today, Beijing was nuked and millions died, and a group claimed responsibility saying it was the will of Buddha, would you blame Buddhism? I think we'd all say 'No, those guys are off their bloody gourd.' Or something of the kind. Evil doesn't need religion to exist.

 

Does any of Buddhism sacred texts or teaching imply killing unfaithful or any other group? I don't know, but I don't think so.

 

Yeah, because after Adam and Eve ate the apple, Humanity never did anything wrong ever again and were always good and righteous.

What are you referring to? To Jesus crucifixion? God had other punishments for people doing wrong. Like the flood for whole humanity, nuking Sodom and Gomorrah for sins of it's citizens. I was raised to believe that Christ died for the original sin so that people can baptise and be purged of it. Either way human sacrifice to please a loving and forgiving God is absurd.

 

But you seem to be holding religions to an interesting standard, saying that anything committed by someone who claims to be of a certain religion makes it that religion's fault, which is patently absurd.

Anything committed in the name of particular religion or it's God is fault of that religion. Especially if it's religious texts and teachings imply to do so.

 

Yes, the Christian religion has been manipulated and abused by it's leaders, many, many times in the past. But there are two core Christian teachings.

 

1: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

2: Embrace Christ in both your heart and your actions.

These two "core" rules are only mask, a nice package to hide a real purpose of religion - control, power and totalitarianism in every aspect. Luckily modern people moved away from extreme rules and absurd commands and are happy with only facade that suits their world view.

[Totenkopf]

These two "core" rules are only mask, a nice package to hide a real purpose of religion - control, power and totalitarianism in every aspect. Luckily modern people moved away from extreme rules and absurd commands and are happy with only facade that suits their world view.

 

Riiight, b/c man so needs religion to fall into the trap of wanting absolute control of those around him.

[Tommycat]

Interesting map Wookiee... Strange how the lowest crime in the US happens to be in Utah... Mormon country... Kinda throws a wrench in the whole religion as the catalyst argument don't ya think? When you look at facts to find what you want, while ignoring facts that DON'T show what you want, you tend to get inaccurate results. It also supports my argument as Saudi Arabia has a pretty low murder rate... Also, I thought Russia was predominantly Atheist... So your correlation shows an inaccurate causation as again, it's about economy and cultural differences all together.

 

And when speaking of the Japanese culture, you should really know the Japanese culture. There was relatively little crime in Japan even when they were very heavily into Shinto. So your source is essentially full of bovine fecal matter.

 

As for the "test" as it were: It wasn't to show Him that his faithful would follow his commands, but to show others... Not to mention, we have free will. See Jonah in the belly of the whale(or fish depending on the interpretation).

 

I speak to the New Testament, because that's when God had some sort of change of heart. He went from a vengeful wrathful god to a forgiving and loving god. As to why, that's not something I can answer because I think it's all a bunch of malarkey(maybe hell was getting some kind of overpopulation problem). But the Old Testament is about god before he decided to forgive. I mean we don't have to eat unleavened bread and we can eat pork. Things have changed from the old testament to the new. The reason he sacrificed his son was so that we would no longer have to sacrifice a lamb to appease God for our sins, hence why Jesus is known as the Lamb of God(someone didn't pay attention in their religion classes apparently).

 

Again, I tend to believe the good of Christianity tends to outweigh the bad done in it's name. YMMV

[Sabretooth]

If today, Beijing was nuked and millions died, and a group claimed responsibility saying it was the will of Buddha, would you blame Buddhism?

 

Anything committed in the name of particular religion or it's God is fault of that religion.

 

~~~

 

These two "core" rules are only mask, a nice package to hide a real purpose of religion - control, power and totalitarianism in every aspect.

Look, can we please stop using Religion as a synonym for Christianity. It's really bugging me. I wanted to make a snarky comment about Jains being totalitarian, but it isn't even worth it.

[mimartin]

Anything committed in the name of particular religion or it's God is fault of that religion. Especially if it's religious texts and teachings imply to do so.

So does that apply to non-religion too? Are all Americans at fault because one American commits a crime? After all isn’t capitalism an American religion?

 

If you cannot tell I completely and utterly disagree with your baseless theory. All people are responsible for their own behavior. We should not blame religion, family or society for our own shortcomings. That is merely a copout.

[Alexrd]

If you cannot tell I completely and utterly disagree with your baseless theory. All people are responsible for their own behavior. We should not blame religion, family or society for our own shortcomings. That is merely a copout.

 

This.

[Tommycat]

Heh not to mention that the studies he references leave off the country with the lowest crime rate. Lichtenstein, which has a national religion... Roman Catholic to be precise. Sooo I guess we should all be Roman Catholic?

[mimartin]

Sooo I guess we should all be Roman Catholic?

Well they can drink....but the birth control thing ruins that for me. One mimartin in this world is one too many.

[Tommycat]

Well they can drink....but the birth control thing ruins that for me. One mimartin in this world is one too many.

 

Yes, but you can still use it, you just have to remember to confess it on Sunday like all the other Catholics do. You just have to build up your speed with saying "our father's" and "hail Mary's" lol

[Primogen]

What's your point, Wookiee? Christian texts don't teach or imply killing or anything to other people. Christ teaches to love your enemy, and when he strikes you to turn the other cheek. But you don't have a problem blaming the religion for the actions of it's false followers, so why does Buddhism get a free pass? Because it's your personal philosophy?

 

Please.

 

Anyway, my understanding of the dichotomy between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that - The Father is not present in the New Testament openly, only the Son. You might say that the Father is the Judge of Humanity while Jesus is our advocate. You complain about how God is supposed to be loving, merciful, and forgiving, but is harsh to Humanity. You seem to be assuming that he's obligated to forgive those who have no contrition. I'd say he's pretty forgiving when literally all you have to do to be forgiven is admit your sins and ask them to be forgiven.

 

That said, we're getting a -wee- bit off topic here, I think.