[Religion] "I want my kids to decide for themselves" by FngrBANG - Page 5 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page [Religion] "I want my kids to decide for themselves"
Page 5 of 20
Thread Tools
SaintDude
Miss Deaf Texas++
Contributor
Old
81 - 11-20-2008, 02:58
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by red_one View Post
Behave, or the man in the sky will punish you!
I'm sorry Mr. Carlin.
 
SaintDude is offline
 
Sponsored Links
Celios
VeteranX
Old
82 - 11-20-2008, 03:09
Reply With Quote
Indoctrinate your children or they won't have morals.

srsly
 
Celios is offline
 
ZOD
VeteranX
Old
83 - 11-20-2008, 03:09
Reply With Quote
Ok you guys keep bumping this so I'm just going to post a youtube video from an accused cult leader as your punishment. I give you: "Proofs for God".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB4vi6gRM70

I feel it only fair to give this guys rebuttal to the accusatory article.
 
ZOD is offline
 
TimTheEnchanter
VeteranX
Old
84 - 11-20-2008, 03:24
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Togowack View Post
Fngr, how can you believe dinosaurs never existed?

Yes I agree you should raise them according to your beliefs and they will draw their own conclusions. The part people get caught on is not properly answering questions that relate to the secular (outside) world they encounter in school and with friends. But they are your kids so this probably comes naturally. I think if you really are true to what you believe, your kids will do fine, even if you don't teach them. You are the example, so they will compare you to their friends & teachers. They have to make their own minds up.

As for a practical program, reading 2 chapters a day I think is a pretty decent way to go.
My children will read 2 poems where Whitman talks about how hot big sweaty men are. When they graduate from that, they will read two chapters of Lolita a day. Then we're on to Palahniuk. I bet they turn out more well-adjusted than Fnger's kid.
 
TimTheEnchanter is offline
 
Feannag
VeteranXV
Old
85 - 11-20-2008, 03:27
Reply With Quote
I didn't read the thread but I can say this...

1. You'll say that up until they take to something you don't believe in, then you simultaneously tell them hell no while accepting your pass into the Church of Hypocrisy.

2. Religion != spirituality. There are distinct differences, and while one can contain the other remember this; Religion needs spirituality, but spirituality doesn't need religion.
 
Feannag is offline
 
Last edited by Feannag; 11-20-2008 at 03:29..
Senty
VeteranXV
Old
86 - 11-20-2008, 03:36
Reply With Quote
It is free choice, it's mine not theirs, but it's a free choice none the less.
 
Senty is offline
 
superweiner
Veteran++
Old
87 - 11-20-2008, 04:29
Reply With Quote
Agreed by all: we want to raise moral children.

Two basic ways to do this:

(1.) Use religion (I'll assume the Bible) as the guide and justification for morality.
Pros:
-easier to justify why something is right/wrong "because the bible or God says so".
-you get an institution, the church, to help with the teaching.

Cons:-When the kid starts to question things as a teenager (or before), beliefs based ONLY on a book or "because God says so" will be the first to go.
-The Bible is heavily contradictory and interpretive, so you have to spend a lot of time picking and choosing what to instill and what to leave out.
-Depending on your sect, varying degrees of instilled guilt, which no reasonable person would call beneficial.

(2) Teach them logical/rational morality.
Pros:
-When the kid starts questioning, their morality will be last to go. Justification for morality is personal and logical, rather than removed and faith-based.
-No guilt as part of morality.

Cons:
-takes longer and has to be more thought out


So...either way we see that you have to choose what to teach, except that religious morality is inherently flawed in as much as it deviates from rational morality.

And you cite your kid saying "please, thank you, and god bless you" at 2 years old. To me, that sounds a little creepy and sad; let the kid be a kid and not a manners-bot. Christian parents who drill their kids into saying all the right things to appear polite (in order to be allowed to leave the table or go play or whatever) without understanding the meaning of politeness if one of the creepiest and saddest things I can think of.
 
superweiner is offline
 
SaintDude
Miss Deaf Texas++
Contributor
Old
88 - 11-20-2008, 04:39
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by superweiner View Post
Agreed by all: we want to raise moral children.

Two basic ways to do this:

(1.) Use religion (I'll assume the Bible) as the guide and justification for morality.
Pros:
-easier to justify why something is right/wrong "because the bible or God says so".
-you get an institution, the church, to help with the teaching.

Cons:-When the kid starts to question things as a teenager (or before), beliefs based ONLY on a book or "because God says so" will be the first to go.
-The Bible is heavily contradictory and interpretive, so you have to spend a lot of time picking and choosing what to instill and what to leave out.
-Depending on your sect, varying degrees of instilled guilt, which no reasonable person would call beneficial.

(2) Teach them logical/rational morality.
Pros:
-When the kid starts questioning, their morality will be last to go. Justification for morality is personal and logical, rather than removed and faith-based.
-No guilt as part of morality.

Cons:
-takes longer and has to be more thought out


So...either way we see that you have to choose what to teach, except that religious morality is inherently flawed in as much as it deviates from rational morality.

And you cite your kid saying "please, thank you, and god bless you" at 2 years old. To me, that sounds a little creepy and sad; let the kid be a kid and not a manners-bot. Christian parents who drill their kids into saying all the right things to appear polite (in order to be allowed to leave the table or go play or whatever) without understanding the meaning of politeness if one of the creepiest and saddest things I can think of.
I'll agree with most of this but teaching a kid to have manners early on will make it easier later on as well. The sooner they learn boundaries and manners the better off both the parent and the child will be for the long run.
 
SaintDude is offline
 
Vanster
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
89 - 11-20-2008, 04:53
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZOD View Post
Ok you guys keep bumping this so I'm just going to post a youtube video from an accused cult leader as your punishment. I give you: "Proofs for God".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB4vi6gRM70

I feel it only fair to give this guys rebuttal to the accusatory article.
ofn, but was worth watching again.
 
Vanster is offline
 
Skipperlipicus
VeteranXV
Old
90 - 11-20-2008, 05:19
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FngrBANG View Post
So I'm bringing my children up in the Christian religion.
You know, there are plenty of religions that teach morals, and are a lot more open minded than Christianity. Why not raise your kids as Buddhists? Or even better, teach them morals yourself. Lets face it, Hitler was a Christian... he wasn't exactly moral.
 
Skipperlipicus is offline
 
CarpeIppon
Veteran++
Old
91 - 11-20-2008, 05:43
Reply With Quote
Dear Secretary of State,

The Government has decided, reasonably enough, that heredity is no basis for membership of Parliament, and the hereditary peers are either gone or on their way. Yet, in the very same year, you propose increasing the number of faith schools. Having disavowed the hereditary principle for membership of Parliament, you seem hell-bent on promoting the hereditary principle for the transmission of beliefs and opinions. For that is precisely what religions are: hereditary beliefs and opinions. To quote the headline of a fine article in the Guardian last week by the Reverend Don Cupitt: 'We need to make a clean break with heritage religion and create something better suited to our own time.'

We vary in our opinions and our tastes, and it is one of our glories. Some of us are left-wing, others right. Some are pro-euro, others anti-. Some listen to Beethoven, others Armstrong. Some watch birds, others collect stamps. It is only to be expected that our elders should influence us in all such matters. All this is normal and praiseworthy.

In particular, it is normal and pleasing that parental impact should be strong. I'm not talking particularly about genes, but about all the influences that parents inevitably bring. It is to be expected that cricketing fathers will bowl to their sons - or daughters - on the back lawn, take them to Lords, and pass on their love of the game. There will be some tendency for ornithologists to have bird-watching children, bibliophiles book-loving children. Beliefs and tastes, political biases and hobbies, these will tend, at least statistically, to pass longitudinally down generations, and nobody would wish it otherwise.

But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens. Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.' Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving, 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own. In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception. We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby. That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children. They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics, abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.

I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains, consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative. This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way, nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'. Rightly so. But why the double standard?

I presume you need no more convincing. For parents to influence their children's opinions and beliefs is inevitable and proper. But to tie labels to young children, which in effect presume and presuppose the success of that parental influence, is wicked and indefensible. But, you may soothingly say, don't worry, wait till they go to school, it'll be fine. The children will be educated in a variety of opinions and beliefs, they'll be taught to think for themselves, they'll make up their own minds. Well, it would have been nice to think so.

But what do we do? We deliberately set up, and massively subsidise, segregated faith schools. As if it were not enough that we fasten belief-labels on babies at birth, those badges of mental apartheid are now reinforced and refreshed. In their separate schools, children are separately taught mutually incompatible beliefs. 'Protestant children' go to the state-subsidised Protestant school. If they are lucky, they won't actually be taught to hate Catholics, but I wouldn't bank on it, especially in Northern Ireland. The best we can hope for is that they will come out thinking only that there is something a bit alien or odd about Catholics. 'Catholic children' go to the Catholic school. Even if they are not taught to hate Protestants (again, don't bank on it), and even if they don't have to run the gauntlet of hate in the Ardoyne, we can be sure they won't be taught the same Irish history as the 'Protestant children' down the street.

Secretary of state, even if I fail to convince you that opening new faith schools is downright insane, may I at least plead for a consciousness-raising exercise in your own department? Just as feminists succeeded in making us wince when we hear 'he' where no sex is intended, or 'man' for humanity, we need to raise our consciousness about the faith-labelling of children.
Please, I beg you, strongly discourage the use, in all ministerial documents and inter-departmental memos, of phrases that presume theological opinions in children too young to have any. Please foster a climate in which it becomes impossible to use a phrase like 'Catholic children', 'Protestant children', 'Jewish children' or 'Muslim children' without wincing. It only costs two words more to say, for instance, 'children of Muslim parents' or 'children of Jewish parents'.

One of the more frightening aspects of human nature is a tendency to gravitate towards 'Us' and against 'Them'. Worse, Us versus Them disputes have a natural tendency to reach down the generations, leading to vendettas of frightening historical tenacity. Where labels are not provided to feed our natural divisiveness, we manufacture them. Children separate out into gangs, often with distinguishing labels. In certain districts of Los Angeles, a young person innocently sporting the wrong brand of trainers is in danger of being shot. Experiments have been done in which children, with no particular reason to sort themselves into gangs, are provided with, say, green or blue labels. In short order, enmities spring up between the greens and the blues: fierce loyalties to one's own colour, vendettas against the other. These can become surprisingly vicious.

That's what happens when you don't even try to segregate children. Now, imagine that you deliberately stamp a green or a blue label on a child at birth. Send this child to a blue school and that child to a green school. Encourage green boys to assume that they will grow up to marry green girls, while blue girls will marry blue boys. Take for granted that, the moment they have a baby of their own, it too must have the same coloured label tied around its neck. Passed on down the generations, what is all that a recipe for? Do I need to spell it out?

The very idea of a faith school is as unjustifiable as the idea of a hereditary House of Lords, and for the same reason. But hereditary peers, though undemocratic and often mildly eccentric, are not dangerous. Faith schools almost certainly are. There remains the pragmatic argument that, notwithstanding the knockdown objection to the principle of faith schools, they get good exam results. Well, maybe. If it is true, by all means let's try to bottle the secret, and share it around. But, bottled or not, careful analysis fails to uncover any real link with faith. The ingredient in the bottle is a school ethos, which can take years to grow and which, for reasons having no connection with religion, has become built up in certain Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. A high reputation, once built, is self-perpetuating, because ambitious, education-loving parents gravitate towards it, even to the extent of pretending to be churchgoers.

But in any case, where have we heard something like the pragmatic, 'exam results' argument before? Yes, in the debate over the hereditary peers. People were fond of saying that, no matter how undemocratic was the principle of hereditary members of Parliament, they got results. Enough aristocrats worked hard, some were real experts on fly fishing, or windmills; some were doctors who had wise things to say about the health service; many were farmers who could hold forth on foot and mouth or the Common Agricultural Policy; and all of them preserved the decencies of debate, unlike that rabble in the Commons. Undemocratic they may have been, but they did a good job.

That argument cut no ice with the Government, and rightly so. If you gather together a bunch of men of above average wealth and education, raised in book-lined homes for many generations, it is hardly surprising that some expertise and talent will surface. The pragmatic argument, that hereditary peers do a good job, is on the slippery slope to 'say what you like about Mussolini, at least he made the trains run on time'. There are limits beyond which principle should not be dragged by pragmatism. The Government reached that limit over the hereditary peers. The pragmatic case in favour of faith schools is similar, but weaker. The principled case against faith schools is similar, but stronger.

As for what is to be done, of course we don't want to destroy institutions that are working well. The way to be fair to hitherto unsupported denominations is not to give them their own sectarian schools, but to remove the faith status of the existing schools (just as the fair way to balance the bishops in the Lords is not to invite mullahs, monsignors and rabbis to join them, but to throw the existing bishops out). After everything we've been through this year, to persist with financing segregated religion in sectarian schools is obstinate madness.
 
CarpeIppon is offline
 
Lothar of the Hillpeople
VeteranXV
Old
92 - 11-20-2008, 06:51
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Togowack View Post
overlooking some obvious stupidity

The Law no longer applies.
Matthew 5:17-19
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"

Uh-oh, I guess I'll be seeing you in hell Togowack.
 
Lothar of the Hillpeople is offline
 
cael
VeteranXV
Old
93 - 11-20-2008, 07:38
Reply With Quote
Do the 10 commandments no longer apply too since they appeared in the old testament?
 
cael is offline
 
-=TTC=-Serpreme
VeteranXV
Old
94 - 11-20-2008, 07:44
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FngrBANG View Post
I hear this quite often...

I can't believe that I have to let you in on this little secret...but:

 Children learn by example... 


So--with that in mind--when you claim that a child is being "brainwashed" when introduced to Christianity at an early age what is really happening in your camp of thought? Are you not setting an example of how much you outright despise the idea of the belief in something other than the tangible?

In essence--by your very neglect where introducing the child to an ethical tutelage--AREN'T YOU DENYING THE CHILD years of moral instruction?


Because, let's face it, your public school systems aren't exactly instilling the values of moral behavior as you might have hoped. They're more concerned with 'zero tolerance,' avoiding litigation, and teaching standardized competency tests. So which is it? Depend on the school system or depend on the parent? Whatever your answer, someone else of a non-religious nature disagrees with you.

So I'm bringing my children up in the Christian religion. As such, my children will be taught to tell the truth. They will learn not to prey on the weaknesses of the misfortunate. Additionally they will be taught to actively contribute to those less fortunate. They will learn to consider other, non-Christian, persons feelings when interacting socially. They will be taught to avoid prideful and scornful behavior. They will observe the nature of the Universe--as I have--in order to cogitate our place within said Cosmos. The same as every one of you are attempting right now...

So how am I denying my children the ability to decide for themselves?
Either your children will be brought up in the religion and told its the only truth, is up to you.
They can at a later date decide that its all bs, or just rebel to snub you.

But the key to all of it is, telling your kids that yours is the only true religion and you will go to hell if you dont practice it.

Most people raise up their kids and scare them into believing. If you are at a point where you want your kids only to believe in what you believe, you wont say "I want them to decide!" Or its a farce.
 
-=TTC=-Serpreme is offline
 
-=TTC=-Serpreme
VeteranXV
Old
95 - 11-20-2008, 07:44
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cael View Post
Do the 10 commandments no longer apply too since they appeared in the old testament?
technically only 6 of the 10 commandments are about being good and moral.
the other four are protecting yourself from a angry and jealous god.
 
-=TTC=-Serpreme is offline
 
MikSchultzy
VeteranX
Old
96 - 11-20-2008, 09:27
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FngrBANG View Post
And I never said it did...

But you rely too much on something other than religious instruction, don't you?


Or...are you actually being a responsible parent?


Did you just see what I did there?
I always come into these threads late because I don't read TW enough.

But yes, I see what you just did here. You called society out on it's lack of parenting. It's been going towards this direction for years (as have other things).

I would hope that I am able to give my son the same - or better - moral values that I cherish every day and attempt to express every day. I can only hope that I will do as well with my son as my father did with me.

I am not saying that I am a golden child by any means. But I hope that my child has the sense to not go out and steal/****/pillage, per se.

I should note that my father, while not highly religious, is still religious in that he does believe. He does not visit the church on a regular/consistent basis. That being said, I believe, but you wont catch me doing most any kind of organized gathering in the name of religion. (re: weddings do not count)
 
MikSchultzy is offline
 
Whiplash
VeteranXV
Old
97 - 11-20-2008, 10:11
Reply With Quote
Didn't read all the thread, don't plan to.

Some of the worst people i know are in church 3 times a week. Since you are judged by the company you keep i stay away from the type of place morally depraved people congregate.

I raised my kids (19, 16) allowing them to make certain choices on their own. I did take it upon myself as a parent to instill morals and values along with basic understanding. I tried to show them the difference between knowing wrong from right and knowing why something was wrong or right.

Both my kids went to church on their own for a while. I never tried to stop them and let them actually decide for themselves. Now they both see that outside of learning what little the preacher actually teaches Church is useless. nothing more than a social gathering place for hypocrites.
 
Whiplash is online now
 
Falhawk
VeteranXV
Old
98 - 11-20-2008, 10:12
Reply With Quote
no way I'm reading 5 pages but is fngr asserting that you can only teach morals via religion?
 
Falhawk is offline
 
TheGrudge
VeteranX
Old
99 - 11-20-2008, 10:24
Reply With Quote
I think some Christian values are good. Unfortunatly, people have added so much other bull**** to the religion that it's not even about that anymore. I would rather my kids learn great morals from all religions without adding the fear of some vengefull god in their heads. A life built on fear isn't a life at all in my opinion. They should be good people because that's the right thing to do... not because they will be sent to hell if they are bad. I think it tells a lot more about someone when they do good things out of choice, instead of out of fear.
 
TheGrudge is offline
 
Flunky
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
100 - 11-20-2008, 10:33
Reply With Quote
tw paints such a horrible picture of christianity... rich white people church isn't that bad...

I was dreading my wife making me take our daughter to a catholic church. I have since convinced her that rich white people church is the way to go...
 
Flunky is offline
 
Page 5 of 20
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page [Religion] "I want my kids to decide for themselves"

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
666 , adopted , child abuse , drunken moron , fngrbang vagina swelling , has issues , physics is philosophy , placebo , religious fucks , satan is lord , seraph is a fag , togowack is dumb , togowack is ignorant


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:42.