This has nothing to do with homeschooling, but nausea and apathy have pretty much killed my motivation to tackle the task I set before myself this evening…and that is only in part due to pregnancy. Thanks to COD for this little article which displays both the worst and best of the human spirit: The girl in the window.
The girl in the window is six year old Danielle, who just appeared there for a fleeting moment one day, years after a family moved in. No one even knew a little girl lived there. When officers finally arrived to investigate, what they found left them vomiting and in tears.
“I’ve been in rooms with bodies rotting there for a week and it never stunk that bad,” Holste said later. “There’s just no way to describe it. Urine and feces — dog, cat and human excrement — smeared on the walls, mashed into the carpet. Everything dank and rotting.”
And then there was the little girl. The one who had appeared for a fleeting moment in a window months previously. Lying in a bed in a soiled diaper, amongst a stack of dirty diapers and surrounded by filth and human excrement. At seven, she had been so severely neglected that she was completely unresponsive to stiumuli, including eye contact, touch and even pain. No one knows whether she will ever be able to live on her own although physically, nothing is wrong with her.
In the end, she is adopted by a loving family who by all accounts is doing all they can for her even though she is far from what they were seeking when they set their hearts on adoption. Her eyes just captivated them and the rest didn’t seem to matter so much. She is even beginning to show improvment, responds to people, understands simple commands, is potty trained and seems to enjoy interaction…all things which no one knew for sure she would ever be capable of.
I should have just stopped reading the story at the end. It was about as happy of an ending as you could get for a story like this. But of course a comment caught my attention, and I think someone’s moral compass is in serious need of readjustment. Dormiel writes:
Wait they are saying that the mother had a low IQ and was neglectful so they give her to a family who worship sky fairies? I don’t know what’s worse frankly.
Let me see. Leave the child to rot in her own feces, or give her to a Christian family who wants to care for her. Which do you think is worse?
I’d be inclined to pass it off as yet another asinine Internet comment, but I’ve heard others who seem to have difficulty drawing a distinction as well.
So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon. Edge.org
And Nicholas Humphrey is not some random anonymous commenter on a newspaper article. He was speaking before Amnesty International.
Did I miss the announcement? Congratulations!
Thanks!
Nauseous is right, and add tears. I don’t know what to type, but love and hope and incredulity are crashing around in my head. I still cannot believe some people think parents abuse their children by teaching them the Bible. God, help us!
It’s one of the hidden truths of secularism that’s attempting to take over our country. It starts with “we respect your right to believe whatever you want” and ends with “teaching them things that are ‘false’ is equivalent to abuse.”
Yeah…when I read these things, I think it won’t be long before the church remembers the days of moral relativism with fondness. But now there is a “new” absolute truth, and it doesn’t allow for “fairies in the sky.”
Sickening. Has anyone ever realized that SCHOOL was started in CHURCHES?? The reason for SCHOOL was religious. I’m amazed the atheists haven’t all become homeschoolers themselves.
@Dana, you’re right. Christianity is a forgiving host because it at its core it does not force you to believe in it. Just look at Islam or Atheism– both of which either verbally or physically force you to say that they are right and everything else is wrong.
@Laurie, because atheists have the “real truth”, didn’t you know that? Since it’s the Christians that are “wrong,” there’s no reason for the atheists to think that they should protect their beliefs at home.
Seriously, without the public school system (colleges included here), secular humanism/atheism would have no where to get their message out, and no one would believe them.
Wow, Dana, you shure know how to pick the provocative issues! (That’s a good thing!
)
There is quite a difference between a civil pluralism and moral relativism; you can fight against the latter and still stand up for the former, but I really do not think that Christians have behaved much differently from the “sky-fairy believers are abusive” commenter, at least as far as verbal attacks go. Those who are obsessed with fighting the culture war often seek to perpetuate the state of war, and people like “Dormiel” just feed off them.
God help us indeed!
Giving an account of our hope is necessary, because people see stories like that of Madeline Neumann (Death by Prayer) and say, “She must’ve been a crazy Christian homeschooler–see the horrible things they do?” (That article doesn’t mention homeschooling, but a local person did post a rant that mentioned/claimed she was homeschooled.)
Regardless of which world view one believes in as the ultimate truth, we should still be able to defend our actions in public by reference to some commonly held ethic, and distinguish them rationally–and forcefully!–from instances of abuse. It is possible to do this in some forums, even if the debates get quite heated and emotional. But if we disengage from those who do not share our faith or life practices, we will find ourselves accepting the label of “dangerous loonies,” and defending our right to be that way.
I pray for this country. How does freedom of religion mutate into it being a crime to believe? It is just mind boggling.
@MInTheGap: Christians definitely doesn’t force people to believe in their doctrines. The Crusades were just a… misunderstanding.
—
People can’t appreciate goodness in the world, because it happens so infrequently. If it is good, it must be tainted with something, otherwise we can’t process it - in the case of Dani’s parents, their goodwill is muddled by their religion.
It’s easier for people to be indignant and intolerant than feel small in comparison to truly good people. Good intent is good intent, regardless of religion or personal philosophy.
Whoops. Christian’s DON’T. My mistake. That’s what I get for not proofreading.
No one is claiming that Christians haven’t done awful things in the past, but all of Christianity cannot be judged based on the sins of some of its adherents. The bible itself condemns attempts at conversion by the sword. That the religion has been misused by some in power in order to maintain or extend that power isn’t really a Christian issue so much as it is a human sin and power issue.
Or are we going to condemn all of atheism for the Khmer Rouge and its murderous attempt to eradicate religion? Or for Stalin? Or for Mao…or North Korea?
And no, Dani’s parents goodwill is not “muddled by their religion.” How much more prejudiced can you be for another person’s beliefs?
I agree, Circle Reader, but the problem goes beyond trying to separate from those who do bizarre things like watch their child die of a treatable disease, or stone their own children because they believe God told them to.
There are an increasing number of people who believe that sharing a belief in God is in and of itself abusive. Another blogger compares religious teaching to “sexual abuse of the mind.”
Which brings us back, I guess, to JJ Ross’ description of people “ferreting out and balking at sophistry even when they might otherwise agree with its aim” in Comment #32 on an earlier post. If that kind of behavior is frequently practiced, affirmed, and recognized by Christian (and other) communities, then these kinds of allegedly intellectual accusations against religion in general will be exposed as the vicious, stereotyping bigotry that they are.
If we fail to do that, however, the accusations will be simply correct…
Here’s why arguments like the above have to occur…
To battle Christianity stupidity. This is the exact same thing Christian fundamentalists are saying… just in reverse. And what’s worse is that IT is becoming law. That children are considered abused if they aren’t taught a belief in God (and thus can be removed from loving families). That orphaned children cannot be adopted by homosexual couples. Now, why don’t I see any of you arguing against that? Same situation, yet why such a different response?
And for you Alicia, how does freedom of religion mutate into it being a crime to not believe and for homosexuals to not adopt children? It is just mind boggling.
But in reality, that was just a stupid comment by someone on the internet. And no, it doesn’t represent a rising notion. The article itself was over-dramatized, although the situation was probably terrible, horrendous, and horrid; the way it was written reeks of it. But back on point, you have two quotes. One by some nut on the internet, and one from a non-religious fundamentalist. Okay, so now you’ve heard of, what 3 people saying that. WOOHOO! EVERYBODY IS DOING IT! Remember what I said from above? How Christians think that not teaching about god is abuse or that homosexuals shouldn’t be able to adopt? That runs far above millions of people, indeed, outnumbers every Atheist in the US.
And let’s just look at your backup of everybody having this ideal. The quote by Humphrey is from a 17 page paper, with 24 references, and you think by removing one sentence–effectively removing the context by a great deal–you have any right to compare these two comments? Typically, the only thing children are legally protected by is from abuse. So therefore, that’s the only legal comparison he can make. The whole statement was an exaggeration, but furthermore it’s under the context that words hurt too. And in lewd of religious families killing children by not seeking medical aid when they were sick (cause the almighty god was going to save them by their belief alone)… yes, beliefs do have the power to kill.
Furthermore, if you knew how to actually read, the quote isn’t actually comparing it to teaching a belief in god. It’s against parents teaching things as the bible as a literal truth. Other words, he’s preaching against fundamentalism… of quotes like this:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
So if your for literal interpretation of the Bible, your for stoning children.
Most people know the difference between abuse and belief, especially in the Atheist world. And as I said above (with homosexual and teaching Atheism), most people don’t know the difference, in the religious world.
I’m not done here though, I still have to battle uneducated and un-researched comments like this:
“Sickening. Has anyone ever realized that SCHOOL was started in CHURCHES?? The reason for SCHOOL was religious. I’m amazed the atheists haven’t all become homeschoolers themselves.”
So Laurie, where do you get your information? Oh, I know already, somebody somewhere made this claim and you just treated it like it was true. For your information, no, it wasn’t. Religious schooling was started about 1780’s, and it was free. School systems existed LONG before that, but it was a luxury, very expensive, for the elite–very private. Thanks to those religious schools, the government did take notice and begin to offer education to all. But the notion that religion started schools is off-base and incorrect. So, did you even REALIZE that you should RESEARCH your information?
I fail to take notice why you even said this as well. It has no baring to the situation at hand. Furthermore, just because something starts something, doesn’t mean squat. For example, did you REALIZE that CHRISTMAS started as PAGAN? Christmas didn’t start out as a Christian holiday. Indeed, Christ wasn’t even born on Dec 25th, he was born earlier in the Fall around the beginning of October. Christmas originated as the celebration of the sun god Mithra.
Now, would this stop your little celebration? Hell no.
And of course, we take a look at MInTheGap. He just treated your statement as true, without any look to the actual validity of it. This is the world we live in, where people just take whatever idea that sounds good and they think supports them and treats it as true. Pathetic.
And on the case of MInTheGap. Yes, Christianity does force you to believe in it. You don’t, you go to hell no? Christianity at it’s core states that everybody else is wrong and are going to hell, like by… oh I don’t know… Jesus? What if somebody doesn’t believe in Jesus? So I don’t know where you’re inventing that up. Indeed, Christianity claims every other religion in the world is wrong including atheism (not really a religion, but whatever). Atheism believes every religion in the world is wrong including Christianity. There is no difference in number of beliefs not believed in by either.
“Seriously, without the public school system (colleges included here), secular humanism/atheism would have no where to get their message out, and no one would believe them.”
Umm… internet maybe? This argument is actually against you anyways. If the only source of humanism/atheism is by being educated… yeah, did you think things through here? To spell it out, your making an inference that only the intelligent are humanists/atheists. Your making the claim, not me, I know full well that there are atheists that are complete idiots. Btw, you did realize that you can be a religious humanist right? Humanism isn’t atheism.
And just so you all know, I am religious. What religion or religious views do I have? Heh, I’ll leave that blank to keep you guessing.
Jesus dined with sinners. He asked questions and told stories. Who did he yell at? The Pharisees.
I wonder if we no longer have a defense for our faith, other than feelings and experiences. If that is all we have every discussion will be heated and emotional. It doesn’t have to be that way.
But can you even have a discussion when someone says your beliefs are the same thing as knocking out a child’s teeth or locking them in a dungeon?
My children are taught the Bible, but I cannot force them to believe it anymore than an atheist can force their children to disbelieve in God.
It’s absurd that you think experiences and feelings are defenses of your religion. Non-replicatable, often false correlated… It all sums up to the lady who thought that God got her a parking space when she really needed one, and that made her feel fantastic. Of course, let’s not note all the times she didn’t get a parking space.
And, although how absurd that is, is it the only real defense you have? Yes. And that’s sad. But furthermore, how do your feelings and experiences counter others? I does your feelings and experiences pose greater than… let’s say Jews? Or Buddhists?
Ranae, I gave you a quote. Your beliefs, quite frankly, say to stone children who misbehave. Is that reasonable? Or teaching them that “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” Leviticus 20:13)? So you think you can teach murder and get away with it? So what if I taught my kid to kill every Christian they see… I can right? AGAIN, it’s not against your beliefs persay, but how you teach them. Nothing against you praying to God and believing in him, definitely against you teaching that killing homosexuals is right.
And actually, you can force them to believe in it much more than an atheist can. Look, your religion states that none-belief will condemn you to hell. DO YOU NOT GET THIS? You teach your kids to fear God, that if you sin your going to be tortured forever. It’s a fear campaign! You lock the kids in fear, that is forcing them to belief. There ain’t no fear to cast by teaching children disbelief. And often, they aren’t raised in disbelief. Common Atheist parenting attitude is to wait until the kids come to them and ask them about it (they’ll be introduced by classmates and such), and then they’ll explain why they don’t have a belief. It’s often much less forceful than to take them while their 3, tell them they’ll go to hell if they sin, and preach to them everyday until they believe it to death.
This is where separation of church and state come in. Ours is a beautiful country, where freedom to believe is backed up with other freedoms, including human rights. No, the country isn’t perfect, and I do suspect that the comment was made by “some nut.” That doesn’t prevent me from praying or believing that our country needs help. It is foolish also to hurl homosexuality and freedom to disbelieve at a woman (me) who deeply loves and respects the rights of her siblings, and all others like them, one an atheist and a parent, and one a homosexual seeking to adopt. Like me, you, GMNightmare, did not do your research before overreacting. Judgmental knee-jerk responses are the real issue. These people worship ’sky fairies’ and are as bad as the person who sat and watched her child to rot in her own feces? I think not.
Excuse me? I didn’t say anything preventing your prayer. If you took it wrong sorry, but rereading what I put I mis-worded it. The intention was not to retract from your statement, but to put it in twist to the opposite end. In other words, I wasn’t trying to argue with your statement at all. I was using your argument for the other side as well.
And research what? Pray, tell me. What, who you are? Who cares who you say you are. I am I supposed to magically find out who you are? I doubt you’d like if I showed up at your house one day saying, “Hi, I just wanted to know who you are before I responding to a comment you made on the internet. So… eh… who are you?” That is not research. Who you are is not researched able in any reasonable context.
And was I flinging homosexuality and freedom to you? Hell no. Common trait, everything is about you isn’t it? This was a response to the topic at hand, which you took so personally it’s pathetic.
You left a quote from the Old Testament law which governed a theocratic state which is no longer in existence. I don’t know how Jews deal with Torah, exactly, but I haven’t known them to stone their children, either. Christianity does not strictly adhere to this law.
To battle Christianity stupidity. This is the exact same thing Christian fundamentalists are saying… just in reverse. And what’s worse is that IT is becoming law. That children are considered abused if they aren’t taught a belief in God (and thus can be removed from loving families). That orphaned children cannot be adopted by homosexual couples
No, it isn’t becoming law. It is the law. Many Christians are fighting for the law to stay the same, but it isn’t fundamentalists taking over. Anti-sodomy laws have been in existence for a very long time. The change is that it is becoming legal. Not sure what you are referring to in regards to children being removed for not being taught a belief in God, but I guess there are enough nuts to go around.
I’m glad we agree that this Doriel is some nut on the internet. But please, you can drop some of the accusatory tone. It makes for difficult and rather pointless discussion. I can read, and I’ve read the whole thing a few times.
I never said “everyone is doing it.” You applied your own stereotypes of my beliefs. The idea is out there and has been for some time that teaching religion is abuse. Or a cultural virus. Or whatever terms you feel more comfortable with. And comparing denying the teaching of Darwin to female circumcision? Again, a gross exaggeration, to make a point, I guess. But the point is clear enough that “society” or the state has a proper role to regulate and control thought. It all seems too much like North Korea, where children are asked at school to spy on their parents for the state.
I am well aware of the origins of Christmas. Of Easter, too, for the matter.
Yes, the Christian believes that the non-believer is going to hell. If there is no hell, I fail to see how that really hurts anybody, other than the occasional annoyance of it.
You teach your kids to fear God, that if you sin your going to be tortured forever. It’s a fear campaign! You lock the kids in fear, that is forcing them to belief.
No, I do not. You do not appear to have a very good understanding of my faith, nor the principles upon which it rests. I realize that many people reject the very notion that we are all sinners, believing that we are all innately good, but for me that just doesn’t really explain all the sin, evil and wrongdoing in the world. Still the focus is not on trembling in fear of hell, but of thankfulness to a God who bore the penalty for our sin.
So you think you can teach murder and get away with it? So what if I taught my kid to kill every Christian they see… I can right? AGAIN, it’s not against your beliefs persay, but how you teach them. Nothing against you praying to God and believing in him, definitely against you teaching that killing homosexuals is right.
Forgive me, but because you read it in Leviticus doesn’t mean this is what Christian homes are teaching. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” and all that. I do not teach murder for anything. Judgment is for the Lord, not me. My beliefs do not say to stone anyone, for misbehavior, homosexuality or otherwise, regardless of the fact that most would consider me fairly literal in my interpretation of the bible. But you have to understand the New Testament for any of it to make much sense.
GMNightmare, you are welcome to discuss these issues at length, but please refrain from calling my other commenters “pathetic.” Reason should be able to stand on its own without the insults.
I’ll refer you to my comment policy which comes along with a neat graphic.
Jeez - Just dropped in for a cup of tea and “WHAM!” - I find myself in the middle of a jihad.
How many of you read the whole story of “The Girl In The Window” - did you just pass it by and just read Dana’s post? One would think so based on the comments. For those who did - don’t get your back up nor should those who didn’t.
I’m just wondering how we morphed from a story of an abused child to the bible. AH! Someone commented on the story of Dani and that someone (Dormiel) gave a stupid reply to the story - just trying to stir things up.
I would think we would’ve stayed on target rather than give Dormiel any press. In fact, had this been my post, I wouldn’t have given him/her/it the satisfaction of having his comment read - I would have spammed it.
Another curious thing - how is it that GMNightmare’s name is not linked while everyone else’s is?
Thanks for the story about Dani - I wish her and the family well.
I agree for the most part.
But as I’ve had an ongoing fascination with this whole idea of “scientism” it pops up now and again. What does it mean for the future? I don’t know. Hopefully no more than most passing philosophical points. Most don’t become the dominant worldview.
I really do understand why people complain about the crusades or whatever atrocities people have committed while claiming to do it in the name of Christ…or religion in general.
But then it seems there are those who would call for an inquisition against religion. I’m fine with the argument that this is just some idiot on the Internet who is probably just wanting to stir things up. I mentioned as much in my entry, but it isn’t wholly isolated and similar things have been said by others with greater audiences. I’m not saying this is widespread, or the belief of every atheist. But then I don’t really understand why the reaction isn’t more along the lines of “the guy is a nut, don’t waste your time worrying about him” rather than launching an attack against Christianity.
Dani’s story is encouraging. Her neglect is not the end of the story. And her family’s Christianity in no way mars that. Honestly, I wish there were a lot more stories with Christians doing these sorts of things rather than marching around state capitals protesting whatever it is they are protesting.
The Kingdom of God is spiritual, not physical, and I think many forget this. Changing the nations’ laws to suit Christianity (or any sect therein) will not save a single soul. Why do we waste so much time on it then?
I did actually just read Dani’s story yesterday, which was why I was so blown away that anyone could equate, well, y’know, with what she went through. And just for the record, I didn’t really expect to be researched. I was just trying to make a point about knee-jerk reactions…that being a Christian does not equate being in agreement with everything that has been done in the name of God. You make a beautiful point, Dana; Why do we insist on changing our laws to suit our spiritual beliefs?
That was a lot of “justs..” defensive, much? Sorry, LOL. This one has gotten me wound up today. Lots of food for thought.
I think (personal opinion alert) that anyone offended by a little girl going to a home where she actually gets fed is fifty-one cards short of a full deck.
You mean you give people like that a whole card to play with? It might not be safe, LOTP.
“But in reality, that was just a stupid comment by someone on the internet. And no, it doesn’t represent a rising notion.”
I disagree with that. I recently bought Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, which I thought was a fantastic, eye-opening book. Except that he devotes over 30 pages (Chapter 9 - Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion) to a treatise on how a religious upbringing is a form of abuse. That’s not just “one stupid comment on the internet”. When Richard Dawkins writes it in a bestselling book, then it has become a rising notion.
To clarify, my comment was not in response to GMNightmare. We were writing at the same time. Rather, I was trying to think through CircleReader’s comment.
I did not say that the only defense for faith is emotions and experience. In fact, I was saying the opposite. We need more than emotions and experiences to uphold our beliefs.
And it seems to me the family who valued a little girl enough to adopt her when everyone said not to has an amazing understanding of love and goodness. It is wonderful to see what can happen when someone is given a chance.
That is the heart of Christianity, not fear. Love is a powerful idea and its outworking marvelous.
Rina made a good point about the widely acclaimed (or should I say Proclaimed)Dawkins’ piece of an agenda. There is an increasing mindset that it’s not “socially and emotionally” correct to practice the Christian faith and “subject” children to such. For that matter…any faith that has to do with “sky fairies”. We’re just not smart enough…..
Danielle’s story has to do with good people stepping into a horrid situation so a little girl could become part of a good family. The story related their walk with God leading them to that decision, which can only be a good thing. (While noting that others who aren’t taking that same walk would do the same.)
Targeting Christians or others of faith (or heritage) for doing anything (let alone a good thing) is an easy attack in this day and age. Pretty crazy… and judgmental and pervasive.
Northwestern law professor K Yuracko comes to mind:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1016778“Many Christians who choose to homeschool do so in order to shield their children from secular influences and liberal values. In response to political pressure from this group, states are increasingly abdicating control and oversight in this realm. Modern-day homeschooling thus raises important questions concerning the obligations of states toward children raised in illiberal subgroups.
What’s the diff between control from family influences and control from Big Brother? Diversity, for one, which I don’t think people like Kim Yuracko truly understands.
Btw, Dana, totally off-topic…hmmm, there was that nauseous thing… but congrats on your littlest one and hope you’re feeling better soon.
Dana, you do a good job defending you position, I commend you.
The problem at the root of this discussion was tangentially mentioned in one of the comments– the idea that all religions should be held to some ethical standard when it comes to child abuse.
The theory behind that being that said ethical or social standard would be able to determine whether or not any activity were abuse or normal. In theory, this is works out fine because we apply it to what our concept of abuse is and we’re happy.
The problem is that without some kind of anchor, what is right at one point in time can become wrong and vice versa.
So, at one time, slavery is fine, and now it’s not. At one time homosexuality is a disorder, now it’s preferable to some people.
Hence the need for a single moral code, for which Christianity provides– or provided– that basis in this country. Those that differ from Christianity are the ones that are trying to “change everything”, not vice versa.
A,, August 8, 2008:
@ MInTheGap: ……The Crusades were just a… misunderstanding.
Prove to me through the scriptures, in context, that the Crusades were the natural outworking of the Christian faith and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Remember times short, I may only have about 40+ years left.
Outside of the stereotypes of the Crusades, you will find the fact that they were conducted by the Roman Catholic Church, which is, “Romanism - the church is supreme.”
Romanism acted outside of, “Orthodoxy - the Bible is supreme,” therefore the cloak of Christ was worn but the wolf was underneath.
While upon this topic explain why the natural out workings of Anti-theism has been the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? Upon that study you will discover Anti-theism has more in common with Romanism.
When God (Orthodoxy) is removed (ie Nietzsche) what foundations are there for man but man’s alone?
You like to censor things eh? Don’t worry, I’ll give you another chance before that’s how you’ll appear to the rest of the world. Information is not to censor, what if somebody censored your website? Such disrespect to a fellow blogger–just because you don’t like the information presented? You don’t post it, then I will, and I’ll also add how you like the censor things not to your liking. I typically don’t like to make my blog public by using things like Stumbleupon… but I can. Normally only friends and family visit my blog, until I gather enough information that I deem I should share. I currently have you as a positive blog with a fair outlook and linked, but I can easily change that.
At least try to note that I didn’t call anybody pathetic–you can check. I checked. I did claim some notions to be pathetic, but nobody personally. Indeed, it’s much like you didn’t really call me a nut up there. Double standards? Your blog I guess.
“I can read, and I’ve read the whole thing a few times.” But you’re lacking understanding, especially because of this: “I am well aware of the origins of Christmas. Of Easter, too, for the matter.” And why? Because this was strictly to Laurie’s comment that schools were originated through religion. Indeed, nothing beyond “I’m not done here though” had anything to deal with you.
But here’s the thing, you see, this: “Christianity does not strictly adhere to this law.” supports me. So you would agree with me that this law shouldn’t be right? Then your against literal translation of the Bible as well. Humphrey’s quote was against literal translation of the Bible and other religious scriptures… you know, the kind that makes people blow themselves up. People abuse in the name of religion and get away with it even:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/11/15/religion-child-abuse-and-churchstate-separation.htm
“Anti-sodomy laws have been in existence for a very long time.” Really now? Oh, okay, point me out the law that says a married homosexual couple cannot adopt children. Oops, that doesn’t exist. Why? Because the law was against homosexual marriage, not adoption! (there was some single parent adoption laws I believe… no federal only state.) So no, it isn’t law–and it never was. Furthermore, all the other sodomy laws were barely ever actually enforced (just like laws that you can’t wear pink underwear on Sundays and other nonsense like that). As for your doubt to the removal of children due to beliefs… There are quite a few articles out there. I should have bookmarked them when I came across them, they are hard to find among all the false child abuse articles. That one is less likely to become law now, but before atheist starting claiming the opposite–pressure was being pushed for it. IE the claims that this nation doesn’t support non-believers, we have to pick a religion for freedom of religion.
As for your claim against my saying of “everybody is doing it”… As off-base as it is (for example, I didn’t apply any stereotypes, I was reflecting the stereotypes you were inferring)… I can accept and acknowledge you weren’t meaning this. I was exaggerating anyways. I retract my statement.
As for you not teaching murder in your home… sure. But that isn’t everybody. There are people teaching murder in their homes everyday. It is these people we have problems with–because it is happening. Furthermore, I know all about Christianity. Indeed, many of my relatives are Christian pastors and reverends. I have read the whole book, even read the Mormon’s (I think you’ll find that puts me ahead of a lot of Christians). The New Testament doesn’t magically make the Old Testament have sense. How then, did people understand it before the New Testament? No. The Old Testament was a failure, religion needed better shackles to harness humanity.
And I have a very good understanding of the faith, and the principles. I also understand the complications of the faith, and it’s effects. And of course you don’t focus on the trembling of hell… at least you. But your kids do. That’s all they really notice at first. Many others do to, the preach that we are all going to hell if we don’t repent, or that if somebody aborts a child they are going to hell, or all homosexuals are going to hell… ect ect ect. And I hear it already, you don’t do this, you don’t do that, Christianity can’t be held accountable… actually, it can. Because they use the Bible to back themselves up, they take it and cast hate with it–and the Bible supports them.
Here, why don’t you try out other religions? Why do you make a choice without checking out the competitors? There should be no problem, I mean, becoming Buddhist for a month, and then trying Taoism… and then maybe Mormonism… Why? Sure, you could state the same BS that you know already, that God’s telling you. Truth is, that would be blasphemy. To doubt for anytime, to explore the choices to you… could be enough to send you to hell. Why risk that? Really, why not? Surely a loving God would understand that you were exploring all the options he gave you on this Earth. Furthermore, why not show your kids all the religions as well, let them do it with you?
It’s a fear campaign. Nothing else. IF the religion had no sense of hell, meaning you were really truly had the freedom of choice, what would then be the point? Christianity would lose all meaning… because currently, all it’s focused on is heaven. On your salvation. On your redemption of your spiritual soul.
———————————-
Ah, Ranae, excellent. Love of course is a powerful idea and it’s marvelous. But then where, does hell come from? Hell in it’s very notion, is without love. An eternal torture for essentially not guessing which of the thousands of religions are correct is not love. I plan on rewriting the Bible someday. Removing all the hateful notions, of God getting angry and smiting somebody just on a whim, putting the so-called miracles back into context of what they really were… So that, when I’m finished, it really will be a book of love (of course, without all the hate, war, bigotry, the book will be severely shorter). But how many people will appreciate that? Will I be looked upon as a heathen for altering the Bible to make it full of love and harmony? Most likely.
You are correct, the heart of Christianity is love. But the outer shells are of hate and bigotry. This of course is a hard discussion, mainly, because I can easily see that you guys do indeed understand the heart. But I want to show you, that you can’t just focus on the good. There is bad with Christianity, not just good–and ignoring it all just makes the problem worse. On this topic, this link that separates the two and shows what it should be:
http://www.explorefaith.org/questions/views.html
And Dana, the best quote from this whole page:
“The Kingdom of God is spiritual, not physical, and I think many forget this. Changing the nations’ laws to suit Christianity (or any sect therein) will not save a single soul. Why do we waste so much time on it then?”
If, every single person agreed to this and the progress of changing the nations’ laws to suit any religion stopped… Nearly all qualms would be extinguished. If only.
Ah, it seems I was having troubles with my connection. I retract my censorship claims. My fault. Twice, triple even. Hmm… troublesome. My apologies.
Jesus?GMNightmare
Quote: “Yes, Christianity does force you to believe in it. You don’t, you go to hell no?”
Let me understand. Someone comes to you and explains the gospel, using words, maybe a tract. You say no thanks, they go away. Where’s the force? Certainly the force is in the Word!
Quote: “Christianity claims every other religion in the world is wrong”
Researched the religions of the world lately? Whom do Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Panthiests etc. exclude? The tired old song, ‘Christianity is exclusive,’ returns to the point of absolute truth. It is fascinating that the vast majority of ‘X religion is exclusive’ picks Christianity as the target. Certainly the truth is in the Word.
Quote: ““Seriously, without the public school system (colleges included here), secular humanism/atheism would have no where to get their message out, and no one would believe them.”
That would be a good thing for humanity. “If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as and automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of the corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment-or, as the Nazi’s liked to say, “of blood and soil.” I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, BUT RATHER AT THE DESKS AND IN LECTURE HALLS OF NIHILISTIC SCIENTISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS.”
emphasis mine.
Viktor Frankl The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy (New York: Knopf, 1982). xxi
This is news about an abused little girl. A real live abused little girl. Remember, guys?
It isn’t a sports story about defending the team you choose to identify with, nor taking to the field yourself to score some points . . .did you intend to offer anything of use to real live abused little girls in this thread, or not?
GM, actually, no, I don’t like to censor. I don’t know what post you are referring to…I’m assuming by your other comment that it is something that failed on your end. The comment that was held for moderation was held for moderation because it contained more than one link. But just for the record, this is my blog and my place for free speech. You can start your own and criticize anything you want. I do not even have to allow comments at all, nor any which disagree with me. But I do and always have. The only thing I moderate is language and links, but if a respectful tone cannot be found after warning, I do tend to scrap the conversation. It isn’t worth my time.
Ahem, you should note the context of that was a response to MInTheGap:
“Christianity is a forgiving host because it at its core it does not force you to believe in it. Just look at Islam or Atheism– both of which either verbally or physically force you to say that they are right and everything else is wrong.”
I was simply saying that Christianity is no different. By force I refer the the force MInTheGap was saying. Although it is easy to see where you misunderstood that. Take force very vague in that regards.
And careful not to break commandment #3. Jesus, as a part of the trinity, and thus is synonymous with God.
And do you actually have any knowledge of religions outside of your own? “Whom do Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Panthiests etc. exclude?”
Let’s see here… no qualms over Muslims–they are, after all, just have a different savior than Jesus (they make pretty much all the same claims, very close to Christianity), also no qualm with Hindus. Mormons are fundamentally the same as Christians, they don’t exclude any Catholic branch (they just have more laws and an additional book).
So, I don’t have any qualms with typical theism. Unfortunately for you, you also added abstract theisms. Buddhists don’t exclude anybody. They work with a karma system and rebirth, so no matter who you are or what you believe in your going to be reborn anyways. The sole exception being if you de-attach yourself completely from Earth (purposefully) then you get to die for good. As for Pantheism, there are no exclusions. There is no hell, no heaven. For Pantheism, God isn’t some personal being that acts and does the whims of it’s followers, it’s an abstract being that just exists. So your the same as everybody else, believing or not doesn’t matter.
So, have you researched the religions of the world lately? The reason why Christianity is the lapdog is because your the largest body of religion, nothing to deal with your actually right or other such nonsense you were trying to apply. Also, Christianity has the biggest foothold over governments in trying to force their ideals–which is also a big reason your the target.
As for your WWII paragraph, I would first mention that Nihilism isn’t a belief… it’s an attitude. Existentialism is the belief, and taken with a bad attitude becomes Nihilism.
But furthermore, you seem to not understand the background to WWII. WWII was, in part, caused by Catholic propaganda–indeed, Hitler himself was of Catholic denomination.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerQuotesGodReligion.htm
Against your quote, the gas chambers of Auschwitz were actually the ultimate consequence of the religious zealots promoting the annihilation of everybody else… ie, “them”. Religion typically puts a “us” vs “them” concept. Everybody who is “us” is fine, good, saved. Everybody who is “them”, aren’t really humans, anti-Christs. Existentialism (and those with poor attitude of it, Nihilists) doesn’t have this stigma attached.
Emphasis, removed.
No, seriously, these are some good points your all bringing up. I am enjoying this I must say. Please, expand my mind some more to think of more issues.
Oh, no, Dana, again, I must express my apologies, that was an absolute error on my side of the line. Again, I humbly retract my statement, and I wish you to hold that as nothing more than a computer error on my side plus a little impatience.
JJRoss, it is about an abused girl…and about whether teaching a religion is inherently abusive. I’m not sure why exactly anyone would want to defend Dormiel’s comment in any way.
And GM–how is this calling you a nut?
Not sure what you are referring to in regards to children being removed for not being taught a belief in God, but I guess there are enough nuts to go around.
The nut specifically refers to whomever you are referring to saying that children are not being taught a belief in God. That doesn’t appear to be you, so I don’t understand why you felt this applied to you in the least.
“I can read, and I’ve read the whole thing a few times.” But you’re lacking understanding, especially because of this:
But what you leave as an example makes no sense. So I chose to respond to your comment to Laurie. I don’t know her well-enough to know what her knowledge is, I’m only pointing out that not every Christian is ignorant of these kinds of things. Stick to the actual article. You say that he is specifically talking about the teaching of murder, yet he never mentions that. The only thing he specifically mentions is the teaching of creation…that denial of Darwin is the same as the denial of a clitoris. You have inferred that he means the stoning laws in the OT, yet all he ever refers to is a scientific view of the world. I don’t really care if people think it is wrong to teach creation over evolution, but it is not the same as mutilating little girls.
“Anti-sodomy laws have been in existence for a very long time.” Really now? Oh, okay, point me out the law that says a married homosexual couple cannot adopt children. Oops, that doesn’t exist. Why? Because the law was against homosexual marriage, not adoption! (there was some single parent adoption laws I believe… no federal only state.)
Anti-sodomy laws have nothing to do with homosexual marriage or adoption. It deals specifically with a certain act between two people, generally of the same sex. And Thomas Jefferson argued that his state of Virginia drop the death penalty for this, but instead castrate them. Laws against this have been around for a long time…it isn’t the Christian Right suddenly jumping up and changing laws. Many of them have been deemed archaic, and that is fine. It isn’t really my issue, but the fight currently being waged by Christians is one for the status quo.
There are people teaching murder in their homes everyday. It is these people we have problems with–because it is happening.
True. But that isn’t a Christian issue. In fact, I think you will find that when people like Phelps sets his entire ministry upon his little slogan that “God hates f–s” that the evangelical churches separate themselves from him and publicly denounce his teaching. As they do with all the cults, some of which do teach some pretty bizarre things.
I wonder what members of the KKK teaches home? Or the so-called Christian Identity adherents? If you know of specific groups teaching the stoning of children, homosexuals, or any other group please name them by name. Don’t cast a shadow on all of Christianity when the church is condemning these kinds of teaching.
. The New Testament doesn’t magically make the Old Testament have sense. How then, did people understand it before the New Testament?
Going even further off topic, here, but I love this question.
They didn’t. That is why most Jews did not recognize Christ as the Messiah. They were looking for someone to deliver them from Rome in a very real, physical sense. And I guess maybe this does tie into the general discussion, because I fear that many, especially the Reconstructionists, are guilty of the same mistake.
In the NT, the only war is spiritual. And Armageddon, I guess, but I shan’t get into end times discussions on my blog.
And thank you for moderating your tone a little. Discussion progresses much better when people don’t feel like they are being attacked.
But I disagree that the “outer shells” of Christianity are hate and bigotry. The only reason the evangelist evangelizes is out of love. And since we seem to be focused on homosexuality in this thread for some reason, I will share a little of how I wish the issue were handled. When a homosexual is being beaten, harassed or otherwise abused, I wish it were the Christian with the outstretched hand helping him or her back up. That doesn’t mean they/we have to embrace the lifestyle, but no one, not even the homosexual or adulterer, should fear for their physical safety around Christians. The worst they should ever hear is that the behavior is a sin against God…which doesn’t mean a whole lot outside of Christianity, so I really don’t understand why it gets such a focus.
But anyway, my model for that is Christ himself as he stops the stoning of the adulteress. He certainly didn’t condone her sin, but he stopped her death.
No Thinking Parent among us would defend EVERYTHING done in the name of Christianity, or homeshcooling for that matter. The decades of abuse investigated within CA’s Long Family are back in Dana’s blog this very week, I believe. That family’s child abuse case was defended by the father as simply rightful parenting in the name of both Christianity and homeschooling, yet I reject it utterly as wrong regardless.
And as Dana and I discussed in this recent thread, Little Sean Paddock was adopted, too. Compared to his birth family maybe we would have thought this a blessing for him? — but his adoption did not protect him from being systematically abused to DEATH by his adoptive mother, in the name of Christian discipline prescribed by a dangerous self-identified “ministry.”
That “ministry” sells books and advertises in a well-known homeschooling publishing conglomerate that some of you reading this right now, probably blog through and defend as CHristianity that is good despite what its words and business ethics have wrought, in the name of Christianity.
I don’t care what we call what, as long as we are thinking clearly about what matters to real human life right here on earth. The main point is that protecting kids from such horrors is the main point, not any delusional justifications of abuse-complicit adults or cheerleaders for interest groups — including religion and homeschooling! (And don’t even get me started of World Net Daily and Bill Donohue . . .)
I agree, JJRoss. And I’ve never really had much nice to say about that particular “ministry” to which you refer, although the abuse issues in the Paddock family seem to predate their discovery of said “ministry.”
And as to how to stop such things? Evangelical churches do speak out against them. There are many flags that are raised with the Pearls, but the interesting thing about them is that when they are criticized, it is interpreted as “persecution” and justification that what they are doing is right. The Pearls haven’t raised enough attention to garner much public criticism because once you move out of homeschoolers, hardly anyone has even heard of them. Although that seems to be changing, probably because of Sean’s death. CRI now mentions them, and warns against their teaching and the “disturbing trend” of authoritarianism among some Christians. Actually, they directly label their teaching as abuse, all the more insidious for the calmness it instructs.
Ezzo made a few more ripples and ended up excommunicated from his own church, let alone criticized by many others and ending up mentioned in literature warning pediatricians to look for signs that parents were using his methodology.
I agree that many do defend this as Christianity, but evangelical churches have rejected them.
I just wanted to make clear that I do not defend the teachings to which you refer in the least, and most of Christianity does not.
Towards the nut thing, very well. I would, however, like to point out that because of how it’s written, it could be taken either way.
As for who said it… was actual parents who got their child taken away for that reason. In this specific example that I’m thinking of, they did get… I believe it was a her… back after around a year of so after a lot of court struggle. Again, I really wish I had the link.
As for the Laurie thing… I don’t really know how you missed this. But okay, let’s take the first quote:
“Has anyone ever realized that SCHOOL was started in CHURCHES?? The reason for SCHOOL was religious. I’m amazed the atheists haven’t all become homeschoolers themselves.”
Let’s look at this shall we? Since school started as religious then all atheists shouldn’t go to school–I’m doing a little bit of oversimplifying here mind you to be brief. First, I refuted the claim itself. And then I highlighted the implications, being the reverse, that since Christmas started as pagan, than all Christians should drop it–and of course I don’t really belief this. So as you see, this was really nothing than me providing an example of why such a statement was incorrect, even at it’s notion. I did, have to give some background just in case, that unlike you, she didn’t know.
“Anti-sodomy laws have nothing to do with homosexual marriage or adoption. It deals specifically with a certain act between two people, generally of the same sex.”
EXACTLY. So why did you bring up anti-sodomy laws… I was arguing that people are trying to make it unlawful for homosexuals to adapt children. And your counter to this was:
“No, it isn’t becoming law. It is the law. Many Christians are fighting for the law to stay the same, but it isn’t fundamentalists taking over. Anti-sodomy laws have been in existence for a very long time. The change is that it is becoming legal.”
So… there we go… I don’t think I need to explain this further.
“True. But that isn’t a Christian issue.”
This is true. And that was why I was trying to say that this is against all religious fundamentalism.
I’d like to state outright, that I don’t actually condone this line of thinking. But none-the-less, understanding of this line of thinking is important. A lot of religious people simple shrug off the problems arisen by their religion. And to some extent, it’s been done here. The claim that oh, not all Christians think that way and such. IF people actually listened… and did something along the lines of such:
“Look here, this man just supported his murder with the bible!”
“Blasphemy! God’s will has no murder in it!”
“I know! But he quoted lines #-# to do it.”
“My goodness! He was right! But God preaches of love not hate!”
“I think it must be a translation error, or perhaps just a mistaken human error.”
“Indeed, let’s correct this right away.”
But it doesn’t work that way, yet it should. For some reason, religion treats itself as it cannot change–like the first ones got it right perfectly because humans have shown that they always interpret God perfectly from the beginning…
You say that God’s word is of love, and that the Bible is God’s word, yet the Bible does not reflect pure love. The constant appeal for people is to say, well we ignore those lines, and those lines… then why, are those lines in there? Removing those would fix it. The book doesn’t have to be thrown out, the meaning can still be there, all the bad parts do. It would all these problems.
In this regard, myself and Dawkins agree. This, is one of the main issues against religion. If religion constantly changed for the better, instead of preaching that change is bad continually… If Christianity did what I explained above, Dawkins hostility toward it… wouldn’t exist–nor would nearly anybodies actually. Here, this is why Dawkins is hostile toward religion (it’s an interesting read):
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.html
For a little more clarity on my outside of the heart claim… By bigotry and hate, they aren’t thought as such. It’s often thought of love, and yet for everybody else it comes across as bigotry and hate. I really have to refer again to this link on it:
http://www.explorefaith.org/questions/views.html
It explains the feelings quite well. I call it false love. Love for all the wrong reason and acted upon for all the wrong reasons as well.
Oh, why I bring up the homosexuality issues is because it’s very predominate today. It actually covers a lot of topics as well. It also is clearly visible how it’s gotten out of hand.
As for your views on the old and new testaments, I would really like to explore them further–but at the moment I have ran out of time so I’m going to have to shelf that and touch upon it a little later.
Dana, I didn’t need you to say that though I’m still glad you did.
And thanks for that link, because I am not familiar with CRI. That opening “synopis” paragraph is pretty powerful even without reading the paper!
It too seems to recognize that “Christian” can mean both loving and not-so-loving practices, depending on who is doing the preaching, teaching and defining.
Btw, PPB this week links an interesting 20-question worldview quiz at beliefnet that helps people understand the real power of story in religion. It matches your answers to different religions and then ranks all the religions by your percentage of agreement with it, so you can really “see” where different beliefs fit in the world, AND which ones are really at irreconcilable odds with each other politically.
Right off the bat, it helps me understand why some red-blooded Christian friends and family seem so alien and ignorant, while others are so thoughtful and dear. Apparently the real worldview clash isn’t in any “religion” itself but in a sort of universal animal ignorance –
For me it lent some new insight, gave me another way of understanding why “Christian” without much more careful qualification, has too many meanings to be treated simply as either good OR bad social policy.
Actually, some atheists are choosing to homeschool their children rather than require them to deal with the anti-atheist bigotry encountered in many schools. In regions of the U.S. where fundamentalist Christianity is deeply embedded in the culture, I expect we’ll see this become even more common.
Dana said: “You mean you give people like that a whole card to play with? It might not be safe, LOTP. :)”
Well, there are basic bodily functions to consider, breathing, etc. You’ve got to leave them something. I wouldn’t want to be considered unchristian!
vjack - I know a couple of families who fit in that category here in northern Mississippi. Also, as Harry Potter reading Episcopalians, my children would probably not be considered Christian enough by some of their classmates.
Good thing we homeschool!
LOTP, I can’t speak to which cards you should let others play with, but I do know that you personally as my grandmother used to say, are quite a CARD!
Vjack, I grew up in the South and live there to this day with my unschooled, unchurched teenagers — because I see very little difference in the indoctrinations and intolerances of School and Church, and want no part of any of them.
Hmm…Thanks?
When we moved to southern, Catholic French Louisiana, I was expected to “Hail Mary” before softball games (in a city league). Quite a culture shock for a Protestant kid. Sure, I was uncomfortable but it didn’t kill me.
However, sometimes you have to look at the funny side. Mind you, this was during the early eighties. One of the most often played commercials at that time had large fruit selling underware. For the longest time my ten-year-old ears thought they were saying, “Blessed is the Fruit of the Loom.”
I’m off to watch the Olympics. Having spent my morning “worshiping sky fairies,” I need to get my fill of ancient pagan rituals.
Or she might have said you were a “cut-up” — better?
GM–I don’t know how you can take my comment any other way than how I intended it.
As to Laurie, there is no need to repeat what you’ve already said. It has no bearing on the discussion of whether or not it is inherently abusive to teach a child religion. You jumping to the conclusion that she or anyone else doesn’t know the origins of significant holidays is also an irrelevant tangent, so I think we can progress beyond it. Even if she knows nothing about it, it doesn’t prove anyone is abusing their children by teaching religion.
As to anti-sodomy laws, adoption, etc. I haven’t gone through every state’s laws regarding this. NE doesn’t allow homosexuals to adopt and the only fight I know of is the fight trying to legalize this. Still isn’t the same as teaching children to stone homosexuals.
As to your hypothetical line of reason, it is abundantly clear this is what you think of religion. Yet to find anywhere in the NT where it says to kill anyone. The fundamentalists I know personally take it to the opposite extreme you do, are pacifists and question whether or not one can even kill in self defense.
The fundamentalists I encounter online tend to stick n that bit about witchcraft, Greek root pharmakeia, and question whether or not Christians should use medication for psychological problems. They scare me a little, but they still aren’t arriving at this conclusion of yours that we should be killing people because of what is written in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
You find that in the cults, and I have no patience for them. But then, neither does evangelical Christianity, which spends a great deal of time refuting the claims of cults.
That religion can be abused is no revelation. How about atheism and the theory of evolution itself? Were Darwin’s bodysnatchers acting outside of their atheistic philosophy when they killed aboriginals, believing them to be the missing link and bringing the bodies back for scientific study? How about Pol Pot’s attempt at eradication of religion through the murder of 21% of Cambodia’s population?
And while you note Hitler’s relation to the Catholic Church, his eugenics program is strictly evolutionary. I don’t know if you’ve seen any of his propaganda, but the ones I watched focused on pictures of deformed people and claims they would overtake the normal population is plans weren’t undertaken to eradicate them. And I’ll assume you don’t stand by Stalin, all too happy to murder Jews himself. Or the atheist Soviet state and it human rights abuses…with nary a need for religious anything to justify any of it.
The point is that there is no shortage of people motivated by money or power. Religion gets tied up in some of it because it is a justification and can be misused to maintain support or silence dissidents. But in its absence, other things take its place. Religion isn’t the problem. Sin is. Or if you don’t want to go there, lust for power and pure and simple hate.
If you want to control thought…bar me from the free expression of religion…censor me in public and in private because you are afraid that somehow I might teach my children one of these absurd notions you keep throwing out there that no Christian church I have ever heard of teaches, you are doing exactly what you accuse religion of. Thought control.
The topic addressed was, ‘Christianity is exclusive.” and consequently every religion in the world, yes including belief systems as patheism and atheism.
Let’s just look at the three major theistic religions and their view on Jesus.
Judaism - Christ is a lunatic and a heretic
Islam - Christ is a good moral teacher, no more.
Christianity - Christ is the Son of God.
Explain how mutually exclusive claims can all be true?
You can attempt the ‘both hands system’ but you’ll find the ‘either/or’ will clobber you repeatedly.
Creed
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin.
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before during
and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated.
You can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes,
UFO’s and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha
Mohammed and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think
his good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same,
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation sin heaven hell God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes The Nothing
because when you ask the dead what happens
they say Nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it’s compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between
warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behaviour that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth
that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust. History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds.
“Chance” a post-script
If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.
Steve Turner (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/creed/)
If Peter’s point is that most people are mostly irrational about most politics AND most religious practice, I’ll stipulate he makes a great example!
The issue of homosexuality has arisen throughout this discussion. Let us understand that homosexuality is by no means a ’special’ or ‘exclusive’ group.
Before you tune in and drop out consider:
God as Creator, has the authority and right to determine the rules and regulations, therefore consequences included, that govern His creation. (For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.)
God as Creator brought Adam (man) from the dust of the earth, and Eve (woman) from Adams rib. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. It is for this reason that a man will leave his parents and cling to his wife. It has been the foundation of the human race from the beginning.
Evil? Evil is the corruption of the natural order; the disobeying of God’s administered rules and regulations, also known as sin. Satan was the first to sin and enticed Adam and Eve, whom through their choice (important) to follow Satan’s lead corrupted the natural order, the good, bringing forth disease, pain, suffering and death we see around us.
Upon this framework consider:
If you engage in a homosexual relationship, it is your choice, you have not been forced.
If you engage in adultery, it is your choice, you have not been forced.
If you engage in pornography, it is your choice, you have not been forced.
If you engage in child molestation, it is your choice, you have not been forced.
If you engage in bestiality, it is your choice, you have not been forced.
If you engage in swinging, it is your choice, you have not been forced.
Each of these behaviors are ‘evil,’ a corruption of God’s rules and regulations. As Creator, God has deemed a penalty for this corruption, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,”
So some are offended. That’s not exclusive to homosexuals. It includes, liars, thieves, blasphemers, those whom covet, murderers, idolaters, the whole human race.
The Good News is not just John 3:16, for many forget John 3:17-18:
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17″For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18″He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
If you believe in Christ, it is your choice, no one has forced you.
If you disbelieve in Christ, it is your choice, no one has forced you.
No other belief system, even those cloaked in Orthodoxy, can explain the condition of man and provide a salvation free from works.
Uck, I was waiting to see if Dana would comment on it, but I see she won’t.
“The topic addressed was, ‘Christianity is exclusive.’” No, it wasn’t. I said Christianity is exclusive, you claimed that all religions are exclusive. And I proved you wrong in that abstract religions are not exclusive. Are you going to counter that?
“God as Creator, has the authority and right to determine the rules and regulation.” Right, and he determined that there will be homosexuality on this Earth. So, why are you arguing with that?
“He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.” You are incorrect. He commanded the fish and birds to be fruitful and multiply. He ordered no such thing of Adam and Eve… in fact, he only created Eve to help Adam–he didn’t intend humans to multiply in the first place. Once their immortality was removed, only then was mention of offspring given. Furthermore, you condemn swingers when they are doing just what you say God commanded?
Evil? Oh goody. Here, since you seem to love pushing religious intolerance… How was Satan in the Garden of Eve? Why did God allow this demon there? Why did God see this happening and not stop it? How about this, were did Satan come from in the creation order? Before, so Satan was created before, and he wasn’t created in the lands. The order is all messed up anyways. The firmament creates the light, so God would have created that first. Then with the firmament created light. And if God is all powerful, why did it take 7 days to create Earth? Why didn’t he just say poof and have it all done? Furthermore, why did he next a rest day? He’s all powerful, there is no way he’d be tired.
“If you engage in a homosexual relationship, it is your choice, you have not been forced.” This is wrong. It is not a choice to which sex your attracted to. THIS IS PROVEN.
Did you not know, that you are to treat others with hate your not going to heaven? Because you do not understand that God is a being of love? A nice quote here:
“If God hates anyone, then I am waisting my time in worship. My God is a God of love. God convicts each heart not brand names of churches. It is up individuals to accept or reject God and his love. Gay is not a barrier to heaven, the actions of it perhaps a different story. Just remember that theft is not a barrier to heaven either. An unrepresentative heart is. An unopen heart to the Love of God in Christ Jesus, that is your ticket to hell.”
By the way, did God only send his son to save his followers? I do remember, that Jesus died for everybodies sins, not just Christians. Thus, Christians, aren’t the only ones saved.
“He who believes in Him is not judged.” Love it, so the murders, liars, adulterers, swingers, all of them are saved if they believe in Christianity. Because belief in Jesus is all that matters. That kind of belief is the worst for the world, it’s saying that you are okay to murder just because your a Christian. Or that murderers are suddenly saved because they convert in the end… While honest, good people go straight to hell simply because they don’t believe in your imaginary being.
Listen to yourself, your belief system is full of contradictions. First you say that all liars and murderers are going to hell, then you say that those who believe in Jesus are not judged. So which is it? Christianity doesn’t explain the condition of man. Oh, btw, a Christian homosexual… how’s that? Not judged, he’s saved for belief in Christ.
God, by the way, didn’t love the world that much if he demanded his flesh to be sacrificed to appease his murderous appetite. Indeed, it wasn’t much of a sacrifice now was it? Didn’t Jesus just resurrect? Furthermore, Jesus is considered an incarnate of God himself, thus making the whole concept ridicules. “Sacrifice me, to appease me…”
And, for kids, belief in Christ is often forced by the family. And before any of you pipe up, I’m going to say it again. Raising a kid saying that everybody else is going to hell simply because they don’t believe is a mental lock into Christianity. It’s like when people were raised that the world is flat. Nobody wanted to sail too far, they thought they’d fall of the falls at the end of the Earth. To sail out to find what you could find, you had to face your fears.
And I guess I get to say this with you… do you believe in stoning all kids who misbehave? That was an order from God, and you don’t you’re sinning!
———————————————–
Here’s for you Dana.
Let’s see why people can take things other than what you mean it… oh I don’t know, why did you take my comments with the word pathetic as name calling? I didn’t mean it personally, so I don’t understand how you could take things other than how I meant it.
Yeah. Please. Just because you meant it one way doesn’t make people forcefully read it the way you meant it.
And again, the Laurie thing… I guess you really don’t get it. There are some people in this world who like to back up their statements with support and examples… You know, we don’t expect you to take every idea that pops into our head without proof. I told you it wasn’t to the topic, BUT TO LAURIE’S POST. Meaning, like, of course it’s not about abuse, because, like, her post wasn’t about abuse. I didn’t jump to any conclusions, I gave her an example of Christians adopting something they didn’t start. As she was trying to point something that atheists do that wasn’t started by atheists, I pointed something that Christians do that wasn’t started by Christians.
- This particular irrelevant tangent, wasn’t started by me, but by Laurie. So I don’t understand why your targeting me, who was commenting on her post, and acting like it has anything to deal with you or this topic. It doesn’t, that’s the point.
As to anti-sodomy laws, adoption, etc… Okay, let’s get this straight, here we go again, is there a law that states that a married homosexual couple can’t adopt children. NO. NO. NO. Your just traveling in circles here. Christians are fighting to deny married homosexual couples to adopt children.