Bible conundrum hampsterwheel
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 82
Posts: 698
This business about the demand by God to be worshipped seems difficult to equate to a 'perfect' God - it's very much a terrestrial human failing rather that a 'supreme being' requirement. That seems to me to be something dreamed up by humans with an eye to keeping the focus on their followers on this ideal. Church life does depend on the idea that if you repeat something often enough then you will believe it.
I'm also not sure which God people refer to, is this the God of the Old Testament who commanded tribal and warlike peoples with all that goes with that including mass slaughter or is it the 'other' God, the one Jesus talked about who preached love and peace to all mankind?
FF
I'm also not sure which God people refer to, is this the God of the Old Testament who commanded tribal and warlike peoples with all that goes with that including mass slaughter or is it the 'other' God, the one Jesus talked about who preached love and peace to all mankind?
FF
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
I was in the school hall aged about seven and the headmaster was telling of the feeding of the five thousand. The thought just came into my head that it wasn't true.
Most people did actually have food with them, but nobody wanted to admit to this in case they had to share it. The clever trick (yes, there was a real clever trick) was to persuade the first few people to share what they had, at which point the rest sheepishly admitted that they had brought their own.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
Church life does depend on the idea that if you repeat something often enough then you will believe it.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 812
Funfly,
Does it matter which god?
At least Yaweh would let you die. Jesus's old man is going to punish you for all eternity.
Or the Muslim god concept which encompasses all.
Except as a way of trying to describe the forces of nature throughout the universe, they are all similarly flawed by attaching to them some form of sentience with humankind as the centre.
Does it matter which god?
At least Yaweh would let you die. Jesus's old man is going to punish you for all eternity.
Or the Muslim god concept which encompasses all.
Except as a way of trying to describe the forces of nature throughout the universe, they are all similarly flawed by attaching to them some form of sentience with humankind as the centre.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 68
Posts: 58
Yawn, grammar, I noticed I used their in mistake for there in my last post,quite simply I was tired. I would love to believe in these things,religion,ghosts,fairies. My brain just won't let me though. None of them make any sense whatsoever no matter how hard I try.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 295
All that this thread seems to 'prove' is that each human, based on what he's been told and on his own experience, fabricates in his own head some acceptable rationale for existence so that he isn't wandering around constantly muttering "WTF??"
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 88
I was helping to repair a friend's daughters central heating last weekend, and needed some PTFE and a couple of unions from B&Q.
Youngest son, (I think he is five or six) asked if he could come with me. No problem, I always enjoy teaching practical things to the next generation - so stuck him in the back and off we went.
He is a nice kid, but he never, ever stops talking. Normally I make suitable grunting noises to show I'm listening and let it waft pass me - but he started telling me about Sunday School and how he'd been learning about Jesus.
That is a typical example of indoctrination of the next generation of good catholics - and I reckon is child abuse. All the myths and fairy stories were presented to him as incontrovertible fact. I have no problems with adults believing if they want to, but to brainwash a six year old child who is incapable of any form of reasoned or rational debate is to my mind morally indefensible.
Youngest son, (I think he is five or six) asked if he could come with me. No problem, I always enjoy teaching practical things to the next generation - so stuck him in the back and off we went.
He is a nice kid, but he never, ever stops talking. Normally I make suitable grunting noises to show I'm listening and let it waft pass me - but he started telling me about Sunday School and how he'd been learning about Jesus.
That is a typical example of indoctrination of the next generation of good catholics - and I reckon is child abuse. All the myths and fairy stories were presented to him as incontrovertible fact. I have no problems with adults believing if they want to, but to brainwash a six year old child who is incapable of any form of reasoned or rational debate is to my mind morally indefensible.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,859
That is a typical example of indoctrination of the next generation of good catholics - and I reckon is child abuse. All the myths and fairy stories were presented to him as incontrovertible fact. I have no problems with adults believing if they want to, but to brainwash a six year old child who is incapable of any form of reasoned or rational debate is to my mind morally indefensible.
Actually I don't see why having your children brought up in your own religion should be regarded as a child abuse, as when they are old enough they'll make up their own minds. After all I take it you are bringing up your own kids (if any) as atheists. That too could be regarded as indoctrination - is it any different? And dont forget, kids are inclined to reject their parents' advice - they may reject your teachings and become devout practitioners of a religion!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
Actually I don't see why having your children brought up in your own religion should be regarded as a child abuse, as when they are old enough they'll make up their own minds.
It's bizarre that those who go on most about "freedom of religion" are the ones who are most likely to deny it to their own children.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
After all I take it you are bringing up your own kids (if any) as atheists. That too could be regarded as indoctrination - is it any different?
Bringing children up to make up their own minds, with no indoctrination, should be the norm. Thankfully mine are entirely rational adults now not having been subject to any indoctrination at home. They attended state schools where religion was not 'pushed' but taught as something you should know about in its many forms, but feel no need to believe in unless you feel drawn to it. They didn't.
As Marcus Brigstocke said:
"I'm sick of religious people forcing their children to define themselves by their parents' faith. A 4 year old child is no more a christian than he is a member of the Post Office Workers' Union"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv4mSDD4Wd8
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,859
GTW and SSD - I don't think you have grasped my point. It's not so easy to "brainwash" children as you think. I dont suppose either of you went to a Jesuit school. I did from the age of eight to twelve, but nevertheless, in spite of the best efforts of the Jesuits I grew up into someone who could be regarded as agnostic at best, and certainly someone who rejected the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic church. I have many friends and relatives who received the same sort of education as I did, and most of them have similar beliefs (or lack of beliefs) to mine. In my experience religious brainwashing is more likely to occur among teenagers, who become susceptible to the activities of such sects as the Moonies who are known to use recognised brain-washing techniques.
Btw - I wonder if Marcus Brigstock is bringing up his children to have neutral, open-minded political views, or is he inflicting the same sort of socialist guff on them that he inflicts on the rest of us. Now that's child abuse!
Btw - I wonder if Marcus Brigstock is bringing up his children to have neutral, open-minded political views, or is he inflicting the same sort of socialist guff on them that he inflicts on the rest of us. Now that's child abuse!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 82
Posts: 698
I have been reading the Watchtower spring 2015 edition and there is an article about how life began.
In the article they make all the points about the areas where science has been unable to explain the mechanism and I, for one, would agree with this analyses of the situation.
They then say that they can supply what really happened - it was God. The proof being that it is written in the Bible.
So that's sorted then
In the article they make all the points about the areas where science has been unable to explain the mechanism and I, for one, would agree with this analyses of the situation.
They then say that they can supply what really happened - it was God. The proof being that it is written in the Bible.
So that's sorted then
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
Tanker - wasn't it the Jesuits who said 'give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man'? Didn't take long to indoctrinate, then! ;-)
At least the Jesuits are educated men. I had the bog-Irish Christian Brothers! Dave Allen knew all about them - I can see where many of his 'taking the pi55 out of the catholic church' sketches came from!
At least the Jesuits are educated men. I had the bog-Irish Christian Brothers! Dave Allen knew all about them - I can see where many of his 'taking the pi55 out of the catholic church' sketches came from!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 68
Posts: 58
I think it comes back to the brain type again. One type will be easily programmable to accept whatever faith the teachers wish to insert. The other type is the one that presents problems. You tell those daft buggers that you have devised a cunning plan to get shot of a particular type of troublemaker.
You present all the evidence they could possibly need to go along with the scheme and still a few awkward types won't conform. Schindler for example.
You present all the evidence they could possibly need to go along with the scheme and still a few awkward types won't conform. Schindler for example.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 76
Posts: 1,863
So, for those people with children attending a school which teaches 'scripture' such as the nativity (from age 5), what do you suggest that the parents do about it?
Do they tell the young children that they are being taught 'lies' - and where do you draw the line between scripture and the other subjects? Do you instill the idea that all that they are being taught is false?
I can understand the choice between sending a child to a faith school where it is expected that bible stories will be promoted as fact, but it seems that secular state schools include Christmas stories and nativity play activities.
Do you keep the child excluded from these lessons?
I recall that the Roman Catholic children at my grammar school didn't attend our assembly sessions (even though there was little religion involved - and probably not much that was at odds with the RC teaching).
Do they tell the young children that they are being taught 'lies' - and where do you draw the line between scripture and the other subjects? Do you instill the idea that all that they are being taught is false?
I can understand the choice between sending a child to a faith school where it is expected that bible stories will be promoted as fact, but it seems that secular state schools include Christmas stories and nativity play activities.
Do you keep the child excluded from these lessons?
I recall that the Roman Catholic children at my grammar school didn't attend our assembly sessions (even though there was little religion involved - and probably not much that was at odds with the RC teaching).
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
You're quite correct to point out my appalling grammar, it's unforgiveable. I, like a number of those engaging on this thread, can offer no reasoned explanation for my error.
