| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
"Christian values" is a term used by christians who have hijacked the term "human values" in order to put themselves above the rest of us.
Why are "Christian values" any better than the values of Judaism (The root of Christianity and Islam) or Hinduism, Seikhism, Buddism?
Religions are forced upon the children of adherents in order that the religion will survive. Is there any religion in the world that doesn’t force children to follow?
Originally Posted by Harry Monk
Yes, Christianity, if you consider Christianity to be a religion (which I don't), i.e. not a relationship with a person, just a follower of an ideology or philosophy. My two sons grew up in a Christian home and were free to choose their own path. They had ample opportunity to turn away (away at university, leaving home to get married etc.) but they have not. We never coerced them - what teenagers would accept that! There is an expression "to love people into the kingdom" - do you seriously think that anyone today could be bullied into becoming a Christian?
So they had to wait until they were teenagers and went to Uni or left home to get married before they could make their own decision? (Meaning they were about 18 years old, and therefore adults, not children)
In the meantime, up until those opportunities came about, were they taught your religion by you and other followers?
If one of your children at the age of 10 had said “I no longer want to follow your religion, I don’t believe any of it”, would you have allowed them that privilege? (Don’t forget, telling lies is a sin)
Of course I would. After all I did exactly that! Not sure if at 10 a child is mature enough to make such a decision though?
Mature enough to reject or blindly follow their parents beliefs? As you said to a different point - it works both ways.
My parents were Congregationalists (Roath Park Congregationalist Church originally) - what became the United Reformed Church. I was brought up to go to church, Sunday School and the local scouts. However, when I was 12 I went to a series of church membership evening meetings with half a dozen others my age with the minister at The Manse. These went through the whole gammut of beliefs and practices in the church and the normal outcome was that a few weeks later the group would be accepted into the church at a brief ceremony during the service. After 6 weeks - aged 12 - I decided I was an atheist and never went to church again (until this summer for my dad's funeral). I also left the scouts at that time because of all the god and queen nonsense at the start of each meeting. And just to complete my transformation from a god-following dib-dib-dibber I bought and read The Communist Manifesto.
My brother went through the same thing a little later and turned into a Buddhist.
My Mam and Dad carried on in the church - she as a conformist; he as a self-labelling 'heretic' along with a few of his non-conformist mates. I doubt he ever believed in god or the devil or heaven or hell. The called himself (and others like him) a secular Christian.
Maybe you are right that 10 is too young to form a view on these big issues, but 12 isn't.
a book you may enjoy on the subject Jon by the late Christopher Hitchens
god is not great : how religion poisons everything
Thanks - it's on my 'to read' list.
Sapiens : A Brief History of Humankind is also a good book, as it goes right back to the very beggining of human development, and it explains how humans are more likely to believe in fairytales than the cold hard truth. Rulers and politians have been using this knowledge against us for thousands of years.
While we may like to think we are smart because we can now see religion for what it is, the reality is they have developed a whole new bag of tricks which can be used to manipulate us and keep us in line. With the advent of TV, radio and the mass media, religion soon became superfluous to requirements as far more effective methods of control came in being. Religion was also expensive to run, and the clergy wanted a slice of the pie too. They still control huge assets which was payment for keeping the population under surveillance and teaching them how to think and behave, but as an organisation they are pretty much finished.
BTW who do you think it was that first put these ideas into our heads that religion was a load of old tosh?
Awesome book. Hitchens could've made a speech claiming that the grass is blue and the sky is green and I think he might almost sway my views on that. You might say that his political views weren't always popular, but regardless of that he was a great speaker and an intellectual powerhouse. I've spent countless hours watching YouTube videos of him and wishing we still had him here today.
You didn’t answer my first question.
Sorry, what first question?
It is pretty obvious that a religious upbringing affects the belief systems of children in quite a fundamental manner. If people were allowed to be religion-free until adulthood the results would be different as to how they perceive the world and the eventual religious or non-religious path that they would follow. Creating a belief system in a child is a very strong influence and a considerable traction, something that has been recognised by purveyors of religious and political dogmas throughout time.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathl...b_5664805.html
"In our first study, we found that children’s judgments about characters in biblical narratives were strongly affected by their upbringing. Children who had had some form of religious education - via church, parochial school or both — generally judged the central character to be a real person. Children who did not have religious education — who did not go to church and went to a secular school — largely judged the central character to be fictional.
In a follow-up study, we obtained a similar pattern for what we might call quasi-biblical stories — stories that included miraculous events but not ones that children would read about in the Bible. For example, we told children a story about the parting of the mountains. Religious children were more likely than non-religious children to think that the main character was real."
I'm quite sure this is correct, in fact thinking about it, it is stating the bleeding obvious as they say. However surely it works both ways? If children are told that Christianity is a load of bull, should we be surprised that they reject it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote