The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

Well I would expect a 7-9 year old to be able to get a couple groceries for me and expect they would make the right choice not to spend all my money on candy is my point.

Interesting. You live in Europe? That schools sounds cool, but I don't know how little structure I could take. I suppose if I could get used to it it would be great though.

Does Christianity give you advice if your child is going away from god?

edited 4th Apr '13 9:51:27 AM by Wildcard

Huh, I didn't expect this to become a parenting thread...

I kind of agree that while ultimately the 5-year-old can make some decisions for herself, it doesn't hurt to properly explain the choices before you let her. If a child doesn't understand the complex consequences, they should be simplified to a form that the child can.

UK. And as pointed out, we should probably take this to either an education thread or P Ms.

And my point is that in order for a 7-9 year old to get to that point requires some sort of training. It seems that "free range" parenting assumes a child will simply pull that knowledge out of thin air.

Now, I say, the sooner you teach them the value of money and why actual bread, milk, eggs, and chicken is a better investment than Pop Tarts, the less you have to use authoritarian means.

So if that's what you're saying we're in agreement.

If you cannot tell a child why something is wrong, you forfeit the right to tell them it's wrong in the first place. You are not correct because you say so. That's 100% bad parenting, no exceptions. You are only correct because you can explain so.

This is regardless of whether your reasoning is bullshit or not. Without reasoning there is no logic or any form of teaching right from wrong.

In addition, I could not tell my child that Homosexuality is Wrong because, for starters, I'd be lying to them. Not once does the Bible even say that. It does say that "Having sex with male prostitutes is wrong in the original culture this book is written in" and "I, Paul, personally think any sex is wrong" as well as "Changing your orientation that you naturally are is fully wrong and you should feel bad for making people change theirs", however. That's full context with exactly what they meant.

Lastly, I call bullshit on the reasoning you've given for "Fake" and "True" Christians, Starship. If they're following the Bible and/or doing so in the name of God, they're a true Christian. No exceptions.

That's not what free-range parenting is. It's teaching them all the factors and information and letting them make their own decision. Not you making it for them.

edited 4th Apr '13 9:55:04 AM by Irene

Ideally you won't have to use those methods at all, except when they are too young to even know how to take care of themselves in the basic sense. It may just be they disagree on when that age is.

Do many religions have a "recruit more followers" law?

edited 4th Apr '13 10:04:10 AM by Wildcard

Found a parenting thread. Follow the shinny link people. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13069646600A59280200&page=1

Law? Maybe. Most do encourage you to find more, though.

Well we have Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses that go door to door, and a lot of Christian denominations did the whole missionary thing back in the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytizing

The Indian religions are the "least annoying" about recruitment. Also, I like what Gandhi said about the matter.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

/tempted to add Gandhism to collection

Except that if you're doing things that run in direct contravention to the teachings then you are NOT following the Bible.

And when the Bible contradicts itself?

You mean the Bible that has multiple translations that are entirely different from eachother?

Nope, don't buy that. In the name of God is just as important for being a Christian as following one of many Bibles.

The Bible has specifically encouraged Discrimination(and I don't mean the bad translations that target Homosexuality), War, and other such things. It's full of both good and evil(morally) things. So not all of its teachings are perfect.

Sorry, but your definition doesn't work for me. In the Name of God and/or following the Bible is the only one I can accept that makes sense in this current age. Because that's reality at this point.

Another problem, indeed. It's not too good of a Teaching tool at this point. Unless you cherrypick or make your own copy that removes the bullshit discrimination and only has the basic important teachings, like love for nature, humankind, and the understanding that God doesn't make mistakes(because he ignores morality with his actions). And so on.

edited 4th Apr '13 10:27:26 AM by Irene

(Sigh) The Bible only seems to contradict itself when taken in bits and pieces, and when massaged to get whatever meaning you want. Taken completely, it makes pretty sound sense.

@Ship: I'm gonna have to dispute that. Not on a moral basis but in the stories themselves. How did Judas die exactly?

No, it definitely contradicts itself.

It teaches to respect thy neighbor.

It also encourages War if there is no other choice. It really isn't fully against it.

It's full of contradictions as a whole. Paul encourages to avoid all sex. Other verses says sex for procreation is perfectly okay and encouraged. It's not a perfect book and has to be cherrypicked no matter what.

Here's a chart.◊

Irene, you've clearly decided to hew to a certain version of reality, but I can't agree with unless you have something other than your own word and the word of those who agree with you to go on.

We've addressed this alleged "bad translation myth" dozens of times before. There are no translations of the Bible that are functionally different from one another. There's not a single version of the Bible in any language that doesn't say homosexuality is a sin. That's the facts, you can either accept it or not, but that doesn't change what's written.

Further, the Bible ITSELF says that many people will claim to do things in God's name but that they aren't true followers of his and it even goes further to say you can tell this by observing their actions.

And lastly, there's no Bible anywhere that supports discrimination. If you can find the part that does, please, by all means, share.

@Starship

I'm sorry, but even I think the Bible can't be completely trusted. For example, there's a lot of books that aren't included. Plus... uh... lots of interpretations added during the Middle Ages.

Also, it's a translation of a translation of a translation and so forth.

And, unfortunately, some phrases (even by Jesus) sound like "call to arms".

Starship, did you ever read the different Bibles? Because they do not say the same thing at all.

What is a myth is that they're all the same.

And no, I've made it clear that your definition just doesn't work in reality. In the name of God is actually reality here just as much as using one of the many different Bibles.

Same as many ignore the teachings as well and cherrypick what they teach. That's the reality of the situation. Not what you think it is.

That the Bible has been translated repeatedly is a poor argument that it's suddenly suspect as is fashionable to allege. There's actual studies done by scholars who study this sort of thing that say that written texts demonstably drift far less, if at all, over time.

But as far as the contradictions, the Bible is quite clear that some things, like God telling Saul to kill everyone including the children, is specific to a time and place and that others, like "thou shall not kill" are universal. And anyone who reads without an agenda will see that.

About the call to arms thing. Christians were actually a persecuted party back then. I'm not entirely sure Jesus was a complete pacifist.

@Ship: What about the Judas contradiction?

edited 4th Apr '13 10:37:22 AM by Wildcard

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Which version do you follow?

I just want to compare a Protestant Bible to a Roman Catholic Bible.

For the point, you do realize that Catholic Bibles are specifically referred to as such, just like how the Torah and the Qur'an are specifically differentiated?

And even then, much like the books included in the Torah, the Catholic Bible doesn't necessarily contradict the regular "Protestant" one, to my knowledge.

I think there's a misconeption there's a Bible out there that says "Oops, sorry. Homosexuality is okay. Totes." or "Y'know I know kept saying I was the Son of God, but I was just joshin' ya." If there is, I'd sure like to see it.

edited 4th Apr '13 10:44:16 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Nvm. Main difference between Catholic and Protestant bibles is that Catholic have more books.

See? We can't even agree on which books are canon (or fanon).