Nothing until a person passes judgement on another person.
Myself, I am commanded to love my neighbor and to leave judgement to my Lord.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I worry about the children of religious parents.
- Thread starter suzy smith
- Start date
- Status
Myself, I am commanded to love my neighbor and to leave judgement to my Lord.
suzy smith
Life is for having fun
@JayJayDee : Just so we don't perpetuate another myth....Please be assured that JW's refusal to have blood transfusions is entirely Biblical.
No, its entirely biblical depending on how you interpret the relevant scriptures!
For example Acts 15:19-21, 28 It is clear from the context that the instructions were against eating / drinking blood, not blood transfusions. Blood transfusions were not even possible in Bible times, so there is no possibility that this Scripture could be referring to blood transfusions.
No, its entirely biblical depending on how you interpret the relevant scriptures!
For example Acts 15:19-21, 28 It is clear from the context that the instructions were against eating / drinking blood, not blood transfusions. Blood transfusions were not even possible in Bible times, so there is no possibility that this Scripture could be referring to blood transfusions.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Does the OP tell her children not to play in the street, touch a hot stove, swallow nails, or does she tell them to think for themselves?
suzy smith
Life is for having fun
Dear Man OF Faith
The OP tells her children not to touch a hot stove because she knows that it will burn them. The OP has been burnt herself at different times in her life so knows that hot is dangerous.
The OP does not teach them that religion is true because she has not seen one iota of evidence for it and a lot of evidence for disproving religion [notice I did not say evidence against God] But the OP does not teach them from an early age not to believe in religion but lets them grow up to make their own minds up about religion.
See the difference between me and the theists?.........No?
The OP tells her children not to touch a hot stove because she knows that it will burn them. The OP has been burnt herself at different times in her life so knows that hot is dangerous.
The OP does not teach them that religion is true because she has not seen one iota of evidence for it and a lot of evidence for disproving religion [notice I did not say evidence against God] But the OP does not teach them from an early age not to believe in religion but lets them grow up to make their own minds up about religion.
See the difference between me and the theists?.........No?
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Respectfully, Suzy, do you think it fair to blanket label "the theists" into one lump clump group of people who present religion in a manner to where their children cannot question, cannot explore, cannot object or veer?
I more or less share my beliefs with my children, presenting religion to them as something that I believe in, providing them the ability to "make their own minds up" about it. However, I cannot exclude them from family practice...as they're part of the family! I will influence them and my religion will play a part, even if I never speak of it.
Why should I lie or be anyone other than who I am in the presence of my kids?
Does this, in your opinion, qualify as the "in the same ballpark as abuse" type of teaching that you're blanket labeling "the theists" as providing?
I promise you, my intentions are not to make you feel like I'm throwing daggers in your direction. Genuinely, I'm trying to wrap my brain around the point that you're making and how you apply it to different religions and different parenting styles.
Last edited:
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
If someone told you that a bridge was out up ahead, would you keep driving 70 miles an hour because you don't believe someting until you see it? Religious people do well to listen to the prophets and their fore fathers warnings.
suzy smith
Life is for having fun
I should have said ‘most or many theists’ dawny0826. I apologize.
Last edited:
suzy smith
Life is for having fun
Last edited:
As a follow up to Suzy, if the person seemed sincere, I'd slow down and keep a close watch while I was driving. If there was a bridge that was still intact and it didn't collapse as I drove over it, the persons warning lost all credibility. And I'd wonder if there was a trap, if the person was suffering from a mental illness, if there was a joke being played, or if the person was simply very mistaken and the bridge being out was another bridge entirely.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
No, I would stop and then look and see for myself?
As I did with religion.
You saw that there was no hell?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I would say that most religious people are sincere.
Personally, I would ask "how do you know the bridge is out?" and check for myself.
When I worked in retail, I once had a customer tell me that I had to be careful when handling receipts because tiny people live in the ink. How much weight should I have given this warning?
To disregard the threat of Hell reasonably, it isn't necessary to completely disprove it; all that's needed is to recognize that the arguments for its existence are poorly founded.
If you think about it a bit, you'll probably recognize that you agree with this. You aren't worried about Ragnarok, are you?
I believe many Atheists are worried about how these children are going to grow up and vote more than they are for their well being.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Here you go again, ignoring everything people actually say in favor of guessing and inventing fictional agendas for them. Just shameless. Of course, two can play at that game-
I believe many theists only raise their children in their religious tradition because they are afraid of losing potential congregants and voters in the future, and are afraid this could lead to a more progressive and secular society.
What a productive line of debate, eh?
I don't disagree. I do question the claim, however, of the fallen bridge, and especially if I drive close to it enough.
What makes you say that?
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
An inability to respond to views he disagrees with in the form of substantive, pertinent argument, coupled with a determination to nevertheless express said disagreement. An unfortunate pairing.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I think I made my point, and that is I wouldn't call someone that teaches their children differently than I believe, such as Islam, or Ragnarok as child abuse. If not, it won't matter how much I debated anyway. Teaching anything other than atheistic naturalism isn't child abuse because it could be true and I belive it is.
No your form of debating is to give someone a narrow leading list of options to respond with. Then you demean them for refusing to answer.
You have yet to answer my question about what qualifies you to have superior parenting skills?
Which boils down to my point, this is nothing but opinion and your opinion stinks because you are attempting to control how other's raise their children.
Bottom line, they are not your children and you need to butt out unless you have some actual superior credentials on parenting.
Do you really expect religious people to change how they are raising their children because some Atheist on the internet says so?
A person that expects that, sounds like a person who is a legend in their own mind.
What I don't understand is why anyone would give a tinkers damn what you think on the matter. :ignore:
Last edited:
- Status