…Continued

<<He's known for His love, His forgiveness, His justice, and His blessing.>>

Anyone who is willing to condemn people they love to an eternity of torment has a very warped sense of what it means to love.

<<The bible is not a lie.>>

That depends on what part you’re talking about. We know the creation story is absolutely untrue and we know that the exodus didn’t happen.

<<I don't lie to people.>>

At no point have I suggested that you do. It is possible, however, to say something that is not true without lying. Lying requires intent.

<<The bible is reliable based on it being from God.>>

How do you know it’s from God? (Again, none of my questions are rhetorical.)

<<If God does not exist then you can accuse me of lying.>>

Even if we could confirm the non-existence of God, I still wouldn’t accuse you of lying. Again, lying requires intent.

Your logic appears to be: I believe in God; I’m not a liar; therefore, God must exist. That’s fallacious.

<<Even if you do not agree with me on point three, my teaching others about it is not abuse.>>

Firstly, at no point have I relied on what I believe to be the criterion for what constitutes abuse.

Secondly, it would depend on who you were teaching it to, and how you went about it. Comparatively, for example, is fine.

<<Each parent that teaches their children any subject matter is not counted as abuse if they are wrong, nor are they counted as abuse if they teach their children at an early age.>>

At no point have I presented rightness/wrongness and/or age as the only criteria for what constitutes abuse.

<<Just the accusation is not enough.>>

Indeed. Which is why I have provided evidence and reasoning for my claims. I have spent many posts doing this. Why do you forget it all now?

Continued…

…Continued

<<(Reading, math, social skills, culture, and a good work ethic and determination, can all be taught starting at a young age (before they can be critical of it and question it's worth to them).>>

All of these things are demonstrably necessary and can be objectively determined. This is a false analogy.

<<After all you are critiquing a parent's right to be a parent when you accuse them of abuse.>>

I have said nothing of the rights of parents to indoctrinate their children apart from the fact that I don’t think they should be removed.

<<I know many people raised in Christian environments … None of those people would stand the insult that they were abused because of their parents religious beliefs.>>

I’m sure they wouldn’t. And good for them, too - no one should put up with insults.

But it’s whether those parents pass on those religious beliefs, and how they go about it, that determines whether it should be considered a form of abuse. Teaching children that it is ever okay accept an idea uncritically is doing them a great disservice, particularly if it flows on into other areas of their lives, which is a real risk.

If Christians are so confident in the truth of their beliefs, then why not just wait until AFTER the 4-14 window? Or if the child must be taught before 14, then why not teach them to critique the claims honestly at the same time? The number of religious parents homeschooling in the US, so their children don’t learn about climate change or evolution and so that they can pollute their minds with creationist lies (creationism: now there's something that is demonstrably a lie), is rather telling.

AJ Philips, As NNS has raised the subject of "DEATH"; when do you teach a child of the reality of death and that it is permanent and eternal? That the loss is for ever? In your views you would never tell this truth to a child as it might frighten them. Grow up! Eternity is real, and has consequences to behaviour.

Josephus,

I’m not going to waste my posts on your ad hominem assumptions of what you think it is I believe. But since you’ve asked a marginally reasonable question, and since I should clarify a point for Not_Now.Soon anyway, I’ll respond to your last post.

<<… when do you teach a child of the reality of death and that it is permanent and eternal?>>

I somewhat answered this in my first post to Bush bunny:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8181#255526

Some additional points, though:

Firstly, we don’t seem to need to teach children about death. All my children learned about it way before I ever wanted them to, and from places I can only guess.

Secondly, for many children who have not had their minds polluted with religion, the fact that death is permanent and eternal appears to just be common sense (I had one (the Aspie) ask me what happens when we die), and so it should be. There is no reason to believe that anything will happen after we die.

<<In your views you would never tell this truth [that there is no afterlife] to a child as it might frighten them.>>

As I alluded to in my post to Bush bunny, that depends on their age. But at least everything we know about consciousness indicates that this is indeed the case (e.g. split-brain patients, brain injury).

<<Grow up!>>

I have not yet been immature.

--

Not_Now.Soon,

I just want to address a point of yours again because I think I misunderstood it slightly the first time.

<<After all you are critiquing a parent's right to be a parent when you accuse them of abuse.>>

I guess it could be said that I am unwittingly (since this is not my intention) examining the fitness of religious couples to be parents. However, I don’t think we should ever take their right to be parents away from them. I think just letting them indoctrinate their children is the lesser of the two evils there. Besides, there are couples out there who are far less fit to parent than your average religious couple.

AJ, Paul and Op2, story to children is there is no life after death, not even spiritual, there is no heaven that is a myth perpetrated by religion. There is no future for you ever! In your dying you will go through hellish pain and gnashing of teeth wanting it all to end. Morphine and cannabis will be your final friend. Your body will be eaten by worms or consumed by flames. That will be the eternal state of how you will remain. A nice scary story for young children. Because Christians and several religions teach the body is a temporal tent borrowed from the ground for living on Earth, the spirit has an eternal dimension that lives forever. How you in spirit relate to the creator of life and being gives you eternal life and being. For them there is hope that life will be better, for having lived righteously and in relationship with the founder and creator of all existence. Those that deny a Creator only have a scary future to look to we have a hope of a better righteous world.

Yes, Josephus. An eternity of nothingness can be a depressing thought. But then, living for an eternity would be torture. So…

Anyway, thanks for that emotive and deliberately depressing (not to mention inaccurate) little ramble. It was a good demonstration of how religion deprives the individual of the means to cope with the reality of death in a mature way, making its followers dependent on it:

http://youtu.be/XRxAqj4R_vw?t=1258