The cover of darkness

Originally posted by caissad4
It is pure all right, pure fantasy.
The book of Exodus has no archaelogical evidence. The pyramids were completed centuries before the Hebrews even arrived.
It contains many mistranslations, some deliberate.
Oh yes, Jonah really lived in the belly of a whale for several days.
And that Job fairy tale is a hoot.

Borges, who never spoke an untrue word, said that metaphysics is a branch of the literature of fantasy. What implications does this have for career metaphysicians?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Thanks Twitehead, that makes some kind of sense in a weird way.

So it could be said that a new Christian requires 'faith' before he/she
is indoctrined into Christianity? Otherwise their faith is based on the word
of scripture and/or the faith of others, which is not true faith.
How often does this happen I wonder.

What is that emotion called when somebody has faith without knowledge
of religion?

The sad part is that it hardly ever happens. The majority of Christians are Christians by birth, meaning that they were raised to believe a certain way (like myself). I was baptized and confirmed before I turned 16 years old. Before I even got to know the world at ALL. This is what turned me off from religion (nevermind Christianity). Any faith that is foreced upon children is psychological abuse. However, I do believe that the Catholic church teaches good moral values, the thing needed to be a positive contribution to society. However, that does not mean that the belief in Jesus and God has to go hand in hand.

Between the Catholic church being the richest institution in the world and still looking for more each week at church, and the Vatican Councils changing various aspects of the faith has proven to me that it is hypocritical and unsure of the correct beliefs and ways of worship. If they can formulate their own belief structure and adjust it according to the world, why can't I do it for myself?

Originally posted by brobluto
The sad part is that it hardly ever happens. The majority of Christians are Christians by birth, meaning that they were raised to believe a certain way (like myself). I was baptized and confirmed before I turned 16 years old. Before I even got to know the world at ALL. This is what turned me off from religion (nevermind Christianity). Any faith that is fore ...[text shortened]... their own belief structure and adjust it according to the world, why can't I do it for myself?

There are many tribes around the world that have had little or no contact
with Western society and yet they still maintain 'good moral values'.

How much does the church teach us these values and how much does
the church really use these values to its own end?

I can't help but think of religion as a kind of moral hijacking where people's
innate goodness becomes labelled 'property of the church'.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
There are many tribes around the world that have had little or no contact
with Western society and yet they still maintain 'good moral values'.

How much does the church teach us these values and how much does
the church really use these values to its own end?

I can't help but think of religion as a kind of moral hijacking where people's
innate goodness becomes labelled 'property of the church'.

I agree. I tend to believe that it is because they have little to no contact with the Western society that they have good moral values.

It's unfortunate, but I think in western society today, so many people rely on others to raise their kids that the church, however corrupt it may be, still provides an accepted, well-known template of morals. From my perspective, knowing that these teachings is what my kids will learn is more comforting to me than having my kids learn morals from other people they will be exposed to. In short, I think it's a curriculum that has stood the test of time in producing positive contributors to society. It doesn't mean that the supernatural part is right though.

Originally posted by brobluto
I agree. I tend to believe that it is because they have little to no contact with the Western society that they have good moral values.

It's unfortunate, but I think in western society today, so many people rely on others to raise their kids that the church, however corrupt it may be, still provides an accepted, well-known template of morals. From my pe positive contributors to society. It doesn't mean that the supernatural part is right though.

I would have to disagree. There are no moral guidelines that the church
can teach us that other institutions like the police cannot.

Furthermore the churches values are quickly becoming outdated in todays
rapidly changing society. Rather than adapt and admit flaws in it's own
dogma, the church seeks to keep the world as it is.
What this means to us is both a stifling of scientific progress, medicine and
social advancement and more wars and death.

I for one, if I ever have children, will never allow the church to influence them.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I would have to disagree. There are no moral guidelines that the church
can teach us that other institutions like the police cannot.

Furthermore the churches values are quickly becoming outdated in todays
rapidly changing society. Rather than adapt and admit flaws in it's own
dogma, the church seeks to keep the world as it is.
What this means to us ...[text shortened]... t a guy in a frock
to me. He may say he is a man of peace but so would an army's negotiator.

I'm having a hard time making the connection between church and the police. Can you elaborate?

church and a school, maybe, but the police? I realize there were points in history where that may be true, but, not today, which is the point in time we are referring to.

Originally posted by brobluto
I'm having a hard time making the connection between church and the police. Can you elaborate?

church and a school, maybe, but the police? I realize there were points in history where that may be true, but, not today, which is the point in time we are referring to.

I'm saying that if you substituted religious education in school with
the study of law and order, your kids would be better educated and
have a deeper understanding of society.

More importantly they would not just know what they shoudn't do but why they shouldn't do it.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I'm saying that if you substituted religious education in school with
the study of law and order, your kids would be better educated and
have a deeper understanding of society.

More importantly they would not just know what they shoudn't do but why they shouldn't do it.

I guess my contention would be, Kids don't understand "for the greater good." they understand, "because God will send you to hell if you don't."

Originally posted by brobluto
I guess my contention would be, Kids don't understand "for the greater good." they understand, "because God will send you to hell if you don't."

My point entirely, we should teach children about the 'greater good'
as soon as they are able to understand it.
I can understand that it's easier to persuade children through their own
imaginations but there's so many other ways of doing it that aren't as
potentially damaging.
I was taught religious studies up to the age of 16 and had to sing stupid
hymns every morning in assembly until even later.
In that time I wasn't given a single lesson on law and order and the effects
of criminal behaviour on society.
And now I'm stuck here in this stupid cell with this stupid computer wishing
I'd poked my RE teacher in the eye.

Originally posted by brobluto
It's unfortunate, but I think in western society today, so many people rely on others to raise their kids that the church, however corrupt it may be, still provides an accepted, well-known template of morals. From my perspective, knowing that these teachings is what my kids will learn is more comforting to me than having my kids learn morals from other people they will be exposed to.

Actually I shudder to think what a child would turn out like if he learnt he morals from the Church. I regard many of the teachings in the old testament to be highly immoral and many of the teachings of modern day Christians to be seriously bad for my children.
I still remember the day I found my son hitting himself on his shoulder. I asked him what he was up to and he said his teacher told them that the devil was sitting on their shoulders. In general the main message that churches try to teach kids is 'do what we tell you or go to hell'. Many Christian parents introduce the same message to their children as the first thing they teach their children about religion.

In short, I think it's a curriculum that has stood the test of time in producing positive contributors to society. It doesn't mean that the supernatural part is right though.
What nonsense. You know perfectly well that there is no evidence whatsoever that people brought up as Christians behave any better or contribute more to society than those who are not, and there is plenty of examples of people who were brought up Christian and either negatively contributed or did not contribute at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I shudder to think what a child would turn out like if he learnt he morals from the Church. I regard many of the teachings in the old testament to be highly immoral and many of the teachings of modern day Christians to be seriously bad for my children.
I still remember the day I found my son hitting himself on his shoulder. I asked him what he w ho were brought up Christian and either negatively contributed or did not contribute at all.

I don't know where anyone grew up from the past couple threads, or what church they are referring to, but the church I grew up with teaches New Testament values (I agree, OT would be bad...) "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you" "let he who has not sinned throw the first stone." etc. You won't learn that in school or the police station.

I'm not trying to PROVE anything or trying to convert anyone in the Spirituality Forum (just giving my own take on things). There's always the flip-side of the coin for every position and extreme examples for each. You can't prove your point about negative contributors (or lack thereof), any more than I can prove mine. It's our own interpretation of the results of the church.

Originally posted by brobluto
I don't know where anyone grew up from the past couple threads, or what church they are referring to, but the church I grew up with teaches New Testament values (I agree, OT would be bad...) "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you" "let he who has not sinned throw the first stone." etc. You won't learn that in school or the police station.

So, you went to a lousy school. You should have learn't it at home. I suspect that your argument is that since many home are poor teaching environments for kids and schools are even worse, you are happy that churches are there to right the wrongs. But if a parent is not good enough to teach their child morals then do you seriously think they will be sending their children to Church?

I'm not trying to PROVE anything or trying to convert anyone in the Spirituality Forum (just giving my own take on things). There's always the flip-side of the coin for every position and extreme examples for each. You can't prove your point about negative contributors (or lack thereof), any more than I can prove mine. It's our own interpretation of the results of the church.
But negative examples - if there are enough of them do disprove your position. And if your position was valid you should be able to provide hard evidence for it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, you went to a lousy school. You should have learn't it at home. I suspect that your argument is that since many home are poor teaching environments for kids and schools are even worse, you are happy that churches are there to right the wrongs. But if a parent is not good enough to teach their child morals then do you seriously think they will be sendi ...[text shortened]... osition. And if your position was valid you should be able to provide hard evidence for it.

Let's not get personal here. My argument is nothing of the sort. My argument is that a lot of society's laws, rules, expectations, are based on morals taught by the church. I believe that a true, well-rounded education will be from parents/family, school, and church. And it's not just the morals that the church teaches, it's a respect for something greater than yourself. Also, I think that a good parent realize that morals are difficult to teach and explain, and a good parent will seek assistance to ensure that their child gets the best explanation, and a good parent realizes their own flaws in themselves and may not necessarily be the best example, yet still wants their child to be better then them.

To your last point, Examples are not proofs or evidence. They are cross-sections chosen to influence an outcome. They may not be true for all.

Originally posted by brobluto
Let's not get personal here.

Sorry, I didn't mean it to be personal. I was just pointing out that schools should - and often do - teach morals.

My argument is nothing of the sort. My argument is that a lot of society's laws, rules, expectations, are based on morals taught by the church.
But then you claim that one cannot learn those morals from either society or the law enforcers. Bit of a contradiction there.

I believe that a true, well-rounded education will be from parents/family, school, and church. And it's not just the morals that the church teaches, it's a respect for something greater than yourself.
Even if it is imaginary? And what is important about respecting something greater than yourself anyway?

Also, I think that a good parent realize that morals are difficult to teach and explain, and a good parent will seek assistance to ensure that their child gets the best explanation, and a good parent realizes their own flaws in themselves and may not necessarily be the best example, yet still wants their child to be better then them.
That is true. But as I pointed out, in my experience, the Church can not be trusted with such a responsibility. They are often more interested in getting more recruits than teaching good morals. In fact the number one 'morals' taught in churches world wide are:
1. Go to Church on Sunday.
2. Give money to the Church.
In fact I challenge you to deny that.

and then comes:
3. Believe in Jesus.
4. Do everything in your power to ensure your eternal soul makes it to heaven.
etc.

Personally I do not want my children learning any of those morals.

I have never as far as I can remember heard a single Christian preaching that we should do something because it is right. It is always about what God wants or about saving ourselves from hell.
Again, those are lessons in morality that I want to keep my children away from.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry, I didn't mean it to be personal. I was just pointing out that schools should - and often do - teach morals.

[b]My argument is nothing of the sort. My argument is that a lot of society's laws, rules, expectations, are based on morals taught by the church.
But then you claim that one cannot learn those morals from either society or the law en ...[text shortened]... to Church on Sunday.
2. Give money to the Church.
In fact I challenge you to deny that.[/b]

I don't see the contradiction in what I said. Basing laws on morals and values doesn't mean they are "taught" by those institutions, just "enforced" by them.

Even if what is imaginary? "greater than yourself" part? There's always something greater than us and if you want to argue that point, I think we need to start a different thread. 🙂 The importance of respect is paramount in a functional society, whether it be respecting parents, elders, police, government, others, or God.

I'm not saying to trust the church entirely. I am suggesting that they provide the building blocks that a parent can use to raise their children.

I deny the order. It should be:

1. Give money
2. Go to church

That was an easy challenge 🙂