|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Missile Command Kid
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| tomato wrote: |
| Missile Command Kid wrote: |
| First of all, I don't know a single parent who raises their children to fear "eternal damnation." |
James Joyce was.
At least, that's what he tells us in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
So was Mark Twain.
At least, that's what he tells us in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. |
Works of fiction. At the very least, Portrait is semi-autobiographical, which means that a portion of the story is fictional. Just because an author writes something, it doesn't automatically mean that it's true.
| tomato wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I've never been taught that God punishes people by killing those around you for misbehaving or thinking impure thoughts. |
Then you weren't taught the whole message.
Don't you know that God killed 42 children for making fun of a bald man? |
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/elisha_and_the_lads_of_bethel
| tomato wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I also find it very interesting that the focus of this illogical rant is Christianity. Why not Islam? Why not Judaism? Why not Hinduism? Why is it that whenever this issue is brought up, it's always the Christians that are the "child abusers." |
We don't attack Hindus?
Ask Rteacher! |
Fine. "Always" was hyperbolic, but certainly the criticisms of Christianity versus other religions is very high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Missile Command Kid
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
If you are implying that children are conceived in Original Sin,,
I invite you to make four lists:
1. What is attractive to children and good for children?
2. What is attractive to children but harmful to children?
3. What is unattractive to children but good for children?
4. What is unattractive to children and harmful to children?
...
If a child were conceived in Original Sin, only #2 and #3 would have answers.
...
|
Ah, see, there's your problem! This step in the chain is faulty. Being born in original sin means that we're not perfect, yes, sinful, yes, but that does not mean that we can only do evil. We were made in the image of God, after all, and while we have fallen, that doesn't mean that this original sin overrode all hope for us being good. It's a great list, though, and a very interesting idea, though from my perspective since this step in the chain is wrong, I think your conclusion is wrong. But it's certainly a novel idea! I'll admit, being this late at night, I had great difficulty coming up with *any* ideas from any of the four lists! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missile Command Kid
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As for humans being inherently evil: you disagree? |
I have made a list of possible sources of evil--or that which is called evil.
For those of you who have already seen this list on the other thread, I apologize for the repetition: |
Another great list, but I'm not going to be so foolish as to say that evil exists, therefore God exists. We agree, then, that humans are not perfect beings, and children being taught that we're flawed isn't a bad idea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Missile Command Kid wrote: |
| We're all evil, sinful creatures. |
"For this should be noted: that every natural habit, every natural institution (the state, the administration of justice, marriage, the care of the sick and of the poor), everything demanded by the life-instinct, in short, everything that has any value in itself, is reduced to absolute worthlessness and even made the reverse of valuable by the parasitism of priests (or, if you chose, by the "moral order of the world"). The fact requires a sanction -- a power to grant value becomes necessary, and the only way it can create such value is by denying nature. . . . The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: it is only at this price that he can exist at all. -- Disobedience to God, which actually means to the priest, to "the law," now gets the name of "sin"; the means prescribed for "reconciliation with God" are, of course, precisely the means which bring one most effectively under the thumb of the priest; he alone can "save". Psychologically considered, "sins" are indispensable to every society organized on an ecclesiastical basis; they are the only reliable weapons of power; the priest lives upon sins; it is necessary to him that there be "sinning". . . . Prime axiom: "God forgiveth him that repenteth" -- in plain language, him that submitteth to the priest."
"The priest: a parasitical variety of man who can exist only at the cost of every sound view of life."
(both quotes by Nieztsche) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Novernae
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Missile Command Kid wrote: |
| Novernae wrote: |
| To think that laws do anything other than support the status quo is naive as best. The legal definition of child abuse does include emotional abuse (I'm sure, though I don't know the law), but unfortunately emotional abuse in the form of religious teaching is not part of it because a very large majority of people see nothing wrong with it. In the same way, years ago many people saw nothing wrong with enslaving black people, putting gays in jail, beating your kid nearly to death for talking back, and refusing person status to anyone who wasn't a white male. We've grown past those shortcomings as a society and they are no longer accepted as the status quo, and the laws don't support those mindsets anymore since the majority supports the outlawing of such discrimination and abuse. At the moment, the majority still thinks it's okay to raise children in fear eternal damnation for things over which they have little or no control. People think it's okay to make children think that they are inherently evil. People think it's okay to make children believe that if they break any of many baseless rules of the bible they will spend an eternity in hell. People think that it's okay to make children think that sex is a dirty, impure act to be reviled. You have made it clear what you believe, but I believe that it is child abuse to make a child so scared that they can't sleep at night or so guilty that they think their father's death was a smite from God for their misbehaviour or 'impure thoughts'. |
There's a lot of points in your post that you've just plain got wrong. First of all, I don't know a single parent who raises their children to fear "eternal damnation." I know I was certainly never taught this as a child. I was 11 or 12 before I truly came to understand the notion of hell. Most Sunday schools and child-oriented Christian literature deals with stories of the lives of Jewish/Christian patriarchs: what Adam did, what Noah did, Abraham, David, Jesus, Paul, and so on. The positive aspects of the religion are emphasised. I'm not planning on teaching my children that sex is a "dirty, impure act." I wasn't taught this and neither was my wife. I've never been taught that God punishes people by killing those around you for misbehaving or thinking impure thoughts. |
I think it's great that you are planning to censor what you teach your child about your religion. It's great that you feel you can pick and choose. Why don't you go one step further and choose to teach your child to simply be good? And at what age will you tell your child about all the scary things found in the Bible? You learned at 11-12, but that's still really young. You are going to teach about the scary parts right? Or are you going to let your child discover those parts when they're older so that they realise how cherry picked religious dogma is.
| Missile Command Kid wrote: |
| As for humans being inherently evil: you disagree? Look around at the world out there. Do you honestly see our civilisation as being built by inherently good people? There's not a single aspect of our civilisation that isn't fraught with problems ranging from minor to heinous. Humanity is a deeply flawed race - you only need to pick up any newspaper in any juristiction around the planet to see that. |
Of course I don't think that humans are inherently evil. What a horrible philosophy to base your life on! I also don't believe we are inherently good. I don't see things as being so black and white. I believe we are inherently human, and with that comes the ability to be good or bad, but more importantly comes the ability to be human. A lot of bad happens in the world, yes. A lot of bad is done in the name of politics, money, and religion, but it isn't because of some inherent 'evil' quality. Do you believe that every human wakes up and thinks "I'm going to go do a bunch of morally bad, wrong, and wicked things today" and that's why we have problems in the world? So all good in the world is done only by people who are in constant battle with their 'nature'? I've always been confused on this idea of 'evil' and I wouldn't mind a more indepth explanation if you're game.
| Missile Command Kid wrote: |
| The facts are this: children generally aren't told about hell. In fact, over the past several years of attending weekly church services, I've heard perhaps three or four that have dealt with the topic of hell. Within a Christian community, the message that is taught generally has to do with how to live a better life, with all the various aspects that this touches upon. Talking to a group of Christians about how non-Christians go to hell is, if you'll pardon the expression, merely preaching to the choir. |
If the idea of hell isn't taught, how do you explain all of the kids who are scared of it? How do you explain the kids who tell their neighbors they're going to hell because they don't believe? Sure, these kids may be out of the mainstream, but they exist, and I feel this should be considered child abuse. I was taught about hell, not in detail, but I was certainly aware of a bad place that I will go if I do something bad. How do you explain a 7 year old who is upset because her friend who just died must be in hell because she didn't belong to the right church? Just not telling kids about hell doesn't mean they don't know about it. Kids are very perceptive. They pick up on subtle mentionings of things even if you try to hide things from them.
| Missile Command Kid wrote: |
| The idea that bringing up a child to be Christian is equitable to slavery, gay bashing/discrimination, *REAL* child abuse, or discrimination is laughable. You have absolutely no idea how saddened I am at this twisted world, where the message of the Gospel has now been twisted so that its very teachings to children are considered to be as bad, if not worse, to physically causing a child harm. |
I'm sorry that you are saddened that your Gospel has been so twisted, but it didn't need any help from a 'twisted' world. It speaks for itself. It's barbaric. And you needn't be saddened yet, it's still accepted as being a beautiful part of growing up. In fact, in the mainstream, teaching your kid critical thinking skills and letting them learn to think for themselves is close to being considered abuse; 'denying your child God' is a common derision to atheists.
| Missile Command Kid wrote: |
| I also find it very interesting that the focus of this illogical rant is Christianity. Why not Islam? Why not Judaism? Why not Hinduism? Why is it that whenever this issue is brought up, it's always the Christians that are the "child abusers." Why don't I ever hear about Hindus or Buddhists abusing their children by teaching them about their faith? |
You have now pulled the discrimination card. Good for you! You have now revealed your inability to read without centering everything on you. What have I said that couldn't be applied to the other religions you mention? My rant is far from illogical, nor is it focused on Christianity. Christianity is always brought up by the Christians, which are the majority in the West. But just because you focus your argument on Christianity doesn't mean that we do. If you read back through my posts, you will find that the only time I mentioned anything specific to Christianity was in mentioning the Bible in ONE of my examples. Most of my examples apply across the board. My disdain for religious teaching and my arguments for considering it child abuse apply to anyone who teaches their child that they must irrationally fear and revere some being for which there is no evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missile Command Kid
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Novernae wrote: |
| I think it's great that you are planning to censor what you teach your child about your religion. It's great that you feel you can pick and choose... |
I'm interested in why you ignored my specific points. Why do you think that religions teach that sex is dirty and impure, for instance? But to address your specific points: generally speaking, a three year old doesn't have a complex enough brain to be able to comprehend such theological points as, for instance, dispensationalism or trinitarianism. The reason I mention these theological issues is because hell is one of them. If you had done your homework, you'd realise that there is no one answer for what hell is, where it is, who goes there, and for how long or why. Different denominations hold different views on hell. It's not a matter of picking and choosing. I teach my young kids the stories in the Bible, what I would consider to be "factual" (we might disagree on the definition of that term). When they're older, they'll be taught about the theological significance of these stories. Why muddy the waters with multiple interpretations of what hell might or might not constitute until they're ready to understand that Christianity disagrees on its precise definition?
| Novernae wrote: |
| Missile Command Kid wrote: |
| As for humans being inherently evil: you disagree? |
Of course I don't think that humans are inherently evil. What a horrible philosophy to base your life on! I also don't believe we are inherently good. I don't see things as being so black and white. I believe we are inherently human, and with that comes the ability to be good or bad, but more importantly comes the ability to be human. A lot of bad happens in the world, yes. A lot of bad is done in the name of politics, money, and religion, but it isn't because of some inherent 'evil' quality. Do you believe that every human wakes up and thinks "I'm going to go do a bunch of morally bad, wrong, and wicked things today" and that's why we have problems in the world? So all good in the world is done only by people who are in constant battle with their 'nature'? |
Absolutely. Every single one of us struggle with the good we want to do and the bad we don't want to do. You say that a lot of bad is done, but not because we're inherently bad. If humans are neither inherently good nor bad, then why do we commit bad acts?
| Novernae wrote: |
| I've always been confused on this idea of 'evil' and I wouldn't mind a more indepth explanation if you're game. |
All I've got is from a theological perspective. From a philosophical perspective, I'd recommend Evil in Modern Thought : An Alternative History of Philosophy by Susan Neiman. Excellent book that traces the history of the philosophy of evil from Leibniz in the 17th century to the new edition that discusses 9/11 in the introduction. Great book.
| Novernae wrote: |
| If the idea of hell isn't taught, how do you explain all of the kids who are scared of it? |
Anecdotal evidence. Who are "all the kids" to whom you're referring? In the film? In America? In South Korea? Who?
| Novernae wrote: |
| I'm sorry that you are saddened that your Gospel has been so twisted, but it didn't need any help from a 'twisted' world. It speaks for itself. It's barbaric. |
That's funny. Considering the definition of barbaric relates to the Greeks' derision of outsiders who couldn't speak Greek, and considering that the majority of the New Testament was written in Greek, it's certainly not "barbaric." But I'm sure you're specifically speaking to the contents of the Gospel. Tell me, what is it about the New Testament that you specifically find objectionable?
| Novernae wrote: |
| And you needn't be saddened yet, it's still accepted as being a beautiful part of growing up. In fact, in the mainstream, teaching your kid critical thinking skills and letting them learn to think for themselves is close to being considered abuse; 'denying your child God' is a common derision to atheists. |
Hmm. I'm thinking this might be a cultural difference. I wasn't raised in the US; I grew up in Canada where multiculturalism and tolerance positively oozed from the pores of the public schooling system. I learned that other religions weren't "barbaric," and I do in fact respect all other faiths, though I might disagree with them. My only derision for atheists is reserved for their vitriolic and uncompromising intolerance of religious faith. You might have the right to call my Gospel "barbaric," but your intolerance certainly speaks wonders of your character.
| Novernae wrote: |
| You have now pulled the discrimination card. Good for you! You have now revealed your inability to read without centering everything on you. What have I said that couldn't be applied to the other religions you mention? My rant is far from illogical, nor is it focused on Christianity. |
"Bible," "eternity in hell," and "God" (rather than G-d, Allah, or any of the other gods associated with other religions) means that you were specifically talking about Christianity. If you didn't mean to focus on Christianity, you should have refrained from using Christian language.
Perhaps you should read what you've written before posting?
| Novernae wrote: |
| Christianity is always brought up by the Christians, which are the majority in the West. But just because you focus your argument on Christianity doesn't mean that we do. If you read back through my posts, you will find that the only time I mentioned anything specific to Christianity was in mentioning the Bible in ONE of my examples. |
Three, actually.
| Novernae wrote: |
| Most of my examples apply across the board. My disdain for religious teaching and my arguments for considering it child abuse apply to anyone who teaches their child that they must irrationally fear and revere some being for which there is no evidence. |
"No evidence" does not mean "irrational." I'd ask you where you picked up that nugget, but since you haven't answered my earlier question for where you're getting your facts from, I'm going to assume that you're pulling more facts out of thin air. I'd hardly call that rational thought based on evidence. I'm specifically referring to:
-religions that teach that sex is dirty and impure
-"all the kids" who are scared of hell
-the unnamed 7 year old who's afraid that her friend is in hell
I'm sure there's more, if I were to go through more of your posts in this thread, but those three were convenient. One more quick question for you: do you have kids? Do you bother to tell them that when they die, they're going to cease to exist? If you think that raising a child to be religious is child abuse, would you object if I said that raising a child to be atheist is child abuse?
EDIT: Tell you what, folks. I'm on vacation and would rather spend time with my kids than with you fine ladies and gentlemen. If people are still posting on the 8th of May, I'll chime in with my opinions at that point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Novernae
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Missile Command Kid,
I'm going to exit the discussion now. Not because I admit defeat but because I think it's a waste of my time to argue with someone who seems to think that there are various definitions of the word factual, who feels it is perfectly fine to dismiss my anecdotal evidence while expecting me to accept his, and who feels that the word 'God' can somehow only be associated with Christianity.
Have a good life, and I hope your kids turn out healthy and well-adjusted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Novernae wrote: |
Missile Command Kid,
I'm going to exit the discussion now. Not because I admit defeat but because I think it's a waste of my time to argue with someone who seems to think that there are various definitions of the word factual, who feels it is perfectly fine to dismiss my anecdotal evidence while expecting me to accept his, and who feels that the word 'God' can somehow only be associated with Christianity.
Have a good life, and I hope your kids turn out healthy and well-adjusted. |
Good call. His kind of sophistry will drive anybody mad in time. Not worth it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cosmo
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marjoe ~ child evangelist ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdI8ag1k0A
1972 Marjoe won Academy Award Best Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O0p4ZDnDoQ
www.prospect.org/web/view-web.ww?id=10899
Resurrecting Marjoe
An Oscar-winning filmmaker describes how a documentary about a fraudulent preacher finds a second life.
He had been a Bible Belt star most of his life. His parents, both itinerant evangelists themselves, noticed his gift for mimicry and his phenomenal powers of recall when he was 3. They set out to transform him into a preaching sensation, a �miracle child.� He was taught lengthy sermons, complete with gestures and lunges, and was ordained at the age of 4. They kicked off his career in 1949 by having him perform a marriage while a Paramount newsreel camera rolled. That got him into Ripley�s Believe It or Not as the �World�s Youngest Minister.�
Marjoe and his parents toured the country for eight more years, raking in offerings from eager crowds, some $3 million by his own reckoning. Receiving his sermons from heaven, delivering souls, healing the sick, he seemed like God�s little angel, or -- as his father put it ingenuously -- �a preaching machine.�
When he reached his late 20s, Marjoe tried to make a break for once and for all. In 1970, he arrived in New York to become an actor. He thought it would help his career if he gained a little publicity. He approached my partner Howard Smith, hoping to interest him in his story. Howard had a syndicated FM radio show in which he interviewed celebrities. What he and I learned about Marjoe�s incredible story convinced us to make a documentary feature about him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
