Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

Why would 'he'? "He" would if that was how he truly was but you make a good point, if we were "just making it up as we go along" it would be very likely that we are projecting on God what we want him to be.

 

We're told God made Man in his own image. But we're told that by men. It seems as if not far more likely, given the human proclivity for projection, that Man made God in his own image (or his father's).

 

What if there actually is a God and this is NOT the way he wants himself depicted?

What if x, what if y, what if z. We can't cater for every eventuality, so why try to second guess what God wants?

 

I'd like to return to the original topics, from which we've strayed a bit. As stated by the OP, self-styled "Minister of Propaganda", the question is a good illustration of the propaganda technique called Question Begging (e.g., Did you stop beating your wife?). It consists of mutiple parts: (1) a preamble, acccusing "all religious people who force there (sic) beliefs onto there (sic) children" of being child molesters; (2) a hypothetical qualifier limiting the question to those who "believe in some sort of omnipotent being who created time and the universe and supposedly knows all"; and (3) a question; "If... he told you in whatever way that would convince you that he needed you to murder your first born child(he tells you he would grow to be the next Hitler for example), would you?" The remainder of the post consists of gloating about what a clever trap the OP has set: "If you answered yes you may have a mental disease and might be a danger to your family and your children should be removed from your custody. If you say no your a fraud. So why continue to fake it?"

That gives us something to work with. The questions can be restated:
(1) Can it be considered child molestation to raise a child in a religious tradition? Does that amount to "forcing" the parents' beliefs onto the child? and (2) Would a person who believes in an omniscient Creator necessarily be required to obey an order that he believes came from that Deity? I answer "No" to both questions.

Dawkins, of course, is the best known atheist to charge that parents who raise their children in a religious tradition are guilty of child abuse. I think his view is objectionable for two reasons: (1) it blames religious parents for doing something that all responsible parents do: making a good faith effort to share with their children what they consider to be useful knowledge; and (2) it suggests a policy which, if acted upon, would lead inevitably to tragedy and possibly violence.

On the first point, a parent has two choices: (s)he can try to raise the child without any guidance in the area of beliefs and values; or (s)he can try to impart some beliefs and values that the parent believes are correct.
If (s)he takes the former course, letting the child "think for himself/herself" completely, the child is likely to learn religion "on the street" or grow up anomic. I doubt that atheists like Dawkins do this. I don't know whether or not he has kids, but if he does, I find it hard to believe he'd sit passively by watching them meditate on the Seven Sorrowful Mysteries while rattling off Hail Mary's on their rosary beads. Is raising a child an atheist or agnostic any different from raising one a Christian or Buddhist in terms of "forcing" beliefs. If so, how and why? Is any discussion by a parent of his/her religious beliefs "forcing" the beliefs on the child?

The notion that religion is a form of child abuse suggests that something should be done about it. The usual thing to be done is intervention by the State. Indeed, that is the solution proposed by the OP. What would the child be raised as then? Does the OP have any knowlege of the foster care system in the United States or the raising of children in institutions? Many parents consider their children to be precious enough to give their lives for. Do you think there would be no resistance to an effort by the state to shatter the bond between parent and child? This stuff has been tried before by atheist regimes that were notorious for their bureaucratic brutality. The price would be totalitarianism. It's this viewpoint in particular that makes me question Dawkins judgment, for all of his vaunted rationality.

On the second point, would a person who believes in an omniscient Creator necessarily be required to obey a a questionable order that he believes came from that Deity? My answer is No, because the hypothetical posits a logically contradictory situation which could never happen in the real world. Could God make a rock He couln't lift, even though He is omnipotent? No, because onipotence does not include the possibility to do logically contradictory things. The problem here is that we're dealing with a hypothetical that plays with our ordinary understanding of language. Many people, including me, believe that God is inherently good. The question is premised on the OP's assumption that asking a person to kill a child (even a future Hitler) is evil, or that a believer refusing to carry out such an order would somehow be hypocritical or an imposter because believers supposedly have a duty of blind obedience to their deity. My obedience to God is conditioned on the assumption that He is inherently good. If He weren't, I'd no long feel a duty to obey, because that would be worshipping raw power.

It's the same kind of question as "If a circle were a square and you prayed to God, could you fit it into a round hole?" Jesus was constantly fielding questions like these from the Pharisees, so the OP is coming from a well-established tradition. In particular, the OP is surely aware of the emotive impact of justifying the killing of a child under even the most extreme of hypothetical circumstances, and plays upon the knowldege that a person who does try to justify such an action will always be seen as a monster, regardless of how logical their position might be or how bizzare or absurd the hypothetical is. That might be why he calls himself the "Minister of Propaganda". It's similar to the situation Michael Dukakis found himself in during the 1988 Presidential debates. The moderator asked him something like: "if Kitty Dukakis were raped, would you favor tougher measures against crime and criminals". Dukakis made the mistake of taking the question at face value, and proceeding to talk about the pros and cons of tougher penalties for criminals. It was a propaganda trap. The audience was horrified that this man could proceed with such a dispassionate analysis when his wife had been raped, even though she was only raped hyptothetically by the questioner. Truman was wise in refusing to answer such "iffy" questions.

I argue that if it were possible, which it is not, to establish with absolute certainty that a child would be a future Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., it would be justifiable in that extreme case to kill the child--unless the child were a square circle, a white black person, or a black white person. If we didn't, we'd be responsible for the suffering and deaths of many millions of people who were victims of those murderous monsters. But of course it would be impossible for any of us to know that with absolute certainty, because absolute certainty is something humans will never attain. Therefore, a person acting on the perception that God had given him this order would probably be schizophrenic or at least a dangerous religious fanatic, and should be dealt with accordingly. It would be possible for logical, well-intentioned folks to arrive at the oppostie conclusion: that, even with absolute certainty the kid would be a mass murderer, they should not kill the child. They could proceed along deontological lines and argue that the kid hasn't done anything yet to deserve such a fate, even though (s)he will some day. I tend to be consequentialist and utilitarian in my ethical thinking, emphasizing the greatest net happiness for the greatest number, giving due allowance for the agapic principle and protection of the least advantaged. But even then, I would never do such an act, because I would never have the absolute certainty bestowed hypothetically upon me by the OP.

 

This is why I've never seen any point discussing religion with anyone. Too many possibilities. Whether or not you believe, you always come off as an arrogant prick if you say, "THIS DOES NOT EXIST!" or "THIS DOES EXIST AND THIS IS WHAT IT'S LIKE!" Bullshit. Like anyone can know any of this for a fact.
I can believe in God, give thanks for my life, and try not to do stupid shit that any father would be ashamed of me doing without raising too much of a bitch about whether or not I have every detail down correctly. I'm even open-minded enough to say, "hey, maybe there's nothing." I don't believe that, but I can conceive of the possibility.
I believe in "love thy neighbor," and don't see how believing in it does anyone any harm anyway, but then, I don't have any inate inclination to fuck over my fellow man for my own gains, so maybe that's just me.

 

He probably would do something about it.

Why second guess, perhaps he wrote a book so we would know and not have to guess.

 

Aren't there several books with the word of God, which are even contradicting eachother at points?

 

Any idea what? Enough people have widely differing notions of what God wants from us all; you'd think we'd have seen His hand at work.

We've had this discussion. His book is left far more open to interpretation than the imperfections of language would necessitate (oh wait, that's because the book has to be a living breathing thing, not just a useful manual, right?), often contradicting itself from one book to the next. But you believe it's "self-interpreting", so you don't care about any of that.

 

Yeah, like I said; write a Book.

Actually, no, we are still having this discussion in another thread, although you’ve been ducking it lately.

That’s what we’ve been discussing and you have yet to prove.

So you say but just not true.

Care about what, the fact that you just like to go off sometimes?

 

No, I mean, AFTER he's written the book, and stupid people like me have failed to read it correctly (due to fairly well-established linguistic phenomena that God as an omniscient being would know about); if God actually cared how his book was read, wouldn't he at some point have done something about those who misread it, or rewarded those who don't?

The discussion is over as far as you and I are concerned. If anyone else wants to bang their head against a brick wall, that's their lookout. I said that all language is open to interpretation, that absolute specificity is impossible but relative specificity isn't, and cited various sources to this effect. You've responded by saying "Yes, but maybe God is special, I mean, he's God after all!". If that's your position, it's reasonable to assume that any other time someone pokes a hole in your logic you'll feel totally able to say "ah, but He's God, he can break the rules". If that's the case then there's no point in attempting to discuss anything to do with God with you any further.

Since you've claimed that the Bible is self-interpreting, I'm assuming you've read it. It's fairly well-documented that a lot of the Bible is open to interpretation and in places self-contradictory. Enough people have said as much in this thread. I doubt that, as someone who regularly discusses faith on-line, you won't have had these issues pointed out to you. I would've hoped that, at the age you've apparently reached, you might have come up with a better response than denial.

No?

 

God has no responsibility for those who don’t want to read it correctly, God gave you free will and is not going to force you to understand the Bible if you don’t want to. Those who want to read it correctly will get what they need from it, draw close to God and he will draw close to you.

It may be a fairly well-established linguistic phenomena to you but that doesn’t make it correct. Lots of things have been fairly well-established phenomena and yet have been proved hogwash.

Actually I’m still waiting for some one to poke a hole in my logic, you sure haven’t. You merely said it can’t be done and then quoted some half baked theory to try and back it up. I’m sorry but neither holds much water.

Yes, several times.

Well documented by whom? I know that’s what people say but you try to pin them down with a show me and that’s another story all together.

Yes, they have said it but they’ve been about as forth coming with the proof as you are.

Well that’s all you’ve been using, seems to work pretty well for you or so you think.

 

Old water brother, are you a Christian?

 

It depends on you think a Christian is.

 

I am asking are you a christian. Yes or no. Why would that be up for interpretation?

What I think a Christian is should have nothing to do with your answer. Its not my perception that makes you who you are.

 

Because Jesus himself said that there would some who would call themselves his followers and he would say to them get away from me you workers of lawlessness(Matthew 7:21-23). So it appears that even Jesus knew that there were two types of people that call themselves Christian and that is why I asked what you mean by the term Christian.

No, it is not your perception of what a Christian is that makes me what I am but your perception of what a Christian is will influence your perception of who you think I am.

PS Now if you had merely asked if I considered myself to be a Christian I would have said yes.

 

Seeing that you consider yourself a christian, what is christ?

Please do not quote the bible to prove anything at all. It would be like me quoting a movie or song to prove something.

 

Are you asking my opinion of who or what the Christ is? Or are you asking for me to prove who or what the Christ is?

 

neither. Is it hard for you to answer a question?

Define Christ. What does it mean. Not an interpretation but a definition.

 

Yes, sometimes it can be very hard to answer a question. If the question is vague it makes it difficult. If you had in the first place said something like; please define the Christ for me without quoting the Bible that would have been easy. But you said:

Notice you said: “do not quote the bible to prove anything at all” the use of the word prove would seem to indicate that there is a whole lot more to your question than simple curiosity. Thus before putting my foot into a bear trap, I would just like to know a little bit more about the question.

 

You still didnt answer the question. CAN YOU?
probably not.

You are avoiding the question because you do not like the answer?

Hear it is and I will make it bold so it doesnt confuse you.

Being a christian, Can you define christ? What does Christ mean?

Those are the same questions BTW. I think I know why you are having problems with this and why you are avoiding giving me any especialy the one to the question I asked.