Should we ban the indoctrination and brainwashing of children by religions? Is it chi

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1492114 wrote: Trump is running a campaign of fear. That is a very dangerous approach. Think of Trump having his hand on that switch. Not such a good idea.


Sure beats having a fundamental fool moving in next door.

Promoting caution and good sense is not promoting fear.

Regards

DL

[tude dog]

LarsMac;1492047 wrote: I'm sorry, but I have no time to dedicate to watching all these videos you keep coming up with. I prefer the written word.


Maybe not here, but I have posted that Youtube is a great thing. It is not something to use as an argument expecting people to spend much time to watch. It is more honest to present the written word which can be accurately quoted.

[Ted]

Trump in my view is a very dangerous man.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1492266 wrote: Trump in my view is a very dangerous man.


Against Islam, any man with balls will be dangerous to them.

Those without balls are who is presently on the left or our political parties.

Fools seem to not recognize the satanic Islam religion when they see it.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Any form of fundamentalists thrive in conflict as it tends to form unions against a common enemy. With Daesh their strength is in their claim of the purist form of Islam & stirring up conflict against Islam. This makes others guilty for not siding with them as they see not siding with them as siding against them - those of their own 'family'.

It's the old "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend".

[Ted]

Some of the Muslims are extremists and so are some Christians.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1492357 wrote: Some of the Muslims are extremists and so are some Christians.


Whippy.

So they both have extremists. You are saying less and less over time as you know that they are immoral religions.

Why are you giving respect to immoral religions?

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492350 wrote: Any form of fundamentalists thrive in conflict as it tends to form unions against a common enemy. With Daesh their strength is in their claim of the purist form of Islam & stirring up conflict against Islam. This makes others guilty for not siding with them as they see not siding with them as siding against them - those of their own 'family'.

It's the old "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend".


We do want conflict of ideas. That is how you find the best way to think.

At some point one has to decide what is important. One's morals or one's religion.

Ted seems to go for religion while ignoring their mostly immoral tenets.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Yet you will still not define what is morality & what makes one person's morality right over another.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492480 wrote: Yet you will still not define what is morality & what makes one person's morality right over another.


I do not plan to go against Webster's good definitions.



If I have to define morality for you then you are not ready to discuss morals.

Note how I do not deflect to definitions while you guys disagree.

You guys disagree for moral reasons, (more than likely) yet ask me to define what you are using.

Strange how few people will put their morals out there. It must be the sheep part in all of us.

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

You must be related to David Cameron. You never answer a straight question. You have provided a link to what morality is - a perspective of what is seen to be right or wrong. However, that doesn't define what IS right or wrong. What may be seen to be right by one person would be seen as wrong to another. The drinking of alcohol, for instance. In general the Christian Church doesn't have a problem with it - indeed it uses it in the act of Holy Communion. Other denominations, however, see the whole concept of drinking alcohol as being immoral, because they see it as wrong. So, whose morals are moral & whose are immoral? Whose place is it to say which is which? There is very little difference between Qu'ran & the Bible - indeed they are parallel to each other - even using the same characters. Both of them require death sentences by stoning for defined offences, for instance. Both specify amputations. Both condone slavery. For centuries to follow these ancient laws (Sharia) was seen to be the right & proper way to live. Totally moral. Then things started to change & others moved away from the straight & narrow, and made up their own laws & developed their own sense of morals, while they accused those who stuck to the original code of being immoral. So, at what point of the gradual evolution of views does one become seen as being moral & the other as being immoral? For instance, I'm in favour of Gay Marriage. I see it as not bothering anyone, and that they should be left to do as they wish with each other. However, there are those who insist that the whole concept of Gay Marriage is abhorrent & immoral. Who's to say who is right or wrong?

I ask you again - what is YOUR definition of what is Moral & what is Immoral, and why YOUR definition should be seen as being right over what anyone else sees as being Moral. Spouting about everyone being Immoral has no meaning without any form of quantification. It just shows you up as the mindless hatemonger that you appear to be - stirring up hatred for hatred's sake.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492519 wrote: You must be related to David Cameron. You never answer a straight question. You have provided a link to what morality is - a perspective of what is seen to be right or wrong. However, that doesn't define what IS right or wrong. What may be seen to be right by one person would be seen as wrong to another. The drinking of alcohol, for instance. In general the Christian Church doesn't have a problem with it - indeed it uses it in the act of Holy Communion. Other denominations, however, see the whole concept of drinking alcohol as being immoral, because they see it as wrong. So, whose morals are moral & whose are immoral? Whose place is it to say which is which? There is very little difference between Qu'ran & the Bible - indeed they are parallel to each other - even using the same characters. Both of them require death sentences by stoning for defined offences, for instance. Both specify amputations. Both condone slavery. For centuries to follow these ancient laws (Sharia) was seen to be the right & proper way to live. Totally moral. Then things started to change & others moved away from the straight & narrow, and made up their own laws & developed their own sense of morals, while they accused those who stuck to the original code of being immoral. So, at what point of the gradual evolution of views does one become seen as being moral & the other as being immoral? For instance, I'm in favour of Gay Marriage. I see it as not bothering anyone, and that they should be left to do as they wish with each other. However, there are those who insist that the whole concept of Gay Marriage is abhorrent & immoral. Who's to say who is right or wrong?

I ask you again - what is YOUR definition of what is Moral & what is Immoral, and why YOUR definition should be seen as being right over what anyone else sees as being Moral. Spouting about everyone being Immoral has no meaning without any form of quantification. It just shows you up as the mindless hatemonger that you appear to be - stirring up hatred for hatred's sake.


If morals are subjective, there is no exact definition without dealing with exact issues.

Murder is generally thought to be immoral but if a murder of one saves 100 innocent lives, most would murder. Or at least they should.

The qualifications for my use of immoral with religions and their creed is a blanket statement and accurate.

It is an invitation to discuss from a moral POV the tenets of those religions.

The fact that they mostly produce homophobic and misogynous people is where I begin creating my negative judgement against them and the rest of their immoral tenets are just butter for the bread.

Islam especially is anti-freedom and from my democratic POV, not that any of us live in real democracies, is especially troubling.



Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492519 wrote: Who's to say who is right or wrong?

.


Might seems to make right.

Majority rule is what we live by. Here between you and I, may the best apology win.

I agree that both Christianity and Islam are not worthy of our respect.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1492526 wrote: Might seems to make right.

Majority rule is what we live by. Here between you and I, may the best apology win.

I agree that both Christianity and Islam are not worthy of our respect.

Regards

DL


I have my own set of morals. They may not be the same set of morals as the next person. I don't claim my own morals to be right over the other person's. I am not only non-Religious - I am ANTI-Religious, yet I still respect the Religious' right to be so. They have their set morals. Perhaps theirs are the right set of morals. I am pro-Gay. Indeed, I am Bi myself, but I still respect those that do not agree with Homosexuality. One may see Homophobia as being Immoral. Others may see being Homosexual as being Immoral. Religion doesn't even necessarily come into it. One might say that Marriage itself is a Religious Institution. Is Marriage, therefore to be considered as Immoral, or do you prefer to see it as animals who mate for life? But then, do animals have morals? Chimps, like humans, fashion weapons & go on assaults to kill members of neighbouring communities of chimps. Is that to be seen as Immoral?

Then there is the other question that you have still avoided. What is YOUR solution to cleansing the world of Immorality & imposing your own set of morals? It's one thing to complain about a problem that you can't even define. It's an even bigger thing to come up with what you might plan to do about it - or perhaps you see your own solution as being Immoral.

The murder of 1, you say, is justifiable in order to save 1000s. Ok - let's play Devil's Advocate here. The murder of Hitler would have saved 1000s. No question about it. But then you might look at the broader picture. If it hadn't have been for Hitler bringing about the world war we wouldn't have had rocket technology, computers, vaccines, satellites, radar, etc. All of these were brought about as a direct result of the war. Therefore, killing Hitler, although might be justifiable in order to save 1000s, would it have been justifiable in the long term, where his actual existence saved millions? So, the murder of 1 man - justifiable or not? Moral or Immoral? You see, Religion need not even come into it.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492551 wrote: I have my own set of morals. They may not be the same set of morals as the next person. I don't claim my own morals to be right over the other person's. I am not only non-Religious - I am ANTI-Religious, yet I still respect the Religious' right to be so. They have their set morals. Perhaps theirs are the right set of morals. I am pro-Gay. Indeed, I am Bi myself, but I still respect those that do not agree with Homosexuality. One may see Homophobia as being Immoral. Others may see being Homosexual as being Immoral. Religion doesn't even necessarily come into it. One might say that Marriage itself is a Religious Institution. Is Marriage, therefore to be considered as Immoral, or do you prefer to see it as animals who mate for life? But then, do animals have morals? Chimps, like humans, fashion weapons & go on assaults to kill members of neighbouring communities of chimps. Is that to be seen as Immoral?

Then there is the other question that you have still avoided. What is YOUR solution to cleansing the world of Immorality & imposing your own set of morals? It's one thing to complain about a problem that you can't even define. It's an even bigger thing to come up with what you might plan to do about it - or perhaps you see your own solution as being Immoral.

The murder of 1, you say, is justifiable in order to save 1000s. Ok - let's play Devil's Advocate here. The murder of Hitler would have saved 1000s. No question about it. But then you might look at the broader picture. If it hadn't have been for Hitler bringing about the world war we wouldn't have had rocket technology, computers, vaccines, satellites, radar, etc. All of these were brought about as a direct result of the war. Therefore, killing Hitler, although might be justifiable in order to save 1000s, would it have been justifiable in the long term, where his actual existence saved millions? So, the murder of 1 man - justifiable or not? Moral or Immoral? You see, Religion need not even come into it.


Or killing Hitler would have opened the door for someone worse who might have been brighter and won the war. Second guessing history is a waste of time.

"I have my own set of morals. They may not be the same set of morals as the next person. I don't claim my own morals to be right over the other person's."



Yes you do or you would improve yourself by adopting his set of morals.

Moral men will always follow the best morals regardless of where they come from. That is how you formed your morals in the first place. That is how we all do it.

If not, and you ignore the better moral way, then you do not care about your moral sense as much as you should.

As to how I would impose or try to get others to follow my morals; the only thing I can do is show them and hope others see the value in them and adopt them. I have no tools other than words.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

What you are describing is nothing less than Dictatorship. "This is Morality, as I see it. You shall follow accordingly whether you agree or not, or suffer the consequences".

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492572 wrote: What you are describing is nothing less than Dictatorship. "This is Morality, as I see it. You shall follow accordingly whether you agree or not, or suffer the consequences".


??

So showing ones morals is a dictatorship.

I can make others suffer nothing but a hurt in their head if they recognize that they have followed a poor moral tenet.

But thanks for thinking I have a dictators power.

I like to think I have some power but never though I had a dictators.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Once again you either miss the point, or (more likely) are deliberately avoiding it. It is not showing one's own morals that is Dictatorship. It's imposing them on everyone else with the claim that everyone else is wrong & should follow your own Moral Code. That is what is Immoral.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492578 wrote: Once again you either miss the point, or (more likely) are deliberately avoiding it. It is not showing one's own morals that is Dictatorship. It's imposing them on everyone else with the claim that everyone else is wrong & should follow your own Moral Code. That is what is Immoral.


Again. I cannot impose anything on anyone so I don't know where you are coming from on this.

A dictator can impose his will. He cannot form a person's moral code. He can force a person to follow his code but he cannot change a persons thinking that that code is evil.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

It starts with one person spouting that he is right where everyone else is wrong.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492586 wrote: It starts with one person spouting that he is right where everyone else is wrong.


Any declaration, of itself, holds no power.

It only gains power if the listener gives it power to move himself.

Einstein and Galileo spouted that they were correct and that everyone else was wrong. If no one else had decided to believe them, then their ideas would have died.

They did not impose their ideas on humanity. Humanity did that.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Einstein & Gallileo based their views on physical existence. Morals are an ideological concept.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492609 wrote: Einstein & Gallileo based their views on physical existence. Morals are an ideological concept.


If something offered is good enough, then the listener will change his ideology.

Regards

DL

[Ted]

Gnostic I completely agree. .

[FourPart]

"I do not steal. It's immoral".

"Is it moral that you should have something when someone else does not?"

"Of course not".

"Then it is immoral that he has something that you do not?"

"Of course".

"Then surely it is moral that you should steal that which he has because it is immoral for him to possess it".

"Of course".

[Bryn Mawr]

FourPart;1492698 wrote: "I do not steal. It's immoral".

"Is it moral that you should have something when someone else does not?"

"Of course not".

"Then it is immoral that he has something that you do not?"

"Of course".

"Then surely it is moral that you should steal that which he has because it is immoral for him to possess it".

"Of course".


The logic breaks down with statement number two

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1492680 wrote: Gnostic I completely agree. .


Nice. Thanks.

Regards

DL

[keokukmonty]

I don't know if anyone else has offered up this idea...but since in the U.S. government passes all these different laws to protect we pious uninformed citizens...why not have an age restriction for entering any house of worship? Bars, movies, driving, voting...all age based.



Formal worshipping should be done in an adult setting behind closed doors. When you are of age you can go test the waters so to speak at different places to see what works for you and your understanding of the world, not forcing yourself to conform to someone else's belief system.



You learn the laws of the land that are nonnegotiable...before you commit to behaving any religion's arbitrary customs.



Child abuse...yes. I will never forget how horrible I felt, broken hearted when I learned that I wasn't really always being watched, judged, and rewarded by that most sainted of all figures.



R.I.P. Santa Claus

[keokukmonty]

Not always the case. Brainwashing and fear will make people rationalize almost anything. Think of Nazi Germany, and battered women who stay with their torturers.

[Bryn Mawr]

keokukmonty;1492954 wrote: Not always the case. Brainwashing and fear will make people rationalize almost anything. Think of Nazi Germany, and battered women who stay with their torturers.


Hello and welcome to the Garden - I see you've already found a discussion and dived in :-6

You might find it easier (for the rest of us?) if you "Reply With Quote" or if you reference the post that you're replying to so that there's a context.

[keokukmonty]

I hope this one has the quote talking about me needing to reference things or sending with quote, I am tech impaired, the Nazi battered woman tirade was in response to the post that given a better path or idea you would obviously change your belief structure.

[AnneBoleyn]

keokukmonty:

"I don't know if anyone else has offered up this idea...but since in the U.S. government passes all these different laws to protect we pious uninformed citizens...why not have an age restriction for entering any house of worship? Bars, movies, driving, voting...all age based.

Formal worshipping should be done in an adult setting behind closed doors. When you are of age you can go test the waters so to speak at different places to see what works for you and your understanding of the world, not forcing yourself to conform to someone else's belief system."

I think this would not pass the First Amendment test, and would also place restrictions on parental & family rights, which go against the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment:

"The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right. One of the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without "probable cause" to believe that we have committed a crime. Other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from the government"

https://www.aclu.org/your-right-privacy

[LarsMac]

keokukmonty;1492958 wrote: I hope this one has the quote talking about me needing to reference things or sending with quote, I am tech impaired, the Nazi battered woman tirade was in response to the post that given a better path or idea you would obviously change your belief structure.


When you look at the bottom of the post, there are three options to the right. "reply" "Reply with quote" and a small quotation mark,

If you click the "reply with quote" the text of that message will appear in your post. (like this one)



And, Welcome to Forumgarden.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

keokukmonty;1492953 wrote: I don't know if anyone else has offered up this idea...but since in the U.S. government passes all these different laws to protect we pious uninformed citizens...why not have an age restriction for entering any house of worship? Bars, movies, driving, voting...all age based.



Formal worshipping should be done in an adult setting behind closed doors. When you are of age you can go test the waters so to speak at different places to see what works for you and your understanding of the world, not forcing yourself to conform to someone else's belief system.



You learn the laws of the land that are nonnegotiable...before you commit to behaving any religion's arbitrary customs.



Child abuse...yes. I will never forget how horrible I felt, broken hearted when I learned that I wasn't really always being watched, judged, and rewarded by that most sainted of all figures.



R.I.P. Santa Claus


To some, the choosing of a God is thought to be the most important part of life so I agree that the choice should be made by free thinking people who apply their intelligence to the choice. That intelligence comes with age.

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

keokukmonty;1492954 wrote: Not always the case. Brainwashing and fear will make people rationalize almost anything. Think of Nazi Germany, and battered women who stay with their torturers.


Stockholm Syndrome certainly applies to the religious. We all know the fear of God religions try to instill in their victims.

Regards

DL

[Ted]

fortunately that is not what religion is or should be about. Fear has no place, certainly Christianity. That is the fundamentalist nonsense.

[LarsMac]

I grew up around Christians and in a Christian family. Fear was never part of the equation in my religious education.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1493046 wrote: fortunately that is not what religion is or should be about. Fear has no place, certainly Christianity. That is the fundamentalist nonsense.


You are right that fear has no place in religions but you seem to think only the fundamentals are using fear while ignoring that the vast majority of the mainstream is using fear and lies to gain more cash.



Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1493059 wrote: I grew up around Christians and in a Christian family. Fear was never part of the equation in my religious education.


You were never taught that there is a hell, a Christian staple?

Were you taught that you are condemned and need to accept the barbaric human sacrifice of Jesus to be saved?

Regards

DL

[Bryn Mawr]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493086 wrote: You are right that fear has no place in religions but you seem to think only the fundamentals are using fear while ignoring that the vast majority of the mainstream is using fear and lies to gain more cash.



Regards

DL


The days when vicars stood in the pulpit spouting fire and brimstone are long gone - nowadays you don't keep a congregation by putting the fear of God into them.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Bryn Mawr;1493094 wrote: The days when vicars stood in the pulpit spouting fire and brimstone are long gone - nowadays you don't keep a congregation by putting the fear of God into them.


You sure lose them quickly by telling them the truth about the lies you have been telling them though and trying to make them a more moral and loving group.

Have a look at how Christians love to hate all those not of their ilk.



Regards

DL

[tude dog]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493098 wrote: You sure lose them quickly by telling them the truth about the lies you have been telling them though and trying to make them a more moral and loving group.

Have a look at how Christians love to hate all those not of their ilk.



Regards

DL


uH, yea.

Just how many Christians do you think he speaks for?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

tude dog;1493103 wrote: uH, yea.

Just how many Christians do you think he speaks for?


Any with half a brain left to be moral.

Regards

DL

[LarsMac]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493087 wrote: You were never taught that there is a hell, a Christian staple?

Were you taught that you are condemned and need to accept the barbaric human sacrifice of Jesus to be saved?

Regards

DL


No sir!

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1493111 wrote: No sir!


Then you do not follow a mainstream Christian sect.

What sect do you belong to and why if you were not condemned or in need of salvation?

What does your God offer that you do not already have?

Regards

DL

[Ted]

Gnostic do you know anything about Christianity. They are all telling lies. Give me a break. Obviously you don t know much about the Christian faith.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1493173 wrote: Gnostic do you know anything about Christianity. They are all telling lies. Give me a break. Obviously you don t know much about the Christian faith.


If you do not think that priests and imams lie then you cannot discern truth from lies.

Regards

DL

[Ted]

Of course there are leaders who deceive and lie. They are the frail human beings. There are many that I know personally who do not preach hell fire and brimstone and hell. But unless you've been doing some modern research on the Christian Church you

wouldn't know that.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1493333 wrote: Of course there are leaders who deceive and lie. They are the frail human beings. There are many that I know personally who do not preach hell fire and brimstone and hell. But unless you've been doing some modern research on the Christian Church you

wouldn't know that.


Cheep shots seem to be all you have left.

The vast majority of all priests and imams lie to their sheeple on an ongoing basis.

Keep promoting that lying all you like. Just don't expect respect from moral people for doing so.

Regards

DL