Subject:
|
Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Apr 2003 00:34:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2635 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper writes:
> I was, in fact asking this question because I don't approve of children
> being dragged to church by their parents. Religion (or absemce of) should
> be a decision that we make alone, without the parental influence.
Wait a moment here...with the logic you're advocating
you claim:
Parents shouldn't drag their children into situations
they may not be competent to decide for themselves.
With such logic, you can also bring this argument
to say that kids should't be forced into school,
community groups, social gatherings or extracuricular
activities since they can't 'decide for themselves'.
Terry, that's a load of crap.
> We all know that people believe in what their parents believe
> 99,9% of the time. This, to me, is a bad thing.
Why is it so bad, so evil, for parents to impose
their beliefs to their children? So, you're saying
that children should be given the choice for
themselves to engage in whatever beliefs they
want?
Many parents have high expectations of their
offspring, and to forgo everything in favor of
political correctness could destroy the very
fragment of the family structure. Would I want
my kid to skip church while I attend, just because
politicians claim he doesn't understand?
Of course not.
Sounds to my like a damned left wing/ atheist
conspiracy.
> I'd wish that children couldn't go in any religious
> building before a certain age so that they can choose fr
> themselves when they are old enough to decide if they
> want to be part of this or not.
What?!!! You're obviously missing something up there,
Terry...it's called prudence. Let me tell you about it.
Families should hold the discretion to tell their
children to participate in youth groups/ religious
activities *because* such interaction with society
(with the family as a whole) contributes to the
family structure in its entirety. To deny the parents
the right to choose for their children whether
or not to bringthem to a religious service is
completely ludicrous!
Sure, at a certain age, children may be considered
'competent' enough to choose for themselves, their
religious identity, but in ninety nine percent of
cases, the parents have the best interests in mind
for their offspring. Attending religious services
encourages social interaction and goodwill towards
others. Why, in gods name, is that so evil to you?
> By trying to teach a child something, you almost
> automatically force it to them if they are in the
> proper environment. So you could consider my
> question as a rethorical blame.
No, you're just misguided...children aren't forced
to believe in god, but they are *encouraged*. God
gives children a rock to place their faith within,
incentive to perform good deeds for society and
their compatriots. Would the local priest at my chapel
threaten to crucify someone if they refused to believe
in god.
> Especially using LEGO braicks, a toy that children love, to
> illustrate your opinion, this to me is a especially sad.
I cannot relate to that...
> I just don't understand why religious people can't live there religion alone
> for themselves, why they feel compell to harass others about what they feel,
> how they see things... If I was to act like that, all my posts would end
> with my own beliefs:
Again, what are you talking about? I don't see priests
wandering about my streets, holding banners denouncing
atheists. If anything, the harassment is coming from
you, since you're using political correctness to compell
the other side to question god...that leads to youth
rebellion, poor decisions and a generally higher crime
rate.
Did you know that satanists usually end their lives
in a seppaku fashion? Scary...it's because they're
misguided. God serves as the beacon to guide
distressed travellers to solid spiritual ground.
> God doesn't exist. If he did, he'd be a real ass-hole letting all those
> people suffer.
You're a world class idiot, Terry.
Have you ever heard the expression 'god serves those
whom help themselves?'
It's not like you can just sit there, magically hold
your hands in the air when armed soldiers pass you and
say 'god help me', then expect your enemy to drop dead.
God can be epitomized as the driving force, the spiritual
incentive some get to find the best in humanity and conquer
the oppression around them. Did moses cry and ask for god
to magically help him when the jews were under tribulation in
egypt? Of course not, he confronted pharoh and demanded
rights for the jews. If he would have say there, nothing
would have happened.
Action [1] begets results, not inaction. Think MLK or
Mahatma Ghandi...or even Jesus :)
> But if I did that, expressing my opinion, then I'd be accused to provoque.
> To me, "Jesus loves you" and all that crap is provoquing, but when I dare
> say so, I get flamed and accused of intolerance...
Of course, due to the inherent fact you are intolerant.
You think you can just blatantly let forth all
of your 'I hate conservative/ religion rhetotoric'
crap, but never back it up with solid evidence,
(as with your trade odds with John Neal) and expect
others to flock to your side in pity of you and your
left wing nonsense.
Pathetic.
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Fellow christian enthusiast
[1] If you take action into context as violence,
that's showing you're only considering one side.
It works on a case by case basis.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
