It's impossible for a religious person to have a big problem with indoctination. They, for the most part, believe that instructing their children in which ever particular religion it is they follow is in the best interest of the child.
I'm religious and I have an enormous problem with indoctrination. What the hell are you talking about?
I should have been more clear. I don't mean EVERYONE that is religious has no problem with indoctrination. I mean those that have/are/will indoctinate their children do it because they believe it's in the best interest of the child.
Sorry for the ambiguity.
Quote from Blink »
The only reason they have any political influence is because they don't hate and fear everyone with even minor differences from themselves. Up until about the 1960s, they actually did, which meant that they spent all their time bickering with each other about the nature of the Transubstantiation and such (much like the various far-left factions still do). It would be downright alien to the political observers of yesteryear to see Catholics and Lutherans and Baptists and so on being spoken of monolithically as "the religious right". Their tolerance for each other is a new and powerful thing. Hell, they were even able to swallow their disgust and back a Mormon for president.
This is a good point. But did they band together because they stopped hating, or simply because the Southern Strategy consolidated and redirected their hatred away from each other, and at other more vulnerable groups? (Hatred might be a too strong a word, "Great dislike" might be more appropriate)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Adjectives used aside, you can always get yourself excommunicated. It's not the same thing, but pretty close.
It's pretty hard to get excommunicated. Most of the methods involve priestly matters, like breaking the seal of confession. Others include crimes like trying to assassinate the Pope (and the last time that happened, the Pope forgave him).
You would need to be fairly high profile and speaking out against the Church or its teachings. For your average person like me, I just can't garner enough hate from the Church to get kicked out.
Indeed. I wonder if it's possible to just ask though. I mean, it's probably worth a shot.
Quote from "Tormod" »
I was baptized when I was a baby, and when I was 17 I was baptized again.
Many brands of Christianity only recognize one baptism (generally the first). Hell it's even in the Nicene Creed
Quote from "Nicene Creed" »
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
There is harm is forcing someone to be a part of a violent organization with no method of officially removing themselves, as is the case with the Catholic Church.
They could not go to Church. Seriously. I don't think you're even part of it until you're confirmed anyway.
For real, it's just a sprinkling of water. What you make of it is your own choice.
We're not talking about some entity that's going to come when you're sixteen to drag you to Silent Hill. It's not that kind of ritual.
Also, some Christenings require full immersion. It's rare, but there has been at least one case of a death of the child resulting from this. There was also a case of a priest being electrocuted during a Baptism.
... And where do you keep your arguments that would make me actually take you seriously?
There is harm is forcing someone to be a part of a violent organization with no method of officially removing themselves, as is the case with the Catholic Church.
They could not go to Church. Seriously. I don't think you're even part of it until you're confirmed anyway.
For real, it's just a sprinkling of water. What you make of it is your own choice.
We're not talking about some entity that's going to come when you're sixteen to drag you to Silent Hill. It's not that kind of ritual.
Also, some Christenings require full immersion. It's rare, but there has been at least one case of a death of the child resulting from this. There was also a case of a priest being electrocuted during a Baptism.
... And where do you keep your arguments that would make me actually take you seriously?
I'm sure you do, but indoctrination can be very subtle, especially with children, and it isn't always a bad thing. Parenting, for instance, is just taking an impressionable young child and indoctrinating them into your world view. It's impossible to distinguish between indoctrination and parenting or education
No, it's very possible to distinguish between education and indoctrination. That is why we have separate words for them, because they are exact opposites.
Education means you are providing information in order to help the student form his or her own worldview. Indoctrination means you are forcing your own worldview on the student and quelling his or her ability to form any worldview contrary to that one.
I know that was a miswording, but seriously, there's an enormous difference between the two.
What is problematic is forcing children to go to church, or pressuring them to believe or conform. I have a very good friend who is otherwise a completely reasonable person, who doesn't recognize what she is doing to her children by forcing them to go to church every week. She believes that they can choose freely - once they are 18. The problem is that she has already indoctrinated them into the faith and their chances of deprogramming are much smaller than they would be if they were given more freedom. By associating a punishment with not going, she's basically trained them that church is 'good'. So in reality, she's barely giving them a choice at all, unless they are strong willed. For the most part, people believe what their social group believes, so if you expose a child to hundreds of people who all believe the same thing, regardless of what it is, they'll think that thing is true. This is obviously a simplification, but I'm just illustrating a point.
Oh believe me, we're very much on the same page here.
Again, unless a ritual forces an entity to come on your sixteenth birthday to drag you to Silent Hill, or anything to that extent,
Hahaha, I'm going to keep that one in my back pocket.
No, it's very possible to distinguish between education and indoctrination. That is why we have separate words for them, because they are exact opposites.
Actually, the textbook definitions of Indoctrinate mean to teach. The world originates from teaching church doctrine. From Merriam Webster:
1. To instruct especially in the fundamentals or rudiments : teach
2. To imbue with a partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view or principle.
While I agree that most forms of education aren't indoctrination in the derogatory sense, they can be considered indoctrination. After all, what is 'good' or 'bad' indoctrination is entirely subjective.
Oh believe me, we're very much on the same page here.
Good, I wasn't clear on that from your post, but you're always pretty reasonable so I figured I'd give it a shot.
I personally don't see any. As I don't feel any church has any sway over me, I don't care about any metaphysical rituals (although I'll still have Pavlovian reactions to things). Ultimately though, it has no more sway over me than a gypsy casting a curse. Mormons converting me to Mormonism posthumously doesn't make me a Mormon retroactively. That kind of thing has no power over you unless you let it have power. The bigger problem is an ongoing campaign of indoctrination throughout childhood, not one ritual.
However, it can be enormously offensive for people who care more about what other people believe they are.
To be honest, I can't really see the validity of that reaction, and I don't think it's because of personal bias.
I can understand something like people who object to Mormons making rituals that posthumously incorporate Holocaust victims as Mormons. I like what Rabbi Baum says in this article, which is that it's arrogant, and can be seen as trivializing not only the people who died for their religion, but also those who choose to undergo baptism. And I agree that it's extremely presumptuous to take someone who not only chose to live his or her life as a Jew but died because he or she was a Jew and say, "Nope, you're Christian now."
The thing is, I don't see how we can argue baptism of an infant is the same thing. An infant has no religious views. An infant can't even understand what religion is. The baptism is a ritual of bringing the child into the community, as well as a ritual with sanctifying qualities, and a ritual some denominations would argue as necessary for salvation.
I don't really see the problem with that. Again, no free will is being removed from the child, nothing forces the child to automatically grow up Christian if he or she does not wish to. If you don't believe it, then nothing is making you.
It's impossible for a religious person to have a big problem with indoctination. They, for the most part, believe that instructing their children in which ever particular religion it is they follow is in the best interest of the child.
Luckily for us religious folks we are under no obligation to defend how we raise our children to you. Off course we all know that when atheist try to teach to teach their children atheistic values and norms they are not indoctrinating their children.
all children are born atheist. So it is actually impossible to indoctrinate them into atheism....although IMO you can't indoctrinate a lack of beliefs since that is what atheism is.
@OP
IMO it is wrong to force children to believe in any religion or not to believe in a religion until they are mature enough to make decisions for themselves. One of the tele-evangelist said it best when he said we need to get them when they are young and make them believe.(because this is the only time they are vulnerable to believe in our crazy stories)
The part in "()" is my on addition of what he was really saying.
I have a likewise big problem with parents who teach that when you die, the worms eat you. I believe it very harmful to the child and creates a me-first personality and sense of entitlement with a strong disregard for others. Get what you can right now without regard to harm to others is what I see as the endgame for atheism.
Hang on now, nothing about atheism promotes selfishness and disregard for others. Sure, they believe there are no eternal consequences for misdeeds, but atheists are just as capable of selflessness as Christians. In fact, they may be more so inclined. For an atheist, your actions are all that matters; they are all that is, all that remains. An atheist who wants "eternal consequences" such as being remembered well will act accordingly.
A Christian who wants his eternal reward will do whatever he wants and it's ok. We're all sinners, right? All he has to do is say "I'm sorry, I still love you Jesus" and nothing bad happens to him.
Anyway, when someone in a secular household asks where grandma is the traditional response is something about keeping her alive in your heart.
I believe it very harmful to the child and creates a me-first personality and sense of entitlement with a strong disregard for others. Get what you can right now without regard to harm to others is what I see as the endgame for atheism.
What do you expect?
Fear of eternal torment builds character.
Belief of accountability is motivation. Fear of torment is not.
we have studies showing the exact opposite of these too. We have studies that show that atheist are actually more moral and less likely to commit crimes. Any single small survey or study should be questioned for validity.
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
all children are born atheist. So it is actually impossible to indoctrinate them into atheism....
This is bull. Not having any religious stance is not the same as atheism. Furthermore, not being able to comprehend what religion is is not the same as atheism.
all children are born atheist. So it is actually impossible to indoctrinate them into atheism....
This is bull. Not having any religious stance is not the same as atheism. Furthermore, not being able to comprehend what religion is is not the same as atheism.
The theory or belief that God does not exist.
No child believes in god until they are force fed by parents. Atheism can in fact be "not having any religious stance". Other forms of atheism exist like some forms of paganism and non-theistic religions. Atheism is a rather large term that can be split into several other related terms.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
No child believes in god until they are force fed by parents.
No, no child has any concept of religion. That doesn't mean that he actively disagrees with any religious stance, because in order to actively disagree with a religious stance, one must be able to have a concept of that religious stance. Also a concept of what actively disagreeing with something means.
Also, I will remind you that not everyone who doesn't identify with a religion identifies as an atheist.
Atheism can in fact be "not having any religious stance".
No, it cannot. Atheism is most certainly a religious stance.
Recognize that "no religion" encompasses many things. It can include people who are atheist. It can include people who are agnostic. It can include people whose religious faith is "nothing in particular." It can include people who aren't sure.
You cannot argue a baby is atheist because a baby has no concept of what atheism or religion means. It has no comprehension of any of these concepts. You cannot claim that a baby is atheist.
Other forms of atheism exist like some forms of paganism
Other forms of atheism exist like some forms of paganism
... Ok, you want to run that by me again?
wiccan is a form of paganism that does not believe in a god thus all wiccans are atheist. atheism is not believing in a god however you got there. You can have religion and still be an atheist.
For example in other parts of the world where religion is not as dominant children even older children have not heard of theism. I have seen several stories and such were at the age of 10(or even later) children are first introduced to theism. This is when they learn that they have no belief of god although it was there the whole time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
atheism is not believing in a god however you got there.
This is also incorrect.
"In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine."
There is no difference living as though their is not god whether you have heard of gods or not.
For example in other parts of the world where religion is not as dominant children even older children have not heard of theism.
Where would this be?
Several different places. I have seen stories like this from South Korea, Japan, China, Canada, Sweden, and a few other countries in eastern Europe. It is actually a pretty common story that is often told within the atheist community. Some stories of this type have surfaced from the united states, but the child in question is typically around 5 or so at the latest. Kinda hard to not be bombarded by religion in most parts of the united states.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Luckily for us religious folks we are under no obligation to defend how we raise our children to you.
Actually, you are. Try raising your child to handle snakes and see how the government takes it.
Why stop there? Huitzilopochtli is hungry.
My own opinion is more
Are they training children to hate? This automatically exclues cults like Christian Identity.
Is it objectively medically harmful? Another obvious concern.
Would the man from Mars consider it child abuse?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I don't see how baptisim makes a difference to your choice to follow a religion or not.
If you feel the need to pursue a christian life, then better you be baptised than not. If you decide you don't care for christianity or any other religion then your baptism is of no consequence.
Take a look at Judaism. A Jew is born a Jew, based on the fact that his parents are Jewish (specifically the mother I believe, though I could be wrong on that note - its been sometime since I've studied religion.) I don't see any difference between the two.
That article proves nothing. Wiccans are so wide spread in their beliefs its not funny. There is nothing wrong with considering yourself a Wiccan, but not all Wiccans are Athiest, there are many who call themselves Wiccans and follow a relatively typical pantheon of Western-European gods. The point is that calling yourself a Wiccan is about as helpful as calling yourself a pagan, the terms are very poorly understood and are considered differently by different people. Therefore, no not all Wiccans are Athiests, that is incorrect.
They could not go to Church. Seriously. I don't think you're even part of it until you're confirmed anyway.
They usually use Baptismal records when determining who is a member of their church. If you stop going to church, they still consider you a Catholic, just not a practicing one.
If I was labeled by the KKK as a member before I was old enough to know anything about it, and they refused to take my name off of their records, I would have a problem with it. I wouldn't want my name associated with such evil, nor would I want my name used to lend support to them, as the Catholic church does regularly when they parade their huge numbers.
They could not go to Church. Seriously. I don't think you're even part of it until you're confirmed anyway.
if you haven't been confirmed(or taken confirmation), you're still part of the church, you're just not an adult in the church who can take others to heaven(apparently).
you're part of the Church if you are baptized.
on topic,i think that it should be your will to get baptized. if you really want to be a christian on your own free will, get confirmed, or choose yourself to get baptized(sometimes again)
I was baptized as a small child (Catholic) then again as a young teen (Baptist)
I was raised surrounded and indoctrinated by Christianity. I lost my faith when I was pushing 18-20.
I'm now 32.
I don't think it's wrong. I think it's the equivalent of having your baby wear your lucky socks, or carry a rabbits foot. As long as it it doesn't drift into child abuse/neglect, let the religious indoctrinate their kids with their hollow superstitions. Some kids will eventually wake up and see it's a joke like I did, or they will not. Oh well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I have a likewise big problem with parents who teach that when you die, the worms eat you. I believe it very harmful to the child and creates a me-first personality and sense of entitlement with a strong disregard for others. Get what you can right now without regard to harm to others is what I see as the endgame for atheism.
So I guess this is your reasoning then:
kid: mom, what happens after we die?
mom: I don't know.
kid: YOU DON'T KNOW?! In that case, I'm going to be selfish and disregard others because ColonelCoo said so.
Clearly your statement about a me-first personality makes no sense. Your posts suggest that you are so hateful toward those who believe differently than you that you feel the need to trash them in this manner. When I was a Christian I was more hateful and intolerant toward others as well.
All atheists are different - they may or may not be religious (there are even Christian atheists, incidentally), they may or may not consider themselves spiritual, and they are at least as moral and respectful as anyone else.
When I was a Christian, I was troubled by the fact that we did not do good things because they were good, we did them for the expectation of reward and fear of punishment in the afterlife. That is not a good person, that is a bad dog on a leash. It also catered to the very worst parts of a person and often led to a me-first personality and a disregard for those who believed differently. But instead of admitting these faults we would project them onto others, as you have done.
Now that I am an atheist, I do good things because it is the right thing to do. It is quite liberating actually.
They usually use Baptismal records when determining who is a member of their church. If you stop going to church, they still consider you a Catholic, just not a practicing one.
Do they use Baptismal records or confirmation records?
It's actually Tlaloc that children had to worry about. The ritual was designed to inflict maximum suffering, because as a water god he was interested in their tears. So yeah.
Quote:
You can have religion and still be an atheist.
Such as?
I have had it heard that some sorts of Chinese Heaven Worship hold to no deities ie atheist but still worship "Heaven" in place of conventional God if you will. So I guess it is possible to be a atheist and still be religious.
I should have been more clear. I don't mean EVERYONE that is religious has no problem with indoctrination. I mean those that have/are/will indoctinate their children do it because they believe it's in the best interest of the child.
Sorry for the ambiguity.
This is a good point. But did they band together because they stopped hating, or simply because the Southern Strategy consolidated and redirected their hatred away from each other, and at other more vulnerable groups? (Hatred might be a too strong a word, "Great dislike" might be more appropriate)
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I was baptized when I was a baby, and when I was 17 I was baptized again.
Indeed. I wonder if it's possible to just ask though. I mean, it's probably worth a shot.
Many brands of Christianity only recognize one baptism (generally the first). Hell it's even in the Nicene Creed
They could not go to Church. Seriously. I don't think you're even part of it until you're confirmed anyway.
For real, it's just a sprinkling of water. What you make of it is your own choice.
We're not talking about some entity that's going to come when you're sixteen to drag you to Silent Hill. It's not that kind of ritual.
... And where do you keep your arguments that would make me actually take you seriously?
They could not go to Church. Seriously. I don't think you're even part of it until you're confirmed anyway.
For real, it's just a sprinkling of water. What you make of it is your own choice.
We're not talking about some entity that's going to come when you're sixteen to drag you to Silent Hill. It's not that kind of ritual.
... And where do you keep your arguments that would make me actually take you seriously?
No, it's very possible to distinguish between education and indoctrination. That is why we have separate words for them, because they are exact opposites.
Education means you are providing information in order to help the student form his or her own worldview. Indoctrination means you are forcing your own worldview on the student and quelling his or her ability to form any worldview contrary to that one.
I know that was a miswording, but seriously, there's an enormous difference between the two.
Oh believe me, we're very much on the same page here.
Hahaha, I'm going to keep that one in my back pocket.
Actually, the textbook definitions of Indoctrinate mean to teach. The world originates from teaching church doctrine. From Merriam Webster:
While I agree that most forms of education aren't indoctrination in the derogatory sense, they can be considered indoctrination. After all, what is 'good' or 'bad' indoctrination is entirely subjective.
Good, I wasn't clear on that from your post, but you're always pretty reasonable so I figured I'd give it a shot.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
To be honest, I can't really see the validity of that reaction, and I don't think it's because of personal bias.
I can understand something like people who object to Mormons making rituals that posthumously incorporate Holocaust victims as Mormons. I like what Rabbi Baum says in this article, which is that it's arrogant, and can be seen as trivializing not only the people who died for their religion, but also those who choose to undergo baptism. And I agree that it's extremely presumptuous to take someone who not only chose to live his or her life as a Jew but died because he or she was a Jew and say, "Nope, you're Christian now."
The thing is, I don't see how we can argue baptism of an infant is the same thing. An infant has no religious views. An infant can't even understand what religion is. The baptism is a ritual of bringing the child into the community, as well as a ritual with sanctifying qualities, and a ritual some denominations would argue as necessary for salvation.
I don't really see the problem with that. Again, no free will is being removed from the child, nothing forces the child to automatically grow up Christian if he or she does not wish to. If you don't believe it, then nothing is making you.
It's water, guys. You've all bathed before.
all children are born atheist. So it is actually impossible to indoctrinate them into atheism....although IMO you can't indoctrinate a lack of beliefs since that is what atheism is.
@OP
IMO it is wrong to force children to believe in any religion or not to believe in a religion until they are mature enough to make decisions for themselves. One of the tele-evangelist said it best when he said we need to get them when they are young and make them believe.(because this is the only time they are vulnerable to believe in our crazy stories)
The part in "()" is my on addition of what he was really saying.
we have studies showing the exact opposite of these too. We have studies that show that atheist are actually more moral and less likely to commit crimes. Any single small survey or study should be questioned for validity.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
This is bull. Not having any religious stance is not the same as atheism. Furthermore, not being able to comprehend what religion is is not the same as atheism.
The theory or belief that God does not exist.
No child believes in god until they are force fed by parents. Atheism can in fact be "not having any religious stance". Other forms of atheism exist like some forms of paganism and non-theistic religions. Atheism is a rather large term that can be split into several other related terms.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
Which is a religious stance.
No, no child has any concept of religion. That doesn't mean that he actively disagrees with any religious stance, because in order to actively disagree with a religious stance, one must be able to have a concept of that religious stance. Also a concept of what actively disagreeing with something means.
Also, I will remind you that not everyone who doesn't identify with a religion identifies as an atheist.
No, it cannot. Atheism is most certainly a religious stance.
Recognize that "no religion" encompasses many things. It can include people who are atheist. It can include people who are agnostic. It can include people whose religious faith is "nothing in particular." It can include people who aren't sure.
You cannot argue a baby is atheist because a baby has no concept of what atheism or religion means. It has no comprehension of any of these concepts. You cannot claim that a baby is atheist.
... Ok, you want to run that by me again?
wiccan is a form of paganism that does not believe in a god thus all wiccans are atheist. atheism is not believing in a god however you got there. You can have religion and still be an atheist.
For example in other parts of the world where religion is not as dominant children even older children have not heard of theism. I have seen several stories and such were at the age of 10(or even later) children are first introduced to theism. This is when they learn that they have no belief of god although it was there the whole time.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
This is incorrect.
This is also incorrect.
Such as?
Where would this be?
http://semrys.blogspot.com/2012/12/pagan-atheists-yes-we-exist.html
"In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine."
There is no difference living as though their is not god whether you have heard of gods or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Atheism.2C_religion.2C_and_morality
Several different places. I have seen stories like this from South Korea, Japan, China, Canada, Sweden, and a few other countries in eastern Europe. It is actually a pretty common story that is often told within the atheist community. Some stories of this type have surfaced from the united states, but the child in question is typically around 5 or so at the latest. Kinda hard to not be bombarded by religion in most parts of the united states.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
Why stop there? Huitzilopochtli is hungry.
My own opinion is more
On phasing:
If you feel the need to pursue a christian life, then better you be baptised than not. If you decide you don't care for christianity or any other religion then your baptism is of no consequence.
Take a look at Judaism. A Jew is born a Jew, based on the fact that his parents are Jewish (specifically the mother I believe, though I could be wrong on that note - its been sometime since I've studied religion.) I don't see any difference between the two.
Also, couple of things I wanted to point out:
That article proves nothing. Wiccans are so wide spread in their beliefs its not funny. There is nothing wrong with considering yourself a Wiccan, but not all Wiccans are Athiest, there are many who call themselves Wiccans and follow a relatively typical pantheon of Western-European gods. The point is that calling yourself a Wiccan is about as helpful as calling yourself a pagan, the terms are very poorly understood and are considered differently by different people. Therefore, no not all Wiccans are Athiests, that is incorrect.
If I was labeled by the KKK as a member before I was old enough to know anything about it, and they refused to take my name off of their records, I would have a problem with it. I wouldn't want my name associated with such evil, nor would I want my name used to lend support to them, as the Catholic church does regularly when they parade their huge numbers.
if you haven't been confirmed(or taken confirmation), you're still part of the church, you're just not an adult in the church who can take others to heaven(apparently).
you're part of the Church if you are baptized.
on topic,i think that it should be your will to get baptized. if you really want to be a christian on your own free will, get confirmed, or choose yourself to get baptized(sometimes again)
Thanks Argentleman;)
WB Teysa token aggroBW (retired)
MAKING (Onmath, Numot, maybe something in Esper)
I was raised surrounded and indoctrinated by Christianity. I lost my faith when I was pushing 18-20.
I'm now 32.
I don't think it's wrong. I think it's the equivalent of having your baby wear your lucky socks, or carry a rabbits foot. As long as it it doesn't drift into child abuse/neglect, let the religious indoctrinate their kids with their hollow superstitions. Some kids will eventually wake up and see it's a joke like I did, or they will not. Oh well.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
kid: mom, what happens after we die?
mom: I don't know.
kid: YOU DON'T KNOW?! In that case, I'm going to be selfish and disregard others because ColonelCoo said so.
Clearly your statement about a me-first personality makes no sense. Your posts suggest that you are so hateful toward those who believe differently than you that you feel the need to trash them in this manner. When I was a Christian I was more hateful and intolerant toward others as well.
All atheists are different - they may or may not be religious (there are even Christian atheists, incidentally), they may or may not consider themselves spiritual, and they are at least as moral and respectful as anyone else.
When I was a Christian, I was troubled by the fact that we did not do good things because they were good, we did them for the expectation of reward and fear of punishment in the afterlife. That is not a good person, that is a bad dog on a leash. It also catered to the very worst parts of a person and often led to a me-first personality and a disregard for those who believed differently. But instead of admitting these faults we would project them onto others, as you have done.
Now that I am an atheist, I do good things because it is the right thing to do. It is quite liberating actually.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Do they use Baptismal records or confirmation records?
Well, let's think. Which one results in a more impressive number?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I have had it heard that some sorts of Chinese Heaven Worship hold to no deities ie atheist but still worship "Heaven" in place of conventional God if you will. So I guess it is possible to be a atheist and still be religious.