Religion
Related: About this forumWhy should any child be allowed to read the Old Testament?
Genocide, infanticide, fratricide, rape, terror, human sacrifice, mutilation, slavery, incest, the constant threat of capital punishment and eternal damnation ... the list goes on and on. But this is the book fundies want kids to read in the schools, whilst some innocuous book about a kid with two mommies should be banned or burned? That's just sheer insanity. To me, indoctrinating a child with the Old Testament in akin to child abuse.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
okasha
(11,573 posts)before s/he's allowed to watch television?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)...on whether your kid is watching Sesame Street or CSI. There are plenty of shows on TV not suitable for young minds.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Last edited Fri May 23, 2014, 08:22 AM - Edit history (2)
The Protestant's bible today is about 7 books shorter than the Catholic one.
Some Protestant denominations in fact only distribute - and some only taught - the NT.
By the way though? As it turns out, there are problems even with the New Testament. Like over-spirituality or asceticism; which causes people to neglect practical material necessities, to the point of poverty and death (James 2:14-26).
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Once we start, it will never end and nobody will be happy ultimately. However, parents should decide if the kids should read the Old Testament or not.
okasha
(11,573 posts)At least, up until the age of 12 or so, when any red-blooded kid will go straight for whatever s/he's told s/he can't read.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The OP is pointing out the hypocrisy of fundies trying to ban all sorts of books for everyone's kids because of any mention of sexuality that they think is inappropriate, while at the same time saying that everyone's kids should have to read the Bible, which contains far more inappropriate material, in school.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I should have followed the thread more carefully and the OP for that matter.
rug
(82,333 posts)Get it.
And the OP doesn't mention fundies at all.
Not allowed=censored.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Unlike adults, children do not have the freedom to choose. Neither can they offer consent. Or are you speaking of a parents right to indoctrinate their children however they see fit? Are there materials you would consider inappropriate for young minds and should adults be able to force them on kids? I know that when I was a kid the litany of terrors from the OT gave me nightmares and a constant fear of divine retribution for the slightest offense. It also gave me the sense that as a girl I was born not only inferior but "unclean". Later, when as a teenager I struggled with my sexual identity the OT kept getting in the way, burdening me with guilt and rejection. It took me years to work through the last vestiges of damage done to a young psyche by the forced indoctrination of a fundamentalist religion.
Adults do have the choice. They also have adult minds and life experience with which to digest any manner of religions and texts. Ergo, they do have a choice and thence it is a "free country" (though some still say others don't have a choice and must worship as they do). I've known many people - including my siblings - who have chosen as adults to follow another denomination, another religion or none at all. That's where the "free country" comes in.
We make choices all the time regarding appropriate materials for kids, so why does the OT get a pass? I ask this, seriously.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The chances of them believing biblical nonsense is very, very low.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)How about the parents who would stone a raped child? Would marry off a little girl even before the age of puberty? Don't believe their girls should be educated? Do parents have the inherent right, in the name of a religion, to impose any template they sit fit onto the mind of a child, no matter how oppressive or destructive that might be? Where do you draw the line?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)outrageous.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)And I specifically referenced the Old Testament, by the way. As a person forcibly subjected as a child to the horror stories in chapter after chapter in the OT I can tell you firsthand that for some of us this kind of indoctrination can be a form of psychological abuse. For some gay youth the guilt and shame alone has driven some to suicide.
As I said, adults are free to make choices, including their choice of religion (or none). But I don't think an impressionable child is the proper audience for the Old Testament.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)in fact been subjected to child abuse.
It is your expanding it to all parents who expose their children to the old testament that I stridently object to.
You have no right to do that and are not qualified to do so. I think this is your issue, but making it everyone else's issue will not help you in the least. It only gives you the opportunity to move it a little further away from it being yours.
If you don't think the Old Testament is an appropriate thing for children, then you are certainly within yours rights not to expose your own children to it. What you are not within your rights to do is to accuse parents who feel differently of child abuse.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)It's not exposure to the bible that is the problem, it's teaching children that the bible is the factual word of god.
But you know that.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Filling their heads with visions of hell and burning for eternity for not believing isn't mental abuse?
Really?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)That is, if a child reads these passages from the Old Testament about which actions are punishable by death, which ones are they to ignore? Do they even know what half of this means? Are they to be taught that the OT is the word of God but that they can ignore the parts they don't like?
As adults we can debate these issues ad infinitum and come to our own conclusions. Not so an impressionable child.
Sexual activities
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12, man and woman)
Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers' homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (death by fire) (Leviticus 21-9)
Rape of a virgin who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to offer to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. No mention is made of the girl’s opinion, and no punishment is specified for raping a single non-virgin female. (Deuteronomy 22:25)
Being the victim of rape, if one is an engaged female virgin and the rape occurs in a city. If it takes place in a field, the victim is spared because nobody would have heard her screams. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27) Presumably, virgins who scream for help inside a city will always be rescued.
Men practicing bestiality. (Both man and animal die). (Leviticus 20:15) [4]
Women practicing bestiality (Both woman and animal die). (Leviticus 20:16) [4]
Having sex with your father’s wife, as distinct from "your mother", as it was common practice for men at the time to have several wives. (both die) (Leviticus 20:20)
Having sex with your daughter-in-law. (Leviticus 20:30)
Incest with sister.(Leviticus 20:17) [5]
(for men): Sex with a man in the same manner as sex with women. Generally interpreted as male homosexuality. The text omits any mention of and punishment for female homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22)
Marrying a woman and her daughter. They are all burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
A couple of these demand that the "sinners" be burned to death rather than stoned — which was the more usual form of capital punishment. One can wonder why these crimes in particular merit this especially horrible fate.
[edit] Religious laws
Worshiping idols (Exodus 22:20, Leviticus 20:1-5, Deuteronomy 17:2-7).
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14-16,23).
Breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36).
Practicing magic (Exodus 22:18).
Being a medium or spiritualist. (Stoning) (Leviticus 20:27).
Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20).
Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.) (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)[6]
Giving one of your descendants to Molech. Probably refers to human sacrifice, which is not now as commonly practised. (Leviticus 20:2)
Non-priests going near the tabernacle when it is being moved. (Numbers 1:51)
Being a false prophet. (Deuteronomy 13:5, Deuteronomy 18:20, Zechariah 13:2-3)
[edit] Parents and Children.
Striking your parents (Exodus 21:15).
Cursing your parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20 - 9).
Being a stubborn and rebellious son. And being a profligate and a drunkard. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
[edit] Violent and legal crimes
Murder. However if a slave is beaten to death the owner is “punished” — not necessarily killed. If the slave survives the beating then there is no punishment-unless the slave's tooth or eye is damaged (Exodus 21:26-27). This is part of a wide range of slavery laws in the Old and New Testament. (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, Numbers 35:16-21)
Kidnapping and selling a man. (Exodus 21:16).
Perjury (in certain cases) (Deuteronomy 19:15-21).
Deuteronomy 19:20 explicitly identifies that the purpose of this is deterrence. "The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing (malicious and false testimony by one man against another) be done among you." Presumably all the other death penalties are assumed to be for deterrence as well. Ignoring the verdict of a judge – (or a priest!) (Deuteronomy 17:8-13).
Not penning up a known dangerous bull, if the bull subsequently kills a man or a woman. Both the animal and the reckless owner of the dangerous bull are to be put to death. (Exodus 21:29)
[edit] Things that don’t go anywhere else.
Living in a city that failed to surrender to the Israelites. (Kill all the men, make the women and children slaves.) (Deuteronomy 20:12-14)
[edit] Possible grounds for execution.
The following carry the punishment of being "cut off from his people". Some people seem to feel that this is the same as the death penalty, although the ancient Israelites may simply have interpreted it as exile. Modern Jewish law typically interprets this as losing one's share in the afterlife, not a worldly death penalty.
A male who is not circumcised. (Genesis 17:14)
Eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (Exodus 12:15)
Manufacturing anointing oil. (Exodus 30:33)
Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple. (Leviticus 17:1-9)
Sexual activity with a woman who is menstruating: (Leviticus 20:18)
Consuming blood: This would presumably include eating black pudding or blood soup. Also see above. (Leviticus 17:10).
Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean: (Leviticus 7:20)
Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices: (Leviticus 19:5-8)
Going to the temple in an unclean state: (Numbers 19:13)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If you want to start banning books you go ahead. Leave me out of it.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I'm not talking Bible stories here but the OT. I can't wrap my mind around letting an 8 year old read this kind of stuff, I just can't.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)children from reading the ot would be roundly defeated and rightly so.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I did, however, offer my opinion on how I view the OT as unsuitable reading matter for children, due mostly to its incredibly violent content.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... when you were a kid (under ten, let's say) was your knowledge of the OT from Bible stories or did you actually read the OT? I'm curious at what age some folks started reading the actual text.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We were read both ot and nt. We were taught about the creation story, exodus, the prophets, and the exile.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)At what age to kids go to religion class? And besides the creation story, exodus, prophets, did you read each chapter of the OT? I'm curious how you processed all the violence (including sexual violence and genocide) and what questions were asked.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We did read most of the ot in class and the just told us there wad a lot of begetting going on and that it was a part of life.
As for violence we were taught that humans have s violent nature and we rebel against God.
They stressed the NT more.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You did catch that detail, right?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"As for violence we were taught that humans have s violent nature and we rebel against God."
should that be expanded upon? OR, were we made in god's image after all? There are a lot of philosophical directions one could take that data point, if one starts with the presumption that it is real. I'm curious if there was any explanation, or delving into it, or was it a 'moving on' sort of reading exercise?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Things like the flood and several other things. I must stress tgat the nt was the focus of our education and the love of God was stressed the most. We were not brought up with a God of fire and brimstone.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)love and fire?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yes Love and fire as you say it represent the God we believe in.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Many consider being taught to believe that the supernatural is a real thing to be "harm."
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)story in sunday school and realized they were telling 5 year olds that it was okay for their parents to kill them. It put me right off religion right there. Much the same happened to my children when they were exposed to church.
okasha
(11,573 posts)the nuns told my class that it was meant to explain why Jews, and therefore also Christians, did NOT engage in child or other human sacrifice. And of course, there are other passages in the OTthat explicitly forbid child sacrifice.
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)the fact that he would willingly follow a god who asked for a human sacrifice. Right up until god tells him otherwise. There have been cases where mentally ill parents killed their children because they thought they heard god telling them to. All based on that bible story. We had a case in our area a while back where the parents went into a church to do the killing. I think they killed their two kids right on the altar of the church.
okasha
(11,573 posts)This is the first time I've seen the Abraham story brought into such a murder.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But it isn't on the top three pages of threads here.
Child murder/claims of divine whispers/orders to sacrifice is a all-too-often recurring topic in here.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)a link to that story?
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)If any of the verses are in error, feel free to correct.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)it's from RationalWiki, a site with a decidedly clear agenda and perspective.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Here's the url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible
Is this or is it not Wikipedia? I've never heard of RationalWiki, I'll have you know.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The text you C & P'ed is not contained in the link you offer.
Do you believe in sin? I don't.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I was following some sublinks and didn't even notice the RationalWiki header. Mea culpa.
But since you appear to know more about RationalWiki than I do, is there something about the text you feel is inaccurate?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)One could also find a site that would give a completely different list and show all the good stories that many children love and learn from.
Trying to debate them one at a time is just a silly waste of time.
Here's the bottom line. You have had your experiences and they have affected you.
Others have had theirs and experience a completely different affect.
For you to suggest that other people who share that set of books with their children, in a way that is completely different than your own experience, are perpetrating child abuse is, well, just plain wrong.
And extremely offensive to boot.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)of sitting by the fire, sipping some hot chocolate, and having dear old dad read the story of Lot's rape by his daughters?
Sure, there are stories in the OT that are fine for kids. There is also a lot of horrible shit in there.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)You're talking about parents sharing the OT in a way that may be digestible to the child mind. I suppose there are a number of ways to do that if you follow a method of cherry picking through the text. That is not the same as indoctrinating a young child with the OT or the child reading the OT chapter and verse. I'm sorry but I simply can't reconcile that. It's at this point where we will simply have to agree to disagree because to me, the unadulterated and unfiltered OT is way too disturbing to be healthy reading matter for a child.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The unfortunate fact is that they apparently picked the rotten fruit.
Others also cherry pick, going for what they consider the good fruit.
You are absolutely right that they are not the same thing and I believe that you can not reconcile it personally.
But you also can't extend your experience to that of others.
If you feel you were subjected to child abuse, that's a tragedy.
I will never agree with you that exposing children to the OT constitutes child abuse.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Apparently it's just fine for you to judge someone else's beliefs, but NO ONE ELSE CAN!!!
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)you mean "Read it as a book" then yes, they cherry picked. maybe you should re-read what you are actually responding to, and not a strawman you made up. You actually ave to cherry pick the OT to make it not horrid, the passages she quoted? Those are the worst, there are plenty more that encompass more than just a sound byte.
There are lots of bad ideas and notions in the OT, lots of shame and control being taught, even if you're using nice words. Heck, it starts on an unacceptable note with the concept of original sin, there is no way to say that is cherry picked.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Just highlight some text and do a google search.
It's from RationalWiki if that is too hard for you.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)But now that you've mentioned it, I'll have to look it up and take a tour.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)in the OT. The linkages between some of these actions and resulting "punishments" are insane to me now. But as a child, they made no sense and I had no context in which to put them. Seriously, what kid thinks - on their own - about sex with animals? Their first question might be "what is sex"!
I'm in agreement with you, the OT is not suitable reading material for children. *AND* I'm not suggesting that it be banned either (nor does it seem you are, much to the chagrin of those who accuse you of that). If a child happens to run across it, some explanation is in order. It's not all bad but it really does take some contextual background and thoughtful commentary to make it understandable. For example, I really enjoyed the stories of David and Jeremiah and especially the prophet Isaiah, along with many Psalms, but even these stories had more than their fair share of WTF moments.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)provide my children and those which you think I should be banned from providing.
Please also give me a list of TV shows and movies.
I would very much appreciate you personally controlling what I may or may not share with my children as you clearly have a much superior ability to discern what is good or bad than me, their parent has.
And while you are doing that, I will find someone who is even better at it than you to provide you with a list that you will need to use with your children.
You clearly had a very, very negative experience with religion as a child. I am sorry that that happened to you, but you can not in any way assume that every one else shared your experience. It is great that you got the help you needed, but you have absolutely no right to basically carry on the same tradition by condemning all those who do not see the world as you do.
Accusations of child abuse are serious.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)in·doc·tri·nate
/inˈdäktrəˌnāt/
verb
gerund or present participle: indoctrinating
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, reeducate, persuade, convince, condition, program, mold, discipline
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There eis not doubt that indoctrination occurs, be it through religion or not, in certain cultures and families.
But you can not expand your personal experience to every one.
I think it's critical that you recognize that not everyone had your experience. Trying to condemn everyone else does not lessen the trauma you experienced. Even worse, it is based on a false premise.
It is your parents, church, community who are responsible. Not the book itself.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)were you forced to read, and at what age?
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)are wrapped up in some pretty package? Seriously, that's going to be your argument?
okasha
(11,573 posts)request for further information, directed to the OP.
Seriously, your speculation about a nonexistent argument is pure fantasy.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Can you imagine if we beginning allowing that? How many would consent to go to school? How many would consent to go to bed at a reasonable hour? How many would consent to not smoking under 18? How many would consent to not going to a frat party when the parents say no?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I still have the same question.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Right?
RIGHT?
TexasTowelie
(111,919 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'd start with Greek/roman/Norse mythology first though. Helps the kids understand how easily discardable religion is, as well as echoes they will find in the OT as well. Showing it for the hand-me-down nonsense it is.
What will help more is, let them read it and understand it for what it is, without double-speaking apologists throwing up chaff to hide it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)They might have it read to them, from an authoritarian figure, with assorted interpretations, or they might read it in a group, again with unquestionable guidance, but actually reading it? Not so much.
goldent
(1,582 posts)they will be ready for the OT (or vice-versa).
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Surely you can do better than this?
I loved some of the OT bible stories as a kid, as well as some of the songs that accompanied them. I also loved the poetry of the psalms and the joy throughout ecclesiastes.
Sorry that you can only see the negative and somehow twist this into some weird accusation that any parent that exposes their kids to the bible must be committing child abuse.
Where have you seen the book about a kid with two mommies get banned?
This is the weakest of weak soup. Congratulations.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I'm glad your experience with the OT was nothing but rainbows and ponies. But like it or not, there are a LOT of people in this world whose lives have been negatively impacted by the OT teachings hammered into them when they were kids. And like it or not, the OT is filled with cruelty and violence on a scale that can barely be matched in any other literary work, especially not by one that is intended as a guide for life.
My question stands. Why should any child read the Old Testament? I don't mean the pick the poems reading, I mean chapter and verse. Do you really think it's healthy for kids to read stories about murder, rape, infanticide, genocide et al? I don't.
You want a list of kids' books challenged or banned for their gay content? Here ya go.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-lgbt-rights/banned-books-week-2013-books-about-lgbt-families-remain-targets
http://www.queerty.com/banned-book-week-10-books-that-are-way-too-gay-to-read-20121002/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_anti-gay_book_bans_in_the_United_States
http://www.notimeforflashcards.com/2013/09/banned-and-challenged-books-for-kids.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/books-challenged-for-gay-content_n_1668306.html
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You can not take your personal experience and expand it to everyone else, then say that anyone that exposes their children to the old testament is guilty of child abuse.
You just can't.
Again, I am sorry for your negative experience, but I would hope that in your quest to resolve the damage done to you during your childhood, you would have also recognized that your experience is yours and that generalizing it to others really doesn't help you in any way.
This is a parental decision and the OT can be a very positive piece of work for many children. You see only the darkness while others see the light. That's your personal problem.
Are there other books that you think should lead to charges of child abuse?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Do you really believe that a child should read stories of murder, rape, infanticide, genocide, incest, human sacrifice, torture and mutilation et al as presented in the Old Testament?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If that thing harms the child, then there is an issue. If it does not, it's frankly none of your business.
The way in which you were exposed may have, in fact, been abuse. But you have no standing to determine whether that is the way other children are exposed to it.
So, the answer to your question is yes, I think a family should make the choice about what and how their children are exposed to the OT.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)To 'share the light and truth' of product reviews and social commentary, interspersed between pages of porn?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You slay me.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you share it with your child?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Are you SERIOUSLY so blind to your biases and lack of principled basis for your position?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I did not say the bible did not have outright misogyny, it certainly does.
And there are some good things in playboy that I might share with my children, if I though it was appropriate or useful to do so.
Yes, I am seriously blind and lacking in principles. Just ask around.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Why should any child be allowed to read the Old Testament?"
"Why should any child be allowed to read Playboy?"
There were NO qualifications about picking and choosing certain chapters, or certain articles. It was the entire work, en total.
You are hedging.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Hedging? Hardly.
Do you also think that sharing the OT with children is child abuse?
Think clearly on this. Child abuse is a very serious allegation.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and post that I think it's fine (I do not) for a parent to actively GIVE their young child pornographic material, like a playboy...
You think that thread would go over well?
You don't think deliberately showing a child porn, or deliberately giving pornographic material to a child isn't problematic at best?
A playboy IS porn, yes?
Keep in mind, we're talking about an overt act that is actually a gross misdemeanor in my state.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Right?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)standard. A massive, widely socially accepted double standard. And a troubling effort to indoctrinate children into non-age appropriate material.
The OP didn't call for making it a crime, the OP asked a question that would or should test and highlight an underlying principle.
I wouldn't post that sort of thread in Feminists, because that's a bridge too far for me, even as a practiced devil's advocate, and it would be disruptive, and to prove a single, individual counter-point against your post. Too disruptive, not enough gain. And I don't need to, because the outcome is extremely predictable, as it bloody well should be. And I know how I would vote in the resulting jury, and it would do bad things to my post history, again, just to prove a point with you, directly.
Maybe you should consider giving the OP enough credit that this wasn't simple flamebait, but rather, an interesting and valuable question about a real world issue.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And not a crime to accuse people of lightly.
If the OP had said that in some circumstances the OT is presented to children in a way that terrifies them and scars them for life…
and then asked whether in these extreme cases, one might consider it child abuse, that would be an entirely different thing.
Instead, she proffered her profoundly negative experience, assumed that it applied to everyone and said it was tantamount to child abuse, in her opinion.
Call it what you want, but I consider it flame bait.
I will admit, however, to taking the bait.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And that in doing so, it gives you an out to dismiss it, without addressing the mechanism it illustrates.
I don't buy it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Like I said, I took the bait.
Successful flame bait is, well successful.
What do you imagine the OP thought would happen when she came into the religion group and accused members of perpetrating child abuse?
What "mechanism" do you think it illustrates? The well known fact that in some places the bible is used in a way that indoctrinates and scares children?
If so, then I agree that that is not a good thing to do and we should address it when it is known to occur if we want to stop it from happening.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Some do, but not all, not by a long shot.
It might not be fair, but is this line, excerpted, and standing by itself, an example of child abuse or something AKIN TO child abuse?
" The well known fact that in some places the bible is used in a way that indoctrinates and scares children? "
The OP has clarified intent, even if you feel it was missing from the actual top level post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=130897
cbayer
(146,218 posts)As I have said, it's a serious allegation with very serious consequences.
Using it lightly or saying something is akin to child abuse (which she didn't) is a bad move.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Using it lightly or saying something is akin to child abuse (which she didn't) is a bad move."
"To me, indoctrinating a child with the Old Testament in akin to child abuse."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)what she said.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I came to the religion forum to actually discuss a religious topic that is both important to me and confounds me. It was NOT posted as flame bait but I guess it doesn't really matter, huh? There were a lot of replies to my OP but scant few that actually addressed the question I asked. By the time some of you got through with my OP I didn't even recognize it anymore.
I posed that the indoctrination of young kids with OT texts as some fundies want to do in the schools is to me akin to child abuse and now you turn that around to say I have accused members here of abuse. Well, you know, that's just bull.
You can have this forum, such as it is, because apparently to some it's NOT about debating issues relating to religion unless its the kind of questions that don't make people feel uncomfortable. It's all yours. I'm outta here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think I pretty directly addressed the question you asked, as did others.
If your OP was misread to the point that you didn't even recognize it, you may want to consider that the way it was presented.
You can always clarify that you were talking about a certain subset of religious people that use the OT in a specific way, but you generalized it to "any child" and, as I said earlier, "indoctrination" is often used in this group to mean any and all religious teaching.
I apologize for coming down on you so hard, but it really did feel like you were attacking all religious people, something that happens all too frequently in this group
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Don't play all coy like the OP needed to do something differently. How about this line from the OP
Could that have POSSIBLY clued you in to who the OP was talking about? This thread is an excellent example of your hypocrisy and back pedaling for all those that wish to see it.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This is pretty standard MO for a few posters here. Deflect and obfuscate. Stick around. You have a refreshing voice.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Don't let a few abusive, controlling individuals scare you off. There's lots of good discussion here to be found.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Congratulations!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You just claimed the OT is not misogynist, correct?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I just wanted to let you know, as I see you have responded to several of my posts.
Sorry that I can't continue the conversation, as I enjoy talking with you.
Have an excellent rest of the week and weekend.
cb
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)don't eat the yellow snow.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)The smart ones can handle it, the stupid ones not so much.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That statement right there is solid proof that you live in a very protected bubble and have no clue what the real world is like.
You have seriously never heard of a book about two mommies banned? Wow.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are some other choice bits, but that one is hard to top.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)What kind of a piece of shit would do that to a WORLD?
Oh, right. None. Because it didn't happen.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I guess that piece of shit would be god.
Have a nice day.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Just like any other genocidal maniac. Only, worse. Not just for it's thourough murder of practically everyone, but also for it's purported omnipotence, leaving a VAST ARRAY of not-genocide alternatives, and it's purported omniscience, guaranteeing it the perception to actually perceive a better option.
If the god of the bible exists, he's a fucking piece of shit, and deserves ZERO allegiance from humanity.
Deliberately kept us stupid and ignorant.
Punished us for acquiring knowledge.
Murdered all but about 7 people right off the face of the planet.
Explicitly authorized the sacking and pillaging of entire cities, saving the virgin girls for the conquerors, and authorizing the murder of the rest of the prisoners.
Etc.
Yeah, I'm actually super-glad such a creature doesn't exist, because if it did, I'd be bound to fight against it, and those are shitty odds.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I guess your opinion of god as a piece of shit is, well, really just hating on some mythical creature that you, for whatever reason, have developed some very, very strong feelings about.
I've never seen any one express these kinds of feelings towards other mythical creatures. I wonder why that is?
Is it, perhaps, you want everyone else to share your belief that this god deserves ZERO allegiance from humanity….
even though he doesn't even exist.
Crusade on, my friend.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And in Norse mythology Loki, not the Marvel Loki (though even he has his moments of being a piece of shit) is kind of a piece of shit.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)nobody seems to propose that zeus is real as a serious position anymore.
So yeah, I have strong feelings on the subject, since I am surrounded by people that insist the god of the OT is real.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Where in the world do you hang out?
At any rate, if that is the case, why don't you take it up with them if they are pushing this idea on you, because I don't see anyone here doing that.
You really can't have a successful crusade unless you actually confront those you are fighting against. Railing against those who are not your named enemies seems kind of silly.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The god of the OT and the NT are the same god, you do know, right?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that insist that the god of the OT is true, and I live in a country where the stats are even higher.
Again, if you are surrounded by these people, you should probably consider taking your crusade to them.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Instead, it appears you prefer to take it to an audience that is not like them.
What do you hope to accomplish by doing that?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are two camps I specified. Which one do you think this falls into?
"I loved some of the OT bible stories as a kid, as well as some of the songs that accompanied them. I also loved the poetry of the psalms and the joy throughout ecclesiastes."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Am I right?
And where exactly did I do that? In that quote?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Y.
Not bits and pieces. The OP referred to the ENTIRE work. You spent pretty much all efforts in this thread attempting to narrow and hedge that into 'bits and pieces', etc.
You didn't even focus on the literary artwork nature of the piece.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=130787
There you didn't even do the bits and pieces thing. You just carve out a broad exception for the bible. Period. No qualifications.
Would you make the same post with a playboy substituted as the material in question or not?
If not, would you at least have the honesty to admit you are engaged in special pleading?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't think that means what you think it means. If there is any special pleading going on here, it is coming from the OP and the Op's "apologists".
Do you think exposing children to the OT amounts to child abuse?
I would make the same argument about playboy, as a matter of fact. I also learned a great deal from that particular publication at a very young age.
But who didn't.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Both or neither. Though I think in American society, the playboy would be the more obvious example.
So, an adult intentionally handed you a playboy at a young age? And you would defend that behavior/make the same argument?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that they hadn't evaluated as appropriate might be negligent, but probably only child abuse in very limited circumstances.
No one handed me a playboy. I found them, like most of us did, and was fascinated.
No one handed me a bible either, but they took the time and energy to share it with me in a very thoughtful way.
I would suspect that a child who found a playboy would be much more likely to look than if they found a bible.
The analogy remains silly.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I still have a couple of them. People actively share this material with children. Though, I would suggest, the smart ones share age-appropriate dumbed down versions that I received, such as the cartoonized version of Noah's ark as an uplifting tale of trust and mercy, completely skipping over the deliberate murder of every other human on the planet. And most of the animals and fish. And plants.
The OP wasn't about kids foraging for reading material, it was about people deliberately handing material to kids as well as efforts to explicitly indoctrinate said kids in the material.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I never said it didn't happen, I just said it didn't go that way for everyone and it was just plain wrong to equate all cases with child abuse.
That's what the OP says.
Do you agree with that?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)child?
Yes, I would say that is 'akin to' child abuse. Just like exposing a child to porn. (Which happens to be unlawful in many circumstances.)
Its like telling scary stories around a campfire, except, you actually mean all that shit about an invisible all-powerful thing that can and will torture and kill every last human whenever it wants. Plenty of that in the new testament too.
I would definitely question the judgement of any adult that deliberately did that to a child.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Fair enough.
Questioning the judgement of someone is not the same as accusing them of child abuse, fwiw.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I would similarly 'question the judgment' of any adult that similarly shared a playboy with a child.
Even a harmless old grandpa', sharing it with his grandson as a conspiratorial, guy-thing/coming of age, whatever characterization some people use to excuse behavior like that. Behavior that I have observed.
I view both scenarios as moral equals.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)a person who is a VERY staunch defender of the first amendment, literary freedom, etc. And a person who acquired reading material at 6-7, of the nature we are discussing here. Hell, I read Stephen King's 'It' when I was about 7. That has an underage orgy in it.
But no adult handed me that book and said 'hey kid, you should read this, run along now', or 'hey kid, this has some important life lessons in it, good luck figuring out which parts are dark and harmful, and which parts are light and beauty'. etc.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But a kid handed a bible and told to run along and read it?
The first page alone is so excruciatingly boring that I doubt any kid would get past it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Then again, I have a co-worker that insist I never use myself as an example for anything.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I'm relieved someone got it.
"The OP wasn't about kids foraging for reading material, it was about people deliberately handing material to kids as well as efforts to explicitly indoctrinate said kids in the material."
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... it's legislation like this that has either already been implemented in some states or is now being proposed. The list is growing by the month, it seems, and I find that frightening.
http://wonkette.com/498137/texas-schools-implement-carefully-crafted-law-by-teaching-bible-as-100-fact
cbayer
(146,218 posts)as are similar pieces of legislation.
They get posted about frequently and there is generally unanimous agreement among the members that they are grossly inappropriate and should be stopped.
So, I would suggest that if you want other liberal/progressive people to work with you on stopping this kind of stuff, you don't do it by calling a substantial group of those members child abusers.
I know you put the word "indoctrinate" in there, but that term is often used around here to apply to any and all religious teaching.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Child abuse?
I say so. I don't think it's beyond the pale, into the realm of counter-productive, to call it child abuse either.
It's not currently illegal in certain contexts, but I strongly believe and will defend that position. (That it is child abuse, or akin to child abuse.)
And if I posted something about it, and someone spent a lot of time trying to characterize it as 'flame bait' rather than a serious discussion, I'd be pretty annoyed, to be quite honest.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I can imagine all sorts of reasons why not, but I'm curious what, specifically, are your reasons.
pinto
(106,886 posts)A Playboy that had been lifted from a friend's dad was passed around our group at school. School lunch was when you got your turn at the copy for a day, then it got passed on. I got what it was about overall. Glossy, slick, pretty obviously staged. Yet it did nothing for me. Nada. Zip.
I went, "Yep, pinto. You're into guys." It served a useful purpose at that time. 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)of lesbians who realized they were gay when they got ahold of their first playboy, lol.
So, there you go. Playboy can serve a useful purpose when shared with kids!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You are mischaracterizing 'shared' there.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)in which the main character was drugged by his daughters so that they could rape him in order to get pregnant, there would be calls to ban that book by my RW fundies and others.
But when it's in Genesis, it's fine. (Go to the link. It's from The Brick Testament. Scroll through the whole story. Hilarious.)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,584 posts)I read the whole Bible as a kid, not because I was religious but because many of the stories were pretty interesting, lurid and kind of dirty. I didn't turn into a religious fanatic. If anything, my thoughts about the whole thing were along the lines of, "Cool stories, but nobody really believes that stuff, do they?" I felt the same way about Greek mythology, which is also full of sex, violence and assorted perversions - Leda did it with a swan, FFS.
Keefer
(713 posts)start banning books, we've gone too far.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Or do you read everything to kids? The Playboy example above is a good one.
Keefer
(713 posts)When someone tells me what my kids can and can't read, it's gone too far.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Apparently it did.
It makes no difference.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Too far?
Also, the OP didn't specifically suggest banning the bible.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The author isn't talking about elective reading, but about fundies pushing the book on kids while simultaneously trying to pull far less offensive reading material from school libraries.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)she was talking about a subset of specific individuals that do something in a particular way.
Right?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)In fact, I can suggest a good editor:
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I can see why people might be afraid of him.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)with this character or the author, so I always miss the jokes!
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)HP Lovecraft developed a very revolutionary style of horror. His antagonists weren't necessarily malicious, but so old and so high up the food chain that they were completely indifferent to mankind.
Unfortunately, his writing style is extremely dated and the man couldn't develop a character to save his life. Also, his dialogue was terrible. And he was a fire-breathing racist. Needless to say, unless you're 13 and your imagination is willing to forgive him his faults, Lovecraft isn't particularly accessible.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)at creating the horror mood. Better than Poe, for sure. But, alas, his character development was very, very poor.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)was just there because it had to be.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)He knew what he was awesome at.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
*hides*
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And did I mention he was a racist? Damn.
Still, he had some fucking cool ideas.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Like that?
Jesus on a trailer hitch. Sometimes you are beyond the pale.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Go back and read the OP. See the word "fundie" in there? Seems like it was a little more clear than cbayer wants to make it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If you read the response it was directed at me not her. How dare you accuse me of parroting cbayer!
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Your response of "the OP should have been clearer" seem to come after she started that nonsense.
But, hey, how could the OP have been clearer than putting the word "fundies" and talking about them wanting this to be mandatory reading in school? You can't be that obtuse.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)My picture doesn't have a nice. In fact, I don't think anyone can have a nice because nice is not a noun.
Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Writing is a skill not everyone has honed to a professional level, so when people post on an internet forum I don't expect them to write like they're William fucking Faulkner. An excuse for not reading an OP in its entirety before replying, however, does not spring to mind.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But I do hope they will think about what they are writing and consider whether it may offend, insult or attack whole groups of other members, whether that is the intent or not.
In terms of reading the OP, it occurred to me the other day that about 50% of DU'ers read and respond to the head lie, another 40% may read the c & p'ed 4 paragraphs and about 10% read the actual linked article.
Of course, I am just making up those numbers, but in general, I suspect they are pretty close.
At any rate, I read the entire OP and responded to it. Stuff like this that basically is meant to attack all believers is sometimes posted here. If that was not the OP's intent, then either she was not clear or I misread it. At any rate, I have apologized to her for the ferocity of my reaction.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)were fully aware of each and every aspect of the thing that they were protesting against? And you stood behind that magical 60,000 signature figure in that thread, bandying it about again and again as a sign of strength in numbers. And you are/were so certain that every one of those 60,000 signatures came from someone who wasn't just signing a thing put in front of them, or acting on emotional instinct (Statanists BAD!) But rather had spent an evening or 3 becoming fully informed on all players associated with the event, the history of the Black Mass, the difference between different sects of Satanism, etc.
But here, oh we can only count on 10% of DU'ers on reading an article, and only 40% getting beyond the headline.....
It would be funny if you weren't serious. But you are serious. And that's frightening.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)
The replies to this OP have been a case study in poor reading skills.
pinto
(106,886 posts)The stream of consciousness word poem is incomparable, imo. Early into it I realized I had to read it as such. Really moving. On a re-read I slowed down and parsed it a bit - "Ah, I see what Faulkner was doing there." Another aspect and just as good.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And anytime I have a student that wants to read it, my advice is to just go along for the ride the first 25% of the book. My experience was the same as yours that on the second read, you really see the ultimate genius of it.
pinto
(106,886 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are examples of material that is unlawful to provide to a child (as discussed upthread).
That mechanism is valid for comparison, and should not be excluded merely because it is already 'settled law'.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)through?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Hell, we can't even get god off our fucking money, and that's a bright line violation of the 1st amendment that impacts a lot more people than just atheists.
But I don't back away from problems just because they seem, or are hard.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)do you propose to decree who will read which books? How is that any different from the fundamentalists' censorship of Heather or King and King?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Interesting case you make there.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the movie rating system. How dare the studios decide what movies aren't suitable for kids? And video games..who do the makers think they are?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)FIRST AMENDUHMENT!
WOOOOo
okasha
(11,573 posts)The OT is not pornography. The only sexually explicit part is the Song of Solomon.
Otherwise, sexual encounters and violence are narrated briefly and with minimal detail. Whether and when to introduce a child to the book, and to which parts of it, is a decision best left to someone who knows him/her, not to some prig of a censor.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Easy. If not MA. There is nothing cheap nor dishonest about my reply, you simply can't defend it, and thus, don't like it.
We don't allow stores to sell video games with MUCH tamer material to kids under the age of 16.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The word you used was pornography, in the specific context of the legal prohibition against giving pornography to children.
And no, I've never advocated for repealing thosr laws, nor would I. Your response was not only cheap and' dishonest, it was pure fantasy. '
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Playboy correlates because it contains 'normal' journalism, and porn.
Quit dodging.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Which parts of the OT are pornographic under the same standard you apply to Playboy? Be specific, please. No handwaving about "If it were a film."
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)References to bestiality (Comparing Israel's apostasy to bestiality) in Ezekiel 23.
Song of Solomon compares nicely to Playboy, given the non-explicit soft focus airbrushed nature of playboy.
(And then there's the sexism, murder, genocide, etc.)
okasha
(11,573 posts)"References" to a sexual practice are not pornographic. Neither are passages narrating genocide (ZOMG!!!!!!! We can't let children know anything about the Shoa or the Native American Holocaust! Lock 'em in their rooms when the news comes on! Don't tell them about the suffragettes! Don't warn them about stranger danger or gangs! History books are porn from cover to cover!)
Now, I would agree that the Song of Songs is erotic. But porn? Hardly. A reader has to have a fair knowledge of how to interpret the metaphorical language to realize that there are sexual references in the poem at all.
How odd that s "progressive's" standards are so very close to a fundamentalist's.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Otherwise, you can put that 'fundamentalist' brush back in your rhetorical bullshit toolbox.
I think people who hand that kind of shit to kids ought to be ashamed of themselves. I said nothing about banning it. I merely used examples that are explicitly illegal to hand to kids, by way of comparison.
okasha
(11,573 posts)to be illegal to hand the OT to kids. You also stated that if it were a film, it should be NC-17--no kids admitted.
Do stop trying to wiggle out of what you said, own up to it and move on.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I assume you approve of restrictions on providing alcohol and smokes to kids?
Do you approve, or not, on restrictions on providing adult material to kids?
Let's see who is 'fundamentalist' here or not.
okasha
(11,573 posts)of writing that makes reference to sex or violence or prejudices is pornographic. You're still wriggling and trying to deflect from what you said.
Yes, I approve of age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol. They don't seem to be very effective, but society might as well have them on record so we can pat ourselves on the back for "doing the right thing." Same goes for explicitly sexual material. No, 12 year olds shouldn't be able to rent porn videos. But if a kid is sexually active at 15, what's the point if keeping him out of an NC17 movie?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)All right. At what age do we think that NC-17 rating SHOULD prevent entry?
This is relevant to my answer to your challenge that the bible doesn't warrant the term 'porn' (Though I used it in a more general sense, and would substitute graphic or adult material, the porn comparison was just made for a dual-purpose publication like playboy which includes porn and journalism/product reviews.)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The point is not that the OT is "porn", and you know that perfectly well (or at least, one would sincerely hope you do). The point is that porn is one example of material that it is perfectly appropriate to restrict young children's access to, and that to argue that no such material exists, and that anyone who argues that it does is wrong, is demonstrably false.
rug
(82,333 posts)The Bible!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)by the Bible. But somewhere about third grade, I think, I was terrorized by a lesson in my science book about how the volcano Paricutin suddenly opened up in a farmer's cornfield one day and grew into a huge ash cone within weeks. I figured that if it could happen in some poor paisano's field, it could happen in my family's patio, too.
Funny in retrospect. Not at all at the time.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)It wasn't until my brother, who was studying to be a geologist, explained to me exactly why the mountains around Ciudad Chihuahua weren't suddenly going to rain lava and ash down on us that I lost most of the fear.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Nt
pinto
(106,886 posts)Also a "child's version" of Greek mythology stories. Enjoyed them as well. Later on, I got that both are full of various atrocities. And as someone in this thread mentioned - many, many historical accounts are full of the same.
I don't feel I was harmed. Wasn't forced to read them, though. They were simply made available and caught on for me.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)it would be rated NC-17.
What would the defenders of subjecting children to the OT think of parents who showed their 10 year old an NC-17 movie every Sunday?
smartphone
(87 posts)for 1800 years before that, over 60% of the men and women on this planet did NOT even learn how to read?
All of what they learned about the Old Testament was learned from oral readings they heard in churches, no movies, no television, no radio. In short, for about 1900 years, less than 60% of the people alive who followed Christianity, (and Judaism), as their religion did so as people unable to read the Bible themselves.
Google literacy rates in the USA or Canada in 1850, or in the UK, or in France, or Italy, or then go to Australia in 1900, any African country up until 1945.
In 1850, the literacy rate of adults in the USA was about 50%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy
Bear in mind that the USA was among the highest in literacy rates in the world.
Conclusion: well over half, and as many as 95% of the people who have been schooled in the Christian religion since Roman times have not been able to actually read the collection of books we commonly refer to as "The Old Testament", or "The New Testament" ,never in their lifetimes.
The Christian religion, founded with both Old and New Testament, most of the followers of this religion over these millenia have never actually been able to read the documents and think about them privately. The old and new books of the Bible were relayed to people for 2-3 or more thousand years from few select (thus very advantaged) people (men) who could read, to a majority of those who could not.
So what parts of the Bible people they all learned, they leaned by rote, and practiced with equal obedience, fearful of getting the words wrong as they recited them, or failed to live by them. It was a religious belief taught by obedience and fear, not a kind of mature and intellectual discourse, (the type we try to have here on DU, among literate, and thinking peoples).
No wonder much of this Christian tradition continues, complete with regressive and mostly authoritarian concepts well past its sell-by date. True: some denominations and sects have managed to escape this tradition, but many, indeed the largest, the Roman Catholic Church, and others, ( from Evangelical to Fundamentalist to Mormon, etc.) remain steeped within this tradition of authoritarian and virtually dictatorial rule. Catholics await the next pronouncement from a Pope as if it is like some teen girls await the next hit song by Justin Bieber or another popular idle. Enlightened and literate Catholics regret the second-place status of women (or LGBT minorities),
but these enlightened, literate, highly educated, well-positioned, affluent Catholics are fearful of creating any sort of ruckus by objecting to the authority of the Papacy, the divinity of absolutely foolish traditions dating back to the days of a nearly totally illiterate populace.
So, getting back to the OP's question: where is the place for the Old Testament? Probably alongside a failed situation comedy from the 1950's black and white TV, (irrelevant in a few parts, kind of fun to look at, maybe has a few good points like "Leave it to Beaver", but available elsewhere in living color in some more elaborate entertainment medium today if one really wants to study those points.)
The Old Testament can be kept in a closet, like old black and white TV show reruns, not really something kids need to be exposed to.
Take it out later in life as a history lesson, where father and son and mother and daughter can discuss those books once the children reach adulthood. Heck, I like watching 3 minutes of "I Love Lucy" or "Leave it to Beaver" but I don't base my life around it; I don't even talk about them in an average year, because there's much better TV shows from the past to talk about, much better novels to read, much better essays and collections of poems or songs to review, all the way from Greek mythology to last years Academy Awards show, with stops in between for major operas, moments from Shakespeare, etc. The Old Testament fits in somewhere near there, but not as a book to teach our young children from. It's just outdated by much better, more interactive and humane ways of learning life's lessons.
In short, talking about a collection of books written by literate people about 3500-2500 years ago +/-, by a culture largely based in an arid climate, where steel had yet to be invented, where aluminum was an unknown, where paper was made from a plant related to rice, where trees were scarce, where sheep herds were a wealth like gold or diamonds, where diets were severely restricted without refrigeration, where childbirth quite often meant the painful death of the mother, all of these conditions, and not very many able to actually read, and fewer able to write. Well, it's obvious, they didn't have the tools, and they didn't have what we have, but they gave it their BEST SHOT.
Take the Old Testament as that, people 2500+ years ago giving it their best shot, pretty ugly and silly and mystical and mythological and fanciful and unscientific and all that.. but the best they could do, given the tools they had. With the exceptions of some poetic collections, (Psalms) and a few other passages with poetry within them, (I honestly cannot remember which), it's a good book for a history student to read in the first year of college, other than that, pretty useless, fanciful, anti-humanist, and rife with misleading self-contradictions.
It only remained around for so long, and so popular, basically, because so few people could actually read it for themselves up until the last 100-150 years.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)smartphone
(87 posts)I'm afraid I am missing something; what is your point?
Is the reading of the O T more rewarding than a reading of the complete works of Shakespeare? Or so many other wonderfule works of past literature? More rewarding than something on that scale? For example: at least 90% of the works of Shakespeare are attributable to him, a real person, recorded in the history of England, documented, laying to rest in that nation in a specified place, on the census for date of birth and death, and dating from a very specific period in history much closer to present day. His massive list of writings were dealing with all the virtues and vices of humankind on a human scale, no worldwide (never-happened) floods, no women born from the rib of a man. Yes, some massive slaughters, murders, suicides, etc., some incredible love stories, conflicts of conscience, and many ageless sonnets about the human condition, specifically mostly about love of one person for another, or loyalty, or breaches of trust. I chose Shakespeare as just one example, there are literally dozens from the last few hundred years, and a few dozen more in the 3000-4000 years before that.
Why expose children only to certain writings from UNcertain sources, with frightful tales and lots of contradictions, and even more unscientific concepts?
Or take the works of George Bernard Shaw, Henrik Ibsen, Noel Coward, Arthur Miller, Samuel Beckett Sophocles, or Thornton Wilder, or any of the other recent great playwrights, poets, novelists. Do we not have more talent and wealth of literature in the last 400-500 years in the wealth of English literature than we did 2500-3500 years ago in some distant land in some no-longer-spoken-or written language? The works of these folks, and so many many other are readily available, lots of tales of heroism, cowardice, loyalty, love, respect, all sorts of stories, many without any gore or vengeful God destroying any part of mankind, few if any rapes, slaughters, etc.
My thinking is that the Old Testament to the Christian (or Jewish) Bible is basically a fine historical document of literature, showing where humankind was, what they were thinking, imagining, foretelling, instructing, nothing more, nothing less. As a piece of historical literature, like Homer's Odyssey, it is up there, but nothing more, certainly not what we need to be using to teach our young children today, we have much better, more scientifically precise, less worrisome tools with which to relate our sense of values, our aspirations, and much less self-contradictory messages or war tales and images of a vengeful God to confuse children (and adults, some of whom keep insisting that the worldwide flood and Noah's ark was a real event, as they continue to insist upon the concept of original sin and the legitimization and supremacy of a story of a virgin-birth Savior to overcome that.)
So much for accuracy, the myths of literature, and all that; if evolution isn't someone's scientific "cup of tea", we can very clearly demonstrate that there was NO WORLDWIDE FLOOD, not ever in the history of this planet, it never happened, we know this now, because: science! Okay, back 3000+/- years ago, a flood over 40-50-100 miles was "worldwide" and it happened around the world quite frequently, every 100 years or so here and there, as it does now; science tells us how this happens and shows us where it might happen. We accept science, evacuate on warnings, etc., we can do that now, back then there was no escape.
Literature is just that, the written word, (sometimes, and for about 1800-1900 years Christian era and before that for almost forever, a spoken word).
As literature, the O T just that; it is not a set of values set aside from all the rest of the wealth of human writings. We need to keep it in perspective, there is nothing more special about the Old Testament to the Christian Bible than there is to the Odyssey, or to Shakespeare, or to Shaw's plays, or the modern American novel. They all should hold a place in the vast array of human achievement, but nothing, nothing to be places above all others. As I said, for some bronze age sheep herders 2500-3500+/- years ago, it was their best shot at teaching their children and children's children, nothing more, and from today's literate society, there is not much need to hold that collection of writings in any kind of reverence nor a need to hold that collection more sacred or revered over any other period in the written documents of humankind. It's just what they gave us, and we slavishly followed because, basically, over 50% and up to 95% of an illiterate population just had no other reading choices.
That's my opinion. I study history, and the history of science, and a few other topics, and I like literature, too, but all in moderation, not one over another.
So, again, what is your point that about 96% of Americans can read the Old Testament? Does this mean children should study or learn from it when we have so many other wonderful things from which they can learn? Shouldn't this be just one of many examples of ancient literature we study in college, not much before? If not, why not? Why expose young children to this one piece of ancient literature before so many other fine examples of literature from ages past? Just what makes the Old Testament so special?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I feel thst there is divine revelation in there but notbthe whole thing.
smartphone
(87 posts)Last edited Wed May 14, 2014, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)
I need to know how you are thinking about this.
Can we agree?
A worldwide flood never happened.
Women did not come from the rib of a man.
The various ethnicity breakdowns on this planet are not the result of sons of Adam or sons of Noah
The planet Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years old, (+/-200 million years) and the first human form evolved from other mammals, specifically of the ape family of mammals, somewhere around 7 billion (EDIT I mean million) years ago, developing into what we are now, (Homo sapiens) somewhere in the last million years.
No external forces changed the laws of nature since the beginning of what we consider our universe,our solar system, which originated about 14 billion years ago, and all physical laws as we understand them now, (gravity, centripetal force, centrifugal force, atomic matter, speed of light, etc etc etc.) have been constant for that length of time, enabling the universe as we know it to evolve into it's current state.
These are just general principles of physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology we modern, evolved, literate and thoughtful people of the last two centuries have come to agree upon. I hope I can meet you there.
Have you read Shakespeare?
Have you studied any of the literature of Western civilization for the last 4000 years, other than the Old Testament?
If not, why not? Is, "divine revelation" keeping you on that limited playing field?
Response to smartphone (Reply #186)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think that the ot and nt have divine revelation in it. I don't belirve it all is literal. And yes I have read other books than the bible.
smartphone
(87 posts)When debaters and lawyers meet, they agree to "stipulate" to certain facts.
I laid out several facts, you only responded to the ones that offended you, and did so without substance.
You have read other books? Which books inspired you? Which did you find distasteful (I don't much like George Bernard Shaw and half of Shakespeare's sonnets, and a few of his plays make me want to puke, I love Thornton Wilder, and was in some of his plays in high school before he retracted the rights to perform them ever again, but you can still read them, and I hear he later re-enabled their performances, he's obviously paranoid and he admits it.)
Now, back to the questions of science, and how you can consider parts of the O T "divine revelation" and which parts those are, and which parts of scientific laws of basic physics over the last 14 or so billion years you think were precluded for a son of a god to come down to Earth, or Noah to have gathered all the animals, or Adam to have carved a woman from his rib.
I just wonder which parts of the O T are "divine revelation" and which parts are sort of like Jack in the Beanstalk.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I don't believe in a 6000 year old world. I don't take Noah literally.
I believe in the exodus and the exile to Babylon. I believe in the prophets.
I believe in the virgin birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
smartphone
(87 posts)Can you go a little deeper on why, after 14 or so billion years we needed a suspension of nature to arrive at a virgin birth, and why this was done before humankind bothered to invent modern medicine and video cameras just 2000, out of roughly 14 billion years of universe, and roughly 200,000 years of modern Homo sapiens, and after about 7 million years of Homo erectus.
Let's just go there.
And then back to Noah, what parts are more Jack-in-the-Beanstalk, and what is the lesson there, if any?
What is meant by "I believe in the prophets"? Which prophets? Which Old Testament ones, any others?
There are also prophets in several other non-Christian religions, I'm sure you are aware. Have you studied them? They also predict massive losses for non-belief. Is that what you are referring to? Belief in what prophets saying what?
The Exodus, a rather broad term, applying to at least two events in the Old Testament, should I presume you are referring to the Exodus of the Jewish population from Egypt? I'm not sure how this is supposed to tie in with Jesus being born from a virgin, the separation of a few hundred or a couple thousand years between these two events, I never clicked on any connection here.
Can you link those two events?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I do enjoy these visits.
smartphone
(87 posts)I won't trouble you for details any longer. I see I have over-stayed my welcome in your mind.
Have a nice life, you deserve it, as do we all.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)... I can't.
smartphone
(87 posts)The challenge in life, I have found, is for everyone to find all the answers for themselves that they must have in order to live an honest life.
Without answers is what we all must live with, because we are but human beings. Some of us find one answer, they call that "faith", some of us keep searching to find more or we find mere faith doesn't answer, some of us never need to find answers, but we need to keep asking.
So many of us never get to the top of that first mountain, never to look to the next valley, and over to the next peak, we are simply climbers to the top of that first mountain.
I have found out which type of climber you are. Again, enjoy your climbing time here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The pyramid builders weren't slaves. They were highly valued and highly paid workers, that lived in the finest homes you could find in Egypt of that period. The average Egyptian home was a mud/straw hut at the time, yet the builders lived in well-fashioned stone homes. They had their own honored burial facilities. Injured builders had evidence of carefully set bones. They had beer. Etc.
The earliest records in Egypt of Hebrews involved in slavery, were actually Hebrew slaveholders in NE Egypt. Around 900bc, IIRC.
Egyptians have always been puzzled by western depictions of their behavior as a society. It doesn't match their own historical records.
The only Egyptian records that show such calamities occurred LONG before the commonly agreed dates of the 'exodus' and spanned decades, and don't even match the claimed calamities of exodus.
Nobody seems to know what mountain is the claimed checkpoint in Exodus, called Mt. Sinai.
Exodus also reveals a biblical contradiction.
"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn — animals —and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD"
—Exodus 12:12
". . . Before Me [YHWH] there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me."
--Isaiah 43:10
(Isaiah 44:6) - ". . . there is no God besides Me."
(Isaiah 44:8) - ". . . And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Which part is wrong? How does one god bring down 'judgment' upon another god that doesn't even exist?
What evidence leads you to 'believe in the exodus'?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)projects of the times were they? These "finest homes" were not for the several thousands of conscripted laborers but were for the artisans and engineers and skilled labor weren't they? There is a huge difference in God and god in the Old Testament isn't there? As far as the literal truth of Exodus, well Aeneas was the true father of the Romans wasn't he?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)but, they are commonly depicted in the west as being built by slaves, and they were not.
There is no similarity between the claims of treatment/slavery in Egypt in the Torah, and Egypt's own historical and archeological records.
I'm not expecting 'literal' truth from Exodus, but SOME connection to reality/historicity is a must. Especially if one is to 'believe in it', yes?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Some were worked to death and others were treated with less severity and some were treated as almost family, so the stories of Hebrew slavery in Egypt in the OT would not be so unusual as you seem to want it to seem. Many national foundational myths have little connection to reality as we would expect of todays accounts.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)what is left?
Remember, there IS evidence of Hebrew peoples in Egypt connected with slavery. Problem is, they had Egyptian slaves.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Exactly what I called in in the previous post.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
mr blur
(7,753 posts)The meaning of the word "myth" changes depending on one's proximity to god. The closer one is, the less it means, "...a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." and the more it means, "..unlikely, even ridiculous, story for which there is no historical evidence whatsoever but which nevertheless forms an important part of my belief system, because...FAITH!"
Also expressed as, "Evidence?....we don't need your stinking evidence!"
See also: "Different Ways of Seeing"
Leontius
(2,270 posts)a lot of twisted undies in some posters here. I guess it depends on what experience people have with history as it was written and accepted 2000 or 3000 years ago. Much that is laughable by modern observers as fantasy was commonly accepted as history. Would I accept the level of proof in much of ancient history by todays standards, no I would not but that also doesn't mean it was written to deceive on the same level as 'history' that has been written today that we know has been written with that as its purpose.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)the things I believe in other than the bible.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Directly refute.
It's not just unsupported, it's quite literally show to be absolutely false, at least in part.
I would think anyone with an interest in history and truth would scrap it at this point. I don't understand belief in things that aren't just unprovable, I can understand that, but I can't understand belief in things we know to be false (at least in part.).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Will you scrap it if it can be demonstrated to be wholly historically false?
Keep in mind, I'm not saying the bar of entirely proving it false has yet been met. It hasn't. There are claims made, for instance, in Exodus that are still a question mark, rather than historically demonstrably false.
But looking forward, if it can be demonstrated, not to be neuter, but rather, absolutely negative/false, will you scrap it then?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)However at this time you can't prove that.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lawyers do not stipulate to facts unless they are uncontested or minor to the outcome of the case.
Laying out alleged facts do not constitute an offer to stipulate. The proper response to an irrelevant statement is an objection, the legal equivalent to ignore in this context.
An adequate debater does not simply label an opponent's comment as without substance (at least not past the junior varsity debate team) but rather shreds it.
The rest of your post reads more like a pose than an argument.
okasha
(11,573 posts)are off by a mere thousand years or so.. Do a bit more research, please, beyond internet memes.
smartphone
(87 posts)Please expand.
Can you name the dates of origination of each of the books of the Old Testament?
I am sure you could teach me a great deal. But I doubt your motivation is to teach as much as it is some other motive.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Reign of King Josiah for the Torah. Various prophets between that date and Babylonian captivity, with Daniel and some of the wisdom literature the latest in the third century BCE. Some Psalms arguably older, dating back to early monarchy, eg. the coronation hymns.
All this information and more freely available at your local library.
smartphone
(87 posts)You seem to be as uninformed as I am when I say something as broad as "2500-3500+/-"
I don't think I was being precise, but you offered no further information.
I do know that the assemblage of documents we now refer to as "The Old Testament" includes only writings believed to have been in written form at least 500 years before the birth of someone Christians now refer to in America and elsewhere as "Jesus".
That's about as precise as we get.
This is my source of information: "The first five books of the bible in Judaism are called the Torah, meaning "instruction" (it was translated to nomos/law in the Septuagint), and are regarded as the most important section of the Scriptures, traditionally thought to have been written between the 16th century and the 12th century BCE by Moses himself. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
If you have better, please so inform.
okasha
(11,573 posts)by Moses, there's little point in any discussion with you. You're not dealing with the historical world at all.
Since you're relying on wikipedia, you might try typing "Josiah," "Hezekiah," "Josian Reforms, " "Daniel" and "Babylonian Captivity" into the search function. That will give you much more information than I'm willing to type out, including dates.
smartphone
(87 posts)Sorry, I'm stupid, ignorant, I rely upon my computer, I read a few Bibles, history of religion 30 years ago for a graduate course, a few books on my shelf, easier to to to Wiki and use their sources when footnoted well
Again, no dates from you..
Here's some simple questions to get us both on the same plain.
When did Moses live?
What documents, (writings, instructions, whatever) did Moses get and from whom and how old were they?
Let's deal in dates back from 2014, 2500 years ago is about 500 years before this guy Christians call Jesus was supposed to have lived, okay. Then we can go from there.
Again, dates Moses was around and what he did and how old were the documents, "Torah" "Commandments" or whatever.. that he got and read.
I won't go on to Joseph Smith and all his stuff, (which we all can figure 150-175 years ago or so).
struggle4progress
(118,224 posts)Cannibalistic witches! Giants grinding human bones into bread!
Can children ever recover after hearing such tales?
smartphone
(87 posts)I was in a play in Portland Maine
In the High School auditorium
I watched Jack go off to slay the dragon, but the dragon was my cousin ,a rather plump 23 year old actor.
A hundred or two children watched that play in the auditorium that Saturday morning, 50+ years ago.
After the play, the actors came out to meet with the children in the audience, taking off their masks and make-up, piece by piece.
So that we could all see that this was just a play, a fantasy, a story with a message, and we could talk about the message.
My cousin was amazing, and he got to take pictures with the little girls who learned he was just a normal guy, and he got to post with the boys holding the fake ax, about to chop his tree down. I remember this 50 years later.
What is important here is not what you tell your child, but how you fill in the context. Any good story can help children learn.
when reading aloud or having them read, or having them see video, plays, story-telling sessions.
If we tell our children it is a "fairy tale" or a "story" or a "myth", that is one thing.
I have a fond fond memory of Jack in the Beanstalk.
The question of this tread is NOT about all fairy tales, at all times, or in all circumstances.
The question is: are the stories of The Old Testament good for children.
More specifically, are they even very good stories? Believers seem to be defensive about this topic, but willing to slash Jack in the Beanstalk... I wonder why.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I hear from my friends and co-workers all about sleepless nightmare-filled nights.
My kid doesn't have those.
I wonder if there might be a correlation.
struggle4progress
(118,224 posts)since you are likely to know the child better than almost anyone else
My parents shielded me less and less from the real world as I approached kindergarten age: I saw the ruins of Europe after WWII when we went to visit relatives there in my childhood; I wandered through all manner of museums before I was six, saw prehistoric bog-sacrifice bodies, heard tales of medieval executions, and so on. I wasn't haunted by nightmares, despite hearing the Grimm Brothers tales or Hans Christian Anderson's often unpleasant stories: they were just stories, though maybe one could learn something from them
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And he asks REALLY good questions.
It doesn't seem to cause any problems. He's five. Last month he looked me in the eye and asked me if the easter bunny was real. I said 'no'. Then we went to the easter egg hunt anyway and he had a great time. No fuss, no muss.
Generally I am extremely pleased with his development and social adjustment so far. 5-6 is definitely the time to be sharing with your kid the true nature of the world, IMO.
struggle4progress
(118,224 posts)than many adults give them credit for being
struggle4progress
(118,224 posts)All mayhem, all the time, cast as humor
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Last edited Wed May 14, 2014, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)
the new testament and all the testaments in between, if I can help it.
As if god is that full of himself.
All the books are stories people.
You want to know god? Talk to him/her, pray every night and let him know of your gratitude.
Then learn to listen.
Gratuitous deaths, plagues, and all the rest in the books are just a joke, like the worst B movie you've ever seen. That is not my god.
Hey people, there's also the rest of the universe, but I guess some people can't help but be the center of attention (and the universe) and need to think they're better/more special than everyone else.
-p
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)That's mental and emotional abuse of adults that is societally approved.
I refer to original sin, the starting premise of Christianity, ALL Christianity, that we are all sinners and will go to hell without substitutionary atonement by accepting Jesus as our savior. I still don't understand what "saved" means. Really means.
We all make mistakes. We all do bad things. Some people do bad things on purpose because they like to. Some people are unaware they are doing bad things and don't know any better.
I got the courage to get up and walk out of a Christian church and stop letting myself be verbally abused by a preacher who did not know me at all. While the other male preachers were all telling him what a wonderful, positive sermon he preached. That was complete BS.
Some people can't take it. They think, "Well, I'll never be perfect like Jesus so why don't I go ahead and kill myself?" The logic of the extremely depressed--people who will do anything to get out of the mental pain they are in.
Read the book by John Bradshaw, Ph.D., "Healing the Shame that Binds You".
It's about the shame adults inflict on children and the kids never feel that they are ever worthy enough, or good enough, for anybody to love them and for them to be worthy of love, and suffer from horribly bad self-esteem. So they indulge in obsessive-compulsive behavior to escape the pain. And they do this their entire lives. Compulsive work, gambling, sex, porn, gossiping, spending money, whatever.
And this is a religion of love? "Love God or he's gonna send you to hell!! But you have free will!"
That's not free will. That fits the legal definition of duress. I stole that line about loving God from George Carlin.
Trying to get money and obedience from folks by telling them they are horrible and worthless without God is despicable.
There is no human dignity in that. So are we just filthy sinners or are we made in the image of God? A little lower than the angels?
Not logical at all. This is why I'm a Unitarian-Universalist.
Plantaganet
(241 posts)For what it's worth. I understand and agree with you. Having read through some of your posts here your experience(s) are eerily similar to mine
Just wanted to throw my two cents in. I know where you're coming from
Keefer
(713 posts)why any child be allowed to read "Heather has two Mommies."
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/heather-has-two-mommies-leslea-newman/1101155067?ean=9781555835439
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...practically by name.
Iggo
(47,534 posts)