Religion, Parenthood, Brainwashing and Branding

[rcwitness]

RC,

If I may butt in but isn’t somewhere said that we as fallen creatures are indeed not free to choose righteousness, that we are captive to the power of this world, to unrighteousness. Can a blind man see the fork in the road ? Like we need to be set free, we need regeneration, we need the Holy Spirit, to even choose righteousness ?

Was no one, before Christ, able to choose righteousness? By God’s grace, yes. By respecting Natural Law within all created in His image. And for those who were given Godly laws and leaders (especially Israel). By following one’s conscience, and love of brother. This is the soul seeking righteousness. And Jesus is the fullfilment of the person seeking righteousness. He accomplishes what His sheep need.

Would that make the whole idea of freedom from coercion mute ?

Not sure what you are asking…?

Don’t get me wrong, i believe in freedom of conscience and freewill, but with explanation as to the above. As Paul says, that He even causes our will to be for Him…Just a thought.

Blessings

Yes, our will is assisted by our creator. He converts our hearts. Ultimately, He converts us through Jesus.

The Church Teaches that those who have heard the good news of the Gospel must respond to His graceful invitation and call to His life. This means a participation in His Baptism and Eucharist, with a heart turning towards Him. We are invited (both good and bad) to love as He has first loved us.

 

[PseuTonym]

But the analogy is incorrect. Contrary to general misconceptions in math there are no absolute, objective truths. Every true proposition (theorem) is the derivative of the chosen axioms. And the axioms can be anything, they can be chosen arbitrarily. The only requirement is that they must be internally consistent.

Just a simple example:
In one system 1 + 1 = 2
In another one 1 + 1 = 10

Can we distinguish between a claim and a formulation of the claim?

For example, suppose you write “100 + 100 = 1000” and somebody reads that as “One hundred plus one hundred equals one thousand.”

Do you have the option of saying, “I’m sorry. I neglected to specify that those numeral sequences are in this context to be understood as base two. Thus, you should read it in spoken language as: four plus four equals eight”?

Alternatively, is there no connection between spoken and written language?

 

[LittleFlower378]

The people/ media who say that want to brainwash people that abortion is good, homosexuality is good, euthanasia is good etc. They’re just upset that by introducing a child to Christianity it will be harder for THEM to brainwash that same child with THEIR ideology.

P.S. I’m happy by parents brought me up Catholic. Best gift ever.

 

[inocente]

Can we distinguish between a claim and a formulation of the claim?

For example, suppose you write “100 + 100 = 1000” and somebody reads that as “One hundred plus one hundred equals one thousand.”

Do you have the option of saying, “I’m sorry. I neglected to specify that those numeral sequences are in this context to be understood as base two. Thus, you should read it in spoken language as: four plus four equals eight”?

Alternatively, is there no connection between spoken and written language?

You’d avoid using shorthand and write it out fully:

100[sub]2[/sub] + 100[sub]2[/sub] = 1000[sub]2[/sub]

mathworld.wolfram.com/Base.html

 

[PseuTonym]

Contrary to general misconceptions in math there are no absolute, objective truths. Every true proposition (theorem) is the derivative of the chosen axioms. And the axioms can be anything, they can be chosen arbitrarily. The only requirement is that they must be internally consistent.

Is the claim that it is impossible to prove the parallel postulate from other postulates of Euclidean geometry an example of a mathematical claim?

“Every true proposition (theorem) is the derivative of the chosen axioms.”
Is that an attempt to (re)define the word “true”?
For example, a conjecture in number theory might be structured so that if it is false then there exists an assignment of positive, integer values to finitely many variables provides a counter-example to the conjecture. (For example, consider Fermat’s Last Theorem.) However, a conjecture that has that structure isn’t necessarily something that we can prove to be true. There may be fundamental mathematical truths that haven’t been thought of, and because they haven’t been thought of, we aren’t in a position to believe them and deduce results from them.

 

[minkymurph]

My two cents worth is this.

Until children are old enough to make their own decisions parents have a right to make their decisions for them, and if they are not breaking any laws or giving cause for concern sufficient to involve social services it’s no one else’s business. If anyone is all that concerned about my children they can come around and look after them when I am ill, or be there for them in some other sense. If that’s not something that interests them then unfortunately they will just have to leave my children at the mercy of my inadequate parenting.

 

[mackbrislawn]

So I saw this meme on Facebook today…

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/38/33/f3/3833f3567005a48e26581de1cf2731b4.jpg

IOW: it’s a cruel and abusive form of parenting to brand your child with a religious identity.
Just like no parent should tell a child, “No! You don’t like latkes! Your favorite food is fish!”…no parent should tell a child, “You are a Christian!” That’s a form of brainwashing.

Thoughts?

I don’t think we should teach our children a language. When they grow up they then can decide for themselves which language they want to speak.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Religion needs to be taught early in life or the devil will teach his religion later.

Devils rush in where angels fear to tread.

 

[Bradski]

Religion needs to be taught early in life or the devil will teach his religion later.

Devils rush in where angels fear to tread.

Didn’t you mean to say ‘MY religion…’

 

[rcwitness]

Didn’t you mean to say ‘MY religion…’

You teach your children your morals, and another will teach their children their morals. That’s parental rights.

 

[Bradski]

You teach your children your morals, and another will teach their children their morals. That’s parental rights.

Did someone mention morals?

I think that we need to understand that although morality and religion are interlinked, they are not the same thing. You don’t need to be a Christian to believe that what Jesus is reported to have said makes a lot of sense. Just like one doesn’t need to be a Buddhist to believe that Buddha taught a lot of things to which we should adhere.

 

[rcwitness]

Did someone mention morals?

I think that we need to understand that although morality and religion are interlinked, they are not the same thing. You don’t need to be a Christian to believe that what Jesus is reported to have said makes a lot of sense. Just like one doesn’t need to be a Buddhist to believe that Buddha taught a lot of things to which we should adhere.

Sure, there may very well be differences. Are you saying that you teach your children morals, but not a religion?

 

[Bradski]

Sure, there may very well be differences. Are you saying that you teach your children morals, but not a religion?

I’ve done my best to teach them morals. I’ve left religion up to them (they both went to Catholic schools but showed zero interest).

 

[rcwitness]

I’ve done my best to teach them morals. I’ve left religion up to them (they both went to Catholic schools but showed zero interest).

They decided to go to Catholic schools, and then showed no interest? Or you placed them there, and they didn’t take interest?

Just so you know, far be it for me to think an atheist doesn’t follow some morals. We do believe, after all, that every person is created with a conscience and a sense of natural moral law. You may fair better than many of us struggling Christians.

 

[Bradski]

They decided to go to Catholic schools, and then showed no interest? Or you placed them there, and they didn’t take interest?

Just so you know, far be it for me to think an atheist doesn’t follow some morals. We do believe, after all, that every person is created with a conscience and a sense of natural moral law. You may fair better than many of us struggling Christians.

We chose the schools. They were simply the best in the area.

And I agree about the sense of natural morality although we would disagree as to its origin. And as to conscience, I seem to view it differently to most Christians. I believe we have one but it’s not here to lead us in a particular direction. It just tells us when we have done something that we know is wrong.

Although I guess you could argue that it amounts to the same thing. But I see it as a negative, as in ‘a guilty conscience’. What would be the opposite of that ?